the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 236, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from virginia. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. , a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234 and the nays are 190. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the request on agreeing to the speaker's motion on approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 304, the nays are 112 with one voting presented a the moths to approve the journal is -- motion to

approve the journal is adopted. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. will the house come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the time. . the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 357, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2553, to amend the

internal revenue code of 1986, to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend title 49 united states code, to extend the airport improvement program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be reproved -- removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 451. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. will members please take their conversations off the floor. the house will come to order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. could we have order please? the chair: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. please take your conversations to the side. the house will come to order. the gentleman from louisiana deserves to be heard. the house will come to order. please remove all conversations off the floor. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, just moments ago, this body passed the cut, cap and balance bill. today, we stand at a crossroads that will define our nation's security for generations. republic canches, we have a plan that cuts the federal budget and caps federal spending and

balances the federal budget with a constitutional amendment so we don't have this problem forever. democrats, well, there is no plan. no plan to bring this country back to financial sanity. on my colleagues on the left continue to criticize. all the time my colleagues on the democrat side have been attacking the republican plan, they could have come up with one of their own of the the president talks about his plan, yet he has yet to produce one. this shows a complete failure of leadership by president obama and congressional democrats. the american people speak loud and clear -- spoke loudly and clearly in the 2010 election, they want federal spending cut. it's that simple. let's follow through and not let the american people down. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise. >> address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker. mr. engel: it is my sad duty to report the passing of a former officer of this house, a door keeper, james f. maloy. he served as door keeper from 1974 to 1994. he was known throughout the world for his introduction of the president and heads of state to congress. he is the one who would yell, ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. jim, a native of buffalo of new york was a graduate from college and worked as a fireman and school teacher before coming to washington. he leaves his wife and daughter. we will all miss him. we all remember him and we all love him. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york state rise? mr. berg: address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berg: mr. speaker, today, i would like to honor a statesman and a good friend senator bob stengman. he served asthma the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. leader in new york state for 10 years and he worked hard for the state he loved. and he worked through a system that he believed in called the legislative process. he was respected and admired by those of us who served along side him in the state legislature and his tireless legislative work is one of the reasons north dakota is doing so well today. and bob would say, we are the envy of the nature. it hurts knowing my friend is gone and i ask that we all keep his family in our thoughts and prayers. north dakota has lost a wonderful public servant but i know that bob's character and

beliefs will continue through his policy and prosperity for years to come. i will miss bob very much and i yield the remainder of my time back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i just heard celebration just a few minutes ago regarding the passage of the cap, cut and balance that really should be named the tap dance, establishing the loser' club for americans and busting of benefits for americans bill, because what we are doing is tap dancing around the

responsibility of this congress to, in fact, raise the debt limit as we have done hundreds -- not hundreds, but 60 times but of course we are establishing losers by the very fact that interest rates will go up, medicare will be gone and chamber of commerce and hundreds of businesses will, in fact, be begging for us to lift the debt ceiling. but more importantly, we will cause america's lack of paying her bills to hurt businesses and let me introduce you to the losers now that this bill has passed, welcome to the losers, soldiers, grandparents, mothers and fathers who are back here in this country while on the front lines of iraq and afghanistan. today we just voted h.r. 2650 to, in fact, establish a club of losers for these patriots who have served their country. what a shame. what a shame.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? without objection. mr. scalise: mr. speaker, the house finally passed a real plan that addresses this nation's spending crisis. i think many american families know that washington has a spending problem because they have been living within their means. they have wen been trying to figure out to do what what they've got. and we passed a plan that actually would cut, cap and balance and controls spending in washington. and what's the president's plan? we have still yet to hear his plan. we hear speeches and class warfare where the president puts one part of america against the other. if he confiscated every dollar, it wouldn't address the problem.

it's time to get real. if the president wants to get serious about addressing the spending problems, it's time to confront what cut, cap and balance does and tell washington to start living within your means just like families across this country has been doing for years. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. cravack of minnesota until today at 2:45 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, is recognized for half

the remaining time until 10 p.m. as the designee of the minority leader. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. it is our pleasure during the next 40 or so minutes to express concerns about a medicare program that has served this nation's seniors so very well for 45 years and is at risk of being ended. tonight, we witnessed on this floor, the third such vote to end medicare by the republican majority. and we know that our seniors would be forced to shop in a private market, the certainty of a guaranteed program that has has been available to our seniors since 1966, which is at risk. the money that the government would kick in for coverage would not keep pace for the costs of those health care policies and so our seniors would be forced

to dig into their pockets, reach into those pockets and perhaps have their costs -- their contributions more than doubled. this is an unnecessary step that is being taken against our nation's seniors that is irresponsible. we believe that what we have seen since that threshold in time in 1965 when we approved such a measure, the impacts from the private sector health care sfri as witnessed the growth of over 5,000% in the cost of premiums in that time since 1965. the impact on seniors has been certainly far less than that. we have seen the containing of administrative costs. we avoid marketing are quirmentse with the medicare program and we have been able to share benefits with our seniors that in a way protected their

health care coverage that enabled them to enjoy a quality of life and can easily be documented that when our nation's seniors retired back in the 1960's, they would see their economic did your built challenged, their -- dure built challenged. and it was oftentimes impacted by the cost of medical needs. there was cherry-picking going on. and they were asked to absorb an inordinate amount of pressure in order to continue forward in soundness, in wellness and certainly to have the coverage that was required to meet their health care needs. all of this now is at risk with several proposals. we have seen a ryan plan. the ryan road to ruin, as we

designate it. it would cause severe hardship on our nation's seniors. we saw the republican study committee come up with a vote again that ended medicare. and today, when we witnessed this attempt to play with the united states constitution to make it easy to end medicare while making it more difficult to address those deep pockets that gives favorable treatment by some go continuing on because it would be difficult to end that opportunity. so what we have here tonight is an opportunity to discuss the assault on america's working families, the assault on her seniors by ending medicare, ending medicare that puts the private sector, insurance industry in control. they require our seniors to shop with a voucher that won't cover the costs of those costs and require them to pay double as we pay double.

we are joined by representative garamendi from california and representative joe courtney from connecticut. and the three of us will share thoughts about how to better address the economic pressures on this nation today without ending medicare, without ending medicare. it has been a lifesafer for so many of our nation's seniors and has provided a sense of security, predict in their budgeting. representative garamendi. john garamendi, thanks for joining us. you witnessed it as mr. courtney and i both did. we witnessed yet another vote that would mean the end to medicare, because it's an attempt to play with the constitution, mess with our constitution in a way that would really focus on hardship for our nation's seniors. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, representative tonko.

thank you for bringing this issue this evening and giving us time to discuss this. many, many thoughts went through my mind today as this vote and the debate went along. and as it was debated by our republican colleagues, i just couldn't understand where they were coming from. what would motivate them to want to destroy medicare and medicaid ? why would they do that? the thoughts went through my mind. and i guess maybe they have a different experience than i did. i was a young boy in the 1950's and there was no medicare or medicaid. and my father was a rancher and we grew up in a ranching area in the northern area of california and he took me one day to the county hospital. and it was one of the most

horrible moments i can remember as a child, because at the wards, just the ward, maybe 20 or 30 very elderly men and on the other side, elderly women, who were dying. their medical care wasn't available to them. and sometime later after that, we were chasing cattle that had gotten loose and one of our neighbors came -- we came upon a neighbor and we asked where the cattle might be but he had a huge growth on his mouth and my dad asked about that and he said it it was cancer and he had no insurance. he died shortly thereafter. in 1965, this country did a remarkable, beautiful, wonderful thing.

. we gave turnover senior in america medical care. doctor, hospital care. an opportunity to live longer, to have that cancer treated, to eliminate those words in the county hospital where people simply were warehoused to die. and here today for the third time since january of this year the republicans have put forth a proposal and hopefully it will never become law, to terminate medicare have. no doubt about it, mr. tonko. they would terminate medicare. as you said, they turn it over to the private insurance companies. with a voucher. insufficient to pay for medical care insurance from an insurance

company today. the discrimination that exists in insurance for people with pre-existing conditions and the paramount pre-existing condition in america is age. if you're 60, 5560, 65, you have a preexisting condition, it's called age. what will come of those people? what is this nation all about? who are we as americans? who are we as americans that on this floor, in a cha raid, in a false -- charade, in a falsehood brought to america today and twice previously legislation that doesn't deal with the

fundamental issues of the budget , the tax issues, the revenue side of it, real reform in the programs, whether it's medicare or the military, real reforms, no, no, no, just cut, slash, burn. and take your seniors. toss them aside. this is not the america that i want to live in. this is the america of the 1950's when there was no medicare and where seniors were in wards left to die or no care at all. every american 65 years of age is guaranteed a comprehensive health care benefit, it's called medicare. and whatever else we stand for, that's where the democrats stand.

we will fight this fight. we will not lose this fight. this is about the very heart and soul of this nation. mr. tonko, thank you for these moments. mr. tonko: i think it's important for us to share with the american public what's happening on this floor. in the house of representatives. and, you know, so many suggest that the history that drove medicare to be developed, the dynamics that were so impacting on the senior community across this country coast-to-coast could be revisited if their proposal to end medicare, the republican proposal to end medicare were to take hold. and i know representative courtney from connecticut understands that. he has shared those concerns over and over again, that we could go back and revisit history of 45 years ago, 46 years ago when people literally

were impacted by cherry picking going on, where they couldn't afford programs, policies even if they were offered to them and many times they couldn't get policies written to cover them. and representative courtney, thank you for joining us this evening on what is an important bit of information exchange for america. they need to know that the seniors are at risk. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. tonko, and i want to thank congressman garamendi who did great services in the state of california, understands these issues intimately. i think this is really a generational gut check for our country in terms of whether or not this attempt to butcher medicare, one of the most successful programs in american -- in world history, is going to succeed or not. john described very powerfully the public wards and the public hospitals and the third tier status that seniors had prior to 1965. kaiser per nenty did a study in

terms of just reminding us of what this country faced when president johnson signed that legislation on harry truman's porch step. at the time medicare passed only 50% of seniors over 65 in america had health insurance of any sort whatsoever. part of it was cost, part of it was the underwriting rules. but part of it is just as mr. garamendi said, i mean, age is a factor which carries risk and there is no insurance company that evaluates risk within its own book of business that can really take all comers where you're talking about a population of 65 and up. life expectancy was 70 in 1965. so we passed medicare and what happened as we created a guaranteed benefit, the generalous of medicare was that we pooled the risk and made an affordable system financed through payroll taxes, premiums and the system has had its ups and downs financially over the

last 45 years but the fact of the matter is we now have life expectancy of 78 in this country. it has worked. and we have also alleviated the crushing out-of-pocket costs that seniors faced in 1965. and we have elevated the status of people in that demographic in a way that the private insurance market just was totally incapable of doing it. last year we passed the affordable care act which modified medicare and made some important improvements and changes. we now have annual checkups covered, we now have cancer screenings, we now have extended prescription drug benefits and one of the things that the republicans in trying to sell this measure with snake oil, frankly, is that somehow people who are 65 and above today will not be affected by passage of the ryan plan. in fact, we know that if you look at that plan it cancels all of those new benefits in year one so seniors who now have

hundreds of thousands have gotten their annual checkups in the last eight or nine months since the new benefit kicked in, cancer screenings that kicked in, prescription drug assistance that's now providing help for seniors in the doughnut hole, all of that would be canceled today and any perspective change that is proposed in the system which, again, will start for individuals 55 and under now be left in a private insurance market with a totally inadequate voucher as mr. garamendi said, again, that's where the real butchering of medicare takes place. but there is no question for anyone who is listening tonight that if are you a senior citizen on medicare, the false claim that you are somehow insulated from this measure because of the fact that you're already in the program, that is something that people have got to recognize and understand, that new benefits that are making this a smarter, more effective program are going to be canceled in year one if this measure, god forbid, ever is enacted.

mr. tonko: very well said, representative courtney, and what i think upsets all three of us is the fact that with the affordable care act, where we found savings by reining in some of the profit margins of insurance companies that were used, those savings were used to fill the doughnut hole that you just talked about, they're now taking those savings and sharing them in a way that is not going to benefit seniors and they're not going to fill that doughnut hole. and so when seniors come to us and say, look, what is this talk about medicare? they're saying that you destroyed medicare. no, we were working to make it stronger. we were working to build a doughnut hole so that the prescription costs that are impacting seniors, my gosh, with passage of time we have seen advancements in pharmaceuticals research that provides more opportunity for wellness or for cure. and that has stretched opportunities galore for our seniors. but they would erase those

savings and pull them away again from our senior community and use those in other ways. which we find very offensive. and the ending of medicare with this third vote tonight means how much more do we need to challenge the security of seniors out there? they're dispushed -- disturbed every time they hear this effort to end medicare and we want to make it stronger. we're talking about all sorts of efforts to help purchase pharmaceuticals for the medicare program which will make it stronger. they forecast $156 billion worth of savings to the federal government that would provide correspondingly some $27 billion in savings for individual seniors. just by doing that. so there is an all-out effort here to strengthen medicare, not end it, and it's sad that tonight we witnessed the kurd vote cast here with the majority support so that it passed in the house to move forward, it

include in that packaging the ending of medicare. representative garamendi, you have a chart up there. mr. garamendi: i have this chart. it brings this whole thing right into focus. this is a tomb stone -- tombstone. medicare, 1966, 2011, created by l.b.j., destroyed by the g.o.p. maybe a little harsh but this is really the reality of what's going on here. it's the end of medicare as we know it, it's the end of the guaranteed benefit program and it does turn whonche is 55 years and -- who is 55 years and younger over to the insurance industry. i spoke to this briefly before but i was and, mr. courtney, thank you for remind -- reminding me, that i was the insurance commissioner in california for eight years. and i fought tooth and nail with the insurance industry over health care and automobile and

homeowner and other kinds of insurance. in the health care sector the private health insurance companies are about profit, that's their goal. they are a profit-making organization. and to enhance their profits they do a variety of things. deny coverage, you got a policy, oh, but that was a pre-existing condition and therefore we're not going to cover it. or, gee, that kind of treatment's not covered. i'll tell you where the real death panel is and i saw this as insurance can commissioner. i saw insurance companies denying treatment that led to the death of numerous individuals over those eight years. the real death panels have been the insurance -- the private insurance companies. medicare i know of no case where that has happened. maybe it did, but i'm not aware of it and i had the biggest state, california. and also the kind of

discrimination that takes place. medicare on the end, let me just put this additionally to it, the private health insurance company is grossly inefficient. it is inefficient, it has enormous additional costs that medicare does not have. by comparison medicare is a very efficient operation. it takes about 2% to raise the money and another maybe 2% or 3% to pay the bills. and on the health care -- on the providers side, maybe another 10% to do the billing also. maybe the total cost is somewhere in about 15% administrative costs. the private insurance companies run somewhere near 30% administrative costs when you consider profit, when you consider the advertising, sales commissions and they have thousands of different policies covering this but not covering that, this deductible, that deductible and when it gets to the provider, the ultimate

chaos. and so the administrative cost in the private system is about twice what it is in medicare. medicare is a very efficient, very effective, universal program that raises the money in a very fair way. all of us pay for it. and all of us should be getting that benefit when we get to be 65 but not so in the private sector. our republican colleagues want to take all of this money and hand it over to the private insurance what market and say, ok, you guys take care of it. less efficient, certainly deadly in denying coverage and benefits and just compared to medicare, very inefficient. mr. tonko. . mr. tonko: you talked about the impact on the 55-year-old or a 54-year-old. if you look at a 54-year-old today they are advised to save some $182,000 to $190,000 so as

to apply -- to have that available cash to cover the deficiency that's going to come with this end to medicare where you shop with this voucher and it's only going to cover 32 cents on the dollar. so that 54-year-old is already impacted, but there's more to the picture than that. when you draw the line in the sand and say, look, we end medicare and so those under 55 today will have to fend for themselves. so shop out in the private sector market. but when you don't have the null entering senior -- the newly entering senior community, there is a correlation of age with drawdown of the health care system. as you take the younger senior population, they provide with that eb and flow with the pooling that -- ebb and flow with the pooling that representative courtney talked about earlier. you have the very youngest of seniors to senior senior and as that need for health care grows

with age, the newly entering will help provide that balance. the stability of the program and the durability of that program is at risk, i believe, because we're changing the dynamics. and representative courtney, you have talked about the security of that program, of the stability that we can provide and how we in this house as democrats have been working to strengthen the medicare program, to build the trust fund so there is this underpinning of support that will enable the program to continue and meet the needs of the oncoming population of baby boomers. mr. courtney: right. and thank you. i think it's important because there is so much almost fear language surrounding this debate in terms of whether, you know, medicare's bankrupt, medicare's going broke, medicare's running out of money that it's important to read the

trustee's report that was issued a few weeks ago. it's a report that's issued on an annual basis. it was since 16966 since harry truman signed up with his wife, bess. it's had the ups and downs over the year. medicare is fully solvent, can pay its bills until 2024 and pay 90% of the bills until 2045. there's no question compared to last year's report there is a deterioration. that slippage in terms of some of the years of lost solvency was due to the economy and due to payroll tax collection, had nothing to do with overuse or certainly nothing to do with the affordable care act. they said the opposite which is the affordable care act extended solvency of the medicare program by a factor of eight years. thank god we had passed that

legislation because we really would almost be bumping up into a cliff at this point if we hadn't done it. but, again, i think it's important for people to remember that going back in time, in 1970 the medicare solvency report that came out for the trustees projected two years of solvency when it was going to hit that tipping point. when ronald reagan was president in 1983 and came to the congress seeking an increase in the debt limit to avoid default, medicare solvency was half of what it is today. so the fact is that it's had its challenges. but as you point out, there are good ideas as using bulk purchasing. there are good ideas of revisiting the subsidized insurance program in terms of the size of the insurance company subsidies. we can deal with that 10% shortfall between 2024 and 2045 without butchering the program, and that really is in my opinion the wolf and sheep's clothing surrounding this debate that somehow people are using solvency reports as an excuse to basically eliminate

the guaranteed benefit which is just, again, this country just -- it is our duty as members of congress to make sure that we protect for the next generation the benefit that our parents enjoyed and that pushed out solvency from age 70 from 1965 to age 75 today. that is a medicare success and we can not go backwards as a -- mr. garamendi: thank you for pointing out that important fact that was not pointed out, at least by our republican colleagues here. there is another factor here. medicare, like all medical services across the nation, whether you are in kaiser, blue cross, anthem, or medicare, all of these programs are carried along on the inflationary weight in health care which runs two or three times our economy. so health care is running very,

very rapidly. it turns out the inflation rate in medicare is about one half the inflation rate in the general health care system. now, how could that be if medicare is part of the health care system and takes care of the most oldest population? how could they not be going up like the private health insurance area? universal benefit across the nation, uniform. clear deductibles, clear co-pays. and medicare part b, cost sharing. all of that is there and it's understood private insurance is 1,000 different policies, chaos throughout the marketplace. now, in the affordable health care act we talked about this a little bit and we really need to have americans understand that the affordable health care act had a whole series of very,

very important legislative activities that will reduce the overall cost of health care. for example, electronic medical records, not written records by a doctor or nurse, either ledgible or illedgible, but electronic medical records, a very, very important way to reduce problems, reduce misunderstandings, back and forth with drugs and the like. and also another very important factor is hospital infection rates. hospitals have a very high infection rate. don't get paid for a second time when that person comes in for retreating the original illness and has a very, very important impact on reducing the cost of medical services. many other things you talked about the drug benefit and, by the way, how is it that during the bush period when the medicare part d, the drug benefit went into place that

the pharmaceutical industry was so powerful that they denied american taxpayers the opportunity for the government to negotiate for the price of drugs? mr. tonko, you raised that point. till this day we have not had our republican colleagues come along and say, oh, there's a good way to save money. we'll just negotiate for the drugs. turns out that the medical -- the military and the services provided by the -- the health care services provided, they can negotiate for drugs but not medicare. so it costs us at a few billions. $150 billion over 10 years. mr. tonko: i believe it's $157 billion. you know, it's a benefit that ought to be shared on behalf of our nation's seniors, but to the points made earlier in this discussion, the efforts for prevention, for screenings that do not require co-payments or deductibles, it was to contain

cost, to bend that cost curve. the real concern is so many have raised from the democratic membership in this house is that we're not providing the sorts of savings for our seniors. we're not bending that cost curve. when you send them out to shop and don't even give them adequate coverage, 32 cents and then the indexes into the future is not -- indexing into the future is not keeping pace with the projected inflation of health care costs, we're putting them at risk. we're targeting them for defeat and they're saying, well, you are going to have 13 or 15 plans from which to choose as you shop in the open market. well, that isn't bending the cost curve. and so the economic consequences here are first and foremost the hardships that seniors will have to embrace, they have to endure.

as we look back in 1966 and 1965, the available cash, the economic vitality of the senior household was drained. it went south because medical costs were ue syrup -- ursurping their funds. that is the available cash they can use for a meal in their local community. there are dollars that get spun in the regional economy that allows for the comeback. this is very interesting. the programs, the cuts that they're suggesting are all in areas that can help create jobs. mr. garamendi: mr. fonko, one example i can share with you, we had a town hall meeting in my district talking about the medicare program. mr. courtney: we had dr. rebecca andrews. she's a primary care doc at the university of connecticut health center and she was talking about the new annual screening coverage where she had a -- one of her patients

which is a big, huskey guy. they used to kind of razz each other. she did the soup de nuts checkup. she did a urine test. she found a tiny speck of blood at the lab which they were concerned about. turned out he had bladder cancer. because they were able to detect it so quickly, because of that annual checkup and the cancer screening tests that are now covered under medicare, it was a day surgery, in and out and really very nonintrusive event that cost a fraction of what it would have been if he had not that checkup to detect that cancer early. she had at least two other patients because of the new affordable care act annual checkup where they detected cancer and, again, were able to intervene at a low cost compared to what it would have

benefited a new full-blown case. mr. tonko: representative courtney, we are talking about taking an economic sound program, like medicare, for our nation's seniors and allows for the benefit of pooled resource fathers coast to coast to serve our nation's seniors well. the concern here is, representative garamendi, we wanted -- they want to give their friends with deep pockets more opportunity for business. end medicare to provide more business for the private sector insurance industry. mr. garamendi: if i might just -- mr. tonko: privatize social security. mr. garamendi: a bill they introduced. mr. tonko: i think you have a chart there that -- mr. garamendi: before we go to this other issue and we have about seven or eight minutes here, another major program that's targeted by our republican friends is medicaid. medicaid is a program for impoverished americans. 70% of medicaid is for seniors

in nursing homes. they want to take some $700 billion out of medicaid. in california it's called medical. in each state they have their own program. but $700 billion goes directly to seniors at nursing homes. what will come of those people that are now in nursing homes when this program, medicaid, is reduced as produced in the budget that was passed today? but having said that, let's turn to the other side of the coin. you want to make cuts, should you want to cut medicare, you want to cut medicaid, or do you want to cut the subsidies that exist in american business today? this is just one of hundreds of subsidies, tax breaks given to american businesses that they don't need. big oil receives my tax money, your tax money and the american

taxpayers' money to the tune of, i don't know, $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion a year. yet, look at their profits. look at their profits here. this is just one year. you add up these profits over the last decade, exxon last year, $10 billion. oxy, $1.6 billion. conoco, $2.1 billion. chevron, $6.2 billion. b.p., $7.2 billion. you take this and apply it over the last decade and it's just $950 billion of profit. $50 billion less than $1 trillion of profit. and yet defending the oil companies are our republican colleagues saying, oh, no, no, you can't touch big oil, you can't take away their tax subsidies but you can surely go after seniors and take $6,000

out of the pocket of every senior with this medicare program. mr. tonko: you know, it's very obvious from the polls being taken by many, many organizations out there that the american public said it's about jobs. we need jobs in the economy in order to make things work. it will reduce the deficit. it will put people to work. it will start growing the economic engine of neighborhoods and states and the entire country. . what we're saying is the republican assault on the middle class. they're cutting programs that create jobs and invest in a new economy. but they are leaving alone these groups that are actually not -- they are earning record profits and still giving them hard-earned taxpayer dollars in the forms of handouts in subsidies to the oil industry and various industries that are just befriended in the house

that want to play off the middle class and end medicare which is a dangerous precedent. representative garmeppedy, you want to make a -- representative garamendi, you want to make a point. mr. garamendi: we talked about big oil that is being protected by our republican colleagues. that's not the only thing. they are fiercely fighting, fighting fiercely, to maintain the bush-era tax cuts for the superwealthy. millionaires. what does it mean for them to hang on to that tax cut that occurred in the 2003, i believe. for millionaires, that tax cut is worth $200,000 a year if you have an income of $1 million. there are folks out there who

have incomes out of of a $1 billion. and you get close to -- five zeros and you get close to what it might be for a billionaire. what does it mean for seniors? it's going to cost them $6,000 in what will be their medicare costs in the future. mr. tonko: that is equaling 33 seniors. mr. garamendi: you read the chart better than i do. mr. tonko: one millionaire is being happy and distressing 33 seniors who are going to pay more to have their health care coverage if they can get it. mr. garamendi: it's important to finish the point. mr. courtney: two programs right now that did not create the deficit issue that are facing

this country. two massive cuts for the superrich. two wars and a prescription drug benefit which wasn't paid for. trustees report says we have 100% solvency through 2024. and 100% for the social security system through 2037. mr. tonko: when you talk about those costs, they were never put in the budget. they were off-budget. those two wars, the pharmaceutical wars for part d and the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires are borrowed money. we borrowed, all to make it happen. this was dishonest budgeting and favoring deep pockets over seniors and now the solution and end medicare, block grant mid

cade and privatize social security. this is an assault on our nation's seniors. representative garamendi. mr. garamendi: thank you for bringing us together tonight to talk about medicare and the republican proposal to terminate medicare and significantly reduce medicaid, a program for seniors and nursing homes. this is a pivotal moment in this nation. it speaks to values as americans. mr. courtney. mr. courtney: your offices are like mine, this is the number one issue that we are getting calls, emails. are you going to stand up to your duty to protect these programs, social security, medicare and medicaid. mr. tonko: nine out of 10 comments that we get are save medicare. don't mess witness. we are fighting the good fight.

america needs to know there is a risk of losing medicare. there are those who want to end it. with that, we yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin is recognized for the remaining time until 10 p.m.. mr. griffin: i have been listening to some of the speeches here tonight and i thought i would take a little time to address some of the arguments and first i would like to welcome my friend from wisconsin, representative did you have if i, who has joined -- duffy who has joined me here on

the floor tonight. i have listened to the discussion of tax loopholes, tax exemptions, deductions, specifically, i heard a lot of talk about tax deductions for oil companies. well, i'm glad that the gentleman from the other side raised that tonight because i was thinking and before i got here in january, the last two years, this house was controlled by speaker pelosi and s the other side of the aisle. the senate, down the way here, controlled by the same party and the white house, president obama. now if my mathis correct, that means that -- now if my math is

correct, that means that the democrats were in control of the house, the senate and the white house. mr. speaker, it puzzles me that they were in control of all of those parts of government, yet, not once did they eliminate these subsidies that they're talking about. they had control for the last congress for two years and nothing was done. i guess they decided only this year that subsidies for u.s. businesses should be eliminated. well, i'm not sure why they didn't do anything about that in the last congress, but i will say that i am pleased that they

understand the house budget that we passed, because in our house budget that we passed a few months ago, that's exactly what we have voted to do. we voted for a framework that eliminates tax deductions, tax exemptions, credits, loopholes, whatever you want to call them, that's what our budget does. and in doing so, we're following some of the proposals put forth by the president's own debt commission, a debt commission that he has yet to follow. but they recommended some similar proposals. now, what we do is we lower the

top rate and eliminate a bunch of the deductions that admittedly, upper income folks take, and we eliminate those. but at the same time, we eliminate the top rate so we can be more competitive and have a pro-growth, pro-jobs tax code. what we end up with is a fair, flatter tax code, one that encourages private sector job creation. so you might ask, mr. speaker, well, then, why do you disagree with the president on this particular issue? well, like i said, we're happy that he's decided to come our way and that he sees the light on tax reform in closing loopholes.

the reason the house leadership has otch owesed to the president's posture on this in the debt ceiling negotiations is because they want to have their cake and eat it, too. the president wants to have his cake and eat it, too, on this issue. he wants to close all the loopholes -- yes -- and at the same time he wants to raise taxes. he wants to increase taxes two ways, whereas his own debt commission and our house leadership want to reduce the top rate, close the loopholes so we have a fairer, fairer, simpler, less complex tax system. so there's the contrast. we agree, we agree on closing the loopholes, although we can't

figure out what happened last congress when democrats controlled the house, senate and the white house and did nothing about it. we did something about it. we approved a budget that addresses precisely this issue. so i just wanted to clarify our position on that. and i see that my friend from wisconsin would like to say a few words. please join right in. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman from wisconsin for yielding. you make a great argument as to why our friends on the other side of the aisle were unwilling to get rid of these horrible tax loopholes because when the two of us got here in january, they were here. and they were in a democratic-controlled house and senate with a democratic-controlled senate and did nothing to do a way with the

loopholes. when we got here, we said no more corporate welfare. let's do away with these nooks and crannies where some big business will hide their money and not pay their fair share and make us more competitive in this global marketplace. and when we did that, the democrats said no. they didn't want to participate in reforming the tax code. but then they had no problem standing here today in making arguments that we're the ones that want to keep the loopholes in place. absolutely false. i had a chance to sit in and listen to the debate that's going on in this house. i continually hear my friends across the aisle talk about jobs that are getting shipped overseas. and i have to tell you that is a great concern for me. they miss the disconnect, however, between jobs leaving

america and the regulation in tax rates that we have in america. you know, this isn't 1960. it's not 1980 or 1990. we are in a new demreble marketplace wherein days gone by, america was the only place to do business. our capital can go anywhere in the world, india, china, vietnam, canada, mexico. it can go anywhere. and when you start raising taxes on our job creators and you scratch your head and wonder why they are leaving, it is pretty obvious. we see it in a smammer level in our states where we see more regulation and more taxes in our states like california. all of a sudden, businesses pack up and go to another state that has better rules and regulations and taxes. that happens on a broader scale right here in america. you raise the cost of business, you kill jobs in america.

in the end, does it hurt these businesses? no. the people that are hurt are our constituents, our families, our people in our districts that are yes or noing for opportunities, yes or no -- yearning for a job. >> war will it take -- mr. griffin: what will it take tore folks to wobbeder why businesses are leaving the country. they want to point the finger to someone else, some third party, some external cause. maybe we should think about the fact that the policies adopted

by the federal government have an impact. businesses react to policies passed in this congress in the senate and particularly regulations drafted, promulgated by the administration. at some point, we have to say, wait a minute, businesses are leaving, taking their jobs elsewhere. maybe, just maybe they're doing it because we are running them off. . we need to ask that question. in my second district in little rock and the surrounding area, i have to say we got big job creators and small job creators. but the common denominator is they're job creators. i don't ask that people like

business or be in business. or whatever. i just ask that they acknowledge that businesses create jobs. and if we run businesses off, if we adopt policies that curtail economic growth and chase businesses away to other countries we're going to lose jobs. that's not hard to figure out. mr. duffy: and i'd agree with the gentleman. it's interesting as a guy that's come here in central and northern wisconsin, wisconsin's seventh congressional district, this is a house that will continually talk about political spin and political positioning instead of actual policies that are going to work for american families and american businesses. and i think it's interesting the president likes to talk about corporate loopholes.

and, you know, for me i think it's important that we're clear. the tax increases that the president and my friends across the aisle in the democrat party are talking about, these are tax increases on the small job creators in my district, the same ones that we are asking to expand and grow and create jobs and put our hardworking families of wisconsin back to work. it's those people that they're asking to raise taxes on and i think that's absolutely wrong. i always hear my friends across the aisle talk about the 1990's and how great things were in the 1990's. they were great. particularly the tax rates of the 1990's. i have to note that even bill clinton has said, listen, this isn't 1990 anymore. he's looked around and said, listen, let's make our top rates more competitive on this -- in this global marketplace. if we make it more competitive, in the end we are going to be more competitive. i just think it's so important

that we fake a hard look at the regulations and the taxes that come from this town because in the end if we engage, if we have policies that allow our people to do what they do best which is innovate and grow and expand and reap the benefits of their hard work, i think we're going to see america grow again and create jobs. if we stifle that i think we'll have a new america that i think none of us would recognize. mr. griffin: i think ultimately the standard for me is, am i doing things that make the united states more attractive to job creators or less attractive? we want to be a country where job creators around the world and here say, america is where i want to do business, america is where i want to innovate,

america is where i want to create, america is where i want to pursue technological advancement and create jobs, america is the only place to do business, america is the only place to create jobs. that's the america that i want to help create. i don't want to create an america that punishes job creators in such a way that they flee the country. and that's exactly on many fronts what we're doing. i yield to the gentleman. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. when i talk to my job creators back in wisconsin, never do they say, we're leaving because of -- the quality of workers we have in this area. they actually say, we have the hardest working, most productive, smartest workers right here in wisconsin, right

here in america. we don't leave because of the work force. we leave because of the regulations that come from this town. the taxes that come from this town. i think it's important to continue to look at that because in the end this doesn't hurt businesses. it hurts families. we want to make sure we keep our families strong in america with plenty of opportunity. it makes me think to the conversation that happened earlier about medicare and we heard a lot today with our friends across the aisle demagoguing this medicare issue that the republican party wants to take away medicare from our seniors. that's absolutely incorrect. we want to save medicare. we want to make sure we preserve it, we save it, that we make sure that our seniors that they get everything that they bargained for and we make sure we have a medicare plan that's in place for future generations. and when i hear my friends across the aisle talk about

medicare, i scratch my head because they are the only ones that are going to cut it. in the health care reform bill, obamacare, they take $500 billion out of medicare. as i talked to seniors around my district, one of the things that make them so angry is that their social security trust fund has been raided for decades. and now the president and the democrats have raided the medicare fund as well. i find that to be absolutely unacceptable. and then you add on top of that the ipab board, the independent payment advisory board. this is a board that is going to look at medicare reimbursement rates and what they're going to do is lower reimbursements on certain procedures. and medicare reimbursements are already so low, you reduce them even further, you'll see doctors and hospitals stopping providing those services to our seniors.

so in the end this ipab board is going to impact access to care for our current seniors. that is absolutely unacceptable. we have to keep the promise to our current seniors but also make sure we reform it for future generations so it's saved. i mean, the president has come out and said we need to reform it. well, ok, mr. president. let's reform it but let's make sure we do it in a way that preserves the benefits for our current retirees and those who are about to retire and make sure those that might have a different program have the plan to -- around it. but to demagogue it and our party trying to fix this great program i just have -- i struggle with that. i think it's misrepresenting the american people about where we stand. mr. griffin: i appreciate the gentleman raising the issue of medicare. i'd like to take a few minutes

to talk about some of the things i've heard here on the floor font tonight. first of all, we see -- if you're just joining us i can tell you there was a poster being used and the poster showed a tombstone. it showed a tombstone and it said medicare. the implication was that medicare was going to be killed. medicare was going to be eliminated. and nothing could be further from the truth. if -- if we take action to save medicare. if we allow medicare to continue as it currently is with no changes it goes

bankrupt anywhere from five to 10 years. if we do nothing. now, some of us have done something to save medicare. what did we do? well, we came up with a plan that's part of our budget in the house to save medicare for future generations. now, what other plans are out there? right now none. the senate doesn't have a budget. the senate doesn't have a plan to save medicare. the president's budget doubles the debt five years, triples it in 10 years, doesn't even deal

with sbimets -- entitlements. it got zero votes in the u.s. senate and does nothing to save medicare. in fact, in fact it was so -- it was so silent on medicare and entitlements that the president had to come and give a mulligan speech after we proposed our budget in the house. he gave a speech saying, well, what i really meant was -- and he laid out some ideas. not enough specifics. so few specifics, in fact that the congressional budget office said we can't analyze that speech. we can't score that speech. not enough specifics. so the senate doesn't have a plan to save it. the president doesn't have a plan to save medicare.

we have a plan to save medicare. so what has happened? what has happened is the other -- the folks on the other side of the aisle made a conscious decision to attack our plan to save medicare. and by doing so they engaged in a fiscal fantasy. what does that mean? well, it means that they compare our reform with the way things are now with medicare. they say you're ending medicare as we know it. well, the problem with that is medicare as we know it on the path that it's currently on goes bankrupt. it would be one thing if they were comparing their reform plan to save medicare with other reform plan to save

medicare. but they're not because they don't have a plan so they prefer to compare our plan with the way things are now even though they know the way things are now is going away. in fact, i'd like to read just a couple quick quotes here. president obama has said, quote, if you look at the numbers, medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. i mean, it's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. end quote. now, that's president obama. acknowledging that medicare is

going bankrupt, acknowledging that we must do something to save it. yet, he hasn't proposed a plan to save it. and another quick quote. senator lieberman, former vice presidential candidate, nominee for the democratic party, now an independent, he said, quote, the truth is we cannot save medicare as we know it. we can save medicare only if we change it. that is the hard reality and that is what we are trying to do is save medicare. and we -- that is precisely what we did in our budget that we adopted this year. if you're 55 or over there's no

change. if you're under 55 you would be in the new program as medicare would be constituted, what we call premium support. if you're 55 and over, as the gentleman said, there are no changes to you. we give folks time to transition to a new way of living under medicare, a different kind of medicare but what we think would be more effective at reducing cost, by putting in some market forces and saving medicare for future generations. i yield to the gentleman. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. and i agree with most everything you said here and very well said. the one point i disagree with is the president has a plan, no doubt, with the health care

reform bill, he does deal well medicare. and make no mistake. that is the independent paymented a risery board, the ipab board that will systematically reduce reimbursements for our seniors. i think how the gentleman said it very well when the president acknowledged that these programs can't sustain themselves on their current course and so he's addressed it and my friends across the aisle voted for it and basically this is a form of reducing reimbursement which is a form of reducing access to care for our current seniors to reduce the outlays of medicare. . it is a disingenuous way to say we are rationing care for our seniors. and that is unacceptable. mr. griffin: he has a plan. unfortunately, he doesn't have a

plan to save medicare. he only has the plan that he passed in his health care law. and as you pointed out with the cuts that were in the president's health care law, president obama's health care law ended medicare as we know it, because it took $500 billion out and introduced this unelected board, the ipab that you so eloquently described. i want to qualify. mr. duffy: he has a plan, he doesn't have a plan to save medicare. but only one plan that saves medicare and that is ours. and i should have explained that better. i would agree with you. it's not just us and the president saying that medicare is going broke. the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, nonpartisan group has said in nine years, the

medicare trust fund is going bankrupt. the medicare trusteesville come out and said the medicare trust fund will be broke. make no mistake, we have to address it and address medicare. let's not demagog this issue and not throw stones who want to fix it but engage in a debate or take responsibility of cutting $500 billion, taking money out of a program that people paid into and using it for a whole different set of people who didn't pay into that program. we are robbing peter to pay paul. let's save medicare. let's not rob medicare. i think we combot in this situation as americans because all the time, our politicians, they come back to their states and districts and they make

promises to their people. they say, i'm going to give you the sun, moon and the stars. don't worry, we can pay for it. not a big deal. i'm going to keep this promise to you and that's how they get elected year after year making promises. pt time has come to say, these promises can't be kept. you know what? i think this freshman class of republicans have said we aren't going to lie to you anymore. we're going to tell you the truth. the truth is we can't continue on this course. we are going to level with you and say we have to reform it and save. we can't continue to borrow and not have substantial economic consequences for the next generation, we have to fix it. you may not want to hear it, but it's the truth. we aren't going to lie to you anymore. once we all know where we're at as a country, we can come together as a country, how do we

fix the problem that we face as a country. when we have one party that doesn't want to acknowledge the problems that we face and want to mislead the american people about those problems, it's hard to have an honest conversation. i didn't come here to misrepresent the american people. i come here to level with the american people and say this is where we are at. let's find solutions that work for the american people. there is a chart here that so many people have seen, mr. speaker, but if you look at, this is a chart that shows and shows our debt to the size of our economy. our debt is 100% of the size of our economy, but we were at war, world war ii. that went down, look to our future. this is a sea of red, a sea of debt that we are going to leave to our next generation.

our economy will collapse well before we get to the crest of that wave. but that is our future, make no mistake, unless we change course. let's change course. i think it's important to note, where does this debt come from? who is financing this debt, because in world war ii, american citizens bought war bonds paying for this debt. not today. because in 1970, 5% of the foreign debt -- 5% of our debt was held by foreign entities and in 1990, 19% of our debt was hled by foreign entities and today, 47% of our debt is held by foreign entities. and i would ask the speaker to guess what country owns the largest share of that foreign debt? that's right, china. china owns 37% of that foreign

debt. we shall mortgaging our children's future and we are in a nuclear bomb because we can't get our physician cat house in order. it is time that we come together and fix the problem that face this country. let us not kick the can down the road. and prevent it, we have to act and we are here to act. i yield back. mr. griffin: i look at those charts and ask myself, how big does our debt have to get before the other side of the aisle joins us in getting our fiscal house in order? how big? it's $14 trillion now. $16 trillion? $20 trillion?

$508 trillion? how big does it have to get before the other side of the aisle admits that we're spending too much money? i will tell you, i have been studying some of the details of our budget and how we got into this mess. and i would be remiss if i did not comment on something that i heard earlier today. someone said, well, the bush tax cuts created our debt. that's how we got into debt. completely untrue. i took a chart that showed our revenue year by year as a percentage of the economy. and after 9/11, certainly the economy slowed down and our

revenues, our tax resets decreased -- reseats decreased significantly. i will tell you by 2007 our tax receipts were back up to 18.5% of g.d.p. in 2007, and that was before the meltdown of the housing market, that was while we had the bush tax cuts in place. 18.5%. now what's interesting, if you go back and look at the mid-1990's, there were some years that had higher g.d.p. to revenue, but several years are below that. my point is, whatever contribution tax rates have had on revenue, the primary driver of how much revenue we get in a

particular year is whether we are having economic growth. that is the primary driver. that is the primary determining factor of how much money comes into the coffers of the united states government. the idea that we got in this mess because we are somehow as americans not taxed enough is ludicrous. all you have to do is look at the spending pattern and the tra ject other -- trajectory of the debt you put up there. it follows the same path. revenue relatively steady over the decades at an average of 18% of g.d.p. and expenditure spending off the charts, particularly in the last few years. and i just want to be real clear

here. both parties are to blame. the congress is to blame. the house is to blame, the senate, the white house. there is plenty of blame to go around. plenty of blame to go around. that is not the issue. the issue is how we fix it and we first have to recognize that we have a spending problem. i yield. mr. duffy: well said to the gentleman from arkansas. and jobs have been a key component of the debates here in this house, because there is a 9.2% unemployment rate and the effective rate is still higher. those who have stopped looking for work are unemployed. those who are suffering in our state and our districts. and we have seen what proposals have come out from the other side of the aisle. let's take a walk down memory lane. they have said that obamacare

was going to create jobs. all it did was give us a health care reform bill that isn't going to get the job done and going to cost us an extra $1 trillion. they gave us a stimulus bill and we weren't supposed to see unemployment above 8%. and for every job that was created or saved, it cost the taxpayer over $250,000 per job. you know what? that is not a job-creating bill. they have come into this house and want to tell the american people that we can create jobs in america if we raise taxes on the job creators. i'm telling you, you ask any economist and use our common sense, to raise taxes, to take money away from them, money they don't have to re-invest, to

re-innovate and create jobs when they have less money doesn't make any economic sense. you raise taxes on your job creators and you have less jobs. and if you have less jobs, you have less people paying taxes and less people paying taxes, you have less money coming in to the federal coffers. when america works they get off the unemployment checks and start getting paychecks. i want to see people getting paychecks. this debt that we face in this country and i know in my own district there are people who need help. i want to make sure we have a safety net in place to help those people. i see them all the time. they need help. and i want to make sure that we are there to provide the assistance that they need or those who fall on hard times. i want to make sure we have a

safety net in place to help them. if we continue to borrow and spend this way, there isn't going to be money for those who need the most help. look to greece. if you look -- look to greece, look -- they take to the streets and riot. let's not lie to the american people and tell them the truth. let's make sure we have a great and prosperous country the same that our forefathers passed off to us. to mean that, we have to fight for it because the status quo is this, massive debt and with that massive debt, you have greece-like riots. let's face this challenge and leave america that is prosperous

and bright and fall of hope for the next generation. mr. griffin: i want to close on the discussion of the debt ceiling and what i would say to the president tonight is that this house has put forth a plan. we have a plan in the form of a budget, but we also have a plan in the form of our cut, cap and balance. when we cut spending, cap spending in the future and we move toward a balanced budget. we passed that here in the house tonight. that's a plan. that's a plan that we can debate, we can discuss, the president can criticize. but what we haven't seen from the president is a plan, a plan of his that we can look at and study and that the american people can consider. i would just ask the president

to put his ideas out there, come out of those rooms and put his ideas in public and let us analyze them and discuss them and let the american people examine for themselves. mr. duffy: could i make one comment? we don't want to do a cabaret dance here tonight. no doubt, you look at the proposal that couple out of the house and passed, it will go to the president. and most americans know when you buy a house or a car, you make an offer, the seller will make a vournt proposal. we will wait to see if he puts his ideas on paper. let him show the american people what his ideas here just as we have shown what the american people and i encourage him to do that and i thank the gentleman for hosting tonight's

conversation. mr. griffin: appreciate it. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. griffin: i make a motion to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> congressional leaders have mentioned the weekend session, and they're going to continue to speak on this. the gavel comes down at 10:00 a.m.. coming up next, developments in the debt ceiling talks. we will hear from the president in the daily white house briefing, and in republican and democratic leadership. this is followed by the house debate, with the debt reduction bill. president obama spoke at today's white house briefing about raising the federal debt limit.

this is the republican that bill that the house passed this evening. >> i wanted to give people a quick update on the progress that we are making. i was in contact with the leadership over the course of the weekend, and we continue to urge democrats and republicans to come together. this not only would lift the debt ceiling, but also the underlying challenges that we face with the debt and the deficit. some progress was made in some of the discussions. john boehner and the house caucus put forward what they were going to be working on today, and everyone's estimation is that this is not an approach

that could pass both chambers. i understand the need for them to test that proposition. we are in the 11th hour the good news is that today a group of senators, the gang of six, democrats and republicans -- i guess now gang of seven, because one additional republican senator added on -- put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that i've urged. what it says is we've got to be serious about reducing discretionary spending both in domestic spending and defense; we've got to be serious about tackling health care spending and entitlements in a serious way; and we've got to have some additional revenue so that we have an approach in which there is shared sacrifice and everybody is giving up

something. and so, for us to see democratic senators acknowledge that we've got to deal with our long-term debt problems that arise out of our various entitlement programs, and for republican senators to acknowledge that revenues will have to be part of sure that nobody is disproportionately hurt from us making progress on the debt and deficits i think is a very significant step. and as i said, the framework that they put forward is broadly consistent with what we've been working on here in the white house and with the presentations that i've made to the leadership when they've come over here. so here's where we stand. we have a democratic president and administration that is prepared to sign a tough package that includes both

spending cuts, modifications to social security, medicaid and medicare that would strengthen those systems and allow them to move forward, and would include awe now have a bipartisan group of senators who agree with that balanced approach. and we've got the american people who agree with that balanced approach. my hope, and what i will be urging speaker boehner, nancy pelosi, as well as leader reid and mitch mcconnell, is that they, tomorrow, are prepared to start talking turkey and actually getting down to the hard business of crafting a plan that can move this forward in time for the august 2nd deadline that we've set forward. just a couple of other points i will make. some of you may ask, what does

it mean for the plan that senator mcconnell and senator reid had been working on? our attitude is, is that that continues to be a necessary approach to put forward. in the event that we don't get an agreement, at minimum, we've got to raise the debt ceiling. so that's the bare minimum that has to be achieved, but we continue to believe that we can achieve more. and so i want to congratulate the gang of six for coming up with a plan that i think is balanced. we just received it, so we haven't reviewed all the details of it. it would not match perfectly with some of the approaches that we've taken, but i think that we're in the same playing field. and my hope is, is that we can start gathering everybody over the next couple of days to choose a clear direction and to get this issue resolved. so far, at least, the markets have shown confidence that

leadership here in washington are not going to send the economy over a cliff. but if we continue to go through a lot of political posturing, if both sides continue to be dug in, if we don't have a basic spirit of cooperation that allows us to rise above immediate election-year politics and actually solve problems, then i think markets here, the american people, and the international community are going to start reacting adversely fairly quickly. so i think it's very important for in these next couple of days to understand we don't have any more time to engage in symbolic gestures; we don't have any more time to posture. it's time to get down to the business of actually solving this problem. and i think we now are seeing the potential for a bipartisan consensus around what that would take. it will be hard. it will be tough. there are still going to be a lot of difficult negotiations that have to take place in order for us to actually get something done. and as i said, we have to have

that failsafe that senator mcconnell and senator reid are working on. but the hope is, is that everybody seizes this opportunity. all right? ok, guys, i'm going to let jay answer questions today. i think i've been pretty good to you guys. [laughter] but after the votes today in the house, i'll call up speaker boehner and the other leadership and we'll arrange for times where we bring folks back here, and hopefully we'll be able to report on some additional progress over the next few days. all right? thank you very much, guys. >> when will you announce whether you will be supporting the gang of six plan? would that be in the next day? >> well, as i said, i think what you're going to be seeing is an evaluation of that plan versus the things that we've been looking at. i think what you're going to see is some significant overlap. but obviously just because we might agree in principle with a range of issues with six senators or seven senators, that doesn't get us out of the house of representatives, that doesn't get us out of the

senate. there's going to have to be a broader agreement on the part of all the leadership that we're going to get this done in a serious way, and we've got a tight deadline to do it. thanks, guys. >> in the capital, they discussed the ongoing negotiations on raising the debt limit. we'll hear from mitch mcconnell, lamar alexander and john barrasso. followed by minority leader harry reid. >> good afternoon, everyone. we had a chance to talk to the

republican members of the gang of six, and this was our first exposure to their work and we will be looking at this as we move forward. the issue on the floor is of the military construction bill. this will be a balanced proposal that we anticipate will pass the house tonight, and majority leader has indicated that it will go into that and before the week is out, we may be voting on a balanced budget amendment as well, with how long it takes to get through this process. we will spend the weekend the weekend working on other than unemployment, the most important issue in the country right now is doing something about the debt and the deficit and the spending problem. >> i participated in this with

former governors, and we talked about balancing the budget. in my state, we have zero road debt, then we use our gas taxes to pay for this. we followed the budget proposal projections, and at the end of the 10 years we will be spending more on interest payments than national defense, which is why we have to stop washington from spending money they don't have. republicans are addressing this in three different ways. try to restrain spending. 47 of us have sponsored a balanced budget amendment, which is the obvious way to bring fiscal discipline. and then there is a gang of six and the bipartisan proposal to

tackle that in a serious way. >> i have returned from wyoming, where we balance the budget every year. we know the value of having a balanced budget according to the constitution and that is why all of the republicans are supporting this. many people are concerned about jobs and the economy. the environmental protection agency will come out with the most expensive environmental regulations in the united states. unilaterally, they're coming out with this in the military -- in the pennsylvania chamber of commerce said that this will cost 300,000 jobs in pennsylvania and the focus is on jobs and the economy, and the administration should take unemployment more seriously than they are taking this now.

>> we understand that you have been against this plan, are you against obama calling you the gang of seven? >> i am not in a gang, i support the plan. you have to give credit to the centers. this is a gang of six. they have been like an old married couple. they have studied complex issues, and i support this. i hope that everyone on both sides of ohio, will help bolster this problem, and the quality of those involved. three of the most conservative members of the republican caucus, and if they study

something for six months and tell us this is good for the country -- >> this is what they said, you are looking at the process in the recent days and weeks. is there a negative effect in the room about working quietly >> on what we were just briefed about at lunch, i do not have an opinion yet. i commend those involved for all of the work that they did, as they spent most of last year on the same subject, so we were pleased to hear their recommendation but i have not had a chance to decide how i feel about this. >> publicly -- sometimes this

can happen. can this have a negative effect on what is actually going on behind the scenes? >> this is my view, that this is the best time to do difficult things. it does not mean that this is easy to come together when you have to divided government, but what we're talking about is best dealt with, when neither party has total control of congress, and it is a struggle to get there. we're working for an outcome, but i think this is the perfect time to do something for the country, because the only way this can be done is to reach some level. >> can you do something with a magnitude of this, >> i will not

answer a hypothetical. we know we have to get this in place by august 2. we want to work on getting something important. and i hope that we will avoid default. thank you. >> the plans the republicans are advancing in the house and senate, is far more dangerous with what it does to medicare and other programs that are important for america. this would destroy social security as well. and under their plan, social security and medicare may be forced to be cut about 50%.

this plan is so reckless, it would make president reagan's fiscal policies unconstitutional. at the same time that they are pushing this plan, republicans are still giving tax giveaways for owners of corporate jets, and republicans want seniors to feel the pain, and others do not feel a thing. this is the debate we will have in the next couple of days on the floor. as longing to have this as republicans insist on this debate. this is the only way to cut the deficit and we do not accept this. we believe in taking a balanced approach, and we also believe in compromise.

especially when the entire economy hangs in the balance. two-thirds of americans want the leaders to compromise. we have the plans and the provisions that they don't like. we spend a little bit of time talking about the gang of six. i have followed them very closely. i have been advised almost on a daily basis, and i have had number of long conversations with warner, and conrad, the chairman of the budget committee. the work that they have done is excellent. this is something we have to look that closely, because there is no legislative language that understands -- this absolutely

has to start in the house. because the revenue is built. as i indicated this morning, if there is a way to approve -- improve upon the legislation, i'll be happy to work with the gang of six to get this finished. the democrats will be back to me within 24 hours, and we will use that gang of six stuff. i think that embracing this plan is a stretch, but i had conversations with one of the members of the gang of six, and i have explained to him, many different times, the problems that we have with time.

i am happy to work and use anything so that we can. 13 days, with a number of senators, to stop the debt ceiling from being increased. i have to move through all the different hoops that are there. >> but they could take a number of elements and we have the reason you are working with the minority leader? >> it is my intention, as helpful as -- and as understanding as they can be, but to move forward with where we are now, this will take cooperation with both sides.

this is why warner and my other democrats are going to try to see what they can get the republicans to do. things that would improve this. >> you would vote for this? >> i don't want to do anything to jeopardize the enthusiasm that people have. i am the person who runs the senate, and i understand the rules. just to give you an understanding of how difficult that things are, i had a call that said, i understood that harry reid was thinking of putting cuts in this and you should tell him it would take

two weeks to store this. they ask me if i support this bill. in concept, this is wonderful, with the revenues. and it cuts defense as much as discretionary spending. but for me to say i love this bill, i cannot do this. the question -- the question was, what elements when i suggest those and to what we're working on? he can come back to me with this in the next 24 hours. thank you, everyone.

>> some house republicans want to the white house this morning to deliver a letter to the president asking that he put his deficit reduction proposal in writing. they spoke with people outside of the white house gates. this is 15 minutes. >> we wanted to send a message to america and to the president. on june 6 -- 77 of us signed a letter to the president's saying that we want to know what the deal is to deal with the debt ceiling crisis, and the underlying crisis that is causing the debt ceiling issue. we did not hear any response to this letter. we issued a letter, yesterday, signed by 60 of my colleagues to

say that we are down at crunch time and we need the plan. we need to be honest with the american people, to show the american people your proposal and let us have an american debate on how we will move this nation forward. we have to get the fiscal house in order. that is why we came to washington d.c., to get the house in order and get the economy up and running. and you can do that with an american market that people have confidence in, so that they can invest and get people back to work. would you like to speak next? >> i am a representative from tennessee, and we have a follow- up on the letter from june 6. asking the president what he will do with this plan. this plan was put on the table,

as a possible solution to the unsustainable debt. we have yet to hear from the president but we have a new plan that we will be voting on. it is time for him to step up to the plate, and give us his plan. >> i think that we should ask the american people to look back at his schedule, he has time for golf, but the number one job of this president's is to deal with the debt crisis, and the budget crisis. he has the checks for withheld military pay and he has said, lights out for the u.s. markets, if his plan is not passed. he has presented no plan to the

united states congress or to the american public. and now we have a problem, because we are promote -- we are approaching a real crisis because we don't have a leader who has the guts to come forward with a proposal that will help to resolve this. we did this with a budget that we passed in the house, and we have offered multiple plans and solutions and all the president does is play golf and threatened to veto those plans. this is the job that we need to have >> i want to talk about the comments that were made earlier, and i would like to present to come forward with a plan in writing. he has led from behind on this

issue, abdicating their responsibility to the american people. we would like a plan on the table that will let us get our arms around the fiscal crisis. i appreciate you braving the elements and coming out here to speak with us. we are here because the president has not been here on this issue. this is his debt ceiling. when he was a freshman center, he increased the debt with $400 billion. his second year as a member of the majority party. he had at hand in increasing the debt burden by $1.80 trillion. he has had at hand in increasing the debt burden by $2.80 trillion. in the six years he has been in washington the debt has

increased more than 50%. mr. president, america demands and expects more. please provide us with a written plan that we, the people can evaluate, so that we will know where you are coming from, but don't give away your responsibility with speeches that have no substance. the time for action is now. >> did you ask to go in? >> we are here on the street because we want to send a message. >> if the people from indiana won a plan from this president, everything that has been said with the freshman class leading on this position. we do not want rhetoric threatening american seniors,

with the people in this country that create jobs, and the financing of this government. the president takes the lead on this and he needs to quit playing politics with the american people and tell us what he stands for. this is why we are here today. >> i am from south carolinahe wg transformative. something that will echo in eternity. history suggests otherwise. this is the sixth generation of in 2006, het's plan voted against raising the debt ceiling.

it was the calamity -- was the calamity and the risk in the -- and the rest then? he did not vote. , he did not vote on whether to raise the debt ceiling. then we get paul ryan invited to the white house so he could be chided over his insensitivity to seniors. the president says he has a plan. for wellesz our skepticism. it looks like punt, pass, and kick. >> leadership requires take your

ideas come up with them on paper, published them, and you let the american people and the press and everybody else see what your ideas are, analyze them, discuss them, and criticized them. when we met with the president at the white house, not long ago, we talked about the fact that there was nothing written down, there was not a plan that we could see. the president made some remark about that would be good politics to put it out there. that is exactly what is gone on here. we knew the president would not lead on this issue, so we propose a plan, and now we have another plan. this president has done nothing but sit around and talk. press conference is due not result in a planned. readings around a table will not

result in a plan. he can do all that, but we need something that the cbo can score and we can analyze and identify as a plan. this president has done nothing, and in his absence we've had the lead. -- to lead. >> state of kansas, and mr. president , where is your solution? you have mentioned this debt ceiling increase is about the next election. it is not about the next election. it is about the next generation. what is your solution? in less than two and a half years, you have run up $4 trillion of new debt. what is your solution other than raising the debt soceiling? the american people are looking for leadership.

this is about a deficit of leadership in this house. mr. president, give us your plan. >> i am the second district in michigan. i am here today because of cut, cap, and balance. we have something in the she been written into the state constitution that requires us to balance the budget every year. it changes the discussion. because we know we cannot punt, pass, and kick it down the road. we have to deal with our spending decisions and make difficult decisions about what we will do with people's taxation. that is what this is about. a number of weeks ago, when all of us were here at the white house with the president, he said there's nothing i could

propose that you guys would go along with, and myself and a couple of doors, which stuck around after words, and there was a photo afterwards, and i was telling him that is not true, i am here for a solution. i believe that solution can include an increase in the debt ceiling if and only if we are gone to deal with these long- term issues. if we are going to get our way through this, we have to have a plan that will cut current spending, cap our future spending, and going to bring into balance the budget and the expenditures that the american people want. they want it in michigan and they want it in the united states as well, and it is not too much to ask to bring this option of a balanced budget amendment for the united states constitution. >> will you vote for a fall back? >> i represent ohio's

congressional district. we have an unemployment rate of 9.2% and rising. 55% of americans have already said they oppose any new taxes in trying to solve this debt limit increase, and get you continue to do nothing but talk, and i believe that 55% would be even higher if americans understood what you are talking about is raising taxes on those americans that make more than $200,000 a year. the very small businesses that are creating jobs and keeping our economy running right now. the cut, cut, and balance bill we will address the day does at the federal lovell -- level, live within our means, cut spending, cap revenue, and

balance the budget. we need to stop trying to scare seniors and military and veterans. if seniors want to be scared, they need to remember that when you signed into law the health care bill in 2010, you signed in a law that cut medicare by over $500 million. that is what seniors need to be concerned about. america deserves better. mr. president, give us your plan. thank you very much. >> i am from western pennsylvania, and the president has asked us to eat our peas and what he is asking to do is to pick our poison. this is a president who loves to talk to talk but he cannot walk the walk. he has given us not the language

of a leader. this is the leader of the greatest nation in the history of the world. there is no reason for us to be in this situation today. my colleagues came here in november for one reason, and that was to fix it for the future. we ask this present that to become a leader, the man he said he was going to be, the leader we need and bring both parties together. people talk about winning and how love winning. americans hate losing, and if we continue on the path we are on now, we are willing to lose the greatest country in the history of the world, because of an internal problem that we cannot live within our own means. mr. president, at this time for you to be presidential. quit being a candidate and start being the president. thank you. >> it has been 93 days since my

office put out a plan stating that we believe in cut, cap, and balance, and we have not heard a single plan from the president. you talked about a question a few moments ago -- it was defeated 97-0. not a single member of his own senate, his own party voted for his planned bi. i'm telling you, we have to have a willing partner, and we have not had it. i represent a family that has been sweating budgets for three generations, and we cannot live beyond our means. it is not hard. the american family understands you have to live within your means, you have to balance your budget. you put your children on caps

give them ankeyou allowance and they cannot spend more. americans are here to visit this place, to see this place. these are hard for the people because they feel it slipping away. it is slipping away because we do not have a leader that is presenting any options at all. i urge people -- the president today to give us a plan, a practice some leadership. you have not done that, and this freshman class came to this place with the expectation to work together to preserve the future for our children and grandchildren. i urge you on behalf of small businesses and the american family, present us a plan that we can score, see, and begin work to guarantee a brighter future for americans. thank you very much.

>> "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. at eastern on c-span. >> if you want to know what is going on in the world in the congress, it is not so hard. c-span has a digital archive that goes back to 1987 where you can watch anything that happened in the house or senate chambers on your screen. there are sources of information that are -- that were unimaginable 20 years ago. >> this c-span video library makes it easy to follow. it is washington your way.

today the house passed a republican-backed bill that increases the federal debt limit, conditioned on spending cuts and the introduction of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. here is a two-hour portion of that debate. we begin with majority leader eric cantor. madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from utah. madam speaker, it is time -- mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from utah. madam speaker, it's time that we be clear with the american team -- american people. it's no choice but to cut spending and living within our means. contrary to what the gentleman on the other side continues to say, no one, no one wants to bring default onto our country. and with millions of americans out of work, we've got to focus on getting the economy growing again.

we, as republicans, as the new majority in this house, as the gentleman from maryland knows, have put a plan onhe table that ensures washington does t continue to spend money it doesn't have. house republicans have a plan to cut, cap and balance our way to prosperity. this commonsense legislation provides a straightforward plan to curb our massive debt and help our spending. the legislation before us would require, one, a balanced budget component, two, a supermajority requirement to raise taxes on the american people, and, three, a limit on spending as a percentage of g.d.p. madam speaker, today the house has the opportunity to show the people that sent us here that we are serious about turning the page on the failed fiscal

policies that this town has been about over the last several dedes and begin to get the fiscal house in order. house republicans were voted into office to change the culture in washington and we will not support the other side's request or the president's request to increase the debt limit without meaningful reforms to the system. 49 states, including my home state of virgin, already have a balanced budget requirement, and it's time that the feral government reflect the same policy to get our fiscal house in order. cut, cap and balance makes sure that we begin to treat taxpayer dollars more responsibly just like families and businesses do with their own budgets. we cannot continue to kick the can down the road. madam speaker, the president continues to say, as the gentleman on the other side tries to imply as well, that they want to do big things.

we do as well. as evidenced by our budget that we put on the table. but we implored the other side to get serious. let's do big things. let's get our fiscal house in order. but let's do so without imposing higher taxes on the small business people that we so desperately need to start hiring again. and the gentleman from maryland loves to talk about those corporate loopholes. he loves to talk about corporate jet owners and the kind of preferences that exist in the code. the gentleman from maryland knows all too well. he and i were in discussions for almt seven weeks when i said again and again that we would be happy to engage in a discussion of tax reform to get rid of those loopholes. the gentleman also knows that those loopholes and the costs associated with those loopholes

pale in comparison to the problem. so i know it makes for good politics to go throw the shiny ball out there, madam speaker -- mr. van hollen: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i will not yield. to throw the shiny ball out there that somehow the republicans will sustain these preferences when all along in our budget and in our plan we have said we're for tax reform. we have said we're for bringing down rates on everybody. and that's it, madam speaker. let's get serious and stop playing politics. it's not about that. there is no disagreement that any of us want to support those loopholes, but what's really going on, madam speaker, in all of the debt discussion, in all of the negotiation is the fact that the minority and its party and the president continue to insist that we raise taxes on the sml business people that

we need so desperately to begin creating jobs and hiring people again. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the mr. hoyer: i thank my frien the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen, for yielding. the american public are rightfully very distressed with the congress of the united states. they're distressed that a time of great challenge and great risk thank, that we fiddle while the debt threatens -- risk, that we fiddle while the debt threatens to burn us, to place our country in the position of being adjudged uncredit worthy. that is not worthy of this congress or any one of us that serves in this congress. we have 14 days according to the secretary of treasury until such time as america will be unable

to pay its obligations. whether to foreigners or to people in this country. that is not a situation that will be looked at positively by the financial sector or by any one of our constituents whose ability to save, to have a 401-k that is stable, to purchase an automobile or a refrigerator or send their kid to college will be put at risk because of increased interest rates, not one of us will be held harmless if this congress fails to do its duty. now, ladies and gentlemen, we have had a number of efforts to get us to where we needed to be, to get back to fiscal responsibility. i'm i amused when our -- i'm amused when i hear our new members talk about the fiscal irresponsibility because i've served here long enough to know

that the two presidents under who the debt was raised most were ronald reagan, 186% increase from the $985 billion total debt when ronald reagan took office to over $2.8 trillion, and george bush the second who increased the national debt 86%. did he do it alone? of course not. did we all do it? republicans and democrats? yes. now, democrats believe that the debt was raised because we bought things on the republican watch that were not paid for. that's indisputable. you cannot argue that. those are the facts. the fact is did we do the same in the obama administration? we did. why? because we had to respond to the deepest recession we have seen, we didn't create enough jobs, in fact we lost jobs. so we bring a bill to the floor some weeks ago to address the

credit worthiness of the united states of america. . and the chairman of the ways and means committee said we offer this to fail. not to solve the problem, to fail. we bring a bill on the floor of the house of representatives, 14 days before the debt limit is reached and america might default for the first time in history, this bill was written sometime late friday or perhaps saturday. how many of you said, have you read the bill? how many hours have you taken to consider this bill? i have read the bill, too, paul. i guarantee there is not an american who is not on the budget committee who reads this bill knows what impact it has and the chairman of the budget committee is shaking his head and agreeing with me. you haven't had one second of

hearing on this, there was no markup on this bill and it has significant consequences. let me tell you, my friends on the other side of the aisle, i stand in this well who voted for the balanced budget amendment in 1995 -- could i have one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: one additional minute. mr. hoyer: i voted to get to fiscal responsibility and balanced the budget four years in a row and president bush inherited $5.6 trillion surplus, not debt, deficit and jobs having been created before he took office. eight years later, we increase the debt by $5 trillion. now i'm not going to vote for the balanced budget amendment and i urge my colleagues to reject this bill, which has no chance of passage and we need to

stop fiddling and need to do our work and make sure that america can pay its debt, because if it can't, every one of our constituents will lose and our country will lose. our oath of office was to preserve and protect. defeat this ill-advised, ill-timed, unconsidered piece of legislation and let us move to fiscal responsibility in a way that will bring us all together in a bipartisan way as biden tried to do and as frankly, mr. boehner and the president tried to do. let's get to that objective. the country deserves it. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not to others in the first or second person. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from georgia, who recognized that if the balanced budget amendment was appropriate back in 1995 with debt reaching $14 trillion how much more so is it relevant to pass today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: we are at the moment of choosing and we just heard from the former leader of the former majority party that we need to oppose this. but you know, to those in the gallery here today, to those watching on camera, just in a few hours, you will get the opportunity to see behind me on this board every name of every member of congress in how they vote. they will make a choice. they will take their voting card of which you have entrusted us with and make a decision, this nation should balance its budget or not. this isn't so much of cut, cap,

balance, but about prosperity or continued high unemployment. that would be green for prosperity, red for unemployment. this is about accountability and constraints, green, or washington run wild. again that's correct would be the red button, and the status quo. this is about sustainability of our future or continued uncertainty as we have seen thus far, or better yet, this is about standing on our own, the green button, independent of this great nation or continued and increasing bondage of foreign nations in our indebtedness, again, the red button. members of congress, this is your time of choosing. we have heard so many names today, former presidents, members of other congresses, but guess what? this is your time, this is your choice, this is your voting

card, what will you choose? a prosperous future for this nation or a continuation of the status quo? i urge my members, let's choose a great, prosperous future for this nation. america deserves it. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and inappropriate to address people in the gallery. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: this is a time for choosing. we have to reduce our deficit. we have to get the budget into balance. the question is, how we do this. and we believe that it is a corruption of the constitution to write into the constitution itself a provision that says a majority vote can cut medicare and social security, but you need a 2/3 undemocratic vote to close the corporate tax loophole

for the purpose of reducing the deficit. i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: ms. lee. ms. lee: i thank the gentleman for his yielding. i rise in strong opposition to what has been appropriately labeled as the duck, dodge and dismantle. republicans are requiring us to amend our constitution before we consider actually avoid default. america fails to pay its bills on time. the republicans dodge facing the real challenge funding two wars and other republican interests. and the republicans want to dismantle our nation's economic security for seniors, the disabled and the poor by cutting medicare, medicaid and social security. making heartless cuts on the backs of the most vulnerable will not balance the budget and it's morally wrong. now with only 14 days left,

republicans are pushing forward legislation that will guarantee a default and will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs. this duck, dodge and dismantle bill will kill jobs and set our nation back rather than move it forward. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill that this bill would be written in stone, mind youu in our constitution and turn the american dream into a nightmare. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: and just to remind the other side of the aisle that with regard to the radical plan that we talk about here with regard to changing our amending the constitution, it was thomas jefferson who said in a letter to john taylor, i wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution. i would be willing to depend on that alone that our government would return to the genuine principles of the constitution and he was speaking of what we are doing today that thomas

jefferson wished we had done over 200 years ago, a balanced budget amendment. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from washington. mr. rogers: i rise in support of this -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise in support of this bill. the rising national debt was a sign of leadership's failure. today president obama is asking congress to raise the national debt $2.4 trillion, largely to fund many of the programs that he had passed in the last couple of years. and to put that into perspective that amounts to $20,000 for every american family. congress is being asked to add $20,000 in debt burden to every american family and we owe it to them to make sure we are cutting up the credit cards and not

going to continue to spend beyond our means. house republicans are committed to getting our fiscal house in order. house republicans are committed to protecting our excellent credit rating. it is the national debt that threatens our credit rating. the bill before us today, cut, cap and balance is a credible plan to address this situation and will cut spending immediately and enact spending caps and require the passage of a balanced budget amendment. 49 out of 50 states balance their budget. the president's spend, borrow, bailout policies have cleerled failed and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. let's help america's economy today and let's keep the american dream alive for many years to come. and with that, i yield become. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would hazard a guess that thomas jefferson would not want to write into the constitution