we would have to have a balanced budget amendment. you mail in a balance each year. as the government came out with this number, people would be aware if the government was going to cost them more money or less money each year. i thought that was a reasonable way to approach this. i would be interested in your answer off the air. thank you. guest: you're welcome. it is a novel idea. i'm not sure i want the government to tell us what the tax rate would be every year, but it certainly would get us even gauged. you are talking about a modified flat tax for everybody. i think we ought to go on and do

the national sales tax where -- host: in lieu of income tax? guest: yes. it is embedded into our income tax system and the products we export in this country and make us super competitive around the world, it would re-enhance manufacturing in this country, because it would offset, the taxes would be taken out of the products that we produce. it would be a great way for us to actually grow our economy. it is simple. people say they barter. we have $300 billion a year.

people don't report income taxes. everybody would know what it costs. >> we believe this now to go live to the house. senate amendment votes, it pursued drove vote as well. declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2551. will the the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, kindly resume the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2551 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today, request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in the house report 112-173 offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the house report 112-173, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. watt of north carolina, amendment

number 5 by ms. hayworth of new york. amendment number 6 by mr. broun of georgia. amendment number 8 by mr. stutzman of indiana. amendment number 15 by mr. thompson of pennsylvania. amendment number 12 by mr. holt of new jersey. amendment number 9 by mr. moran of virginia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-173, by the gentleman from north carolina. mr. watt, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 112-173, offered by mr. watt of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, -- a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 102. the nays are 302. with seven answering present. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-173, by the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hayworth, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report number 112-173, oferede by ms. hayworth of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 299. the nays are 112. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment 6 printed in house report 112-173 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 112-173, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 153.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 153 and the nays are 160. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-173 by the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-173 offered by mr. stutzman of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 218. the noes are 194. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-173 by the gentleman from pennsylvania,

mr. thompson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-173 offered by mr. thompson of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 130. and the nays are 283. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-173 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-173 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 174. the nays are 235.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176. the nays are 235. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-173 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk are redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9, printsed in house report number 112-173, offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request

for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 178 -- the nays are 234. the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 234.

the amendment is not adopted. there being no further business, under the rule the committee rises. the chair: on the state of the union has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2551 and pursuant to house resolution, i report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2551 and pursuant to house resolution 359 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third readling of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the

yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-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 252, the nays are 159, with no answering present. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and noon for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? without objection. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: i rise to honor a good citizen, great friend

and political leader, our governor a great rhode islander. he will long be remembered for leading rhode island through some difficult times. his honorable and grages service to our country set him apart as a great american. the governor set himself apart as a talented political leader, a gifted athlete and great friend. his courage and passion set him apart, he was a remarkable man whose spirit will live on in our memories. his accomplishments include leading rhode island out of the credit union crisis, establishing a health care modele for low income families, my thoughts and prayers continue to be with the entire

sunlin family. he will be sorely missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests for one-minute recognitions? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, i'm excited about the number of members who welcome guests to the quites capitol. it is an important place because it belongs to the american people. i'm delighted tat point dexter -- that the poindexter family has joined me. but many of those here have

traveled on airplanes, through airports. i am on the homeland security committee, i'm disappointed and outraged that the f.a.a. bill is held up on minor issues such as whether or not we'll allow our workers to engage in discussions about their work conditions. it is being held up because the bill cancels f.a.a. and air traffic controllers in small airports and the supplemental support, you will, the supplemental support that's been given to small airports in rural areas. it's time get to work, our republican friends need to stop holding up this bill for minor issues so americans can fly in safety and security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal

requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. griffith of virginia for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from arizona, mr. is week ert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. schweikert: thank you, madam speaker. i promise i will not take the whole 60 minutes because i know many folks have flights to get to. madam speaker, one of the

reasons i'm here and actually we're also working on some additional, shall we say, display items for maybe next week. maybe i'm out of my mind but this last couple of weeks, i've been reading from top to bottom, beginning to end, the medicare trustees federal hospital insurance and federal supplemental medical insurance trust fund actuarial report for 2011 and it's more interesting than you would think because you go through about 270-something pages, lots of great information, not that hard to read so anyone that's actually watching, strongly suggest if you have the stomach for it and you really need to -- a little nep falling asleep, this might be the occasion where go, google it, take it off the internet, but do this for me. this is one of those occasions i'm going to ask you to go to the very end of the report and start with the last three

pages. . that's what i'm standing here to talk about is you have a report that basically gives a window of a dozen-some years of actuarial soundness. but when you get to the last three pages, it basically says something like rows anna danna, whatever that character from "saturday night live" 20 years ago, never mind. and i brought a couple boards we already had to demonstrate what's going on. then i want to talk about this. day after day after day in the political theater of this congress, i see members walk up to the floor, walk up to press, send out press releases saying, we don't want to change medicare as it is in law today. how many times have we heard the attacks on the republicans saying, they are trying to change medicare as we know it.

i need you to think about that comment because what's in this report is medicare as it is in law today. you need to understand what the left is defending and the crash that is just a few years away. and i'm standing here today to defend the fact that as republicans we are saving the program. we are actually trying to find a way to make it medicare actuarially sound so you and i can have it, but also our kids and grandkids can have it. let's first walkthrough the numbers then i'm going to read parts of these last three pages and i promise it's more interesting than it sounds and more depressing than you can ever imagine. this is the current law. all right. a couple of primers on spending out there. 2010, how much of our spending is mandatory? 2016 you'll start to notice mandatory spending is consuming

everything we are. another point of reference, to date when we borrow, when we borrow, we are actually having to borrow to cover all discretionary. that's defense, that's all the alphabet agencies. we even have to borery today to cover a portion of the mandatory spending. think of that. the medicares, social securities, commadse, the v.a. benefits, interest on the debt are living on borrowed money. i would think that would set off an alarm bell in someone's head that there's something horribly wrong out there. let's bounce on to this graph and just sort of give you a concept of how fast these numbers are eroding and why things like the battle over cut, cap, and balance are going on in this body. because there seems a willingness here by many members -- i got to be careful how i phrase this, that i believe

telling the public the truth of how difficult these numbers are and how dangerous they are to our republic may mean they don't get re-elected. may mean they have to stand up in front of an audience that for years and years and years they have said don't worry, it's fine. how do you go back in front of that same audience and tell them, well, maybe the numbers weren't fine? because the truth, the truth is in front of us right now. here's the 2010 sort of break down. department of defense, military, other discretionary. so this in 2010 we used this one because this is last year's numbers, it's all done. we know what it was. and you see this, that's probably about 62%, 63% of all spending was in the mandatory category. think of this. this here from the president's own numbers is the 2016 projection, which is four budget cycles away. right now we are working on the 2012.

this is the 2016. do you see the difference in these two boards? see if i can hold these up over each other. do you see that growth in that blue area? we go from something in the low 60's to 72, and i have one person keeps telling me it's 73% of all spending. think of this. in about 13 1/2 years every dime of this pie chart, every dime of spending, will be consumed by the mandatory portion of our spending. so 13 1/2 years. there's nothing left in defense. there's nothing left in the alphabet agencies. mandatory spending, the entitlements, consume everything we are. remember, this is as the law is written today. so every time you see a member walk up and say i don't want to make changes, i want to keep everything as it is in law today, they are basically saying your future is a crash.

everything will be consumed in these mandatory numbers. let's actually walkthrough a couple things that are in these last three pages of the 2011 medicare actuarial report. and once again please, i ask you, if you don't believe me, if you are someone who has trouble believing these statements that i come here to the floor and try to walkthrough, go, take it off the internet yourself, and go read these last three pages. part of the premise here is to his credit, i believe he's actually the chief actuary for medicare, actually wrote a little statement of actuarial opinion. the last three pages. and he puts it in perspective. and he basically says, yeah, the numbers in here are fine. if you live in a fantasy world and assume congress will never make certain changes. and understand, based on these

numbers, you'll love this one and i'll read it and explain it what this means, in the second paragraph i'll read the second half of this paragraph. there are not reasonable -- excuse me, they are not reasonable as an indication of actuarial future cost. current law would require a physician see reduction of an estimated 29.4% on january 1, 2012. an implausible expectation. did you hear that? built into these numbers, january 1, what is that? five months from now, january 1, doctors are to get a 29.4% cut in their compensation. and that's built into these numbers because these numbers don't work without taking that type of hit to the doctors. how many doctors are going to see medicare patients come

january 2 when they have taken a 29.4% cut? so what traditionally happens around here is the members of this body sometime in november, december, we are going to run the to the floor, we are going to say that's not fair, we want to make sure medicare recipients can see their doctor. we are going to go back and raise up that compensation and keep it flat at that -- we are going to get rid of that 29.4% cut built into the law. and the next day we should have a new actuarial report saying, oh, by the way the dozen some years we said medicare was fine is crashing. because it's built on premises that don't have reality -- trying to find nice ways to phrase this. when you read an actuarial report, it's based on current law. what happens if built into that current law is absolute fantasy and that 29.4% cut which i will

be one of the people who will walk into this floor and do my best to stop that because that's not fair. it's not fair to the doctors. it's not fair to the people in the program. but you got to understand when members of this body walk up here and say we want no changes to medicare, when they say they want no changes, are they saying they want the law as it is today, they want doctors in january to get a 29.4% cut? you can't have it both ways. you can't walk up here and say we want to keep the law exactly as it is, no protection, no changes, oh, by the way, you are never going to see your doctor again after january 2. and you have to actually go through more of these last three pages, this statement of opinion. it's devastating. and you start to realize the political theater around here hasn't been telling our public the truth. they are more concerned about winning political points than helping the american people understand we have a huge

important program here that's about to collapse under its own weight. we have the documents. we have the data. we are trying to step up and be responsible. but by being responsible, you get demagogued. you get attacked. you have people going out and holding up protest signs and you talk to them and say, read this, and they read it and look at you with these eyes saying, i can't believe my own side's been lying to me, why didn't they fess up and tell us this was coming? a couple other things in here. medicare prices for hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health, hospice, ambulatory surgery centers, dying not particular laboratories, and many other services would be less than half of their levels under prior law. it's built into this medicare actuary report. think that through. built into the formulas today,

those groupings are going to be receiving half the compensation? how many of them are going to treat, take care, diagnose, proadvise hospice care for a medicare recipient? that's what the republicans are trying to save. we are trying to fix it. we are trying not to let that happen. anyone that says they do not want changes to medicare, they are actually supporting the downfall of the program. and this is actually why i stand here. i'll be back next week with a series of slides that actually break out a number of segments from this medicare actuary report because it's time we start having members come to this floor and tell the truth. one last little thing here that -- for these reasons the financial protection shown in this report for medicare, do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operation.

what the medicare actuary is basically saying is what we base much of the rhetoric on around here, if you dig into the numbers, this program is already -- has already changed as people know it. it was changed last year when they did the health care takeover vote. it's already built into the law as a result we are trying to find ways to save this program, make it actuarial sound so it's there for the folks who are on it, for our children, for ourselves, for the next generation. we are here to do the right thing. and if you don't believe me, go pull the report and read through it yourself. madam speaker, thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, it's my privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives. i always appreciate the honor and privilege. i like every member in this congress and most americans have some strong opinions about the workings and the necessaryility -- necessity for this congress to step up and lead as we have led on the issue of the debt ceiling.

i start with this. some weeks ago, let's say weeks ago the secretary of the treasury, tim geithner, laid out a date. he said august 2 is a hard break deadline beyond which we can't extend our borrowing and our spending, and that the government will not be able to pay its bills and we'll have to default on our debt. that i think, madam speaker, is irresponsible statement on the part of the secretary of the treasury. we should keep in mind that his first boss is the president of the united states. so the things that come out of the mouth of the secretary of the treasury often reflect the best interests of the president and perhaps explicit or implied directive that comes from the president. and i happen to have this belief that when someone -- i happen to

have this belief when someone goes to work for the president, their judgment becomes what they think the president would do if he happened to be doing their job. i have watched the transition of executive offices over the years in places like the governor's office in iowa where i come from, and serve in the iowa senate before i came here, i watched as the transition in the executive branch took place. i watched some of the people that survived the transition did so by accommodating their positions to that of their new chief executive officer, their new governor. . i watched as we transitioned from a george w. bush administration to a barack obama administration. i watched as some of the survivors of that transition accommodated their positions to the new president, the new commander in chief. i'm cynical about the knowledge base and what is declared to be the deep convictions of some of the appointees of the

president. when i hear the secretary of the treasury say, this august 2 date is the date beyond which we can't go, we can't borrow beyond that, we'll have to start defaulting on our debt, why does tim geithner say that? i say he does because that accommodates to the president's argument that we've got a put up or shut up date and that it's a hard date, august 2, beyond which is the financial calamity. i don't believe that, madam speaker. i don't believe we get a financial calamity if we go on the other side of august 2. it may be a fairly accurate calculated date beyond which we won't have the borrowing capacity to continue to pay our bills on time. i think that's probably close to august 2. i don't know that it's the accurate date of august 2. however -- i just caution people to think about what it

means when you hear a cabinet official take a position and promise americans that they can count on their word. no, sometimes they're falling on their sword for the president of the united states. sec retear of the treasury tim geithner duvent give me a lot of confidence, just a few weeks ago as he was under oath before the small business committee, i asked him his opinion on several of the top economists america and the world has produced throughout history a couple of those people would be adam smith and john maynard keynes and the secretary of the treasury tim geithner's response was, and i remind you, madam speaker, under oath, his response was, he's not an economist, therefore he wouldn't offer an opinion on lead economists in the history of the country and world because he's not a trained economist. so when tim geithner tells us we have a deadline of august 2 and it's a potential calamity,

is he giving us an economic opinion? he refused to give an economic opinion under oath. when he's in front of the press is that a different equation? is he an economist or isn't he? he says he's not. if he says he's not, then should i accept his word that the the secretary of the treasury is not an economist, therefore i have to tell you, madam speaker, i would discount his opinion because he's a self-professed noneconomist. it seems as though america wants to accept the wod of the secretary of the treasury even though he put disclaimers out there on his credibility multiple times and i put another disclaimer on his credibility by saying the president of the united states impacts the opinions of his cabinet members and his other appointees. so here's what the president has said, madam speaker. that's this. he said, in so many words, he

said, i can't guarantee, i can't guarantee that the pensions of our military or the social security of our seniors will be paid on time. that was a statement he made a little over a week ago. and yet, i thereon that, madam speaker, i have to tell you, there wasn't a directly factual statement made by the president. he has to know this. he has to know the truth he truth is the president of the united states is the only person that can guarantee that our military pensions are paid on time and he's the only one who can guarantee our social security is paid on time and the only one who can guarantee that the revenue stream coming in which is $200 billion on average would be used in a priority fashion to service our debt to pay our military on time to pay the military pensions on time to take care of our national security interest to pay the social

security on time and to pay the medicare bills on time. take the seniors off the table a-- table along with our military as i clearly advocated when i introduced the promises act a little over a week ago. the military act pays our -- the promises act pays our military first and our debt second and goes no farther than that. there are others with good bills, tom mcclintobbling has a good bill that requires we service our debt, pay the debt on time. it's called the full, faith and credit act, mirrored off of one in the senate, i believe. has a good number of co-sponsors. louie gohmert has a good bill that guarantees our troops are paid first every time. it doesn't happen to include hitting a debt ceiling and addresses the funding gap that came from the c.r. a few months ago but the concept of it is

good and he's led very well on it. dan webster from florida has a very good prioritization bill. his bill, should we send it to the president and it becomes law, services the debt first, that's about $20 billion a month, pays the military second, that's about $11 billion a month, that's $31 billion if you divide $31 billion by $200 million -- by $200 billion, 31 divided by 200 works out to be 15.2%. so 15.2% of the incoming revenue stream is all that it takes to guarantee our military is paid on time, every time and that they in harm's way, defending our liberty with their lives on the line and sacrificing their lives from time to time, they should never have to wonder if their earned spake going to be transferred into their account for their

family on time every time. that should be a guarantee that this congress makes and it should be a guarantee that lasts for all time. my bill does that. i believe the language in daniel webster's bill does that as well, but in any case, his services the debt first, pays the military second, provides that the president can direct funding into national security issues third, pays the social security fourth and the medicare bills fifth. i actually think his is the best bill. i would take it and massage it and flip a couple of things within it. but i'm not taking a deep objection to it, nor do i think we wouldn't get the job done with dan webster's bill, i think we would. i would like to see a prioritization bill be moved here on the house of representatives and send it over to the senate. we've already passed cut, cap, and balance, we said, here's the debt ceiling increase, send a constitutional amendment to

the states so they can ratify an amendment that guarantees that this congress would be bound to a balanced budget. a balanced budget amendment passed here in this house in 1995 and it was messaged down that hallway to the senate in 1995 and it was brought up on the floor of the senate with the votes counted for passage an one senator flipped unexpectedly and the balanced budget amendment failed on the floor of the senate that day in 1995. had that balanced budget amendment passed, it would have been messaged to the state for ratification and it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment, which clearly would have been the case for a balanced budget amendment. had the states had that opportunity, i believe they would have ratified a balanced budget amendment. had they done so, i believe, madam speaker, that we would have not -- we would not be having this discussion today.

i believe that we would have it enshrined in our constitution, a requirement that this congress be bound by the same standards most of the states are, balanced budget amendments. if that had been the case, we would not be having this discussion, we swront this overspend, we wouldn't have more than $3 trillion in deficit spending that's been driven by the president of the united states and some say republicans are responsible too. republicans spent too much money too. and in that case, i'd agree with that. but here's the real comparison. and it's this. during the height of the iraq war, with expenses going out in armed conflict in the middle east, when things were going badly there, this congress came within $160 billion of balancing the budget. a little bit more economic activity, a tweak here or there and we would have seen a balanced budget in thed my --

middle of the past decade, in the middle of the past war. we fell short, we should have done a better job, should have had enough cushion to achieve a balanced budget, we didn't get that done. but today, the president's deficit is $1.65 trillion. i no longer have to say trillion with a t, i used to have to say billion with a b, sometimes people were thinking billion when -- million when you said billion, but now we talk about trillions, then the concept of we don't have to say trillion with a t anymore, it comes out of our mouths, we're discussing trillions of dollars. the president has given us a $1.65 trillion single-year deficit, more than 10 times greater than the $160 billion deficit that republicans had during the height of the iraq war. that's his responsibility. over $3 trillion in deficit spending in two short budget years, by the way no budget

approved by democratting in that period of time. nothing brought up in the senate now. we did pass a ryan budget, we voted on an r.s.c. budget, i stuck with the toughest and strongest budget we could bring to this floor, one that balanced in less than nine years. i'm a little embarrassed to say that. i'm embarrassed to say a budget that balances in less than nine years but it's easier to say that than it is a budget that balances in 26 years. and that's the budget that democrats voted against because it didn't spend enough money. the ryan budget balances in 26 yearses when my sons are ready for retirement, that's too long. i want something much shorter than that. i'd like to find a way to balance this budget tomorrow, if i could, but the price to do that would be too many calamities across this country system of we need to get there as fast as we can before the financial markets leave us.

we need to get there before we become the greece of the world. this isn't going to wait 26 years to be resolved. and if you want to push the american economy and our credit over the edge, just adopt the ideas that come out of the democrat side of the aisle or out of the harry reid majority in the senate. the ideas that we should extend the debt ceiling without restraint, whatever the president asks for, give it to him, let him borrow and spend money and somehow or another the magic of obamanomics will create this huge economic chain letter of spending. there's always another suck for the a chain letter, isn't there? the president believes that, he believes there's always another sucker in the chain letter he wants to borrow and borrow and borrow and spend and spend and spend tand take f.d.r.'s new deal to the n eat power and somehow the magic of the consumer drive economy will

save us from our lack of discipline and the economy will start to grow again. i'll submit, madam speaker, another viewpoint on this. i think this. i think this last summer was not recovery summer as it was declared to be by the president of the united states. nobody is saying this summer is recovery summer with 9.2% unemployment. i would submit instead that we have to recover from obamanomics before we'll be in recovery. we may have recovered from the downward spiral of the recession that was the financial crisis that kim to us in the fall of 2008, we may have already recovered from that but not recovered from obamanomics, the economic stimulus plan, not recovered from the $3 trillion in unnecessary spending. we have interest, we have to service this debt. i think there are a good number of americans by now who have lived through this and on the other side of this recession that we've been in, they will be learning this again this

thing that i know from experience. and it's this. if you are too highly leveraged, another loan, borrowing more money with more interest to pay and more principal to pay, doesn't sometimes help you. sometimes when you're too highly leveraged, you have to go broke and declare that you're insolvent and now maybe you get a chance to start again. but when businesses have been beaten down, beaten down, beaten down, and along comes a natural disaster like, for example, to inject it into this congressional record, the missouri river floods of 2011 that go on right now, we have victims that are under water now, that are so far behind that a disaster loan at low interest rates over long terms doesn't help them because they won't be able to service their loan. they won't have the cash flow to do it. they'll just have another interest payment, just another principal payment and it weighs

them down to the point where they can't recover. this federal government could find itself in the same position. the federal government's got to pay the interest, the federal government's got to pay the principal, who is going to pay that? the american people. it's got to come out of the profits of the private sector in order for that to happen. and when we look at the growth in government spending and government spending created jobs, when it's created from borrowed money, it's got to come from somewhere. where does it come from? it comes from the private sector. what does the private sector produce that can be tapped and taxed by, let's say, tim geithner, the i.r.s.? first of all, the federal government taxes all productivity in america. every single thing that's productive, the federal government has figured out how to tax. . if you punch a time clock in the morning, let's say monday

morning, 8:00, americans by the millions step up, punch that time clock, ka-chunk. from that time forward uncle sam has his hand out. it's like a pavlovian reflex. it's a mystical little image of uncle sam behind that time clock. when he hears that noise, it's like pavlov' dog. when the time clock kicks in, uncle sam hand's go out. all the money you earn from that moment forward goes that uncle sam's hand for that day. and sometime, oh, maybe if you're lucky, before noon, he gets enough of it that he can put his hand in his pocket and walk away for the day. uncle sam has taxed. he has punished, actually, your productivity because there's a disincentive to produce if

governments are going to take your production from you and putting it in their pocket. now, we don't mind saying this. we go to church and provide our donations there and americans are very generous people when it comes to charity. but it's discouraging to have the federal government take the first dollar from the first hour and every dollar from every hour until they get all that they want. but that's what happens. out of that, out of that first lien on productivity -- and by the way, it's not just those people who punch the time clock. it's those people who work on commission too. if your commission check is, say, 10% of what you sell, uncle sam is going to get his out of that. if you have earnings, savings or investment, uncle sam's going to get his tax out of that too. he's going to -- it is a punishment for productivity. the federal government taxes

all productivity in america and they tax it first. they have the first lien on all earnings, savings and investment in america. and then out of that -- and by the way, the private sector that i'm talking about produces goods and services that have a marketable value here in this country and abroad. that's our export market. that is what has value. and the rest of all this is just what supports it and what runs off the taxes on it. but you have to increase the productivity of your goods and services that have a marketable value, domestically and abroad. the private sector in america has to produce those goods and services in a volume and competitive way adequate to recover now from obamanomics. and it has to have enough confidence that the government will not step in and punish

that productivity and tax that productivity by increasing taxes on it or putting that heavy burden of regulation on it that someone put out a number here a couple weeks ago that the annual burden of regulation is something like $1.7 trillion a year in america. i can tell you, madam speaker, what it was like for me when i started a business up in 1975. i didn't have any money. i didn't have any capital but i thought i knew had to do something that had a marketable value. and i had enough confidence to step up and do that but my fear was not that i couldn't do the work or that i couldn't market and sell my skills or that i couldn't manage the books or fix the equipment or get it moved to the location or do the job, do all the things that were part of the function of the business that i started, my fear was that the government would come in and punish me in a way that i didn't expect. that the government would come in and maybe do an i.r.s. audit at a time that i -- we all

feared the i.r.s. then. i think we do now. it happened over and over again. it looked like the i.r.s. wanted to haunt me there for a while. to this day i don't think that i did anything other than comply with all of those laws. i was punished anyway. another fear i had was, what about government regulation? how could i possibly know which government regulator would come swooping in on me and shut my business down and punish me with penalties that i couldn't anticipate? and fortunately i was never really at that point where the regulators came in and shut me down in that fashion. but many businesses have been. the weight of this regulation. there is a tremendous amount of american capital that's consumed in trying to comply with regulators. i pose this question, madam speaker. does anyone know of a single business in america out of the millions of businesses that

there are and let's if anyone knows of a single business in america that has uttered a statement or put up on their website and printed a business card that would say words to the effect of, we are in compliance with all government regulations? can anybody think of a single business that has made such a statement or taken such a stand in i'd say not. -- stand. i'd say not. i think it's a good question to cause us to examine why it is that no business claims that they're complying with all government regulations. and the reason is it's impossible, madam speaker. years ago i had a task of doing seminars in five different states at state conventions and part of the -- one of the things i began to do was ask my colleagues who were in similar business -- and these are self-employed people. most of them started the

business themselves. sometimes they were second and third generation business as king construction is a second generation business but i would ask the question, how many agencies regulate our trade? earth-moving business? how many agencies regulate our trade? and so they would say, well, the e.p.a. does and the d.n.r. does and the i.r.s. does and the d.o.t. does and the tax man does. as we began writing it down -- it was a chalkboard in those days. we came to this conclusion that we were directly regulated by 43 agencies. i began to ask the question, closed room, no press, are you in compliance with these e.p.a. regulations? and then we had a long discussion of how hard it was. they were never comfortable. even back then in the 1980's that they were in compliance with the e.p.a. regulations because they could always be

read in a different way of the next generation of environmental extremists. where would you go -- what if you were a genetically born to be an environmental extremist, where would you look for a job? the e.p.a. and wouldn't you think you had a cause that was as worthy as the cause of your father or your mother who advanced the clean water act and the endangered species act and a number of legislation that passed through here in the 1970's and had some justification then and did clean up our water and sewers and landfills and continue to do so today? they were on a cause. they were on a crusade of environmental cloneup back in the 1970's and now their children have jobs working for the e.p.a. and they have a belief and a conviction and a crusade that's as powerful to them as it was to their parents or their successors, the

earlier generation. but, you know, we've cleaned up the environmental a lot since the 1970's. most people now enjoy clean water and good sanitary sewer systems and pretty good system of handing -- handling the waste that comes out of society. but the people that are involved as regulators don't see it that way because they have a cause and now they think they need to tredge forward on a cause. they will never be satisfied because that's what they do. so the regulations are never going to be all complied with. they keep changing the rules as you go forward. now they want to regulate anyone that has 1,000 gallon fuel tank, has to have a storage levee or dike built around or some type of construktal thing. we know they can be cleaned up. that's just the e.p.a.

we can go down the line. is everybody in compliance of every i.r.s. opinion? the old story goes this way, if you want an argument just ask two lawyers their opinion. well, if you want an argument just ask two representatives of the i.r.s. their opinion. and you'll get two different opinions almost as a rule. anything halfway is contentious, you get two different opinions which means no one is confident they are in compliance with i.r.s. rules because the rules aren't clear enough. even the people that enforce them can't agree what they are. and we can go down the line. in our state the department of natural resources, they do enforce e.p.a. rules. there's conflicting opinions there, and the conflicting opinions go on and on and on. madam speaker, it's not just 43 agencies. it's not just 43. that's the 43 that we identified regulate my trade back in the 1980's. now there's a website called

constitutiondaily, that counted them and counted 62 different agencies. now i admit there are departments and divisions of agencies but 682 entities that regulate in america. 682. no one person could memorize them all. it's impossible to know all the regulations that they have written. we have obamacare now coming at us grinding up and consuming american liberty and what do we get out of that? 2,600 pages of legislation that the regulations at this point have reached over 8,700 pages of regulation just on obamacare and we saw here the other day that the c.e.o. of home depot has said that he believes that obamacare itself will generate over 150,000 pages of

regulation. now, it makes it real clear that even if you're a huge, huge corporation you cannot analyze all of this and be sure that you're in compliance of regulation. and so what do businesses do? well, one is they don't start up out of fear of all this. who in their right mind would start up a business that would employ 51 people for starters? they would be under the requirement to establish the health insurance plan that the government would approve for every one of their employees. so instead they sit on their capital and they don't invest. and part of it is the tax burden and another thing we know is that if this congress doesn't act between now and the end of 2012 we're going to see a huge tax increase. that was part of the negotiations last fall that bridged us over until we get past another presidential election. so we got a huge tax increase

ahead of us when the bush brackets expire and it triggers back in all those brackets, all of that going on while there's $23.6 billion that's automatically appropriated. that's $23.6 billion of the $105.5 billion that are automatically appropriated, and i say deceptively appropriated, in obamacare itself. and so we have obamacare regulations going in place. the roots of obamacare going down. the american people are starting to think that we don't have the determination here in this house to repeal obamacare. i come here, madam speaker, to remind you and anybody that might be listening in to this deliberation here on the floor of the house that this house has passed the repeal of obamacare. every republican voted to repeal obamacare. we sent it over to the senate. the senate also held a vote and every republican in the senate voted to repeal obamacare.

however, they didn't -- didn't pass the repeal in the senate, and so the repeal failed. well, that has something to do with the president who has a lot of belief in his signature piece of legislation. his future and his destiny is wrapped up in obamacare. however, we know that the american people have said they want all of obamacare ripped out by the roots. they want it gone, lock, stock and barrel. not one shred, not one d.n.a. particle of obamacare left behind. the american people understand that obamacare is a malignant tumor that is metastasizing and consuming the liberty of the american people and it must be repealed. this house is resolute in their repealing of obamacare, and we've also passed out of this house with a significant majority the legislation that cuts off all funding that would be used to implement or enforce obamacare. we did that as a part of the

c.r. that came out of here that finally the president signed. they stripped the funding out of that and voted it out in the senate at the direction of harry reid. and so, madam speaker, this house is resolute. the american people are resolute, and i will make this prediction that i think needs to be understood and that is this -- if president obama is re-elected in 2012, that will guarantee that all of obamacare will be implemented and enforced. that operation of his implementation will be completed by 2014. that's kind of the schedule that it's on now. if the president is re-elected, we get obamacare, the law of the land, in perpetuity. . if he is not and we elect another president, a different president that will be on the foundation we will repeal obamacare under the signature

of the president of the united states. i see that the speaker of the house has arrived on the floor, i would be happy to yield to whatever cause that might be. the speaker: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the american people are struggling to pay their bills. and they look to washington and they see politicians who can't stop spending money. their money. listen, we're broke. we need to stop the out of control spending spree that's going on in washington, d.c. the house has acted. we passed a bill that raised the debt limit, cut spending, puts real reforms in place and requires the congress to send to the states a balanced budget amendment. it's called cut, cap, and balance. we've done our job.

the democrats around washington have done nothing. they can't stop spending the american people's money. they won't and they have refused. the senate majority leader says they won't offer a plan 20 cut spending or a plan to raise the debt limit. frankly, that's irresponsible. mr. speaker, where's their plan? president obama talks about being the adult in the room. where is his plan to cut spending and raise the debt limit? we're in the fourth quarter here. we're fighting for jobs. we're fighting for the country's future and we're fighting for the american people. i yield back. mr. king: reclaiming the time, may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has approximately 12 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr.

speaker. i'm very happy the speaker arrived on the floor to make that point. the point here is that we passed cut, cap and balance and we've done our job, now the challenge is for the united states senate and the president of the united states to do their job. i would prefer they just accept the model that's been messaged down that hallway over to the senate and i'd prefer to the president would endorse that and step up in the next few minutes and say, let's get this done. this can be done in a very short period of time. all we have to do is agree. and instead, the president and the democrats in the majority in the senate seem to want to insist upon tax increases that have to be part of any package that might come through. this goose that lays the golden egg is the free enterprise, private sector goose. this goose has to live off some profits. they have to have profit in

order for their to be jobs. i would add to the speaker's statement the question, it's been about jobs. we've done our job. this is about jobs. but i think that we fail to remind the american people that jobs have to -- the wages are what pay for jobs. nobody is going to say, i've got a job but it doesn't pay. the money has to come from somewhere. where does it come from? it seems to be stated and restated that the money for wages that pay for jobs has to come out of profit. nobody can operate at a loss system of companies have to make some money. if they don't have the opportunity to do so because of the burden of taxes, or because of the burden of regulation, or the burden of the indecision and not knowing what the government is going to do next which keeps a lot of capital on the sidelines, they're not going to expand, they're not going to do new hires, in fact, they're not going to provide wages and benefit packages of

increases unless they have profit. so i'm one of those people who think, i want businesses to make money. i want them to make money and i want them to expand the jobs and i want them to invest that money with confidence they can make more. if it goes to their head too far and they become too vertically integrated ar too monopolistic, then it's up to the market to have someone say, i can compete against that, and provide a good or better value and make money doing that, and that profit turn into jobs. i am one who has met payroll for over 1,400 -- for over 1,440 consecutive weeks. i made it every week on time. there were times we didn't do well in my household because i paid me last. i paid the employees first, the interest at the bank second

because i had to have the capital to operate. you set those priorities but jobs come from profit. let's have a scenario that allows businesses to invest and have confidence in the future and cut, cap, and balance does lay out the right scenario. i know that speaker boehner has been concerned about hitting this august 2 deadline that i think is not as hard a deadline as tim geithner believes it is. i think the secretary of the treasury is putting statements out there for the president, i think the president is willfully scaring seniors. i think he's doing so when he says he can't guarantee that military pensions or social security would be paid on time. mr. speaker, yes they can. the only person who can guarantee they'll be paid on time is the president of the united states. you couldn't be any more wrong than when he says he can't

guarantee it. yes, he can. doesn't he know this truth, can he not understand his job? he seems to assert his power where it doesn't exist? doesn't he know he can exert his power where it does exist. i'll tell this anecdote that was part of a political commercial, but back in 1996, when bill clinton was up for re-election, there was a commercial that was run, it was the face and voice of charlton heston. he looked into the camera and he's speaking, presumably to president clinton, when he said, mr. president, when you say something that's wrong, and you don't know that it's wrong, that's a mistake. but when you say something that's wrong and you know that it's wrong, that's a lie. that was what charlton heston said back in 1996.

i reflect upon those words today and i make this point that i know the truth. the american people need to know the truth. and that truth is, the president of the united states can set the priorities on how to spend the $200 billion a month on average that come in in revenue stream. all he has to do is step outside the oval office, step up to the microphones in the east room or outside in this nice, beautiful, warm summertime we have in washington, d.c. and say, i'm going to set those pyrities. if we can't make a deal with speaker boehner who was just here on the floor and harry reid and mitch mcconnell and all the people who have to vote in the senate and the people who have to vote in the house, here's what i'd do, i'm going to make sure our troops get paid, first. on time, every time. he could say that. and he could say, right behind that, right behind that $11

million a month comes $20 billion a month out of the funding we'll have whether we borrow or not, i'm going to guarantee we service our debt, $20 billion. and then i want to make sure to take care of the national security issues. those things will change but i'll work those priorities. right behind that, we'll pay social security and right behind that we'll pay medicare. the president stood up and said that, we would have confidence that he isn't going to be in the business of scaring seniors or putting doubt into the minds of our military while they're dodging bullets in places like afghanistan. we'd have confidence. but instead he says he can't guarantee. mr. speaker, we know he can. we know he can guarantee. we should push that on him out of this house to let him know where we stand, so the american people understand there is a moral standard here. one is, tell the truth. the second moral standard is,

pay our military, the other moral standard is guarantee the full faith and credit of the united states government. i laid out the rest of these priorities, mr. speaker and cut, cap, and balance is an important position to stand on. the leverage that's here now must be used or we shirk our responsibility. had the leverage been stronger back in 1995, that extra vote in the senate that i spoke about some minutes ago would have been there, i believe and i believe the balanced budget amendment would have been sent to the states and i believe the states would have ratified it and if that had been part of the constitution the kay i came -- the day i came here in january of 2003 i wouldn't have had to walk around on the floor and find the chairman of the budget committee and said, where's the balanced budget and i wouldn't have gotten the answer that i did get that day, we can't balance the budget, it's too hard. if it was too hard in january

of 2003, how hard is it now? it's a lot harder. yes, we can balance the budget. the states do that the question becomes, we send a balanced budget amendment to the states, do they ratify it? a lot of them would, right away. some of them would hold a special session to ratify a balanced budget to send that message as quickly as possible. then you get to some states that decided they want to do irresponsible spending, california and illinois come to mind. a lot of states went to austerity, they said, we're going to borrow money and ask the federal government to bail us out. those states, if they're needed for ratification, they'll have to be a changing of the political guard within their state legislatures. that means, constitutional conservatives will step up, step out of their home, advance themselves as candidates to run for state legislatures on the agenda of, i will go there and push the balance to ratify a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. those candidates that stand on

that position will be elected in significant numbers in the states where they're needed and over a period of time, we have a chance that the state legislatures would ratify, 3/4 of them, ratify a balanced budget amendment. if that happens, it would be a wonderful gift for our posterity. it would be one of the best things we could do in a generation, mr. speaker, and i urge that the american people weigh in on this and demand that the senate and the president embrace cut, cap, and balance. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. a lot of things going on right now. one of them should be the business of the country. this body, this week, passed what many have said was truly historical. a truly historic bill passed

the house of representatives. it was not exactly what i wanted. i thought there was too much in it in the way of debt ceiling increase. i thought there was not enough in the way of budget cuts. but what we found in the cut, cap, and balance bill was that it included a provision that before the debt ceiling would ever be increased again, we would have to have the constitutional amendment pass the house of representatives with 2/3 and pass the senate with 2/3 which would not send it to the president for him to veto as apparently he wants to do, but it would send it to the states, directly. there's no provision for the president to sign a constitutional amendment at the -- after it passes the house and senate with 2/3 of the vote. it goes to the states.

if 3/4 ratify it, it's part of the constitution. but in order to get the debt ceiling raised, we would have to have a balanced budget amendment to the constitution pass the 2/3 -- with 2/3 in the house and senate. that seemed like an appropriate thing to do. because as many of us have said, the only way we're voting for a debt ceiling increase is if there is a real game changer as part of that that we can't get any other way that will set this country on the course to being fully fiscally responsible. . one of the reasons so many of us on both sides of the aisle ran for congress was to come try to make sure that the liberties and the opportunities

that we've had growing up will be available to future generations. the only reason that i was born in the greatest country in the history of mankind was because prior generations did smart things, did things that the bible would say are blessed things. they did things to cause future generations to be blessed. it wasn't because i deserved it. i'd done nothing in my mother's womb to deserve to have the liberties and opportunities i had, but it was because prior generations sacrificed. so many laid down their lives so that we would have these opportunities.

so we have an open process. it's supposed to be. we got people in the gallery, mr. speaker. we got people that are free to come to the u.s. capitol because we are in the people's house right now. and there are people across capitol hill, members that have their televisions on. people don't come to the floor like they once did to listen to speeches here because they can sit in the comfort of their own office and do other work and have c-span on and listen. that's been going on for 30 years and it's been a helpful thing. you can see what's going on the floor, not just around capitol hill, but all over the country. and most of us came here to try to make sure that those same opportunities are afforded to others. there's a lot of different motivations. a lot of noble motivations for running for congress, but i think most of us came here for that purpose. we disagree on the way to do

it, but it is shocking that there could be so much disagreement over the absolute historic unwavering principle that any nation that continually spends more than it brings in to its government will cease to exist as a government. there's no historic element contrary to that. you can't find it. if a country, if a government keeps spending more than it brings in it's going to cease to exist. the only question remains, when does that happen? now, there are movements around the world to try to end the dollar being the world reserve

currency. when that happens the dollar is going to fall farther than it ever has and may not recover. that's why i think some countries want to see that happen. probably why george soros wants to see that happen. but we're also told that our rating of our indebtedness, our bonds may be downgraded if we don't get our indebtedness under control, and it only makes sense that that would happen if we don't get our spending under control. it should be a no-brainer. but apparently that's malady that exists here in washington. there are apparently some folks, and under the rules of the house of representatives, i certainly can't say there's anybody in the house or senate that has no brain. we know biologically you have

to have a brain, but it is possible that you can have a brain and not use it fully. i don't know how you explain the vote that took place right through that door and down that hall in the senate today. i don't know how to explain that. it's not that the senate today had too much work to get done, too many bills to tarik up that they just -- to many bills to take up that they just didn't take the time to help the country from ceasing to exist because they can't stop spending. why is that? there's too many bills to take up. they have no bill to deal with the financial issues of this country. there is no bill down there that is going to be brought to the floor that will save this country from its own government's stupidity.

not according to the house rules that there's anybody stupid here in the house or senate, but as a group sometimes we do very stupid things and i would submit that what is happening today, what has happened today from an historic standpoint is a statement that although nobody, according to the house rules, in a body is stupid, a body can do a stupid thing. so even though there are no other bills being brought to the senate floor to take up and vote on today, even though there are bills that have been filed to take care of this very issue, there's a cut, cap and balance bill in the senate that's been filed to address this issue. many have signed on to bills that will address these issues. they're down there, but they are not bringing them to the

floor, so not an overwhelming amount of work to be done on the senate floor today. so they bring up the cut, cap and balance bill. not for debate. why would anybody be afraid of debating a bill that so many believe could help us save the country for future generations? why would you be afraid to bring that up? well, if you don't want to talk about it, if you don't want to have a debate on the house or the senate floor on some bill that so many believe will help us save the country from future generations, you make a procedural move called a motion to table and that is what happened in the senate today. what courage that took. it must have taken a lot of

courage. and i'm not kidding about that. when you know that there are so many people in the senate body who want to talk about a game-changer, who want to talk about what they believe with all their heart could set us on a course to fiscal responsibility, that could save the country for future generations, you know people want to talk about it, it takes a lot of courage to stand up and say, i move to table that bill. now, i don't know what the motivation is that would cause someone to stand up and say, i move to table, i second that. i don't know. i don't know why you would move to table. i don't know the motivation, but i know it takes courage when right at half of the 100 people in the senate want to

take this bill up and talk about it and debate it and maybe amend it -- because i would love to amend it. i'd love to knock down the $2.4 trillion in debt ceiling increase. i'd love to raise the amount of cuts. a number of things i'd like to tighten up in that bill. but it's the best bill we had available. but what a great idea. bring it to the floor. let's talk about it. let's amend it. let's get it done. and the thing is when you're in the majority of the house or the senate and you don't like a bill and you bring it to the floor on an open rule, you can amend it on the floor. you can have the debate on whether or not it ought to be amended. we just went through that and we voted for and against a lot of amendments this week that many of which i didn't think necessarily we needed to vote on but that's part of the

process. why would anyone in the senate be afraid of having that process on the cut, cap and balance bill? i don't get it. i know it took courage to move to table when you know that america, all the polls show america is concerned about its future. poll after poll shows that american adults around the 70 percentage area believe that the next generation will not have the opportunities that our generation had. you know those feelings are out there in america and you know that there's a group that wants to change the way we do business in washington so we have to live within the amount of money that comes in and not spend more than that. you know that feeling's out. you know this is a bill that could change the way we do business.

why wouldn't you want to even allow it to the senate floor to talk about it? it took courage to move to table. and here are the courageous senators that voted to table which means to prevent debate on the cut, cap and balance bill in the senate -- it truly took courage in the case of 60, 70 -- 60%, 70% of americans want us to get our financial house in order and there is a bill that we mandate that we do it. it takes courage to prevent that bill from coming to the floor, not for a vote on the bill, but just to debate the bill, to talk about it. in front of god and everybody on the senate floor. it took courage. i don't know the motivation for

all these people voting to prevent debate and prevent the bill from coming to the floor. i just know that these people had courage to prevent what the majority of the american people needs to be discussed and debated and voted on and these are the senators with that courage to prevent what the majority american people wanted done. from hawaii, senator akaka. from montana, senator baucus. from alaska, begich. from colorado, senator bennett. from new mexico, senator bingaman. from connecticut, blumenthal. california, senator boxer. from ohio, senator brown. washington state, senator

cantwell. senator cardin. from delaware, senator carper. from pennsylvania, senator casey. from north dakota, senator conrad. from duane, senator coons. senator durbin. senator feinstein. from minnesota, senator franken. these are the people who said we will not allow the debate on the floor of the senate that might lead to a balanced budget amendment being passed, we're not going to allow that to come to the senate floor. let me go through the remainder of the senators. senator haggan from north carolina. senator harkin from the state of iowa. senator inway from hawaii. senator johnson from south dakota.

senator klobucar from minnesota. senator landrieu from louisiana. senator lautenberg from new jersey. senator leahy from vermont. senator levin from michigan. senator lieberman from connecticut. senator manchin from west virginia. senator mccaskill from missouri. senator menendez from new jersey. senator merkley from oregon. senator mikulski from maryland. senator murray from washington. they had the courage to not have this debated on the senate floor. they had the courage to say, we are not going to allow debate. we're not going to allow the chance that you might get this bill passed that could save america from future generations, further courageous senators, senator nelson from

florida. senator nelson from nebraska. senator pryor from arkansas. senator reed from rhode island. senator reid from nevada. senator rockefeller from west virginia. senator schumer from new york. senator shaheen from new hampshire. senator stabenow from michigan. senator udall from colorado. senator udall from new mexico. senator warner from virginia. senator webb from virginia. senator whitehouse from rhode island. senator wyden from oregon. it took a stand to vote in the senate that we will not allow debate on this floor over a balanced budget amendment. we're not going to allow it. despite the vast majority of americans knowing that we have to get our fiscal house in

order, knowing that a balanced budget amendment would force this body and the senate body to do just that, knowing that that would prevent the white house from ever demanding that we spend $3.8 trillion when we're only bringing $2.1 trillion or $2.2 trillion, knowing it would force congress and the government to live within their means, they had the courage to stand up and say we're not going to allow that debate, we're not going to allow the risk that you might pass a bill that forces us to be fiscally responsible. it took a courageous stand, and they stood and took that stand. . now, to have the president of the united states stand before the american public and say, i can't guarantee that seniors will get their social security

checks just requires a little bit of research to find out that apparently the president, just like all of us in congress, we rely on our staffs, we rely on those around us to get us information so we can speak truthfully from the information we glean for ourselves, our staff helps us gather, and that tells you, though, that whoever is helping the president is not giving him truthful, accurate information. because the fact is, the president is the only person in this country who can guarantee that social security checks will go out just as the law requires. i can guarantee that the money is there, and that they'll be good even if this congress does nothing for three years, even

if everything else falls apart, we can guarantee that the social security trust fund has right now $2.6 trillion in treasury notice in the social security trust fund that can be converted to cash, that can only, by law, only be used for social security benefits and expenses. so, the only reason that i or anyone else here in the house could not absolutely 100% guarantee that seniors will get their social security checks is because there's one element that could prevent that on the second or third of august and that's if the president or timothy geithner ordered that the checks would not go out. knowing, well i don't know if the president knows, he may not have been given accurate information, but i know timothy geithner knows there's $2.6

trillion in the social security trust fund. that in 1985, there was a shortfall, there was not enough cash to pay social security payments and so they sold some of the treasury notice to get cash to make sure all the social security checks were paid. 1985. some were apparently concerned that that might not have been legal so in 1996, a republican majority in congress passed a law that basically says, hey, there's a shortfall then since there are trillions of dollars in treasury notes in the social security trust fund, then the administration can sell those treasury notice just enough to make up the shortfall and assure that social security checks will go out. they made that a matter of law

so that the administration may do that. what i've been proposing that we should make as part of the prioritization bill to bring before the house and pass it, bring before the senate and the same courageous people handled that too, but it would say, not that social security is a group of bills with others that must be paid, because by law, social security is separate. by law, it is paid with social security payroll taxes and by law, if there's not enough cash to do that some month, you may take the treasury notice, sell just enough to make up that shortfall and since the united states bonds and treasury notice are still about the most desirable financial bond note to be purchased in the world,

especially when you look at the alternatives, greece, portugal, spain, france, not a lot of good choices, so they're buying our notes. and they would -- that would continue. at least until we quit paying our bills, probably. but i think the law ought to be changed to say not may, but must. so that in the future, no president would ever have to go before the -- could not ever go before the american public and say, i can't guarantee some of your checks won't go out. because he is the one person in america that can -- is the obviously person in america, he and his secretary of the treasury, that can stop them from going out and if we make that may a must or shall, then

he has no option. then, we can guarantee that social security will not be interrupted. because then we would know that the president has no option. he cannot interrupt the money that's there from going to social security recipients. it has to go or he violates the law. that can be grounds if he stepped in, heck if he stepped in even now and said, look the money is there in the trust fund, i want to make a political issue out of this, i need a crisis in order to do that, so i'm going to step in and prevent the social security checks from going out this month, there would have to be action taken against the president. that is just irresponsible. i think it's totally inappropriate for a president to scare our seniors. i also think it's inappropriate

if scare our military, that's why i've been pushing for months a bill to ensure that people in harm's way never have to have it cross their mind that their check may not go home to their families. they should never have to have that cross their mind. never be a thought. and i thought about that, a month or so ago, as i accompanied the body of one of our heroes from new york to gladewater, texas. the family, the military member should never have to worry that their check won't be there. if there's a shut down, the government is not -- decides, well, we've got money here but we're not going to pay our bills, well we ought to make sure that a number of things get done. we keep being told that gee,

what if we default? there is absolutely, unequivocally, no reason we would default on our debt unless for some strange reason, the president and the treasury secretary, either or, decide that they want to create and instigate such a financial crisis that they get whatever they want, that's the only reason there'd be a default as steve moore from "the wall street journal" said yesterday, there's nothing that magic about august 2. there is no way that the president or time geithner would be insane enough not to pay what we owe as it comes due. i mean, it's one thing for secretary geithner not to pay his taxes for four years in a row. it's quite another to put a nation at risk by refusing to send out the payments for the

debts as they come due for the u.s. and it should also be noted that there were hundreds of billions of dollars that the united states owes to the united states. so the united states doesn't pay itself, what are we going to do? send out a notice that we're -- the united states didn't pay the united states so we're deadbeats now? come on. there is so much political gamesmanship going on and we were sent here to deal with the critical issues of this country and being financially responsible is one of those things. now, i doubt that very many people actually look at the back of their dollar bills and i know they're having more and more trouble getting those dollar bills, but if you look at the back of the dollar bill, on either side, you see the two sides of the united states

great seal. that was adopted initially in the first version around the time of the revolution. and the eagle has changed a little bit over the centuries, mainly, basically changed and basically this by 1790. some people think that e pluribus unum, latin meaning out of many one, it's on the light fictsture here, come from all over the world, we come from many and become one. it's not the national motto, it's part of the greet seal, has been since the revolution. it's on the ribbon that runs through the eagle's mouth. you've got 13 stars that cause us to remember the 13 original states. you've got a pyramid,

symbolizing this masterful, huge work and above the pyramid is an eye in a triangle with a glow around it. the eye was put in the great seal back in the 1700's to symbolize the eye of god. the all-seeing eye of god. that's why there's the halo, the glow around it. and above those words in latin are the words annuit coletis. also above one of the doors in the senate. so every senator can look up and if they know what the latin means, they should be deeply touched and reminded how important our job is because annuit coeptis on the back of the dollar bill, everywhere in america, mean this is, he, god, has smiled on our undertaking.

the reason that the senate desired to have that above one of the doors is so senators would be reminded that at this country's inception, he, god, smiled on our undertaking. and i can't help but wonder today, as the all-seeing eye of god symbolized here looks at what is going on, with our financial irresponsibility and our refusal to even debate becoming financially responsible in the senate, if he, god, continues to smile on our undertaking. some bank, for a joke one time, it sed, in god we trust, all

others, we take cash. but in god we trust is our national motto. as i mention tods prime minister netanyahu, as he came down the aisle, before he took the podium to speak here, i said, keep in mind, the entire time you're addressing us, our national motto is above your head. he said, i've already thought about that. well, everybody in this body ought to think about it. our trust is in god. but does he have any trust in us? after what has been done, spending so much more than the amount we've been entrusted with as stewards. we've got to do better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. gohmert: to close, i want to finish with a short prayer that was prayed by the