>> thank you. >> thank you. the country is watching what we are doing. with great anticipation, i believe they are attempting to work through what i believe is a very important agreement as a result of the president of the united states not being able to sustain his ideas that he has given to the point of legislation. it is important that we remember that the american people are

watching what we're doing. it is important that the american people know that this legislation is in france. everybody in america that chooses can go and take a look at the words pincushio. i believe that this is real leadership. it is leadership by the senate majority leader and by speaker john boehner year. it is my hope that you will get an opportunity.

we're serious about doing our job. i yelled back. -- i yield back. >> given the fact that what one has proposed, it is very different. i think the question answers itself. >> let me say what i said in my

opening statements. this was an agreement that the speaker of the house in the senate majority leader came to last weekend. no one ever said it as an agreement now. no one has said that this is an agreement today. i fink my friend for yielding.

i think the american people are watching. they have pretty much gone off. people are terrified. cannot understand why we would try to write love the markets by doing this. how could we possibly get anything in order. look how hard it is. you got to mention something about what happens to the military, would you elaborate?

this is a founding documents. we apparently do not know exactly what is going to be on it. we do know what on the web site is proposed. on that provision, is a provision that would allow a majority vote to use force to send american men and women into battle. if you want to pay for those, pay to support the troops, you can only do it if the underlying vote was 3/5. that is staggering. as you know, a majority vote i can send american

soldieres into battle. it it was a 3/4 boats on the pershing gulf war. it was the korean war with no resolution. there are a number of conflicts where we have had military men and women in harm's way but not readily passed by a majority. this amendment would say unless nothad a 3/5 vote, we are bi going to pay for them. send them off to war under authorized procedures. unless there is a 3/5 vote, forget it. you cannot go into debt if it means paying for those troops. you cannot borrow a penny unless

it means -- let's be clear. world war ii we borroed wed a lot of money to make sure we fought and won that war. a provision would prohibit you from doing that even though there was a legally authorized vote by the congress to send his men and women into battle. >> we have been told even though the amendment is on the web site, it will be changed. as i understand it, there would be no vote at all. are you aware of this? >> no, as part of his proposal coming he says it would take place sometime i think after october 1.

it would take place in that timeframe. >> of course, we pass this legislation last week that said unless we pass a cast to issue a minimum by august if in a constitutional amendment by august 5, we will not play -- of course, if we pass legislation last week that said if we do not do by august fix we will not play. >> thank you. i agree with what he said earlier about the american people are watching very closely what is happening here. i say to my constituents that the best thing that has happened about the problems and challenges that we're facing

right now is that the american people are paying close attention. for the first time, they are engaged in looking at what it means to raise the debt ceiling. how much in debt darby in this country? what is our deficit? unfortunately, they are not always getting the full picture from the media or from our colleagues in terms of the situation that we are facing. it is a dire situation. this will be the most important vote i will pay since i came to the congress. i think most of my colleagues feel very strongly about it. that is the case. i think it is very important that we continue to emphasize that this is not about next year's lecture. this is truly about the future

of the country. do we care about this country that's do want to see continue -- country? and doing what it to continue being the greatest country in the world in? do you want to see it taken down by the people who have put this in this position? to understand. there are several principles involved here. the challenges and the way we answer those challenges will not have to do -- there will be a choice. do you want to do this based on our own personal desires and our

own personal goals and egos t? are we looking for the good of the country? i am going to be looking for the good of the country in the future of this country. i hope that most of my colleagues are going to do that too. thank you. >> i hope people are watching. i prayed there watching this process. it is an outrage. you're talking but amending the constitution of the united states. what was printed on the web page may or may not be what we're voting on. we are amending the constitution of the united states of america. it gets even more confusion. in the text of the john boehner resolution, they will vote after

september 30, 2011. the house and senate will vote. we will have it this week. we had one already. we will do another balanced budget amendment between its of timber in december. what -- between september and december. what is sloppy process. we need to proceed with great caution. this is storing all kinds of paper at everybody. as you mentioned, the amendment that was originally reported is different than the one that is on the committee web page. it makes it more difficult in times of war if we exceed the cap to be able to fund our troops. somebody made a conscious decision to change the word majority 2 3/5.

no one is here to explain that. the chairman ought to be here. i want to know what it means. what it means to real people in this country. there are draconian cuts. we are bringing it back to 1966 levels. what does this mean? where will these cuts be made? there is just something wrong when a hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rates than his secretary. we're unable to fix this. people are willing to sacrifice in this country.

do you have in the estimates if we follow this path what it would mean in terms of job loss. some will lead to job loss.

at the same time, primarily, make sure we do nothing in the short term to jeopardize the fragile recovery. this thursday economy badly. i want to put together a long term plan to reduce the deficit. as indicated, one of the key

differences is that the president believes we should also be cutting some of these subsidies for big corporations for the purposes of deficit- reduction. it is very troubling to see a provision that would enshrine a preference for cutting education and medicare. >> it is unbelievable. they issued a statement saying that this plan is tantamount to a form of class warfare. he says it could well produce

the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law and history. >> there are people behind these cuts. the cuts seemed so disproportionately aimed at those in least afford it. what is the impact of the bay near plan? what does that mean? well at this mean? >> what is troubling about this plan is that it makes it appear like everything will be painless when in reality it will be incredibly painful.

you are going to force these kinds of changes. we know that these are the kind of changes that they are anticipating. we have a budget that passed the house. the cbo has looked at it. seniors would be forced out of the current medicare system. they'll be forced into the private insurance market. they get hit with a double brandy. costs are higher. they would have to eat the cost. the support they are getting from the remaining medicare program would be a lot less than they are getting right now. right now, and medicare

recipients in the year 2030 is anticipated to get between 70% and 75% of the program. their proposal would cut that. i would point out that members of congress have 75%. under their proposal, they would be giving future seniors on medicare a much worse deal. someone can explain to us how they anticipate these cuts being implemented. i want to take issue is something dr. foxx said. i want to submit to the record a

bloomberg story. the cost of the war in iraq and afghanistan. it this far outpaces anything. just the war costs in the tax cuts alone, what day account for are the debt. the way you get out of this debt is to pile all of this burden on middle income families and senior citizens. they're the most vulnerable. it is just plain wrong.

this is outrageous. ..will close with this bi the house of riverses appears to be here. president obama has put a lot on the table. he put some that makes me very uncomfortable. he has gone the extra mile by any objective analysis. we're close to this deadline. these are something that does not recommend a conference bridge a compromise. it was right off a cliff ticket we should not be doing this. we should be finding ways to come together. let's move on. i regret that we are here.

we do not even know what the you're going to bring to the floor. i've never experienced a thing like this before. i regret that we are here. i thank you very much for being here. i wish your counterpart were here. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. how many hearings has this bill received? >> to my knowledge, there have been done prior to this hearing. >> that being -- >> as in 0. >> no. of experts have testified? >> that is correct. >> have the budget committee of

ways and means committee marked it up at >> no. . i have listened to you. i think you have been an exceptionally reasonable voice. i might add in many respects working with your colleagues, i am always pleased when you and mr. ryan do come here to get there or when the two of you are in active discussions in the media or in your respective capacities as leaders in your caucus. tell me the implications if you will of the rise in the budget -- ryan budget and the measure we are addressing at this time. i first of all, imr. ryan and

share the goal of trying to do this in a steady way and get the job done. we have different ways doing this. we have a good working relationship. the connection between the provisions that are being put forth today in the budget that passed the house that was authored by mr. ryan is this. if you look at the proposed constitutional amendment, this is why it is disconcerting that less than 36 hours out we do not have the exact provisions they are proposing. if you except that the one they got on there website that passes the judiciary committee is the balanced budget amendment, it would actually be like the republican budget on steroids.

it would require that you adopt the budget before word by the republican study group. even that budget does not hit the targets in their proposed constitutional amendment. within the timeframe called for. is it as bad as terms as the hit on medicare in the deep cuts in the call for in education in critical investments tax what did we do to medicate and the individual ones that weight on it? the constitutional provisions would be even worse. i would just remind my colleagues as we talk about this that the house republican budget would require that you lift the debt ceiling by $8

trillion between now and 2021. this all recognize that is a difficult challenge. we should do it in a balanced way. at the same time, the reason we have to be the debt ceiling now is because of decisions that this congress made in the past. he identified the major policy drivers. i do sympathize with some of our newer members. they're not voted in 2001-2003. those are the major policy drivers of why we are in the particular predicament we are today.

going for it, we have all the challenges the ones. right now it is time for us to take responsibility for the collective decisions. >> that there really agree with you. he entered into the record. if one of the total cost of new policies during president bush present administration. it was $5.70 trillion. today the total cost of new policies under president obama's administration was $1.44 trillion. if you do not mind, i would like to depart from querying vieyou o a q uote from the president's remarks. i that he and speaker john boehner there were both very clear about their respective positions.

i will give to my republican colleagues a cartoon that. that said that the two-step program step one is my way and step two was the highway. more significantly, there is something in this legislation that needs to be paid attention to. that is the ducking of our responsibilities as members of congress, meaning the house in the united states senate. passing it off as if something is happening to some magical commission that is going to be constituted as a 12 person coming here is what bothers me about it is going to be constituted in a similar manner as the joint economic committee.

i have confidence that the joint economic committee has served an extremely important function for us. here is what the joint economic committee calls. it says distinctly that it will follow its formulation and the same manner as the joint economic committee. also, the bennett of -- benefit of my fiscal conservative friends. it cost $4.2 million in fiscal year 12 appropriations. a $4.80 million last year. it has a staff of 40. i did not get elected to come appear and have some commission was something that is a notional at best. come back to us before december 11 and say to us that i have got to vote up or down with no amendments and two hours of

debate. what you have 12 people have decided is what we should be cutting. i do not have any way of going about representing my constituents i am not in that 12. say what my overall feeling is regarding what we should cut. that is extremely dangerous in addition to the fact that what it is doing is passing off our responsibility as if we are doing something. and everybody else i hope the american people are looking and number one, we didn't get into this mess overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight. we didn't get into this in the last decade. i get so tired of hearing each of us point back to who caused whatever it is that we are in right now. we all know how we got here. we all know that over the 30 years that just passed, that we transitioned into a global

economy. we all know that technology is impacting the living daylights out of us by causing immensely wonderful efficiencies and at the same time causing people to make less money and to have less jobs. we know for whatever reason in globalization that many of our jobs were transferred and are being transferred offshore. we know we're not manufacturing anything of any consequence. and we all know that right now a new normal is upon us. and that things aren't going to get better. no time soon. they're very likely to remain the same. and here we are, all of us, going down there, getting ready to vote to create a commission. how many commissions have we created? we had simpson-bowles. all president obama had to do was come out and say let's just do all we can on the simpson and bowles and put it back out here.

those people, both of them erskine and senator simpson, spent along with the rest of their colleagues an immense amount of time talking about the real pain and the real way to address it. and yet we passed it and we're going to pass something on to another commission. i do think and hope that we will take that out. i perceive it just as dangerous as putting up a balanced budget amendment and telling me, mr. chairman, that we're going to have one day to look at something that we don't know what it is and we have been in this room many times. and you on that side and you were on the other side and we've talked about not having an opportunity to see everything. when we hit the wall, whatever that wall is, at some magical hour, a whole lot of stuff will come over here, however it is that the agreement is being struck.

and we won't know many of us that our rank and file members exactly what it is that -- it will be two weeks. before we know much of the substance of what's the measure that ultimately passes. let me make it very clear. somewhere along the line the plan that speaker boehner released that we are not being facetious. and by calling it the driver plan -- the drier plan and i believe we are proceeding under a provision that carries us into exceptionally treacherous water from oppressive standpoint by having a senate measure amended by a blank house and not having an amendment being offered by a member of the house of

representatives. what most of this seems to be about is president obama. and not so much about this nation. i heard the speaker two weeks ago say in one of his proposals after discussion with president obama that if we do as the speaker was proposing at that time, if we do that measure, obama will get his debt ceiling, and we will get our provision. well, you see, it's not obama's debt ceiling. it's america's debt ceiling and he happens to be the president of the united states. there were other presidents when we passed 73 times debt ceiling measures since 1940. during wars, after wars, during recessions, after recessions. during good times and bad, we've been here and i repeat, i have voted to raise the debt ceiling eight times. and never, never, have we had this kind of fixation with any

president in my judgment, it's pure unadulterated political posturing. i might also point out that the very first page of this two-step approach continues. each of which themselves require multiple steps to achieve. and between the cuts caps, -- cut, cap, balance, cutting medicare, not raising taxes, we are looking at this measure 50 different steps. maybe we should change the title to the two complicated approach to simply paying what we owe. and we can't count to more than two, maybe i shouldn't be trying to fix the budget. and raising the debt ceiling is not about new spending. it's about paying the expenses that we've already incurred. my republican colleagues may not like what we've spent money

on. unnecessary wars, tax cuts for wealthy people and unaffordable drug benefits are a few things that i can think of. but that doesn't mean we don't have to pay for them now. nothing short of unconscionable that we're going to crash this economy unless this congress forces those americans who can afford it the least. to sacrifice with the little they have. i have 32 voice messages. and -- in the congressional office that i'm privileged to represent this morning. and i have 66 in the office in fort lauderdale and 12 in the office in west palm beach. or del rey. and all of them, all of them, were asking what happens to medicare or to social security or to medicaid? now, they also want to know how they're supposed to pay for their drugs after their unemployment insurance runs out. and we all know there ain't no

significant new jobs in this country right now. but i didn't get one message this morning from a billionaire or millionaire wondering what will happen to millions of americans when we continue eliminating the program that provide affordable housing, affordable health care, accessible education, and unemployment insurance. and we talk around here about the american people. i'll tell you what they deserve. the american people, the credit markets, wall street, and the entire rest of the global economy, need us to get this done. not get half of it done today and as mr. van hollen said, come back here six months from now, with the exact same people, on both sides of the aisle, saying the exact same thing, creating yet another crisis, largely because of an election in 2012. whatever we do, we don't need 50 steps. we need just one step. like we've done 73 times as i mentioned since 1940.

and that's raise the debt ceiling and move this nation's business without complicating measures and creating all sorts of antipathy and disgust among ourselves and the american people. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i think i can cool down a little bit after that. i just mean to tell you, when mr. van hollen you said the very worst thing about this, the two-part program that we're going -- part of the debt ceiling six months down the road, that's the very best part of the program. that's the only part of this program that has any interest to me whatsoever. because you're right. i want here when we wrote all those unsigned checks in the past. and i have no interest in signing any blank checks right now. to have folks suggest that i agree with that, what mr. hastings said.

it is about president obama. he could absolutely have pushed simpson-bowles and didn't do a thing. it is about the process. we've had process on this has been junk. it's been absolute junk. we had good process was on h.r. 1. you want to fully debate a proposal, we had that on h.r. 1 and it went where? to the senate and the white house to die. you want good process, we had that. on the budget. that we worked on together in the budget committee. that we worked on together on the house floor. full, open debate and process and you know where that went? nowhere. in the senate and at the white house. there has been absolute good process when the time was right to do it right. and there has been no leadership from the other side of this capital and from the white house on any of those issues. not one proposal. folks had lots of things that they're against. but not one proposal that they are for. and that's why sitting out here a week from august 2, you're

right. all we're left with is bad process. because we've got seven days to avert calamity in this country. we could have averted it by fully funding the year in february. and we didn't. we could have averted it by agreeing on a framework for appropriations bills in april. but we didn't and now we're stuck with it. and pardon me, could not be prouder of what the speaker has done to tope up this house to -- to open up this house to good pcess. i don't think that everyone recognizes good process when they see it. and i don't blame folks because they haven't seen a lot of good process over the last -- not just four years but six years, eight years and 10 years. but we had it and it has gone absolutely nowhere. and here we are. we're facing two choices. we can either go ahead and make these decisions, all those programs mr. hastings talked about, we can make those decisions in the next 72 hours. or we can avert calamity on

august 2 and take the next six months to do this in a more open process. take the next six months to treat these serious issues which i would argue have already been treated seriously in february, have already been treated seriously in april, have already been treated seriously as we passed half the appropriations bills so far in this house this year. and it's passed no appropriations bills so far. but mr. van hollen, tell me this -- because i didn't hear anybody speak to it at all. >> there are very few people who have yet to record their votes on the house floor. and so we're going to have to recess at this moment so that members can go down and volt. and if you can come back, mr. van hollen. >> yes, mr. chairman. >> and we can report this rule out. and i think we should reconvene after the votes at this juncture, yeah. so the committee is in recess.

the rules committee will reconvene. we are here nor further consideration of h.r. 2007. when we recessed to go downstairs for the votes we were in the midst of questioning from mr. woodall. before i recognize mr. woodall again, a little bit of tension in the room before we began.

so in light of the fact that i was concerned that we might be going -- the first visit to the rules committee, our attending physician, admiral brian monahan, just in case things were to get out of han at all here. and did say -- >> it's ok, doctor, i can take two out of three. >> that's why he needs to be here because you're absolutely right. i agree with that. you can. and that's why i need the doctor behind me just in case you were to do that. i know that i'm probably playing into the hands of my friends in the minority by saying this. but the doctor did indicate that he heard rumor that there were deep cuts. and we recognize our friend from lawrenceville. >> i yield back, mr. chairman.

>> we haven't heard from mr. poulus yet. >> thank you. i have something to say on the topic. first, i want to establish the -- when we talk about getting rid of special interests tax breaks, the -- i want to to see if the budget ranking member agrees, with regard to the government engineering of policy, whether it's a special interest tax break or a subsidy on the expenditure side, obviously the two have some unique characteristics as they relate to nonprofits and nontax-paying entities. but aren't they fairly economically similar if you have a specific tax break for something or a specific subsidy for something? >> yes. which is why organizations like the bipartisan fiscal commission refer to them as tax expenditures. because it's a form of spending through the tax code. and so you should look at each of them on their own merits. >> and in terms of again, and many of my colleagues, both

sides of the aisle know i've been a businessman and am -- proud capitalist and support of our capital system. and i generally look with some degree of disdain at all of these market distortions. and sometimes befuddles me how my friends on the other side pay lip service to supporting close tore a free market are staunch defenders of tax expenditures. of the very identical economic form of appropriation expenditures that they decry. at the same time they call any effort to get rid of a tax expenditure somehow a tax increase. and yet somehow if we cut spending, and a subsidy, that's a saving. but getting rid of a tax subsidy is a tax increase. while the two are nearly identical, economically, again, sometimes there's different impacts on nontax-paying entities like nonprofits and

there's reasons that each method is used in particular cases. but they both are central planning and the heavier hand of the economy and there are some both sides of the aisle support whether they are a tax subsidy for a strategic national purpose like ending our reliance on oil through renewable energy or other strategic purpose. but again, there seems to be a very hypocritical way of looking at it from the other side. i for one am upset that it's come to where we are here today. i think that we had -- and have a great opportunity in this congress. instead, of being presented with a bill that i know to paraphrase some of the hyperbole in the last election where we're being told pass the bill so you can see what's in it. if that sounds familiar to any of my colleagues, that's essentially what we're being told in this case.

and we still don't know what's in it. it's my understanding it may be changing again and we don't know about a -- well, again, in some degrees, there's more temerity than my party in the majority even used with regard to a constitutional amendment. we did not involve for some sort of health care or obamacare, there was never any constitutional amendment. they were statutory changes. pass the bill so you can see what's in it. i understand that's what we're being told. and what is the opportunity here? again, i think what makes sense here, and what's, proposed, and mischaracterized unfortunately, when we're talking about tax reform, the president, the gang of six, the simpson-bowles commission, none of them have advocated raiserring the rates. in fact, all three have advocated lowering the rates. what are the rates? the corporate tax rate, the individual marginal rate.

increasing the income derived from those rates by broadening the base, by getting rid of the special interest loopholes. and the special tax subsidies in the code. and using some of that revenue to bring down the rate. and some of that revenue, and this is the key point that seems to be keeping the parties apart, some of that revenue for reducing the deficit. no one's talking about using some of that revenue to fund new government programs. in fact, there's cuts on the expenditure side. that's a given. any deal. any deal. obama, gang of six, boehner, reid. simpson. they all have expenditure cuts. no one is saying there's not going to be expenditure cuts. they're there. the question is how can we reform our tax code to get rid of tax expenditures? to help reduce our deficit. i guess i -- would ask -- again, unfortunately, there's not even a representative here

from the majority party in the budget committee. but mr. van hollen, how -- why in your discussion, the deliberations on the budget committee, why are tax expenditures even being considered in a different way than the appropriations expenditures? >> well, that's a very good question, mr. polis. and it's the point that we've been making. we've asked to have a hearing on exactly that subject. and i believe we are going to have a hearing sometime in september. we would have preferred to have it during this very important period when we're debating the best approach to the budget. but it does create as you say this sort of curious inconsistency because i think we all would agree that if we identify a spending program, that is outlived its usefulness or doesn't accomplish its intended purpose, we should eliminate it and we can use those funds to reduce the deficit. why that same principle doesn't apply as you say to tax expenditures is beyond me.

if the goal is deficit reduction, then it's equally -- you can equally, you know, reduce the deficit by $1 by cutting an unnecessary program. or $1 by eliminating an unnecessary subsidy. which is why it's so strange that in the proposal that would go to the floor, they would propose a constitutional amendment that says you need a 2/3 vote to get rid of a tax expenditure, a loophole in the tax code for the purposes of reducing the deficit. >> in this case, again, we're being told pass the bill so you know what's in it. we don't know what's in this constitutional amendment. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i yield to my friend from georgia. >> i'm a member of the budget committee and if there's anything i can answer i would love to be that. and if the gentleman -- >> i'll yield to you in a moment. thanks for offering because i do want to pose a question to

you. what is the economic difference between a tax expenditure, namely, a particular tax subsidy for a particular form of behavior of a business, and an appropriations subsidy? >> i would say to the gentleman there's only one of us on this committee who's introduced a bill to abolish every tax expenditure in the code and that person is me. and i have 62 of my republican colleagues who have joined me to do exactly that. so it's a little disingenuous to suggest that folks believe tax expenditures are some sacred cow. i'm happy to do away with all of them because i share your disdain for economic distortions across the board. >> again. i agree wholeheartedly with your dedication. unfortunately, too many on your side of the aisle have made them a sacred cow and somehow by getting rid of tax subsidies that's a tax increase. i'm glad that you pointed out the distinction there. and again, your particular proposal has its merits. you and i have talked about it. i worry about the underground economy component of that. but an ongoing discussion i'm

happy to talk about with you. because we do fundamentally agree the tax expenditures are expenditures. in the same way that appropriations expenditures are. if you're telling a company you do this special little thing that some government official wants you to do, get a tax break, get a subsidy, it's the same dollars in the bank. and again, i appreciate your answer to that. although again, others on your side have somehow tried to draw a distinction between tax expenditures and appropriations expenditures. which is -- the topic of the debate here. and there's an opportunity, a great opportunity our country has here to do something together. something that would substantially impact the deficit. mr. van hollen mentioned using the revenues from reducing tax expenditures to reduce the deficit. and i would like to follow that up. mr. van hollen, yourself and the president as well as the democratic leadership acknowledged that some of those savings from reducing tax expenditures could actually be used to lower taxes. and some of them would be used to lower the deficit. haven't we also offered up that

some of them might very well -- can be used to reduce taxes? >> yes, mr. polis. i think there's widespread agreement that our corporate tax code is badly in need of fixing. if you look at the overall corporate tax rate, it is higher than most of our competitors. but if you look at the effective u.s. tax rate, because of all the loopholes, we're actually lower than a lot of our competitors. and so all those tax breaks, tax expenditures, create strange economic incentives. which is why we agree that tax reform on the corporate side can bring down the rate, broaden the base and at the same time you can raise some revenue in the process. for this reason, this gets to mr. woodall's bill. if somebody comes in and is able to get an expenditure that we decide that's unnecessary,

eliminate it for the purpose of deficit reduction. if you have some special interest that comes to congress and says, ok, give me a special interest tax break, our view is you should be able to eliminate that and reduce the deficit. the view that you have put forth in the republican budget is if someone comes in here and gets that special tax break, the only way you will get rid of it, the only way, is not for the purpose of deficit reduction but by reducing the rate. and that's where the inconsistency is. because if there's a tax expenditure that is not justifiable on the merits, and some have policy justification, then why not just get rid of it for the purpose of deficit reduction and what we all see as our common goal to try and reduce the burden on our children and grandchildren? >> and to follow up, i will yield to the gentleman from georgia. i will pose the question to him which is -- also mr. van hollen alluded to, i asked my colleague from georgia whether he would support striking the two thirds voting requirement in the balanced budget amendment to eliminate tax expenditures? >> mr. van hollen referenced

the republican budget. the republican budget has no such proposal in it. the house-passed budget. this constitutional amendment that we're talking about? >> yes. >> i would be happy if someone could clarify that for me. but there is no constitutional amendment that we're talking about at this moment. we're talking about passing a rule that allows for suspension bill to be brought up later in the week. but there's absolutely no text that you need to pass before you know what's in it. >> well, there is. it's right here in this orphan bill that perhaps mr. dreier has adopted. the vote on the balanced budget amendment is section 201 and 202 and there is a balanced budget amendment on the rules committee website. >> what's going to be debated in september and october, is that the section two that you're reading there? >> will the gentleman yield to me? >> i will yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> my understanding is the rule will allow for a balanced budget amendment to be brought up this week, right? >> if -- >> whoever has control of the

time would yield to me. i don't know who's controlling the time. whoever has the time -- >> the rules committee webpage does what mr. polis is saying. if you give him an assurance that -- not supposed to believe that may or may not be the one on the floor. >> i'll give an explanation if someone yields. >> and if you will agree in principle to what mr. p pofment lis has -- mr. polis has said, that would satisfy everybody right now. >> i yield to the chair. >> i thank my friend for yielding. and we're not here discussing or debating, there's no provision in this rule that we're considering that has anything to do with a balanced budget amendment other than to say, other than to say that if we have a vote on a balanced budget amendment, we are going to extend the amount of time for debate because we'll be considered under suspension of the rules. meaning that this committee would not even consider that

measure. and so we have a provision in this rule which states that unlike the traditional one hour of notification that is given for the consideration of measures to be brought up under suspension of the rules, we will provide one day at least one day, notice for the consideration of that. but again, this rule has nothing to do with a balanced budget amendment other than to say that if we have a vote on a balanced budget amendment, we will extend the amount of time beyond the traditional 20 minutes per side for consideration of measures that are brought up under suspension of the rules. and i thank my friend for yielding. >> i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> and forgive me for being confused here. but on the rules committee webpage, where it says "legislative text to be brought up this week," and it has a version of the balanced budget amendment that has -- that has caused us some concern, i mean, i think one might anticipate that that might be the real deal. now, maybe it's to throw us off so we go down one road and

there might be something entirely different. that's why this process, mr. woodall, is broken. right now. this is why this is not a good process. when you're talking about amending the constitution of the united states of america, you ought know what the heck we're doing before you bring it to the floor. and one day in advance, i don't believe for something this important is adequate. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman from georgia knows and others who support a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget we need support from both sides of the aisle. it requires a two thirds majority. the founding fathers. and i said i've come to the point where i support a balanced budget amendment and certainly don't support what we -- what is being passed off as a balanced budget amendment which would actually write a specific percentage of g.d.p. that constitutes government into the constitution. should the government live within its means? absolutely. and i think you'll find that many in my caucus support that. some do, some don't. there's many good economic reasons why it shouldn't be

there. but to me the overriding principle why it should be there and -- is i don't think congress will do it absent that. and whether we acknowledge it or not it could be some combination of revenue and cuts that leads to reaching a balanced budget. and again, that's not pleasant. not that anybody likes that. but not having a balanced budget is worse than having something in our constitution that may at times be difficult to have. so again, i think we have a tremendous opportunity here. and i actually have to submit to the record, ask unanimous consent to insert the administration policy which states the administration is opposed to this policy into the record. >> without objection. >> and i'll yield to mr. haste, in a moment before closing. but the message from the president senate bill 627 is presented to the president the president's senior advisor would recommend he veto the bill. and somehow by some, that's been portrayed as not a veto threat, i want to say in all

the time i've been here, that's the standard language used whenever there's an administration policy that says the president's senior advisors recommend that he veto the bill. that's been on anything that i've seen that is a veto message. it doesn't mean -- you people are saying oh, he's trying to leave wiggle room. no. that's the boiler plate language that they send over on a statement of administrative policy nor something that they oppose. -- for something they oppose. and we've seen it a couple dozen times in this committee.

is a dangerous time for our country and what amazes me for the time that i've been here and privileged to serve the citizens of massachusetts for 27 years now is that never have i seen a moment where the consequences of inaction can have as potentially a damaging effect on our country as the consequences may if we are downgraded in our debt. just downgraded, not even defaulting. and yet some of our colleagues in the united states congress, particularly on the other side of the aisle in the house, are,

despite all the evidence, all of the judgments made by knowledgeable people, by economists, by business people, by outside observers about the danger and inadequacy of what they're proposing, despite that they're insisting not on a matter of common sense or as a matter of logical economic policy but insisting as a matter of politics and ideology on holding the entire economy of our country hostage and be damned with the risks. notwithstanding what that may mean for 401(k)'s for families, what that may mean for investments that are on the brink today because of the fragility of the economy, notwithstanding any of the

advice of people who deal with money on a daily basis in terms of investments, these people, many of them who've never served in public life in their lives, never been part of a compromise but have come here with one ideological purpose, these people are putting the entire nation at risk. there are a lot of people here, particularly here in the senate on the other side of the aisle, who know this is dangerous and who know the risks we're taking and who know that there are better alternatives, but because of the politics of the situati situation, they're being locked in, not allowed to stand up and exercise or at least unwilling at this point to stand up and exercise their judgment and, frankly, their responsibility as sworn to uphold the constitution of the united states of america

to come here and do the business of our country. the deadline for default may be just a week away but no one should have any illusion that what is happening right now today is already hurting the economy of our country. and it's already hurting our country. this is embarrassing for the nation. it's embarrassing for the united states of america to be having such a dysfunctional display for everybody in the world to see that we, who run around the world promoting democracy, are unable to make our own democracy work right here at home. the fact is, all you have to do is read today's article in "the boston globe" with the headline, "uncertainty has massachusetts firms wary of hiring." that's what's happening right now. this is already having a negative impact. maybe that's what some of the people on the other side of the aisle in the house want.

maybe they want the economy to come down so they can win politically and point to the president and says, "oh, it's his fault we don't have the jobs," even though they're weakening the economy with their obstinacy and with their ideological rigidity. today's article says, "still cautious from the last recessi recession, many business owners worry that government leaders will be unable to reach an agreement while others are concerned about exactly the agreement, while any agreement will invariably include spending cuts and weaken an already lackluster recovery." mad, this is no way to -- madam president, this is no way to provide economic stewardship and, most importantly, it's no way to run a government. there are countless snulingses that rely on the united states for us to go out and help other

nations to be able to recover economically. i met yesterday with the finance minister and deputy prime minister of greece. greece is taking enormous steps right now to try to bring its debt down, and all of the euro zone has joined in that effort of the and italy and spain are likewise at risk in their economies. but the i.m.f. is a critical component of that economy and the united states is a critical component of the i.m.f. efforts and we have a significant amount of our capital at risk in the i.m.f., as so what happens there is important to what happens here. but this place is not behaving like there's no interconnectedness. let me tell you what i hear from a lot of smart people, smarter than i am about the economics, but i listen to them and i can tell they're deadly sear qulus

they say that we're playing with fire with respect to the greek recovery and with respect to italy and spain and the rest of europe. and if they start to go down, then you have a caticaid and it begins to have a greater impact on the united states of america. that's what's at risk in this dangerous game of political chicken that is being played by people of such ideological rigidity that they're unwilling to even compromise. i heard an interview yesterday with one senator and a television commentator of one of the cable shows who asked him repeatedly, well, what are you willing to compromise on? and in the end it became clear that he wasn't willing to compromise on the fundamental notions of how you arrive at an agreement here. we need to reach out across the aisle, both of us, democrat, republican, reach out across the aisle and come together on a deal, on a solution, a solution

to a critical problem that challenges all of us where there is a solution staring us in the face. and we need to do that before we, as a result of the inability of people to make that compromise, before those who take that position of ideological rigidity, before that do greater harm to our economy and to our country's reputation. we need to put an end to the time clocks that are running out, how long it is before a default, which sends an enormous message of uncertainty and of incompetence, of dysfunctional politics on a daily basis. every tick of that clock drums into people the inadequacy of what is happening here right n now, and back in 1983 president

ronald reagan, who many of the people who are taking this position of complete object city nancy -- o bst inancy, whom many of them revere, they ought to listen to what he said. he wrote "the denigration of the full faith and credit of the united states would have substantial effects on the united states markets and vaflt dollar on the engs change markets. the nation can ill-afford to allow such a result." now almost 30 years later, some house republicans have absolutely turned their backs on the legacy of ronald reagan. instead, they continue to play their cynical game of chicken with the president, with the congress, with the american people, with our economy, with our reputation, with our future by refusing to negotiate a clearly achievable, clearly definable compromise agreement that would extend the debt limit, something that happened 17 times under ronald reagan.

their negotiating strategy? don't negotiate. do what we say, no matter what the danger or how ill-thought-out the consequences may be. david stockman, the former office and management o.m.b. director under president reagan said the following about the house republican budget. he said, "i think the biggest problem is revenues. it's simply unreal list stk to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution. it's a measure of how far off the deep end republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes. in taking this extreme approach, the house republicans have also made a dirty word out of the basic tenet of american democracy:compromise. i mean, do they know nothing about history? have they forgotten about the missouri compromise?

have they forgotten about countless great compromises that brought people together to pass some of the great efforts of our nation with respect to the social structure of our country? the house republican party has taken this approach even though they know and agree with what ronald reagan said 30 years ago and they know it's true today. now, experts are telling us that even a short-term crisis could lead to a permanent downgrading or stain, if you will, on the treasuries of our country. it could prove particularly damaging to the willingness of foreign investors to buy treasuries. if foreign investors start to should i away from treasuries -- if foreign investo investor stay away from treasuries -- you can never ghat liquidity

premium back if you create a precedent. that's the thing that would be irreparable. the end result of such a scenario: higher interest rates in the united states. madam president, i just met a few moments ago with a businessman who is engaged in major investments here in this country and elsewhere on an international basis who told me -- reinforced to me the danger of what we are facing right now in just a downgrade. what he said to me is that nobody can tell you what the real impact of that downgrade is going to be. what happens to valuationed all the way down the economic -- what happens to value indications wall the way down the economic food chain? what happens to judgment judgmet interest?

what happens to the judgments about the auctions and the next market and so forth? nobody knows. he can't tell me, and he does this for a living and has very successfully for a lifetime. and that's what they're worried about. there is a moment here. nobody knows exactly when it is. but there is a moment here when, as you get close enough and the dysfunctionality becomes the overwhelming dominating feature of this effort, that someone is going to cut and say, okay, time to downgrade. and then what happens? what kind of downward spiral throws out of that? i don't know, but i know that we shouldn't be pushing it to the limit and taking that risk. why are people taking that risk? why are people, despite all the commentary that says we ought to be reaching across the aisle, we ought to sit down, the way we used to around here, why are they doing this? i'll tell you why.

because they want only one way of approaching this solution: their way. because they want to so dramatically cut federal spending and cut entitlements without increasing revenues at all. no matter how successful people have been at the upper end of our comirks no matter how much money people have made, they say, you can't even ask a billionaire for $100. you can't even ask a billionaire for $500. nothing. nada. no. that's it. and that's the reason they're willing to take the country to the brink. they know they don't have enough votes to even pass the budget that they're screaming about still, but they're not running around trying to find the alternative. they're going to push it anyway, have a vote on it anyway, send a

dramatic, stupid message of incompetence to the world and drag the united states of america down with it. it's stunning what a group of extremists can do who are trying to get their unrealistic and impossible budget passed, which even a lot of republicans know they're not going to vote for. the boehner plan would require draconian entitlement policy changes. to meet the $1.8 trillion in cuts over the next decade without any increase in revenues, policy-makers would be forced to cut social security, end medicare benefits, and that's not a scare tactics, that is an absolute reality of what would have to happen if you proceed to do those cuts the way they're structuring them. and you would eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, for fairnt parents for citizens and people with disabilities. one of the worst and most disturbing components of this

plan, of the boehner plan -- it's incomprehensible to me -- they want to do this whole thing all over again in six months. there's no economic reason that you have to do it again in six months. because they purposefully left out the money that could come from reducing our engagement in the wars in iraq and afghanistan, which is going to come. they purposel purposely left thy out so it wouldn't show the amount of savings that could get you through next november. and the reason they purposefully left this out is so that they can come back and do this same exercise again next february and make all of the discussion in america about debt, deficit when we're perfectly freepped have a serious discussion not about -- perfectly prepared to have a

serious discussion about solving it. you don't need a constitutional amendment to do our duty. you don't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. and i know what i'm talking about on that because i was here when we balanced the budget in the 1990's without a constitutional amendment. we balanced the budget five times since world war i i and we've done it each time without a constitutional amendment. so let's not have this phony structured setup that's pure politics. i am a sure they're raising a lot of money from their base on it every single day, but that's not what this ought to be about. this ought to be about solving the economic problems of our country. a short-term plan is not necessary and it is, most importantly, not wise, because if we go through this exercise again in six months in the same way that we've gone through it in the last few months, we're going to drive this economy right down and down.

now maybe that's what they want. so they can then blame president obama and turn around and blame the democrats who are responsible here in the senate, because there's no other rationale for wanting to come back and do this in six months. when we can do this with the joint committees that are in both the boehner plan and in senator reid's plan. we have the ability to set up a structure like the brac closer commissions, where we have to vote, where we're forced to do this on an accelerated basis, where we tie ourselves into a process that requires the united states senate to do its duty and the congress to do its duty. we can lock that in right now. we're not kicking anything down the road if we do that and require us not to have a balanced budget amendment that goes out all across the country for stats to have to ratify. but, rather, do the job we were

sent here to do and do it in the next few months. nays what we could be doing -- that's what we could be doing. if we don't do that then the downgrade that might take place swrr? the next few days -- somewhere in the next few days could drive up interest rates and that'll have naggive effect on the economy. a student with a student loan will feel that impact. somebody with a car loan will feel that impact. anybody with a credit card intg to feel that impact. people with mortgages will feel that impact. and that will mean more money out of pocket to make up for the dereliction of duty of the united states congress. beaver madamadam president, thee completely dangerous and unchartered waters that we're sailinsailing into. at a time wheany downgrade coule

disastrous effects for our financial system in tesms those other countries which i have already talked about and i think it is an unacceptable risk and it should require us to find the compromise and find it now. i might add that the boehner plan is not even supported on wall street. let me quote christine cooper, who is the head of the u.s. dollar derivatives trading in new york at jeffries and company. he said "from the market's point of view, a two-stage plan is a nonstarter because we know it's amateur hour on capitol hill, and we don't want to be painted into this corner again." he went on to say "there is significant risk of a downgrade with a deal that ties further cuts to another vote only a few months down the road, given the significant resistance to do the right thing now." i think that -- frankly, i think

that's logical. every american can understand that. if you've got some money to invest and you're sitting there watching what's happening here right now, and then you learn that our way of dealing with it is going to be to have another vote in six months for the same reason, lift the debt ceiling, when everybody knows we don't have to do that, would you say, oh, that's a really good, clear climate for investment. let's go put our money into whatever it is out there because we know congress is going to do the right thing. no. no way, madam president. everybody knows that. the fact is that the president has said he's going to veto the speaker's plan. so, senators, we know he's going to veto it. we know it's a bad plan, and we ought to stop discussing proposals that are going to go

nowhere and get the job done for something that can bring everybody together. now, in an effort to forge a bipartisan compromise, senator reid has reached way beyond what many members of our caucus really wanted to do or think is the appropriate balance here, but we're acting responsibly in order to try to get the job done. and so, we are willing to extend the debt ceiling through 2012 without revenues at this time, with the understanding that we will have the ability to be able to come back to the floor with the process of a joint committee, providing it's tied to a very clear schedule with very clear requirements about no filibusters, with very clear requirements about amendments and voting. madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that i just be able to wrap up fairly quickly. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: madam president,

the spending cuts that are in senator reid's proposal are only those that republicans have previously agreed to. so, no revenues, cuts, $2.-something trillion dollars. we have cuts in there republicans have already agreed to and again a fixed period of time. i think that proposal gives our economy the certainty that it needs in order to create jobs now, not six months from now. not maybe some time next year. everybody understands how anemic america's job creation is now. the last thing the job market needs is this kind of brinksmanship, gamesmanship and cynical toefrt hold the

entire -- effort to hold the entire economy of our economy hostage when better proposals are on the table in front of us, which everybody can understand. the majority leader's proposal includes the following -- includes the capacity for that joint kph-s to include -- joint committee to include recommendations and legislative language on tax reform. we all know we need tax reform. and i believe that the senate and the house ought to do their job, both of us. and what senator reid's plan does is actually calls on the senate to live up to its ultimate responsibility. the speaker's plan has no such language, nothing that requires that kind of participation. the deficit commission was chaired by former republican senator alan simpson. all of that work is being ignored right now. and the so-called gang of six here did an outstanding job, in my judgment, of helping to put together a bipartisan plan which

actually included revenue and, i think, some 20-some republican senators were prepared to support a thoughtful, balanced plan that had both revenues as well as cuts. so we can find common ground here. we need to find that common ground here. over the last year we've seen a number of bipartisan plans put forward on the debt limit. i think that the effort of the gang of six really exemplified the best tradition of the senate, where a group of members reach across the aisle and worked with each other to tackle the tough issues. that's how we got a budget deal in 1990. that's how we got a budget deal in 1997. we have done this before, and we did it growing our economy, creating 23 million new jobs, creating a surplus of $5.6

trillion. and had we stayed on that course, we would next year be paying down the debt of our nation completely for the first time since andrew jackson was president of the united states. everybody here knows why we went off track. i don't need to go through that again now. but i think that we will not be able to resolve this current impasse until colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and especially in the house, where there seems to be the greatest ideological resistance to common sense right now, decide to put aside that ideology and decide what is best for the united states of america. we can't be responsible if we don't get serious first. far too much is at stake for the senate to do anything less than the united states senate was intended to do at moments like this. we are called the world's greatest deliberative body. there aren't many americans who would look at us right now and give us that appropriate

moniker. we have to earn it. and i think in the next hours we can do that, madam president. and i thank the chair and i thank my colleagues for their forebearance. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: do you know how much time i have allotted? the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. corker: thank you, ma'am. i doubt i'll do this but if i get up to eight minutes or so, please let me know so i know i'll have two left. madam president, the last time i was on the floor was july 14, and i was very concerned, maybe upset about the fact that it appeared that where we are on this debt ceiling discussion was looking for a political way for everybody to raise the debt ceiling without anybody taking ownership. and obviously that wasn't what i came to the senate to do, and i

came down and had choice words for both sides of the aisle in that regard. i actually come here today with a glimmer of hope. the reason i say that, to my knowledge, in this debt ceiling debate, we may be, i think this is the first time that actually legislation has been offered from both sides of the aisle to look at spending reductions over the course of this next year. to me, that is progress. i think that we ought to focus on the fact that finally here in this body we're on the right subject. we've sort of wandered around in the wilderness here for several weeks as this debt ceiling was coming up and focused on many things that were not going to solve the problem, and then a couple of weeks ago we focused on a way to try to figure out a way to usurp, get rid of our

responsibilities in dealing with this. i'm kind of uplifted because, as was mentioned, a democratic senator has a proposal, a republican house member has a proposal, and now finally we're on the topic that matters. and that is we have proposals before us that are beginning to look at what we might do to look at spending reductions. i mean, the fact is the reason this debt ceiling debate is what it is is all of us are concerned about future deficits. all of us are concerned about where our country is going. all of us are concerned about the fact that if we don't deal with this issue responsibly, we're going to end up with a downgrade in our debt regardless. i mean, even if we make it, if we had a clean debt ceiling vote, which obviously is not going to occur now, if you had a clean debt ceiling vote, we'd be right back at the table trying to figure out a way to keep from

having a downgrade. so for what it's worth, i'm choosing today to come to the floor and to be slightly optimistic because both sides of the aisle are beginning to look at ways of reducing that issue. the rating agencies and actually, you know, we don't put a lot of faith in them, i know, but smart people that actually buy treasuries have said the order of magnitude that we need to deal with as it relates to deficit spending over the next short period of time is a minimum of $4 trillion. and that $4 trillion has to be real, and that $4 trillion needs to be accompanied by entitlement reforms. now, madam president, what i would say is that right now i don't think there's any proposal that's being discussed that is strong enough. and i don't say that to knock any of the authors. there's nothing out there that i'm aware of that's being discussed by the media or being

discussed in either chamber that really deals with this issue. most of us have taken a position that we want to use the debt ceiling vote to force dramatic reductions in deficits, dramatic reductions in spending. and fortunately, we've gotten to that place finally. we just have gotten there in the last 24 hours. so this is my hope, madam president. we know that none of the proposals that are out there now are strong enough, none of the proposals that are out there -- i'm talking about in legislative language. there are a lot of people working in other ways to try to come up with a solution. but there's no legislative language out there yet that actually forces us to do the things we need to do to achieve not being downgraded, if you will, after this debt ceiling vote occurs. and so what i would say is, i know it appears we're going to be voting on a proposal that the

majority leader has offered. it's very apparent to me that it's not going to pass. i know there are some activities that might be taking place in the house over the next 24 hours. but at least we have both sides of the aisle talking about the right topic finally. it's taken us awhile tpo get here. -- awhile to get here. and i would urge that we sit down, figure out a way to make the proposals that are being discussed real, make sure they don't have gimmicks and they force us to do those things that we need to do to make sure that we don't just kick the can down the road, pass something that looks like we've actually taken action, but to pass something instead that actually will address the issues that we have before us. so, madam president, again, i've got a glimmer of hope. both sides of the aisle offered proposals. no doubt in both cases not near

strong enough, but both sides have offered proposals that look at reducing the deficits over the next year or so. so i would urge people to sit down like members have done recently on other proposals, let's sit down and figure out a way to make some proposals strong enough that we know that not only have we moved past this debt ceiling vote, but we've also put in place those actions that will cause us to make it through this entire next year in a way that we know we're not going to be downgraded by the kreld rating age -- by the credit rating agencies and have other issues. there's not a proposal before us today that does it, but both sides of the aisle are talking about proposals. that, to me, is a sign for a degree of optimism. if we need to extend the debt ceiling issue for a week while

we work out the details or whatever, let's do it. but let's don't let this opportunity where we finally have both sides of the aisle talking about the right subject, let's don't let this opportunity go by. let's solve this problem while the focus is on it. and, madam president, i thank you for allowing me to come to the floor. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask morning business be extended until 5:00, i be recognized at 5:00, and following the statement -- senator corker are you finished? that senator sessions be recognized for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank the majority leader and appreciate his courtesy as always on so many of the issues that come before the senate. i would just like to say a couple of things.

one is fundamental, and that is crisis we face -- and i think my senator, colleague from tennessee would agree -- is not the debt limit. it's the debt. it's the surging debt. and the debt limit is congress's power, and it says to the administration, you can't raise, you can't borrow any more money. we only authorize so much money to be borrowed. like a 102-mark on your thermometer, it's not the thermometer that's the problem, it's the underlying fever that the thermometer indicates. so breaching the debt limit so soon after we raised it is an indication that we have something unhealthy in our system that needs to be dealt with. senator reid has got very, very difficult challenges before him.

it is not easy, but as i like to remind him, he asked for the job and hopefully he can make progress at this point in time. but to raise the debt ceiling, the majority leader knows a couple of things. he knows one that the republican congress and the american people want to see changes in our spending. it's on a reckless path. we cannot continue on this path, and so the idea is shouldn't we change what we are doing that's put us in a situation in which 40 cents of every dollar we spend today is borrowed. this year we will pay pay $240 billion in interest on our national debt. under the budget that the president submitted to us that

was voted down, i will acknowledge 97-0 in the senate, but it indicates a death path that we're on. it would cause in the tenth year interest to be paid in one year of $940 billion. a stunning figure. the federal road program is about 40. the federal education is about 100. we would be curnlg surging from 240 to 940 just in interest on this surging debt, according to the congressional budget office, our experts. i would note also that despite the debts that we have been running up, president bush's last year was an extraordinary deficit, $450 billion. president obama's deficits have been 1,300, 200 billion, 1,300,000,000,000. it's expected to be

1.5 trillion, 1,500,000,000,000,000. and in the first two years of president obama's administration, his nondefense discretionary spending surged 24%. and this does not count the stimulus almost $900 billion that we surged out the door that was supposed to stimulate the economy. so speaker boehner, and i think with the support of the american people, speaker boehner has said well, we could do a fairly large increase in our debt ceiling to allow the country to continue to borrow or we could do a short one but we in the house and the republican house believe we have got to confront our problems so i would propose and he has stated that the house would vote to raise the debt ceiling but only to the extent to which spending has been reduced an equal amount.

so if you reduce spending enough over ten years, you get an immediate increase in the debt ceiling of an equal amount now. if you reduce spending over ten years a larger amount, well, you could increase the debt limit a larger amount. and it's become a vehicle, an opportunity for the american people to understand how we are surging out of control, spiraling out of control and how it is that congress has got to figure out a way to rein this in. it's just unsustainable the path that we are on. so there is $1 per -- $1 increase in debt ceiling per $1 reduction in spending kind of caught on. people seem to be going along with that, seem to be fairly

reasonable. and senator reid claims that the debt ceiling that he's got a plan that would reduce spending spending $2.7 trillion over ten years, and that this would allow him to raise the debt ceiling about that amount and that this would allow us to in effect raise it enough that we wouldn't have to talk about this again for almost two years, about 22 months. well, okay. that sort of seemed to meet what speaker boehner had suggested, but i'm the ranking member of the budget committee and i have been a real critic of what's been going on. i have been predicting we were going to end up at the last minute, a bill was going to be thrown on the floor and i was concerned it was going to be

filled with gimmicks, it wasn't going to be honest, and we were going to be told if we don't pass it, the republic is going to fall, and no matter what's in it, we have got to pass it and don't worry about it, just trust us on these numbers. unfortunately, that's where we're getting. senator reid in his his $2.7 trillion in claimed deficit reduction, about about $1.2 trillion of that is savings from the war in iraq and afghanistan. well, that's not ever been projected to stay at the current level of $158 billion a year for ten years. that's not -- that's an extra spending item. speaker boehner when he proposes a proposal that would reduce

spending for a shorter term, he doesn't count savings from the declining war expenditure because that's not base line expenditure. and we have never extended and planned to do that. we never planned to spend spend $158 billion a year in the next ten years. it is inevitably going to drop. some say it could go to zero, some say to 50, saving saving $100 billion or a little more a year for the next decade. so we calculate that senator reid and the budget committee staff, the republican staff calculates that this is over over $1 trillion in inaccurate estimations of spending reductions. it just is. it should not be counted. speaker boehner doesn't count it in his numbers. he also claims, senator reid does, $1.2 trillion in deficit

reductions from spending caps. by capping discretionary spending, that this would save save $1.2 trillion. well, those caps are counted from a base line that ignores the savings that were enacted in the full year c.r. that we did the year we were in. so what happens was we had a higher level of spending, there was an election last fall, a new republican house was elected, huge numbers of people who were elected said we have got to do something about spending, and so we had a fuss over what our spending levels should be this year because we were operating not under authorization of appropriation bills but a continuing resolution, and that number was reduced. so the spending level for this year is not -- now is not the same as it was when the year

began. so the current level of spending is a number we ought to be talking about when we say we're going to save money, correct? it shouldn't be the number that was higher but has been abandoned and been reduced. so that reduces the amount of legitimate claims and discretionary savings to less than $800 billion or -- instead of there or so, and then he claims $100 billion in mandatory savings, but it's likely that those from our staff looking at them, that it would amount to no more than $60 billion. so the bottom line is that we have looked at this a lot of different ways. i believe the numbers that i am going to repeat to you today will be sustained in any

competitive argument about it. i believe these are honest and true numbers. the bottom line is that the total real savings that's proposed by the reid plan is not not $2.7 trillion but but $1 trillion. and if you do $1 trillion in savings and you raise the debt limit by $1 trillion, then that would extend to six, eight months or so into early next year, which is, i suggest, where we ought to be because this amount of savings, $1 trillion, is nowhere near what we need to do to get off the debt course we're on. as senator corker indicated, most of the financial experts tell us we need at least least $4 trillion in savings, not $1 trillion. and so if we're just going to get one so we can vote in this

crisis period to raise the debt limit before august 2 so the checks and everybody can be paid and the government can operate, operate, -- and i hope we can do that. we need to do that. but if all we're going to get is is $1 trillion, this is just an interim step. this is not a real fix at all, but it's an interim step, and if so, we need to be right back on this issue soon, and that gives us an opportunity to do so early next year or late this year. because we have not solved the problem. $1 trillion is not enough. $4 trillion is not enough. depending on how you calculate the debt that's been projected to accrue over the next ten years, it's somewhere between between $9 trillion and $13 trillion. so $1 trillion is not going to do anything to change the disastrous debt course we are

on. now, by the way, the president -- i just want to say this because he was pretty tough last night, blaming republicans for all kinds of problems. let me just say, the republican house passed and i voted for in the senate a budget for ten years that changes the debt course of this republic. it puts us on a sound financial path. it reduced spending by as much as $6 trillion, $5 trillion over ten years. it even reduced taxes that create more economic growth and make us more competitive in the world marketplace. it was a thoughtful, long-term, serious budget that would do

real positive things for america. the senate has not passed a budget, not had one marked up in the budget committee. the leadership here in the senate refused to allow it to happen. senator reid said it would be foolish to pass a budget. we have gone now over two years without a budget. it's unthinkable in the debt course that we are on how disastrous it is, how unsustainable it is, how unlike anything that's ever happened in our history have this kind of debt path and we don't have a budget. so the president said, you know, a few weeks ago i have got a plan that cuts $3 trillion. well, is it like senator reid's reid's $2.7 trillion plan? it was never made public. it was never spelled out. yet he had a $3 trillion plan

that cut spending, let's see it. maybe we can extend the debt limit more if he's going to cut cut $3 trillion in honest numbers. so if he has those numbers as he said he has, in between attacking republicans for causing all the problems, let's see it. maybe that would be a basis for something. but i suspect it's no more accurate than this plan because when the president proposed his budget, as the law required him to do early in the year, he said my budget calls on us as americans to live within our means and to not increase the debt. when, according to the congressional budget office, the lowest single budget deficit that would occur on his ten-year

budget would be $750 billion. nowhere close to a balanced budget. and in the outer years, that deficit would be going up. so i would just challenge the president if he has got a a $3 trillion plan, let's see it. now, the kind of -- some people say we need to have this long a period of time, we can't afford to have a short period of time. this is somehow a wrong thing to do and so forth, and i just would want to point out to my colleagues that it's not unusual at all. a $2.7 trillion increase in the debt, if that were to occur, would be very high. it would be a 19% increase in the current debt limit. putting the debt limit 50%

higher than when president obama took office. it would be the largest debt increase in history, the fourth debt limit increase during president obama's tenure in office, the fourth time it's been raised. so this is not unusual. so i warn from the beginning that if we skirted the legislative process in favor of closed door white house meetings and so forth, we would find ourselves in the 11th hour with gimmick-filled legislation being rushed through a panic-driven senate. this is not responsible governance from our leadership here in the senate. as i feared and as i've just described, the majority leader's bill does not achieve close to the promised savings that he says it would. far from the $2.7 trillion in cuts claimed, the true spending cuts in the proposal are closer to $1 trillion over ten years,

less than half of what was advertised, while he's asking for a nearly $3 trillion increase in the debt limit. spending cuts next year would be only $3 billion less than the enacted amount for 2011. this falls short of the idea that a dollar in cuts should accompany a dollar in debt limit increase. senator reid's proposal is structured in a way that is clearly designed to further the -- further degrade and undermine the budgetary process of the united states senate and it allows the majority not to have to come forward and produce a budget plan. so given the late hour, rather than rush through a poorly vetted piece of legislation to provide the president the largest debt ceiling increase in history, we should pursue a more

responsible approach, a short-term extension with real cuts through the immediate time period the extension covers, not ten years down the road, then using the extra time that we have congress should pursue a binding framework like the cut, cap and balance plan to bring these gimmicks to an end and to alter our debt course. we should try the one thing we've refused to do from the beginning: open hearings, regular order, and real legislative process and public participation. madam president, i thank the >> this a charleston this weekend on book tv. confederate charleston author saturday at 5:30 p.m. eastern. and on american history tv, this

story in on the festival. and throughout the weekend, discover more about the unique history and literary life of charleston. charleston, south carolina, this weekend on c-span2 and seepage and -- c-span3. >> party leaders now say that the bill will not come to the house floor until it least thursday. the house rules committee began work on the bill tuesday. in a few moments, some of yesterday's committee debate. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern with focus on the economy in spending debate. the house is in session at 10:00 eastern for general sessions --

and general speeches. >> a couple of live events to tell you about on our companion network, c-span. 3 executives from the credit rating agencies moody's and standard and poor's testify about the effect of the ongoing debate on deficit and deficit reduction and a possible default at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 3:00 p.m. eastern, a house intelligence subcommittee focus is on preventing a violent extremism. a new report suggests that the american public as a key role to play in countering radicalization. >> the house rules committee yesterday began work on the rules to debate speaker boehner's debt reduction plan. this is a little less than two hours. >> this is the senate amendment

that will allow consideration of 2011. the rules committee shares jurisdiction with this issue. i'm going to be talking a little bit about the proposal. i know that mr. van holland -- ok. let me begin with my colleagues in explaining the measure that is before us. we do not like the fact that we're here. ever the past several weeks and months there has been a lengthy discussion about the imperative of increasing the national debt. we know our democratic colleagues have called for and we have a floor vote on a clean increase. it was an increase in a debt ceiling that would not have

anything attached to it whatsoever. we felt songly it was important for us to recognize that this was our opportunity to change the treachery -- trajectory we had been on. strongly that it iessential that we seize this opportunity recognizing that it is important to play our obligations. we want to seize this opportunity to change the trajectory.

what we have before us was filed last night. what we have the force is a bipartisan measure that was agreed to by the speaker of the house and the center majority leader. she negotiated the speaker gaynor. we are proceeding with consideration. no one is happy about this. we believe the action we are

going to take will go a long way to change the direction we have been on. i would like to take a few minutes to explain the provision that is before us. it is describe as the budget control act with recombining components feared the conditions in the increase of the debt ceiling on the implementation of spending reductions larger than the debt ceiling. it requires consideration calls for a debate in both houses of congress. third, it establishes a joint select committee cast it requires an up or down vote.

it reduces depression-era spending by $1.20 trillion over 10 years. it requires that they pass both the house and the senate d be signed by the president before any increase actually occurs. once the initial cuts are agreed to, a temporary increase in the debt ceiling will be granted and allow congress to begin the congress -- process of the increase. they will consider a resolution to disapproval of the next increase. the president will vetot. they will have a sense of overriding. also in september, the joint select committee will begin its work to identify another $1.60 trillion in.

as we have all read. they will consist of a 12 minute -- 12 member panel. the senate majority leader and majority leader. they are by the four leaders. legislation provides standing committees to provide input on how to achieve those savings. this is like the alignment that was put into place a decade and a half ago. it requires the select committee oduct to produce this by november 23 of this year. there have to file it in the house and senate by december 2 of this year. after which it to be introduced as a bill. the bill would be debatable for two hours and would be subject

-- and would not be subject to amendments. it will have a clean up for down votes. it would likewise made a simple majority vote for passage. it requires action in both chambers by december 23. if action is not taken for the president does not sign the legislation, there will be no further increase in the debt ceiling. the rules before us will provide consideration of the budget control act allow with a few extra provisions that need to move ahead. we're going to do something that has not been done before. be doing isoing to we are going to provide the minority the opportunity to see any major one day before it is

debated on the house foloor. we have seen amendments given with one hr's notice. we will do some they that has not been done before. if you object, it will be interesting. we're going to provide the minority with an opportunity to have one day's notice on any measure we will consider. we willroceed with consideration of the allowance a special authority to this coming sund. we will be in the role of the house in session. it of the necessary for our mmx passing. i like to call. plighted call on the other witness.

-- i would like to call on other witnesses. >> i have a point of inquiry. >> i heard you say this is a bipartisan bill between senator reid -- >> will the gentleman yield? i think my friend for yielding. there was an agreement based on the reports that have gone forward from speaker gainejohn boehner air.

i said there is a change in the position. >> you did not say that at all. we're glad to have cameras here. you said there was an agreement. if i might. let me say. he has confirmed that i said that. the one to say there was an agreement. i made it clear that it does not exist at this moment because of the meeting that took place with president obama. i did. he may have been out of the room. they heard me say it. if i did not say that, >> thank

you very much. >> senator reid will hold his boat dock until thursday to see what happens here. then his bill will be the only one left in town. i do not believe they have any idea that they're going toward a bipartisan bill. a want to make that perfectly clear. i will reiterate what i said to my opening statement. i will reiterate as mr. hastings has confirmed what i said in my opening statement. last weekend there was a bipartisan agreement that put this package together that we have before us. i said that change at the end of the weekend. i am simply reiterating.

>> this is the senate amendment. this is the agreed upon package that was put togetr by the speaker of the house of representatives. this is a senate amendment that we're consideri. this is the senate bill we have before us. >> this is the agreed upon deal. the speaker of the house of representives as we all have seen because of all these things taking place has been working over the past days and weeks to

put this agreement together. >> there is a substitute offered. i believe that there have to be offered by a member of the house. likes the rules committee has jurisdiction. we will be making a jurisdiction we proceed. >> do you mean the res committee will be the sponsor? >> i will be managing this on the house floor. we will can see with it? >> here is taking it up.

>> am i correct? a house member must also measure in order for it to be taken of by the house. this hasome forward. this is the reason i outline the provision of the agreement. last weekend i had the support. it did last weekend. >> i hear you. it is false to say there was an agreement. >> i am basing this on what the speaker of the house of representatives has indicated

between the senate majority leader in the house of representatives. we are where we are today. i would like to recognize mr. van holland and in a prepared statement he have will enter the record. statement.our >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on the amendment. i can understand having read this when no one wants to claim its. i urge the committee not to send this rule for the following reasons. this proposal would play russian roulette with our economy every six months. we know what a dire situation

we're in right now. we have heard by independent rating agencies that if we do not make sure that the united states pays its bills on time beginning april 5, that we will put the credit were the united states at risk. that will risk rising interest rates across the board. we all want to resolve the issue. why would we have a proposed solution that puts us in the same place? we do not have to choose. that is the fundamental flaw.

senator reid name was mentioned. i'm sure all of us are aware. he has a proposal that is on the table. it would achieve 2.7 trillion dollars in savings. it is not put us through this situation. that is my fundamental issue. is the role also going to envision a proposed constitutional amendment?

>> we're looking to extend the debate time so we will be able to consider a balanced budget amendment. >> this is the plan. to do that, after reconsider this measure on the floor. >> it would be not open to amendment. is that right? >> that is correct. members will have an opportunity. that is the only provision will make. >> thank you. i like to make a few points about that particular provision. we went over this in some detail before. i think it is for revisiting. this is no ordinary commo garden variety, ordinary mmm. what it does is manipulate the constitution.

it plants the republican budget proposal into the constitution. why do i say that that there are two provisions. number one is the provision that says that you only need a majority vote to cut medicare, it to cut education, to cut social security. but you need a 2/3 vote to cut special interest tax breaks for the purpose of deficit reduction. it is undeniable that you're writing that buys into the constitution. i haveo justification for why we would do that. why you not allow the american people to work there will in that way and put a constitutional obstruction that biases us in favor of cuts to education and medicare and not special interest tax breaks.

you want to put that in the constitution. the second provision is an 18 some expenditure cap. we should all understand the we ha not met that expenditure caps is the time medicare was passed. this country decided it was worth providing some security to people in their old age. we have beehigher. when you have expenditures of your level, you are insuring cuts to things like medicare and social security. that will drive that. you will want to plant that in the constitution of the united states. the irony is this. the last time we had a budget was during surplus e clinton years. we had a budget surplus.

we had a $10 trillion projected surplus. no deficit spending. did nothing. under this twisted version, that would have been unconstitutional. that budget would have been unconstitutional. it was at 19% expenditures. not 18% a. you want to plant a provision that would have made the last budget unconstitutional.

>> anything in this role that has not be done, we will guarantee the minority the right to see this under suspension of the rules one day before it is submitted. you're certainly welcome to comment on any budget member proposal. we have posted the balanced budget amendment on the site as today. if you of like to comment on it? >> maybe the sponsors of the can comment on this regarding spend moneyhen the and i did states is undergoing military operations region when the united states is undergoing military operations -- may be the sponsors of the amendments can comment on this regarding

whenhenited states is undergoing military operations. >> if i might. i'm talking about the agreement that was put together. we are talking about this rule that wl allow for the extension of debate time. >> you are testifying on your view of the measure that we have. >> and try to figure out what measure we have. >> i outlined the budget control

act. the only thing in this role is that it allows for the poibility of consideration of an amendment later this week. we are extending the debate time so the majority will have an opportunity to consider an item that is beyond the purview of this role. it is under suspension of the rule. >> we have no idea what changes to the constitution the united states congrs is expecting. >> that clearly will be submitted to the record. >> with the gentleman like me to yield index lives i will be happy. >> is this the one that was printed on the web site a? >> people have, one day before debating this come up have made a bill.

>> this is not just an ordinary bill. i would ask. i do not know the answer. whether the constitution have been taken up in the past under suspension of the rules. >> there have been a number of times that day have had them

urging that there have been votes handled. i cannot say exactly which occasions will have them out. as we know, there are a number of proposals that are out there. we will have the opportunity to see those. >> i will just end based on what appears to be the website. i do have some concerns about changing the constution in a way that fundamentally alters the war powers. >> thank you. >> thank you.

the country is watching what we are doing. with great anticipation, i believe they are attempting to work through what i believe is a very important agreement as a result of the president of the united states not being able to sustain his ideas that he has given to the point of legislation. it is important that we remember that the american people are watching what we're doing. it is important that the

american people know that this legislation is in france. everybody in america that chooses can go and take a look at the words pincushio. i believe that this is real leadership. it is leadership by the senate majority leader and by speaker john boehner year. it is my hope that you will get an opportunity.

we're serious about doing our job. i yelled back. -- i yield back. >> given the fact that what one has proposed, it is very different. i think the question answers itself. >> let me say what i said in my

opening statements. this was an agreement that the speaker of the house in the senate majority leader came to last weekend. no one ever said it as an agreement now. no one has said that this is an agreement today. i fink my friend for yielding. i think the american peoe are

watching. they have pretty much gone off. people are terrified. cannot understand why we would try to write love the markets by doing this. how could we possibly get anything in order. look how hard it is. you got to mention something about what happens to the military, would you elaborate? this is a founding documents.

we apparently do not know exactly what is going to be on it. we do know what on the web site is proposed. on that provision, is a provision that would allow a majority vote to use force to send amecan men and women into battle. if you want to pay for those, pay to support the troops, you can only do it if the underlying vote was 3/5. that is staggering. as you know, a majority vote i can send american soldieres into battle. it it was a 3/4 boats on the

pershing gulf war. it was the korean war with no resolution. there are a number of conflicts where we have had military men and women in harm's way but not readily passed by a majority. this amendnt would say unless nothad a 3/5 vote, we are bi going to pay for them. send them off to war uer authorized procedures. unless there is a 3/5 vote, forget it. you cannot go into debt if it means paying for those troops. you cannot borrow a penny unless it means -- let's be clear.

world war ii we borroed wed a lot of money to ma sure we fought and won that war. a provision would prohibit you from doing that even though there was a legally authorized vote by the congress to send his men and women into battle. >> we have been told even though the amendment is on the web site, it will be changed. as i understand it, there would be no vote at all. are you aware of this? >> no, as part of his proposal coming he says it would take place sometime i think after octobe1. it would take place in that timeframe. >> of course, we pass this

legislation last week that said unless we pass a cast to issue a minimum by august if in a constitutional amendment by august 5, we will not play -- of course, if we pass legislation last week that said if we do not do by august fix we will not play. >> thank you. i agree with what he said earlier about the american people are watching very closely what is happening here. i say to my constituents that the best thing that has happened about the problems and challenges that we're facing right now is that the american people are paying close attention.

for the first time, they are engaged in looking at what it means to raise the debt ceiling. how much i debt darby in this country? what is our deficit? unfortunately, they are not always getting the full picture from the media or from our colleagues in terms of the situation that we are facing. it is a dire situation. this will be the most important vote i will pay since i came to the congress. i think most of my colleagues feel very strongly about it. that is the case. i think it is very important that we continue to emphasize that this is not about next year's lecture. this is truly about the future of the country. do we care about this country that's do want to see continue

-- country? and doing what it to continue being the greatest country in the world in? do you want to see it taken down by the people who have put this in this position? to understand. there will be a choice. to read want to do this based on personal desires and our goal and he goes, or are we looking for the good of the country? i know that i'm going to be looking for the good of the country. and the future of this country.

and i hope that most of my colleagues are going to do that, too. i am going to be looking for the good of the country in the future of this country. i hope that most of my colleagues are going to do that too. thank you. >> i hope people are watching. i prayed there watching this process. it is an outrage. you're talking b amending the constitution of the united states. what was printed on the web page may or may not be whate're voting on. were amending the constitution of the united states of america. it gets even more confusion. in the text of the john boehner resolution, they will vote after

september 30, 2011. the house and senate will vote. we will have it this week. we had one already. we will do anotheralanced budget amendment between its of timber in december. what -- between september and december. what is sloppy process. we need to proceed with grt caution. this is storing all kinds of paper at everybody. as you mentioned, the amendment that was originally reported is different than the one that is on the committee web page. it makes it more difficult in times of war if we exceed the cap to be able to fund our troops. somebody made a conscious decision to change the word majority 2 3/5. none is here to explain that. the chairman ought to be here.

i want to know what it means. what it means to real people in this country. there are draconian cuts. we are bringing it back to 1966 levels. what does this mean? where will these cuts be made? there is just something wrong when a hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rates than his secretary. we're unable to fix this. people are willing to sacrifice in this country.

do you have in the estimates if we follow this path what it would mean in terms of job loss. some will lead to job loss.

at the same time, primarily, make sure we do nothing in the short term to jeopardize the fragile recovery. this thursday economy badly. i wa to put together a long term plan to reduce the deficit. as indicated, one of the key differences is that the president believes we should

also be cutting some of these subsidies for big corporations for the purposes of deficit- reduction. it is very troubling to see a provision that would enshrine a preference for cutting education and medicare. >> it is unbelievable. they issued a statement saying that this plan is tantamount to a form of class warfare. he says it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law

and history. >> there are people behind these cuts. the cuts seemed so disproportionately aimed at those in least afford it. what is the impact of the bay near plan? what does that mean? well at this mean? >> what is troubling about this plan is that it makes it appear like everything will be painless when in reality it will be incredibly painful. be incredibly painful.