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 curre 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 yr 2030 is anticipated to get between 70%

and 75% of the program. their proposal would cut th. i would point out that members of congress have %. 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 implemente 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 her

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 y vermuch. 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. 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 athis 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 tt was authored by mr. ryan is this. if you look athe 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 roposed 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 individualnes 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 symthize 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 yo 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 colleagu 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 perso coming heris 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 t 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. atou 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 loong and number one, we didn't get into this mess overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight. weidn't get into this in the last decade. i get so tired of hearing each of us point backo 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 '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 bter. 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 endment 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 wl 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 uer 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 ofred 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 goodimes 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 colleaguesay 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. 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, theredit markets, wall reet, 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 becse 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 ry 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 whatever. because you're right. i want here when we wrote all those unsigned checks in the past. and i have no interest in gning any blankhecks 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 be 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,ou're right. all we're left with is bad

press. because we've got seven days to avert calamity in this country. we could have averted it by lly 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 process. 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. ore can avert calamity on august 2 and take the next six months to do this in a more

open process. take the next six mths to eat 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 serisly 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. d 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 >> the rules committee will reconvene. i was concerned that we might be going to fisticuffs in the first visit to the rules committee, are attending physician, admiral

brian monahan [laughter] if things were to get out of hand -- he is here. >> it's o.k. i can take him two falls out of three. >> that is why he needs to be here. you are absolutely right. that's what i needed a doctor behind me. 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.

>> it's been articulate and the bulls since and commission. --bowles-simpson commission. not only are we keeping the ball down the road yet again and avoiding the difficult decisions but we would be sending the bill to the president which would be vetoed by the president', a bill that has to be passed to know what's in it and somehow under its current form treat tax expenditures different than subsidies and is almost entirely

lacking of the bipartisan support that we all know can be achieved with a common-sense solution and one that i think would be well within the grasp of this body and the senate and something that could be signed by the president of united states. i hope this boddie-rice is to this challenge i encourage my colleagues on both sop -- i hope this body rises to the challenge and i encourage my colleagues on both sides to do the right thing, to do the right thing for the united states of america. >> once again, i agree with mr. polis at the beginning of his comments about the balanced budget. there are a number of was that believe strongly that that is the only check and balance that seems to work appear. we have had a number of

legislation that have kept our spending -- that have kept our spending but this body has no propensity, once the crisis has passed for things are running smoothly, to get back on the spending bandwagon. i truly believe we're sitting here with a spending addiction. >> i voted against the debt increases for different reasons.

it was unprecedented. some language was inserted into the debt increase that said we have to raise the debt increase as a result of president obama's policy. it was a political statement and not accurate. all of us know that we have to raise the debt ceiling for any number of policy decisions that have been made. the biggest drivers were made before the president took office. . >> you're absolutely correct and thank you for calling out from my remarks regarding voting on the debt ceiling. i meant that i have voted eight times on a debt ceiling. i have also voted against raising of the debt ceiling. >> it was not meant as a call out.

when you look at the statistics behind the votes for a debt ceiling for and against, it seems to always be a partisan issue in regards to whomever is controlling his body. it tends -- they tend to vote for the debt increase. againstat don't vote it, typically it appears it is strictly driven by politics and particularly, for us, for the freshman, we don't have a history. we did not help create this debt issue. we have an obligation, i believe, to make sure this country does not the fault and this country does move forward. when you look back at it the discussions that were going on between the president and the

senate and house, i don't want to second-guess, but i believe it should have been between the house and senate. the president has the ability to wait and after something is passed. he is not a participant, in my estimation, on how we get our house in order. to that point, things change. at the end of the day, we need true deficit reduction. we need to get us on a

sustainable path for the future. i see what the speaker has put forward with a lot of thought. the senate but has not done anything any out across the board. whether they pass it or not, while important, it is important that this house speaker -- speaks with a strong voice in regards to doing things -- you said raising the debt limit is reckless. not raising the debt limit this time would be reckless on our part. as much as we talk and a good thing about the balanced budget amendment is even if we pass it and the senate passes it, it

goes to the states to ratify. that will not be done in one week. it could be years possibly. there will be ample debate in the states as to whether or not the american people really want a balanced budget amendment. that is what i'm hoping for is that the american people get the opportunity to weigh in with their vote. to withhold that opportunity is reckless on our part. i agree with mr. polis. we may have the ability to control our spending but i worry about future congress is having that ability. >> the way to get to a constitutional amendment that can get 2/3 in this body is not

the way that is being indicated where we don't know what the amendment is. this is to have a bipartisan agreement and work out what is the balanced budget amendment look like. the current version needs more votes than that. there are a number of versions floating around out there. not everyone will supportive of this process is not one that leads to a balanced budget amendment. >> is there a balanced budget amendment that you would support? >> that is a good question.

i have said that i am happy to engage in that debate. no's.'s forget about the you are a party of yes. >> i am for reducing the deficit and putting us on a trajectory to balance the budget. i think it is a responsibility of the congress to do it. the issue with constitutional amendments are primarily two- fold. what you do in times of war, what you do in times of economic emergency. you want the united states government to be able to respond. this is a long and complicated conversation. at state level, we often hear that -- we often hear that states have a balanced budget amendments. very few have the provisions that would be inserted in this proposal.

states have capital budgets where they do barrault. the states run bonds all the time. the federal budget is designed very differently. we are on a pay-as-you-go. we don't have a separate capital budget. there are big and complicated issues that need to be discussed as part of the design of any constitutional balanced amendment. let's say you pass a constitutional balanced amendment, how is it enforced? is the judiciary? at the end of the day, it is up to us. if we can't do something like what the gang of six did or the bipartisan commission did, we don't have any recourse. do you think a federal court judge will tell you that when you exceed the spending limits in any provision that you will raise revenue or make cuts?

there is a whole enforcement part of this. it is easy and popular to say but how will it be forced? this is a political question and that is why if we cannot get our act together and recognize that everybody has to come off some of the issues they have dug in on, we will not be allowed to solve this problem. i don't think a balanced budget amendment does it. i'm happy to talk about it to see if you can address those issues. i have not seen one design that addresses all those issues. >> i have one comment about the enforcement. use war as i did to uphold the constitution. that is pretty much it. >> i did and it does not have this amendment and it right now. >> your oath would be that enforcement. >> i swore to uphold the constitution. i did not swear to uphold every

crazy constitutional amendment that comes along. >> thank you very much for being here. everyone has a copy of this letter from the congressional budget office. we will recess subject to the call of the chair and there will be some discussions taking place. i cannot tell you what time that will be. within the next hour and a half, we are hoping to reconvene. the committee is in recess subject to the call of the chair. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> late today, the congressional budget office said speaker boehner is plan would not cut the budget as much as expected. rules committee reconvened for a short time and took no action on the debt and deficit reduction bill. members will continue to work on the legislation tomorrow. it is expected to come to the house floor on thursday. ♪

cuts $850aker's plan billion over 10 years, not the promised $1.2 trillion. the speaker said that he would rewrite the per piece of. gop votes remained uncertain. he centered harry reid call that dead on arrival in the senate. they are meeting at around 9:00 a.m. and more details could become apparent. the tea party express's holding a rally on capitol hill this morning. it is asking its members to hold the line and not raise the debt ceiling. we want to hear from republicans only on the debt ceiling. you can see that telephone numbers on your screen right there. let ho