the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this afternoon we took a vote here on this floor, a vote to protect the economy while demonstrating a commitment to reducing our debt. no more budget trick, no more accounting gimmicks, no more empty promises. you have the right to know the truth about america's budget and we have the responsibility to deliver it. this debate was done in plain sight. no more automatic deficit or debt balance increases, this was an opportunity for the american people to not only engage but to cut the size of government. we need spending controls in place. we were able to accomplish that here today because we believe

that washington isn't the solution, washington is the problem. which is why we need not only spending controls but economic freedom through a balanced budget amendment. you heard a lot through the last several weeks about a balanced approach. the people in my district understand that a balanced approach increases taxes on those very job creators. i would just ask in conclusion the economic security that we're looking for is a balanced budget amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege to be addressing you here on the floor of the house of representatives and it's always interesting for me to sit here and listen to the other members deliver their impression of what goes on and how they

envision the future. ien joyed the gentleman from illinois' presentation and the gentleman from california, particularly the gentleman from arizona who came here to talk about the balanced budget amendment system of i take that issue up as we get ready to close out the evening. i'd like to add some of the points i have to this. that is that when i was first elected to office, it was in the state senate, 1996. i believe that if i just simply made a cogent argument on principle, it would sway my colleagues over to my side. didn't think it was that complicated. it wouldn't be hard to talk about balancing the budget, keeping the spending within our times, because after all, each year, government provides more and more of what people were providing for themselveses the years before. so this encreaturement of government that is the growth in the nanny state and the decrease in personal responsibility had been going along for years back then.

it's been accelerated in the last few years, but the question i'd ask at this point is, what should government not do? what is it that is too much for government to do? where should we draw the line? an as i've now amended -- as i'm now halfway into the ninth year in this congress, i've been engaged in so many debates, push sod many bills and supported and opposed so much legislation that i see the pattern. i see a pattern. it's over here on this side, they believe the government should do everything. and that anybody that is investing their capital in returning -- and returning an income off of that is somehow an evil capitalist victimizing the proehl tarets and workers. i get disappointed with my colleagues who constantly repeat the message that rings off the walls of the white house and rang off the walls of the speaker's office when nancy pelosi was speaker. where are the jobs?

it's a legitimate question but underneath that question is, where are the profits? where are the profits? why would an individual invest their capital and their brainpower and their back power, their sweat equity if they didn't have an opportunity to take that little pile of capital and build it up a little big her if they didn't have an opportunity to get a better return on their investment if they simply stuck it in u.s. treasury bills? people who invest money have to expect to have a profit. and then out of the profit, they pay the wages. and if they're making money off of the people they hire they hire more people if they can see a model that will do that. that's how this worm turns. this is on -- it isn't evil capitalists. mr. franks said it well, free enterprise capitalism has done more good for the world than any other system out there that has gotten people out of bed in the morning, kept them up late at night, caused them to find

another way to be more efficient. competition makes us more efficient. and the desire to do well sometimes just for the pure sake of the challenge of it all, that desire to do well drives many of us, and now -- so the people that are out there creating jobs are doing so because there's a prospect for profit. that's where the jobs are, the prospect -- if the prospect for profit isn't there, if the degree of risk isn't proportional to the potential for profit, they're not going to take the risk. it's that simple, mr. speaker. on this side, i hear sometimes, this lack of resolve that yes, we ought to have a balanced budget and we need to get there but it's just too soon to rush there. the resistance to the idea that we should take a look at this spending now. and cut the spending now. get it under control now. when i first came into this congress and swore in here on this floor in january of 2003, shortly after that, i went over to the chairman of the budget

committee and said, where's the balanced budget? 2003. and he said to me, we can't balance the budget. why not? it's too hard. why is it too hard? because we have too many expenses, too many burdens, don't you know, don't you know, green freshman congressman in 2003, that we have been hit by the enemy on september 11, 2001, don't you know we had to create an entire t.s.a. and put this huge security system up and merge together the department of homeland security, don't you know what we had to organize and deploy the military over to places like afghanistan? didn't i know that wrp mobilizing to go into iraq at that very time, that our expenses were too high, we couldn't balance the budget? couldn't provide a balanced budget because it was too hard. it was too hard to balance the budget because our financial system had taken a hard hit in september 11 of 2001, and

because we had a war to fight, actually two wars to fight and because we had to create all of this billions of dollars worth of security so we could keep ourselves safe. and didn't i know that that was right on the tail end of the bursting of the dot-com bubble that was a false economy, that bubble that actually was a huge component in getting the budget balanced during those late clinton years, that dot-com bubble had to burst because it wasn't built upon the ability to produce a good or a service that man delivered more efficiently but it was built on the speculation that we could store information and transfer it more efficiently than ever before and we could. but that didn't necessarily translate into the efficiencies that come that creates profit. so the dot-com bubble burst, september 11 came, t.s.a. was created, homeland security was created, two wars were fought and through all of that we lost that sight of austerity and i wish that president bush would have said to us, tighten your

belt. we are going to pay for this conflict and we're going to pay for these -- this tragedies that have happened to the united states of america by all of us sharing the sacrifice by tighteninging our belt, not by raising taxes on people that are producing jobs. but it didn't happen that way. and i made my arguments and i made them every year and i went through a lot to try to produce a balanced budget throughout those years. we never got a balanced budget that kyo bring to the floor that we could bring to the floor, not in a single year, but i will say, mr. speaker, during the height of the iraq war when things looked as bad as they could have looked and about the time that george bush was preparing to order the surge, about that period of time we had a budget that came within $160 billion of balancing. $160 billion, mr. speaker. now, that $160 billion, boy, how do i wish we would have found a way to tighten it down so we

didn't have that deficit, that we could have balanced that budget in that year? we came very, very close. $160 billion doesn't sound close, it's close. it's really close compared to what we have today. and so the president offers a budget that nobody will pick up and vote for and support but it's a $1.65 trillion deficit spending budget. $1.65 trillion. and i listened to people that will say to me, republicans overspent. yes, we did. i make that confession. but the overspending of $160 billion compared to the overspending of $1.65 trillion is 10 to one obama administration versus the bush administration. 10 to one. and here we are now with a number that is greater than three trillion, maybe less than five trillion -- may be less than five trillion and deficit that has been created by the obama administration with no end in sight in his ask.

and the president insisted that this congress grant to him $2.4 trillion in unfettered debt ceilinging increase. a clean debt ceiling increase bill, no strings attached, $2.4 trillion. now, that was irresponsible and when you find yourself with a divided government like we have, this government would have gone in that direction in a heartbeat if nancy pelosi had still been the speaker. i can tell you that if she would have been in charge, if democrats would have had the majority here in the house of representatives and harry reid would be running the shop down that hallway through there in the senate and the president asked for $2.4 trillion there would hardly have been a debate, mr. speaker. hardly a debate at all. they would have brought a bill under a closed rule down here to the floor with a limited amount of debate and if they thought that was going to be negative publicity it would have happened at the time of the night that the press was not going to be able to report it so that the american people would pay

attention. and yes, it would have leaked out, it wouldn't have been a lid secret, but neither would it have been with fanfare, it would have been $2.4 trillion rubber stamped by this congress, house and senate and sent to the president for his signature, business as usual and off we would have gone and we would have seen ourselves then with a debt or excuse me, yes, with a national debt of, oh, let's say $16.7 trillion, no question asked, no strings attached. that's what would have happened. but the american people rose up over the last couple of years and they formed organizations around this country spontaneously, project 912 organizations, tea party organizations. not by the dozens or the scores, by the hundreds, by the thousands, mr. speaker. organizations by the thousands across this country. some organized, some not, loosely organized affiliated, on

each other's email list, paying attention, having meetings, energizing themselves, identifying candidates, running some of their own candidates, becoming candidates themselves, supporting people that will come to this congress and to the state legislatures all across this land and put our fiscal house in order. that's what's been going on over the last couple of years in this country. and another thing that mobilized the people in this country was obamacare. when the ruling trick toa at the time, i called it, that would be the obama-pelosi-reid ruling troika decided that they were going to force-feed obamacare down this country, down the throat of this country, we saw tens of thousands mobilize to come to this capitol, to surround this capitol, to jam the capitol, to keep it so packed that people couldn't get in or out, so they couldn't do business, demand, do not take american liberty, do not nationalize the second most

sovereign thing we have which is our health, our skin, and everything inside it. but they did. by legislative shenanigan and unprecedented maneuvering, they did force obamacare on us. and we are now hanging in the balance on whether we're able to repeal obamacare or whether it becomes the institutionalized roots-down-deep permanent and perpetual law of the land. a wise statement was made a week ago wednesday morning at a breakfast that i host, when the speaker said that he believes that barack obama is re-elected president that obamacare gets institutionalized in per fought to as the law of the land and if barack obama is not re-elected then we will repeal obamacare and pull it out by the roots. that's one of the big things that are at stake. and i have staked a lot of my efforts over the last 23 or so

months in working to first defeat and then to repeal obamacare. and when we passed the repeal here in the house of representatives and the language that i drafted went over to the senate, shortly after that, some weeks after that, we took up the defunding of obamacare and we passed that legislation with the c.r. over to the senate where it was peeled off and voted down. but every republican in the house of representatives and every republican in the united states senate has voted to repeal obamacare and has voted to shut off all funding to implement or enforce obamacare. every one. and it's been a bipartisan effort also to get those things done. that's a piece of this large deficit spending that we have. and people said, what does it take for you to vote for this debt ceiling increase that passed the house tonight? and my answer immediately is, just put the repeal of obamacare

and attach it to the debt ceiling increase and i will salvate to vote for that. the first full 10 years and outlays for obamacare is $2.6 trillion according to the chairman of the budget committee. $2.6 trillion. so in comparison stays consist went speaker boehner's standard of are we going to have more dollars in cuts than we have in debt ceiling increase, $2.4 trillion or down to $2.2 trillion debt increase compared to a $2.6 trillion repeal of obamacare, i think is an ok bargain because we get back our liberty. we get back the chance to manage our health care and purchase a health insurance policy of our choice. one that's created by the market that's produced by the demand of the american people and not one that's managed and defined by the bureaucrats in washington. mr. speaker, just to give you an example of what goes on and how -- the oppressive nature of

obamacare, a socialized medicine proposal that decides what kind of policy we can have and what kind of policy we can't have, now, that's a constraint that i just can't abide in a free country. if i want to buy a health insurance policy that has a $10,000 deductible, i want to do. that that's my business. if i want to buy a policy that has a 50% co-payment for the first $1 million, i want to do that, that's my business. i don't need nanny state telling me what i can and can't buy but they do and now they've concluded as of a notice that came out today that every health insurance policy in america that's approved by the federal government, that will be every one that you can buy under obamacare, shall cover contraceptives, no co-payment, no charge. except it gets averaged across everybody else's premium. contraceptives now will become, by edict of the federal government, a component of

everybody's health insurance policy. under obamacare. now, think about that. we have people that are single, we have people that are past reproductive age, we have priests that are sell bat, all of them paying insurance premiums that cover contraceptives so that somebody else doesn't have to payer the full fair of that? and they've called it preventive medicine. preventive medicine. well, if apply that presentive medicine universally, what you end up with is you prevented a generation, preventing babies from being born is not medicine. that's not constructive to our culture and our civilization. if we let our birth rate get down below the replacement rate, we're a dying civilization and right now we're about 2.1 babies per woman. 2.1. that's just a replacement rate. that's all it is. and teddy roosevelt wrote about

that and it isn't committed never bait am to my memory but he said that any race that doesn't care enough about itself to reproduce itself will become extinct and he said, i for one will not lament their loss and i shall welcome the advent of a new generation, a new group of people who will care enough to have their own babies and now we have a federal government that has not just subsidized contraceptives but has written an edict that every health insurance policy will include contraceptives because they consider it to be preventive health care. now, none of us would have health to prevent us. it is or wellian, it's not even counterintuitive. that's an example of what's going on in this country today and a reason, one of the reasons why we have to reverse the political power that's in the white house and in the senate.

and, mr. speaker, the 2 dds -- $2.6 trillion in the first full 10 years of outlays of the obama administration is just -- it's a piece of this irresponsible spending that we've been involved in. and now with the administration driving that three mo maybe as much as 5ds trillion in unnecessary -- $5 trillion in unnecessary and irresponsible spending and projecting this national debt that goes from $14 trillion on up to $16.7 trillion , here's some examples of what we need to do to solve this problem. one is, as i said, repeal obamacare. rip it out by the roots, lock, stock and barrel. pull out all the vestiges of obamacare, without any particle of d.n.a. left behind, so that it can't reproduce and grow back on us. we cannot let that happen. it's an unconstitutional takings of american liberty, it's got to go. it diminishes our vitality, it

diminishes our future and american potential. pulling obamacare out by the roots is one big piece of the solution. another big piece of the solution, mr. speaker, is to pass the sales tax, the national sales tax. to end the i.r.s. as we know it, stop the punishment to people who are producing. we need people in the private sector that are out there creating a profit by their own nature of industrial news to and intuitive news to and entrepreneurialship and we need to grow the private sector and we need to reward people for doing that and instead we punish them. uncle sam has the first lean on all productivity in the country. every bit of it. if you have earnings, savings or investment, if you punch a time clock, if you have a pass book savings, if you have dividends or interest payments that are coming your way or a state that's coming your way or if you have capital gains that's coming

your way, how about the rent check for an apartment complex that you might have invested in, how about the per acre rent on a farm, how about anything you might sell that you've produced whether you've got a lemonade stand or whether you're the donald, uncle sam is going to tax your productivity, he stands there by that time card -- time clock day after day and when you go to work on monday morning at 8:00 and you punch the time clock you hear that thunk and his hand comes out of his pocket and he holds it out and you go to work and each dollar you earn goes into his hand until uncle sam has enough to satisfy his appetite for the fruits of your labor. when that moment comes and that day, you punch the time card and get a clock at 8:00, it might be 11:00, it might be 11:30, it might be noon, it might be after lunch that you finally earned

enough that uncle sam will put all those dollars you've earned in his pocket and walk away for the day. . you work for the governor and maybe you are doing it for the wife and kids or husband and kids as the case may be. not a lot left for us. but the next morning, that wolf is at the door again and you punch the time clock again and there is uncle sam and out comes his hand and each dollar you earned, he puts it in his pocket and walks away. why do people go to work while we have 72 means tested federal welfare programs that reward people for not working? over 72 of them so they can have rent subsidies, food stamp

subsidies than tanf program and the list goes on and on. no one can analyze how they motivate people to go to work or not go to work. people will pay them what you pay them to do. if you stay them to stay home, if you give them unemployment check and said you aren't going to get this check if you go to work, they aren't going to work any more. some will, we have good decent people in this country, but if you pay people not to work, they aren't going to show up to work. what we need to do is take the tax off of productivity and put it over on the consumption side and let everybody go to work and save all they want to save, invest all they want to invest,

67 -- 56% more in their pay check. the goods and services go down because in the price of what we are buying is the income tax and the payroll tax of the wages of the people that produce it. employers have to build that price in because they don't pay the tax. last stop, consumers pay the tax, not corporations, producers. they are are the collectors but not the payers, but the tax collect tors. if we go down to that line and shut off the i.r.s. and repeal and abolish the i.r.s. tax code and let people invest all they want to invest and save what they want to save and our economy gross dine makically again and the goods and services

start to come back here. we, mr. speaker, have gotten ourselves in a bad fix. we have exported because of our tax structure and the bureaucratic burden and the regulatory burden, we have ex ported to china. and now we buy chinese goods and borrow the money from the chinese to buy the product of the industry that they've created that we have shipped there. and it has been a colossal mistake to turn us into the america that sends i.o.u.'s to china while we pay people not to work, $212 billion, most of it went for unemployment benefits last december. we pay people not to work work, we pay people not to work on the

means tested programs and they are nudged out of the jobs because we have a number of illegals in our country which eight million are taking a job. it's bizarre for us, mr. speaker to pay millions not to work through 70-plus means tested welfare programs, play others not to work through unemployment and accept the idea that illegals take jobs from americans while we shift our industry to places like china and buy things from the chinese and saudis let alone develop our energy where we can drill, more drilling in the gulf and yes i would trade with canada and bring that pipeline down here

and while that's going on and that is a list of some of the things that i will admit, mr. speaker, but i add to that list, we are spending ourselves so deeply into debt there aren't many years that we can't figure out a way to come out and a balanced budget amendment is the only solution i can see that can crack the people over here that believe we can live in deficit and we aren't going to be held accountable and always borrow and spend and by all of the wants that they have politically so they can pacify their constituents and it happens on this side, too. i want to see a balanced budget amendment, too the next couple of months we will market the

idea of a balanced budget amendment. i want to see the balanced budget amendment that we marked up, it took three days to do so. and it requires that this federal government live under a balanced budget and 3/5 majority in order to waive that balance. if the body here decides we have to break that, 60% supermajority ffment we are going to raise the debt limit, super majority to do that. it requires that we spend below the cap of 18% of g.d.p. that we must not exceed an 18% gross domestic product cap. that's all the federal government can consume. we are up to 23 point something

percent. we have to get it down to 18%. that is a 2/3 majority. and it requires a 2/3 majority of increased tasks. those are standards that we need to hold to this congress and we need to send that over to the senateon onto the states. meanwhile, i just want to speak into the record that i voted no on this bill today to raise the debt ceiling and i did so for a number of reasons, one of them is the standards i put into the record are not written into the bill. the balanced budget amendment might take any form and might be waived. that seems a little ridiculous but the definition doesn't hold us to any standard. us to any standard. i want to hold to the standard