mr. van hollen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. . mr. garrett: at this time, the gentleman from tennessee, from -- there he is. from georgia for one minute, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized -- mr. kingston: can i have 30 seconds for the long stay? can i get a minute and a half? mr. garrett: we will yield main and a half. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman from new york. i appreciate my friend from new jersey. during this eight years as president, president bush increased the national debt $3 trillion. we spent too much money. but not to be outdone in a three-year period of time president obama has increased the national debt $5 trillion, a 56% increase. and then he turns around and lectures middle class american families struggleing -- families, struggling families to eat their peas. he offers nothing but a phony budget that even failed in the democrat-controlled senate 97-0. harry reid voted against his budget. the

mr. van holn: mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to look at the congressional budget office analysis of the impact of the republican budget on senior citizens on medicare. essentially what they do is give seniors a raw deal compared to what members of congress get themselves. anda raw deal in a big way. -- a raw deal in a big way. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: yield one minute to dr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: thank you. mr. speaker, but for the president of the united states who serves today a a democrat-controlled congress over the last two years we wouldn't be here today debating this. $3.8 trillion added to our debt and continuing on that same glide path. mr. speaker, we're here today because people across america, businesses, cities, states, all have to balance their budgets. the only game in this country, the only entity that doesn't have to b

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. just to be very clear, the senate leader, the democratic leader, mr. reid, has put on the table a plan that would cut more immediately than the republican plan before us today even if you don't include, even if you don't include the overseas contingency account funding. the difference is he would not put our economy in jeopardy again just five months fm now as the republican plan did. with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we're talking about being serious, and here we're considering a $2 trillion bill, $200 billion a year, slapped together behind closed doors, less than 24 hours when it was printed, no amendments that 53 senators already say they're going to oppose. we have a situation where last december we passed $400 billion a year tax cuts, and now everybody says we need $400 billion a year in deficit reduction. this bill does not cut anything. it

mr. van hollen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: regarding what sort of amendment that thomas jefferson may have been looking for today whether we would be looking for in what we call a super majority or what have you, jefferson would be going even further than what we are doing here today and say that congress should not have the ability to borrow at all. the amendment we are putting forward would give us greater flexibility in time of emergency, in time of war, that congress can take it upon themselves to borrow. jefferson understood that congress, just like the businesses and families at the time needed to live within their means and he saw it as i am moral to take a responsibility of this generation and place it on future generations. with that, i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: i have had the pleasure of representing arkansas' third district and i can still hear the v

mr. van hollen: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i will not yield. to throw the shiny ball out there that somehow the republicans will sustain these preferences when all along in our budget and in our plan we have said we're for tax reform. we have said we're for bringing down rates on everybody. and that's it, madam speaker. let's get serious and stop playing politics. it's not about that. there is no disagreement that any of us want to support those loopholes, but what's really going on, madam speaker, in all of the debt discussion, in all of the negotiation is the fact that the minority and its party and the president continue to insist that we raise taxes on the small business people that we need so desperately to begin creating jobs and hiring people again. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the iend, the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen, for yielding. the american public are rightfully very distressed with the congress of the united states. they're di

mr. van hollen, each will control two hours. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend. the house is not in order. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, madam speaker. today is a historic day. we have an opportunity in this body to send a strong signal to the country we are going to live within our means. at the heart of this discussion is a discussion about whether or not our country is going to live within its means. what we ask for at the heart of this proposal is that we balance our budget. it's something that families do. it's something that businesses do. it's -- a balanced budget amendment is something 49 states across the country have. unfortunately, in congress' past, presidents past we have not lived within our means. i heard the argument that says we don't need a constitutional amendment. we just need to do our job. guess what? the speaker pro tempore: the ge

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 t

mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i think the american people just heard a new definition of compromise. paying your bills is a compromise. the american family can't wake up one morning and say, boy, it's a compromise and pay for what i already incurred. it's a compromise to pay my mortgage. that's a new one for the american people. and it's part of a reckless patten that we have seen emerging here. furs our republican colleagues walked out of the biden talks. then twice they walked out of the talks of the president of the united states. then when the republican leader in the senate put forward a proposal, they ridiculed it. thursday night in this very house they said no to the proposal by the republican speaker of this house until he amended it. the same speaker who said we need to have an adu moment. here's the concluding paragrap today's "wall street journal." republicans are not loo

mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam spker. i think the american people just ard a new definition of compromise. paying your bills is a compromise. the american family can't wake up one morning and say, boy, it's a compromise and pay for what i already incurred. it's a compromise to pay my mortgage. that's a new one for the american people. and it's part of a reckless pattern that we have seen emerging here. furs our republican colleagues walked out of the biden talks. then twice they walked out of the talks of the president of the united states. then when the republican leader in the senate put forward a proposal, they ridiculed it. thursday night in this very house they said no to the proposal by the republican speaker of this house until he amended it. the same speaker who said we need to have an adult moment. here's the concluding paragraph of today's "wall street journal." republicans are not

mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i think the american people just heard a new definition of compromise. paying your bills is a compromise. the american family can't wake up one morning and say, boy, it's a compromise and pay for what i already incurred. it's a compromise to pay my mortgage. that's a new one for the american people. and it's part of a reckless pattern that we have seen emerging here. furs our republican colleagues walked out of the biden talks. then twice they walked out of the talks of the president of the united states. then when the republican leader in the senate put forward a proposal, they ridiculed it. thursday night in this very house they said no to the proposal by the republican speaker of this house until he amended it. the same speaker who said we need to have an adult moment. here's the concluding paragraph of today's "wall street journal." republicans are

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. just to be very clear, the senate leader, the democratic leader, mr. reid, has put on the table a plan that would cut more immediately than the republican plan before us today even if you don't include, even if you don't include the overseas contingency account funding. the difference is he would not put our economy in jeopardy again just five months from now as the republican plan did. with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we're talking about being serious, and here we're considering a $2 trillion bill, $200 billion a year, slapped together behind closed doors, less than 24 hours when it was printed, no amendments that 53 senators already say they're going to oppose. we have a situation where last december we passed $400 billion a year tax cuts, and now everybody says we need $400 billion a year in deficit reduction. this bill does not cut anything.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. just to be very clear, the senate leader, the democratic leader, mr. reid, has put on the table a plan that would cut more immediately than the republican plan before us today even if you don't include, even if you don't include the overseas contingency account funding. the difference is he would not put our economy in jeopardy again just five months from now as the republican plan did. with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we're talking about being serious, and here we're considering a $2 trillion bill, $200 billion a year, slapped together behind closed doors, less than 24 hours when it was printed, no amendments that 53 senators already say they're going to oppose. we have a situation where last december we passed $400 billion a year tax cuts, and now everybody says we need $400 billion a year in deficit reduction. this bill does not cut anything.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. just to be very clear, the senate leader, the democratic leader, mr. reid, has put on the table a plan that would cut more immediately than the republican plan before us today even if you don't include, even if you don't include the overseas contingency account funding. the difference is he would not put our economy in jeopardy again just five months from now as the republican plan did. with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we're talking about being serious, and here we're considering a $2 trillion bill, $200 billion a year, slapped together behind closed doors, less than 24 hours when it was printed, no amendments that 53 senators already say they're going to oppose. we have a situation where last december we passed $400 billion a year tax cuts, and now everybody says we need $400 billion a year in deficit reduction. this bill does not cut anything.

i recognize thereat leadership of mr. van hollen as our ranking member on the budget committee and he and mr. clyburn representing the values of the american people at the negotiating table for this. i rise in support of the reid legislation. i urge my colleagues to support it because it protects social security, medicaid and medicare , because it is fair. but i want to use my time in the following way -- i listened very carefly and very attentively to our speaker yesterday when he spoke and he used the term, "the bill is not perfect but we did our level best." our level best. one might inferrom that that this process is on the level. how can it be on the level if we're bringing a $2 trillion bill to the floor under suspension the same way we might bring the naming of a post office? $2.5 trillion, 20 minutes on each side. members have said on both sides of the aisle this is a very important debate. well, if it is why is it brought under suspension which requires a 2/3 vote guaranteeing that it will not prevail, not on the lev

i recognize the great leadership of mr. van hollen as our ranking member on the budget committee and he and mr. clyburn representing the values of the american people athe negotiating table for this. i rise in support of the reid legislation. i urge my colleagues to support it because it protects social security, medicaid and medicare , because it is fair. but i want to use my time in the following way -- i listened very carefully and very attentively to our speaker yesterday wh he spoke and he used the term, "the bill is not perfect but we did our level best." our level best. one might infer from that that this process is on the level. how can it be on the level if we're bringing a $2.5 trillion bill to the floor under suspension the same way we might bring the naming of a post office? $2.5 trillion, 20 minutes on each side. members have said on both sides of the aisle this is a very important debate. well, if it is why is it brought under suspension which requires a 2/3 vote guaranteeing that it will not prevail, not on the l

mr. van der weide, senior associate director, division of banking supervision and regulation federal reserve board. and mr. david wilson, senior deputy comptroller and chief national bank examiner, office of the comptroller office of the comptroller of the currency. mr. ramsey, you are recognized. >> chairman of the bar, ranking member capuano, members of the subcommittee, my name is john ramsay and i'm deputy director in the division of trading and markets of the security and exchange commission. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the commission concerning its oversight of credit rating agencies and the regulatory treatment ratings. the commission first gave her a story sort of rating agencies in 2006 with the passage of the credit rating agency reform act. which mandated the commission to establish a registration and oversight program for nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, or nrsros. it is important to note the commission is prohibited from regulating

mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. mcgovern.miss foxx, if you read the bill, that only applies to fiscal year 2012. it sets up budget targets for 10 years. the only way that cap applies is the first year. the remaining years continually ratchet it down. it is in the section related to the cut, ok? it goes cut, and then cap, and then supposed rigging of the constitution, that is what it does. so if you look at the constitution, i would urge the american people not just to read this. and i really do urged them to do it. but read it in connection to the constitutional provision that they are proposed, which jerry rigs the constitution of the united states in a way that favors by definition cuts to things like medicare over closing corporate loopholes. it requires two-thirds to eliminate a corporate tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction. you're going to put that into the constitution of the united states. >> by a reading of the bill, social security and medicare are on the table for future cuts. it is important that that

. >> i think you asked a very telling question of mr. van hollen about what he calls a loophole is actually the law. it is a tax law. do you know where that tax law was written in its most recent iteration? >> no, ma'am. >> it was actually in the stimulus bill which the president pushed and which every republican voted against. so i find it very interesting that the president has to pick something to demagogue which was actually in a bill which he pushed and these democrats all voted for. but i thought since you're pointing out so eloquently that it was a law, that we might ought to explain where the law came from. >> reclaiming my time. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i appreciate the gentleman saying he would never vote for a tax increase. the debate is whether it is a bad law, a loophole for corporate jet, whether that constitutes a tax increase. but as the gentleman knows, we have consistently raised the issue here that we are at war. and we're not paying for it. for me there is something wrong with the fact we ask our men and women

mr. van tine? >> i think as we look at it i think one of the concerns that we have is the use of security directives and certainly we recognize the importance of using security directives and contingencies and emergencies but there is this tendency to use it to influence standing policy rather than working with industry to look at the operational impacts and the consequences of some of those directives. so we would ask that tsa and congress looked at how we can work closer with the industry and not use that as a mechanism for creating policy. >> mr. alterman? >> i think going back to your original question whether we are being counseled that in terms of the technology we need in our instance anyway, the answer is now yes and what may have been in the past i think you know, there may have been some problems. that is not what we see concentrating on. the dhs cargo working groups we are formed within the past years, one of those working groups, subworking groups as specifically on the technology and h

mr. van hollen continues to raise the specter of medicare being cut. >> mrs. fox, which let me to respond to that? >> it is amazing that such a short bill can do so much damage. and just because it is only nine pages, as you say, does not mean that we should not have hearings on it and there should not be witnesses and it should not go through a markup. this is a big deal. the idea that because it is a short bill, it is no big deal, which cannot follow regular process. that is not the weight -- the right way to go. >> thank you, mr. mcgovern. miss foxx, if you read the bill, that only applies the fiscal year 2012. it sets of budget targets for 10 years. the only way that cap applies is the first year. the remaining years continually ratcheted down. it is in the section related to the cut, ok? it goes cut, and then capped, rigging of thee id constitution, that is what it does. so if you look at the constitution, i would urge the american people not just to read this. but read it in connection to the constitutional provision that they are proposed, which jerry r

mr. van tine? >> i think as we look at it i think one of the concerns that we have is the use of security directives and certainly we recognize the importance of using security directives and contingencies and emergencies but there is this tendency to use it to influence standing policy rather than working with industry to look at the operational impacts and the consequences of some of those directives. so we would ask that tsa and congress looked at how we can work closer with the industry and not use that as a mechanism for creating policy. >> mr. alterman? >> i think going back to your original question whether we are being counseled that in terms of the technology we need in our instance anyway, the answer is now yes and what may have been in the past i think you know, there may have been some problems. that is not what we see concentrating on. the dhs cargo working groups we are formed within the past years, one of those working groups, subworking groups as specifically on the technology and h

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would hazard a guess that thomas jefferson would not want to write into the constitution

mr. van tine? >> i think as we look at it i think one of the concerns that we have is the use of security directives and certainly we recognize the importance of using security directives and contingencies and emergencies but there is this tendency to use it to influence standing policy rather than working with industry to look at the operational impacts and the consequences of some of those directives. so we would ask that tsa and congress looked at how we can work closer with the industry and not use that as a mechanism for creating policy. >> mr. alterman? >> i think going back to your original question whether we are being counseled that in terms of the technology we need in our instance anyway, the answer is now yes and what may have been in the past i think you know, there may have been some problems. that is not what we see concentrating on. the dhs cargo working groups we are formed within the past years, one of those working groups, subworking groups as specifically on the technology and h

the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: sthanching you, mr. speaker -- thank you, mr. speaker. it's high time to stop playing rush and rule et with the american economy and american jobs and that's what this will measure does. it says ok, america, we are going to pay america's bills, but only for five more months and only if we put in motion a plan that will end the medicare guarantee and slash education. the proposal before us today will put the american economy and american jobs at even greater jeopardy over the next five months than they are today. it deliberately, by choice, keeps the economy under a cloud of instability and uncertainty. it chooses to risk higher interest rates and shrinking retirement funds, a hit on every american family. so why would we choose to intentionally keep this cloud hanging over the country and the american people? we're told that we have to do it in order to force this congress to reduce the deficit. that's what we're told. but the actions tell a very different story. the actions suggest this is not about red

. >> we are joined by maryland congressman chris van hollen, and first, what was the reaction to mr. walsh's considered contribution to the debate. he won't even vote for speaker boehner's plan. >> well, you see the exactly the dilemma we are facing which is a core of hard right tea party members in the house of representatives who don't think it is a problem if the united states doesn't pay the bills and every american family has to pay the mortgage and make the car payment and get up one day and say i'm not making the payments anymore, but that is what they are proposing but the single exception is that we will pay china and the bondholders, but it is okay not to pay the troops and not the pay social security and anything that is not in the form of a treasury bond obligation, they are willing to write off, and say, you are on your own. we think that is reckless and we also think that is in itself jack up interest rates and cost americans much more through their purchases of all of the goods and services throughout the economy when you have interest rates going up. >> mr. van hollen

but when the president talked about shared political sacrifice and shared political pain, you heard mr. van hollen an esteemed member of the democratic leadership saying that the democrats may not go for everything that the president is putting on the table, and that is significant. >> absolutely. luke, you have spoken about the ideologues and the 17 freshmen who will not offer any kind of compromise. are these individuals, can i ask you, are these individuals happy to keep the personal promise of not raising revenues even if it plunges the nation into a catastrophic financial crisis? >> well, it depends who is telling the truth in their opinion. they don't believe the warnings that are heeded from tim geithner or the warnings from moody's and they honestly believe they were sent to washington, d.c. with one thing to do and that is to cut spending and reduce the nation's debt. so they see it as very black and white. why are you going the raise the nation's debt limit when we are broke. a lot of them do not understand at this level right now what exactly are the financial intricacies to occu

i would like to recognize mr. van holland and in a prepared statement he have will enter the record. statement.tyour >> 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

mr. van hollen: i thank my colleague. there is a little pattern emerging here. first, we had our republican colleagues walk out of the biden talks. then twice they walked out of the president. and then last night they said no to the proposal put forward by their own speaker. and that brings us to where we are today. in order to accommodate the more extreme elements of the republican caucus, they had to change the bill once again. and now what they're proposing is ultimately we turn budget authority over to not to the elected representatives but to a federal judge who would ultimately decide how we're going to deal with our budget. you talk about passing the buck. you talk about not taking responsibility. now is the time to come together to come up with a reasonable compromise, not to move the party far apart. the last point, madam speaker, i want to make with regards to the deficit, we want to make sure we have a plan, a balanced plan to reduce the deficit, and i'm just waiting for my colleagues to say, my colleagues on the other side to say that they're willing

mr. gramm -- van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and madame chairman -- and madame secretary, thank you for your testimony. i want to pick up on questions as they relate to cost shifting. that is exactly what the affordable care act addresses in many ways. when you have tens of millions of americans with no health insurance whatsoever and they show up at the hospital as their primary care provider, guess who pays? taxpayers and consumers through cost shifting. we have heard from the chairman about the fact that medicare gets a better deal in terms of the amount of payments to providers, which is reflected in part that the per-capita growth rates have been less in the private sector which is because they are able to use their bargaining power. what you're seeing with the affordable care act are people with no health insurance, not one penny. that was cost shifting. we were all paying in a big way. by creating an exchange that tens of millions of americans can create -- per dissipate, it means they are not showing up in the

the chair now recognizes mr. van tine. >> thank you mr.before you and speak about the efforts to reauthorize the transportation and security administration. mr. chairman as you said my day job i am president and ceo. i do appear today on behalf of gamma and my role as a security chairman for the general aviation manufacturers association. gamma represents 72 world leading manufactures of fixed-wing aircraft engines, avionics and components. since the events of september 11, 2001, the generation committee has worked diligently to increase security measures and awareness of potential threats to the aviation system. numerous domestic and international initiatives have been put in place by both government and industry that substantially mitigate security risks. there are however areas which we believe the committee should focus for improving security and obtaining operational efficiencies. the first is a large aircraft security program. the large aircraft security program has received significant attention from the general aviation community a

mr. jim van deheye. take a look at the way the hopefuls responded to the speech.pawlenty, michelle bachmann among others. what were they saying? >> a unified message and a political message saying the president is not doing enough. they like the plan the plan that john boehner, the speaker of the house, has put forward for the party. every one of them can see this as an opportunity to do a lot more in cutting spending and nothing to raise taxes and they have to protect taxes where they are or reduce them. so, it's a pretty standard line. it's one of the reasons -- nobody is really distinguishing themselves in this debate. and in truth, no one is distinguishing themselves in this field. which is why you have so much activity behind the scenes of talk of somebody else getting in. people trying to read jeb bush's comments over the weekend or christie's trip to iowa mean he'll jump into the race or will rick perry do it in the next week or two. >> let's talk about rick perry. he looks like he's closer than he was a couple of weeks ago, even? >> he's extremely close to

van hollen. >> thank you, mr. clyburn, and my colleagues. thank you for your leadership. in the last several days we have seen some good news and some bad news. the good news is that a wake-up call has been sent to those people who were deluded enough to think that if the united states defaulted on its debt it would not have very serious consequences for our economy and jobs. for a while there were people who would say that secretary geithner is making this stuff up. it is not real. well, is standard and poor's making it up? is moody's making it up? is the u.s. chamber of commerce making it up? defaulting on our debt, not paying america's bills for the first time in history will have devastating consequences for the economy. it is absolutely irresponsible for people to continue to take the position that it is okay for the united states not to pay its bills. the bad news was, unfortunately, we just heard from the republican caucus. because i heard the speaker say two things that were in conflict. on the one hand he says he still wants to get a big agreement -- a big agreem

balanced plan that offers republicans a cut and they want, house speaker john van ark responders the president's address saying that mr. 0bama has been no help in resolving the nation's debt ceiling issues. or let's take a look at the two proposals. president obama is supporting the plan was unveiled by harry reid that cuts 2.7 trillion in spending and raises the debt ceiling to the end of 2012. >> just last fall americans are feeling better about personal finances. and now, people are starting to worry about paying off their debt. take a look at the associated press poll. it is saying that nearly half of the country is experiencing debt stress. that is up by 17% in november. households earning more than 75,000 have had the biggest increase in debt related stress the distressful continue to be the highest in households that have lost jobs and people with family incomes below $20,000. >> let's get a full check on weather forecasts, james fletcher tracking fog and a warm-up coming later. >> here is the view from mt. tam. low cloud cover but it will pull back by noon or so giving everyone a chance for sunshine. temperatu

mr. chair and vice-chair and ranking member van hollen. i'm going to add my voice to those here not only on behalf of the country and, making sure that we do not default. i think there's a thought that i am not aware of where it originated, i first heard enunsy eighted by then vice president hubert humphrey, when he said that our nation is judged by how well we protect those who are living in the twilight of their years, our seniors. and how we treat those who are in the dawning of their lives, our children. and i think that what democrats have done in these negotiations is to make sure that as we solidify this country, as a nation, that we also protect those men and women who have given so much to bring us to where we are and make sure that they have some dignity as they live out their lives with the assistance of medicare, medicaid, as well as their children and grandchildren who must have opportunities to have a good life in this great country of ours. that's been the hallmark of our negotiations and i'm very proud of the fact that we s

a member of the body of the house of representatives, jason chavitz was on greta van susteren last night saying, hey, mrf this, cut, cap and balance. >> mr. president, what are you afraid of? all we're asking for is send to the states a balanced budget amendment. that's all we're asking for. it's a three threshold. three quarters of the states would have to ratify it for it to become an amendment. this argument will be about do you or do you not want to balance the budget? i don't know that the president wants to eventually balance the budget. >> alisyn: the president had a lot to say about this. he basically said this is a symbolic vote because he had said that he was going to veto it and the senate wouldn't pass it, that they were doing this as his spokesperson said, for kabooky theater. let's listen to what the president said now. >> we don't have any more time to engage in symbolic gestures. we don't have any more time to posture. it's time to get down to the business of actually solving this problem and i think we now are seeing the potential for a bipartisan consensus around what that would take.

mr. chair, advice chair and ranking member van holland. i want to add my voice here not only to those on behalf of the country in making sure we do not default. i think there's a thought that i am not aware of where it originated. i first heard it enunciated by then vice president hubert humphrey when he said that our nation is judged by how well we protect those who are living in the twilight of their years, our seniors, and how we treat those who are in the dawning of their lives, our children. and i think that what democrats have done in these negotiations is to make sure that as we solidify this country as a nation, that we also protect those men and women who have given so much to bring us to where we are, and make sure that they have some dignity as they live out their lives with the assistance of medicare, medicade, as well as their children and grandchildren, who must have opportunities to have a good life in this great country of ours. that has been the hallmark of our negotiations, and i am very proud of the fact that we stayed a

van susteren standing by to go live on the record. see you tomorrow night. >> greta: tonight: >> we want to work together mr. president. we are not playing games. we've got serious matters. people are out of work. unemployment at 9.2%. we've got to get the fiscal house in order. stop your policies in washington that are wrecking the economy. >> greta: the clashing continues. maybe about to explode in washington. much more with leader cantor and the bully politics he says president obama is playing. >> first, bad news for speaker boehner. he sure didn't need this. the cbo just scored his plan and says it only racks up 850 billion dollars in new savings. he thought it was 1.2 trillion. that's not enough for his party. right now the speaker's team is preparing to burn the midnight oil. there's more, to make matters worse for speaker boehner, president obama is threatening to veto that bill if it passes the house then the senate ends up in the oval office on the president's desk. that puts us farther from agreement. and the deadline to raise the debt ceiling is one week away. now what? sarah palin joins us. good evening go

van hollen, the ranking member of the budget committee joining us now. good afternoon, sir. >> good afternoon, martin. >> the clock is ticking, congressman, and what did you think of the farcical scenes of mr. boehner incapable of securing enough support for the plan, and do you think it is likely to pass today? >> well, martin, many weeks ago, speaker of the house john boehner called for an adult moment, and last night we saw them heading in the exact opposite direction. this is a time, as the president said, for responsible compromise, and instead of reaching out across the aisle, what he is doing is to catering to the far right tea party extreme of his own party, and went from a bill that is already, you know, uncompromising to one that is even worse. >> so are you calling him a child? >> well, i'm saying he was headed in the wrong direction by his own -- he has not met his own call for the adult moment at this particular point in time. we hope we get to that point quickly. unfortunately, because house republicans refuse to come up with the sensible compromise, we are going to have to ask harry reid and mitch mcconnell to see what they can iron out. >> i wanted to ask you that, because

congressman van hollen brought a democratic alternative. 166 affirmative votes. the only budget to get 218 votes, mr. speaker, was the house budget committee budget with 235 yes votes. 235. now, that's a budget that was weighed out line item by line item so everybody in america could see what we were doing to achieve these savings to change the direction of our borrowing and our spending. now, no one even introduced the president's budget in this body, mr. speaker. no one brought it. the senate brought the president's budget and it was defeated 0-97. the united states senate, mr. speaker, defeated the president's budget 0-97. now, they brought the house-passed budget over there. it received 40 affirmative votes. still couldn't pass a budget. as my colleague said earlier, it's been over 800 days since the senate passed a budget. now, i know the president has come back out and talked about some alternatives, some things he would do differently from the budget he offered in february, differently from that budget that got zero votes in the senate, and the budget committee hearing we asked the other day

street bakersfield, california, at the myron, done know van crocker united states -- dono have van courthouse. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer:. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent h.r. 1309 be discharged from the committee on banking and it be returned to the house of representatives pursuant to the message of july 25, 2011, requesting its return. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm told there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading. t the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill. the clerk: s. 1420, a bill to require the united states government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public, social security benefits, and military pay in the event of the debt limit is reached and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask for its second reading and that's for purpose of placing this bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14

audience from the issue of question through the introduction of some i recall religion van sivment -- irrelevancy. mr. sessions: i am sure it is worth discussion how politicians use it. mr. hatch: well, as you can see, that's what they're doing. i'm glad you bring this up. i did some research and found that the term "red herring" comes from the sport of fox hunting and that red herring something one which distracts the audience from the issues of relevancy. all of these tax issues that president obama notice notice kn the other side of the aisle we're discussion are red herrings. meant to distract the americans and the real choices that democrats have to but are refusing to make. let me walk through some examples. if we were to raise the depreciable life on corporate jets from five years to seven years as the democrats propose, it would yield $3.1 billion over ten years. and how many -- i'd just say -- mr. sessions: well, how many days of debt reduction over that ten-year period would a $3 billion savings or increase in taxes amount to? mr. hatch: well, you know, to hear the president talking, you wo