Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON THIS VOTE THE YEAS
ARE 181, THE NAYS ARE 233.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
THE CLERK WILL READ THE FINAL
LINES OF THE BILL.
THIS ACT MAY BE CITED
AS THE ENERGY AND WATER
DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATION ACT, 2012.
IN ORDER.
THE COMMITTEE WILL BE IN ORDER.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
JERSEY SEEK RECOGNITION?
YES, I DO.
I MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE NOW
DOTH RISE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE
COMMITTEE DO NOW RISE AND REPORT
THE BILL BACK TO THE HOUSE WITH
SUNDRY AMENDMENTS WITH A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
AMENDMENTS BE AGREED TO AND THAT
THE BILL BE -- THAT THE BILL AS
AMENDED DO PASS.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE MOTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE MOTION IS ADOPTED.
ACCORDINGLY THE COMMITTEE RISES.
THE WHITE HOUSE, HAVING HAD
UNDER CONSIDERATION H.R. 2354,
DIRECTS ME TO REPORT THE BILL
BACK TO THE HOUSE.
THE BILL AS AMEND DODD PASS.
-- AMENDED DO PASS.
THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE
UNION REPORTS THAT THE COMMITTEE
HAS HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION THE
BILL HRMENT R. 2354 AND REPORTS
THE BILL BACK TO THE HOUSE WITH
SUNDRY AMENDMENTS ADOPTED IN THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
AMENDMENTS BE ADOPTED AND THAT
THE BILLS AMENDED DO PASS.
UNDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 337, THE
PREVIOUS QUESTION IS ORDERED.
IT IS A SEPARATE VOTE DEMANDED
ON ANY AMENDMENT -- IS A
SEPARATE VOTE DEMANDED ON ANY
AMENDMENT REPORTED FROM THE
COMMITTEE ON THE WHOLE?
IF NOT THE CHAIR WILL PUT THEM
ENGROSS.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE AMENDMENTS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE.
IT THE AMENDMENTS ARE ADOPTED.
THE QUESTION IS ON ENGROSSMENT
AND THIRD READING OF THE BILL.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THIRD READING.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND
WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED
AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2012, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW YORK RISE?
I HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMIT
IS THE GENTLEMAN
OPPOSED TO THE BILL?
IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
GENTLEMAN QUALIFIES.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE
MR. OWENS OF NEW YORK
MOVES TO RECOMMIT THE BILL, H.R.
APPROPRIATIONS WITH INSTRUCTIONS
TO REPORT THE SAME BACK TO THE
HOUSE FORTHWITH WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS.
PAGE 23, LINE 20, AFTER THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT INSERT, INCREASE
BY $5 MILLION.
PAGE 32, LINE 4 THROUGH 23,
AFTER THE DOLLAR AMOUNT INSERT
REDUCE BY $7 MILLION.
PAGE 36, LINE 17, AFTER THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT INSERT, INCREASE
BY $2 MILLION.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
THIS WEEK THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE ACKNOWLEDGED IN THEIR
CYBERSECURITY PLAN WHAT MANY OF
US HAVE KNOWN FOR SOME TIME.
THAT CYBERSPACE, LIKE LAND, SEA
AND AIR, THAT WE HAVE DEFENDED
FOR OVER 200 YEARS REQUIRES OUR
THE NATION.
I OFFER THIS FINAL AMENDMENT
TODAY TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN.
I HAVE IN MY DISTRICT FORT DRUM,
I HAVE A LENGTHY EXPANSE OF
BORDER BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
ALL OF US I
HAVE THE ELECTRIC GRID WHICH IS
ONE OF THE AREAS THAT IS MOST
POTENTIALLY STRUCK BY A
CYBERATTACK.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO QUOTE FOR
YOU A STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE LEON PANETTA WHO NOTED
IN RECENT TESTIMONY THAT THE
NEXT PEARL HARBOR WE CONFRONT
COULD VERY WELL BE A CYBERATTACK
THAT CRIPPLES OUR POWER SYSTEMS,
OUR GRID, OUR SECURITY SYSTEMS,
OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, OUR
GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEMS.
IT'S NO SECRET THAT THE INTERNET
HAS BECOME A CRITICAL COMPONENT
OF OUR DAY TO DAY LIVES.
EVERY DAY ACROSS THE GLOBE OVER
TWO BILLION USERS GET ONLINE TO
SHOP, DO BUSINESS, CONNECT WITH
FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND A HOST OF
OTHER ACTIVITIES.
CYBERSECURITY AFFECTS CLEARLY
OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE, ALL OF OUR
BUSINESSES, OUR SCHOOLS, OUR
SENIORS, IN EFFECT ALL OF US.
INDEED WHILE THE INTERNET HAS
BECOME ONE OF OUR STRONGEST
CAPABILITIES IT HAS ALSO EMERGED
AS A STUNNING VULNERABILITY.
WE NEED ONLY TO LOOK AT RECENT
CYBERATTACKS ON SONY, LOCK HEED
MARTIN AND OTHER ENTERPRISES TO
WITNESS THE COMBRORD DAMAGE THAT
CAN BE CAUSED FROM ANYWHERE IN
THE WORLD.
AT RELATIVELY LITTLE COST TO
THOSE THAT CARE HE OUT THESE
ACTIONS.
HACKERS BECOME MORE
SOPHISTICATED BY THE HOUR.
AN ATTACK COULD CRIPPLE FORT
DRUM, COULD CRIPPLE OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY, COULD
CRIPPLE THE ELECTRIC GRID,
CRIPPLE HEALTH CARE, CRIPPLE
OUR ABILITY TO PAY OUR BILLS
AND TO RAISE MONEY.
IN EFFECT, DESTROY OUR ECONOMY.
WE ALL KNOW THAT IF THE
ELECTRIC GRID WERE CRIPPLED
THAT WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO GET
TO WORK, WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO
KEEP PEOPLE WARM, TO KEEP
PEOPLE COOL, ALL THINGS THAT WE
RECOGNIZE AS NECESSITIES.
I OFFER THIS FINAL AMENDMENT TO
INCREASE CYBERSECURITY IN
DEFENSE OF THE ELECTRIC GRID BY
$7 MILLION.
THIS MODEST INCREASE KEEPS AN
EYE TOWARDS OUR NEED TO REDUCE
THE DEFICIT WHILE MAKING NEEDED
INVESTMENTS TO PROTECT OUR MOST
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS FINAL AMENDMENT IS FULLY
OFFSET AND WILL GO A LONG WAY
TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY FROM
THIS EMERGING THREAT.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR
TIME AND ASK THAT THEY JOIN ME
BY VOTING YES ON THIS FINAL
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, AND I
YIELD BACK.
IS THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY
OPPOSED TO THE MOTION?
YES, I AM,
MADAM CHAIRMAN.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I STAND IN
RECOMMIT.
OUR UNDERLYING BILL ALREADY
ADEQUATELY FUNDS CYBERSECURITY
AND SUCH GRID ACTIVITY, THOUGH
MUCH WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE TO
PROTECT AGAINST THE CONSISTENT
ATTACKS ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE
AS FOR THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION, IT IS TRULY A
HOUSE PRODUCT.
IT PROVIDES FUNDS CRITICAL TO
OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
IT HELPS MAINTAIN AND REBUILD
OUR NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT SUPPORTS AN ECONOMIC CLIMATE
TO CREATE JOBS WITHOUT
PRIVATE SECTOR.
IT ALSO HELPS THOSE DEVASTATED
BY THE FLOODS IN THE MIDWEST
AND SOUTH WHILE FULLY
OFFSETTING THAT HELP.
AND IT CUTS FUNDING IN THE
ENTIRE ENERGY AND WATER BUDGET
DOWN TO NEAR 2006 LEVELS.
MADAM SPEAKER, OURS IS A STRONG
I URGE OUR MEMBERS TO VOTE
AGAINST THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT
AND FOR THE UNDERLYING BILL,
AND I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION IS ORDERED ON THE
MOTION TO RECOMMIT.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION
TO RECOMMIT.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE MOTION IS NOT AGREED TO.
MADAM SPEAKER, I ASK
FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN HAS ASKED FOR A
RECORDED VOTE.
THOSE FAVORING A RECORDED VOTE
WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, A RECORDED VOTE IS
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 9 OF RULE
20, THE CHAIR WILL REDUCE TO
FIVE MINUTES THE MINIMUM TIME
FOR THE ELECTRONIC VOTE ON THE
QUESTION OF PASSAGE.
THIS IS A 15-MINUTE VOTE.
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY
THE NATIONAL CAPTIONING
INSTITUTE, INC., IN COOPERATION
WITH THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON THIS
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 182, THE NAYS
ARE 232, THE MOTION IS NOT
ADOPTED.
THE QUESTION IS ON PASSAGE OF
UNDER CLAUSE 10 OF RULE 20, THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
THIS WILL BE A FIVE-MINUTE VOTE.
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY THE
NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE,
INC., IN COOPERATION WITH THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS EXPRESSLY
REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON THIS
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 219, THE NAYS
ARE 196, THE BILL IS PASSED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER IS LAID ON THE TABLE.
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA RISE?
MADAM SPEAKER, I PRESENT A
UNDER THE RULE.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
REPORT TO ACCOMPANY
H.R. 2551, A BILL MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
REFERRED TO THE UNION CALENDAR
AND ORDERED PRINTED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1 OF RULE 21,
POINTS OF ORDER ARE RESERVED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OREGON RISE?
MADAM SPEAKER, ON ROLL CALL
VOTE 585 I INADVERTENTLY
RECORDED MY VOTE INCORRECTLY.
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED
BY REPRESENTATIVE GOSAR I
INTENDED TO VOTE NO.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THIS STATEMENT APPEAR IN THE
RECORD ADJACENT TO ROLL CALL
585.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
MADAM.
THE VOTE ON THE SCHIFF AMENDMENT
ON YESTERDAY, WHICH WAS JULY 14,
2011, I INCORRECTLY VOTED NO.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT MY
CORRECT VOTE BE PLACED INTO THE
AMENDMENT -- EXCUSE ME, PLACED
INTO THE RECORD AS AN AYE VOTE
FOR THE SCHIFF AMENDMENT ON
YESTERDAY, JULY 14, 2011, TO THE
ENERGY AND WATER BILL WHICH IS
-- TO THE ENERGY AND WATER BILL
THAT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE GENTLEWOMAN'S
STATEMENT WILL BE ENTERED INTO
THE RECORD.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MARYLAND RISE?
HOYER HIGHWAY I ASK TO SPEAK OUT
OF ORDER FOR --
I ASK TO SPEAK OUTER
ORDER FOR ONE MINUTE.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD
TO THE MAJORITY LEADER.
THE
RECOGNIZED.
GENTLELADY.
I THANK THE SPEAKER, I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND, THE
DEMOCRATIC WHIP, FOR YIELDING.
MADAM SPEAKER, ON MONDAY THE
HOUSE WILL MEET AT NOON FOR
MORNING HOUR AND 2:00 P.M. FOR
ELECTIVE BUSINESS WITH VOTES
POSTPONED UNTIL 6:30 P.M.
THIS IS A CHANGE FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE THAT WAS
WEEK.
WE WILL BE SENDING OUT AN
ANNOUNCEMENT SHORTLY SO THAT ALL
MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF THIS
CHANGE.
AGAIN, MADAM SPEAKER, THE HOUSE
WILL NOW CONVENE ON MONDAY OF
NEXT WEEK, NOT TUESDAY.
IT IS CRITICAL, MADAM SPEAKER,
THAT WE SOLVE OUR NATION'S
FISCAL PROBLEM AND INTEND TO
SCHEDULE THE HOUSE FOR
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS IF NEEDED
TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL.
MR. SPEAKER, HOW IT'S IS NOT IN
ORDER -- THE HOUSE IS NOT IN
ORDER.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT, THE HOUSE
WILL COME TO ORDER.
PLEASE TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS
OUTSIDE.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
ON TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY AND
THURSDAY, THE HOUSE WILL MEET
HOUR AND NOON FOR LEGISLATIVE
ON FRIDAY THE HOUSE WILL MEET
BUSINESS.
LAST VOTES OF THE WEEK ARE
P.M. ON FRIDAY.
MR. SPEAKER, THE HOUSE WILL
CONSIDER A FEW BILLS UNDER
SUSPENSION OF THE RULES ON
MONDAY WHICH WILL BE ANNOUNCED
BY THE CLERK AT THE END OF
I DO NOT EXPECT ANY OTHER
SUSPENSIONS ON MONDAY.
ON TUESDAY THE HOUSE WILL
CONSIDER THE CUT, CAP AND
THE PRESIDENT WITH AN INCREASE
IN THE DEBT CEILING SO LONG AS
CUTS ARE MADE IN THE SHORT
TERM, SPENDING CAPS ARE PUT IN
PLACE IN THE COMING YEARS AND A
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION THAT'S ADOPTED
SO WE NEVER FIND OURSELVES IN
THIS POSITION AGAIN.
I'D ENCOURAGE MANY MEMBERS AS
POSSIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
IMPORTANT DEBATE ON TUESDAY.
WEEK THE HOUSE WILL CONSIDER
LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE
EXPIRING AUTHORIZATION OF THE
F.A.A., A SERIES OF BILLS
REPORTED BY THE FINANCIAL
SERVICES COMMITTEE THAT DEAL
WITH THE IMPENDING TRANSFER OF
AUTHORITY TO THE CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU AND
FINALLY, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
MR. SPEAKER, I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN WILL YIELD BACK.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR HIS INFORMATION.
I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING NOW THAT WE ARE,
AS THE GENTLEMAN HAS POINTED
OUT, WE ARE GOING TO BE MEETING
ON MONDAY AND WILL BE VOTING ON
MONDAY AT 6:30 RATHER THAN
COMMENCING ON TUESDAY AT 6:30.
THE GENTLEMAN HAS POINTED OUT
THAT THAT'S TO ACCOMMODATE THE
CHALLENGE THAT CONFRONTS US IN
THE CRISIS THAT WE HAVE BEEN
PUT IN WITH REFERENCE TO
ASSURING, A, THAT THE --
AMERICA DOES NOT DEFAULT ON ITS
BILLS AND THAT WE CONTINUE TO
PURSUE EFFORTS TO BRING THE
DEFICIT DOWN AND THE DEBT UNDER
CONTROL.
I SAY TO MY FRIEND THAT IT IS
LATE, HE'S RIGHT, WE SHOULDN'T
CONFRONT THIS SITUATION.
WE HAVE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS,
OF COURSE, BOTH THE GENTLEMAN
AND I HAVE VOTED IN THE PAST TO
EXTEND THE DEBT LIMIT SO THAT
AMERICA CAN PAY THE BILLS THAT
IT HAS INCURRED.
THE GENTLEMAN ALSO NOTES THAT A
PIECE OF LEGISLATION WAS
BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR TO ENSURE
WE PAY OUR BILLS.
IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR
WITH EXPRESSED INTENTIONS BY
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WAYS AND
MEANS COMMITTEE THAT IT BE
DEFEATED AND, OF COURSE, IT WAS
ALL DEFEATED AND ALL YOUR
MEMBERS VOTED AGAINST IT.
THOUGH HALF OF MY MEMBERS VOTED
TO MAKE SURE WE PAY OUR BILLS
SO WE DO NOT GET TO THIS
POSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN AND I HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED IN EFFORTS TO REACH
AGREEMENT WITH THE PRESIDENT,
WITH THE SENATE AND WITH
OURSELVES, WITH BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE SO WE CAN NOT ONLY
PROVIDE WITH AMERICA'S PAYING
ITS BILLS, WHICH IF IT DOESN'T
WILL HAVE VERY SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD
IN AMERICA, 401-K, PENSION
PROGRAM IN AMERICA, AND THE
GENTLEMAN AND I AGREE AND
EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE WITH THE
PRESIDENT AGREED ALLOWING
AMERICA TO DEFAULT ON ITS BILLS
WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT ANY OF
US BELIEVE WAS A POLICY THAT
WAS APPROPRIATE.
I SAY TO MY FRIEND THE CUT, CAP
AND BALANCE ACT, WE'VE BEEN
CONFRONTED WITH THIS CHALLENGE
FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
YOU WERE TO -- GOING TO BRING
TO THE FLOOR NEXT WEEK A
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH
WAS ANNOUNCED AND WHICH I
THOUGHT WAS COMING AND WHICH WE
HAD TOLD OUR MEMBERS WAS
COMING.
YOU HAVE NOW CONSTITUTED FOR
THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AM I
CORRECT, THE CUT, CAP AND
BALANCE ACT?
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS NO
TEXT OF THAT ACT AVAILABLE AT
THIS TIME, IS THAT ACCURATE?
IS THERE NO TEXT AVAILABLE FOR
THAT BILL?
I YIELD.
GENTLEMAN.
MR. SPEAKER, I'D SAY BACK TO
THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE BILL IS
CURRENTLY BEING DRAFTED AND
WILL BE POSTED ONLINE LATER
THIS EVENING.
CONSISTENT WITH OUR
THREE-DELEOVER REQUIREMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR HIS COMMENT.
GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS IS, AS
THE GENTLEMAN POINTED OUT, THIS
CRISIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR US
FOR OVER FIVE, SIX MONTHS NOW
THAT WE WERE GOING TO CONFRONT
THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE CUT,
CAP AND BALANCE PLEDGE THAT HAS
BEEN FUTURE FORWARD -- I DON'T
KNOW WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE
PUT FORWARD IN THE LEGISLATION
-- BUT THE PLEDGE SAYS THAT
YOUR SIDE OR THE PEOPLE --
EXCUSE ME -- PEOPLE WHO SIGNED
THE PLEDGE, WHATEVER SIDE
THEY'RE ON, ARE GOING TO OPPOSE
ANY DEBT LIMIT INCREASE UNLESS
ALL THREE OF THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS HAD BEEN MET.
ONE, CUT SUBSTANTIAL CUTS IN
SPENDING THAT WOULD REDUCE THE
DEFICIT NEXT YEAR AND
THEREAFTER.
SEEMS TO ME THAT WE PASSED A
BUDGET THROUGH THIS HOUSE THAT
DOES THAT.
IT DOESN'T REACH BALANCE, OF
FROM NOW.
BUT SECONDLY IT SAYS AS A
CONDITION FOR VOTING FOR DEBT
EXTENSION THAT UNFORCIBLE
SPENDING CUTS WILL PUT IT ON A
PATH TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET.
WE HAD DISCUSSIONS IN THE WHITE
HOUSE ON CUTS AND WHAT THEY
APPLY TO, A PERCENTAGE OF
G.D.P. OR THE ABSOLUTE CAPS IN
SPENDING WHICH OBVIOUSLY
ESCALATE DENEGATION OF THE
ABILITY TO DELIVER SERVICES
OVER THE YEARS, DEPENDING UPON
THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S
INCORPORATED.
I HAVE NOT SEEN THE
LEGISLATION, OF COURSE.
AND THEN THIRDLY, A BALANCE,
AND THEN PA RENT --
PARENTHESIS, NOT NEAR SUPPORT.
I GUESS THEY WILL NOT VOTE TO
MAKE SURE AMERICA PAYS ITS
BILLS ON AUGUST 3.
CONGRESSIONAL PACKAGE OF A
BALANCED AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION BUT ONLY IF IT
INCLUDES BOTH SPENDING
LIMITATIONS AND A SUPERMAJORITY
FOR RAISING TAXES IN ADDITION
TO BALANCING REVENUES AND
EXPENSES.
NOW, I PRESUME THAT THAT
REQUIREMENT WILL HAVE TO COME,
ACCORDING TO THIS PLEDGE, TO
GET VOTES FOR WHICH -- INCLUDED
THIS CUT, CAP AND BALANCE
REQUIREMENT.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN BELIEVE THAT
THE SECOND TO AT LEAST -- ONE
COULD ARGUE WE'VE ALREADY DONE
THE FIRST IN TERMS OF MADE
SUBSTANTIAL CUTS AND WE
DISCUSSED AGREEING ON MAKING
SUBSTANTIAL CUTS BUT THAT THE
SECOND TWO CONDITIONS CANNOT
POSSIBLY BE MET BETWEEN NOW AND
AUGUST 2?
I YIELD.
MR. SPEAKER, I'D
SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN, AS HE HAS
HEARD ME SAY BEFORE IN THOSE
MEETINGS AND ON THIS FLOOR, I
DON'T WANT TO PASS AUGUST 2
WITHOUT INCREASING THE DEBT
CEILING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY IF
THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, A LOT OF
RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THAT,
RISKS I AM NOT WILLING TO TAKE.
BUT TO THE GENTLEMAN'S
DISCUSSION THAT IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT WE DO THAT,
ABOVE ALL ELSE, I'D ALSO ADD TO
THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE
DEMONSTRATE THAT WE CAN ARRIVE
AT MEANINGFUL SOLUTIONS TO THE
CURRENT FISCAL CRISIS THE
COUNTRY IS FACING.
THAT IS WHAT THE CUT, CAP AND
BALANCE ACT TRIES TO ACHIEVE.
IT OFFERS A WAY FOR US TO CUT
SPENDING IN A MEANINGFUL WAY
THIS YEAR AND THROUGHOUT THE
BUDGET WINDOW.
IT ALSO SUGGESTS WAYS TO
ENFORCE DISCRETIONARY LEVELS SO
THAT CONGRESS CAN ACTUALLY
BEGIN TO DO WHAT ALL OF US
WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO WHICH
IS TO STOP SPENDING THE MONEY
WE DON'T HAVE.
THE CUT, CAP AND BALANCE ACT
ALSO PROVIDES FOR CAPS ON TOTAL
SPENDING LEVELS RECOMMENDED IN
OUR BUDGET RESOLUTION.
THESE LEVELS ARE SPENDING AS A
SHARE OF G.D.P.
IT PROVIDES, LASTLY, FOR
ENSURING THAT EVEN BEYOND THE
10 YEARS THAT WE ACTUALLY CAN
GET BACK TO BALANCE.
THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE OF THE
COUNTRY WANTS.
I KNOW THE GENTLEMAN SHARES THE
TO BALANCE.
SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE
GENTLEMAN AND HIS COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS
LEGISLATION, AS I SAID TO THE
GENTLEMAN, IT WILL BE POSTED
ONLINE TO COMPLY WITH OUR
THREE-DAY LAYOVER REQUIREMENT
AND HAVE IT POSTED TO MEMBERS
AND THE PUBLIC.
I'M NOT SURE YOU
ANSWERED MY QUESTION TO
CONDITIONS TWO AND THREE OF THE
CUT, CAP AND BALANCE PLEDGE OR,
AGAIN, I HAVEN'T READ THE
LEGISLATION.
I SEE THE PLEDGE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S IN THE
LEGISLATION.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR HIS
OBSERVATION THAT WE NEED A
MEANINGFUL AND I WOULD SAY
ROBUST ADDRESSING OF THE
PROBLEM THAT CONFRONTS US.
AS A FACT, AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE
WE DISCUSSED IT, AT THE WHITE
HOUSE FOR FOUR DAYS NOW, FROM
SUNDAY NIGHT THROUGH LAST
NIGHT, I GUESS FIVE DAYS, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
HAS BEEN INDICATING THAT WE
NEED A -- HE CALLS A BIG, A
GRAND DESIGN, IF YOU WILL,
ALONG THE LINES THAT HAVE BEEN
SUGGESTED BY TWO OF THE
COMMISSIONS WHICH ON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS RECOMMENDED A
GRAND DESIGN.
THAT GRAND DESIGN WOULD HAVE
REACHED AT LEAST $4 TRILLION OF
DEFICIT REDUCTION, DEBT
REDUCTION, AND IN FACT THAT IS
A FIGURE SOMEWHERE CLOSER TO
THE BUDGET THAT WAS PASSED
THROUGH THIS HOUSE.
I'D SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN
PARENTHETICALLY THAT THE CUT,
CAP AND BALANCE BUDGET MAY BE
CLOSER TO THE NUMBER YOU
REFERRED TO.
I AM TALKING ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT THAT WAS DEFEATED ON
THIS FLOOR BY ONE VOTE.
BUT I'D SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN,
THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO DO A
GRAND DESIGN TO REDUCE THAT
DEFICIT, NOT BY $1 TRILLION OR
$ TRILLION OR -- $2 TRILLION OR
$3 TRILLION BUT BY $4 TRILLION.
THERE WAS A COMMISSION ON WHICH
-- A GROUP -- THE BIDEN GROUP
WE CALL IT IN WHICH THE
GENTLEMAN PARTICIPATED.
THERE WERE OTHER DISCUSSIONS
BETWEEN YOUR SPEAKER AND THE
PRESIDENT ALL LOOKING AT
ACHIEVING A LARGE DEFICIT
REDUCTION.
THE GENTLEMAN AT SOME POINT IN
TIME DECIDED THAT WAS NOT
SOMETHING HE WANTED TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON AND SUGGESTED THAT
IT BE, I SUPPOSE, PUSHED UP THE
LINE AND IT WAS.
SO THE PRESIDENT WAS FOR A
GRAND DESIGN.
THE LEADER OF THE SENATE, MR.
REID, WAS FOR THAT.
MR. DURBIN WAS FOR IT.
MS. PELOSI WAS FOR IT.
I WAS FOR IT.
THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS FOR IT.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE COULDN'T
PROCEED ON THAT DISCUSSION IN A
SUCCESSFUL WAY, AT LEAST,
BECAUSE THE GENTLEMAN OBSERVED
AND HIS COLLEAGUES OBSERVED
THAT AS LONG AS THERE WERE ANY
REVENUES ATTACHED TO THAT IT
WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOUR
SIDE OF THE AISLE.
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, EVERY
BIPARTISAN COMMISSION THAT HAS
DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HAS
INDICATED THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A
BALANCED PACKAGE, THAT IT
NEEDED TO INCLUDE SUBSTANTIAL
CUTS, IT NEEDED TO DEAL WITH
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, DEFENSE
SPENDING, ENTITLEMENT SPENDING
AND IT NEEDED TO DEAL WITH TAX
EXPENDITURES.
THE GENTLEMAN SAYS CORRECTLY
THAT WE WANT TO BALANCE OUR
REVENUES WITH OUR EXPENDITURES.
THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU KEEP
CUTTING REVENUES YOU ARE JUST
GOING TO BE CHASING YOURSELF
DOWN.
OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT TO BRING
REVENUE RATES DOWN.
I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT, BUT IF
WE BRING THEM DOWN TO A PLACE
WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY
TO PAY FOR OUR -- WHAT WE BUY
WHICH IS OF COURSE WHAT
HAPPENED IN THIS PAST DECADE,
THEN WE WILL BE CONFRONTED WITH
A SITUATION THE GENTLEMAN WANTS
TO AVOID AND THAT IS RAISING
THE DEBT LIMIT.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST
10 YEARS IS BUY MORE THAN WE
CAN AFFORD AND THEREFORE WE
HAVE A DEBT.
THAT'S WHY THE GENTLEMAN, AS I
SAY, VOTED FOR EXTENDING DEBT
LIMITS.
THAT'S WHY I VOTED FOR IT.
I TELL THE GENTLEMAN THAT I
HAVE A GALLUP POLL THAT SAYS 6
-- 74% SAY IT SHOULD INCLUDE
BOTH TAX INCREASES AND SPENDING
CUTS AND 77% OF INDEPENDENTS
BELIEVE THE PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE
A MIX OF REVENUE AND SPENDING
CUTS.
I SAY THAT SO THAT I I CAN
ELICIT FROM THE GENTLEMAN, I
KNOW THERE'S SENTIMENT FROM
THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE, THERE
IS SENTIMENT FROM YOUR SIDE OF
THE AISLE, AND THE PRESIDENT
BELIEVES THIS AS WELL, WE HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY, A CRITICAL TIME
IN OUR HISTORY WHEN WE HAVE THE
MAKINGS OF A BIPARTISAN
AGREEMENT, A BIPARTISAN
CONSENSUS THAT WILL MOVE US IN
THE DIRECTION THAT YOU AND I
KNOW WE HAVE TO MORE.
AND WHAT IS HOLDING US UP, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT YOUR
SIDE BELIEVES THAT THESE 77% OF
INDEPENDENTS, 74% OF
REPUBLICANS ARE NOT CORRECT,
THAT REVENUES OUGHT NOT TO BE
PART OF THIS PACKAGE.
CLEARLY WE AGREE AND HAVE
TO BE PART OF IT.
SO I ASK THE GENTLEMAN, IS
THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT
THESE 74% OF REPUBLICANS ARE
CORRECT THAT IN FACT IF WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL
PACKAGE IT WILL BE BECAUSE IT
IS BALANCED?
BECAUSE MY VIEW IS, I TELL MY
FRIEND, THAT IF WE DO THIS IT'S
GOING TO REALLY HELP CREATE
JOBS.
WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY JOBS
CONGRESS.
WE BELIEVE ANY JOBS BILL YOU
DID SO FAR WAS A PATENT BILL.
I KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO TALK
ABOUT ALL THESE BILLS YOU DID,
BUT WE DON'T THINK THAT BECAUSE
YOU PUT JOBS IN THE TITLE IT
MAKES THEM A JOBS BILL.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IF WE
CAN CREATE CONFIDENCE IN THE
MARKETS, IF WE COULD CREATE
CONFIDENT DEPS THAT WE CAN DEAL
WITH OUR FISCAL SITUATION IN A
RESPONSIBILITY, BIPARTISAN,
COLLEGIAL WAY, IT WILL HAVE AN
EXTRAORDINARILY POSITIVE EFFECT
ON EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN AMERICA.
THE CONFIDENCE OF AMERICA THAT
WE CAN WORK TOGETHER IN A
BIPARTISAN WAY AND WILL
STABILIZE THE MARKET AND PROVIDE
FOR OUR PAYING OUR BILLS AND
BRINGING OUR DEFICIT AND DEBT
DOWN.
SO I ASK MY FRIEND, AGAIN, DOES
HE BELIEVE THERE IS ANY
POSSIBILITY AT THIS POINT IN
TIME THAT WE CAN REACH A
BALANCED AGREEMENT ON WHAT IS
CALLED A GRAND DESIGN ALONG THE
LINES OF THE BIPARTISAN
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS?
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
MY FRIEND.
GENTLEMAN.
MR. SPEAKER, FIRST OF ALL I
WOULD SAY REGARDING THE
GENTLEMAN'S DISCUSSION ABOUT
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE WHITE HOUSE
THIS WEEK AND MY INSISTENCE THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S AT LEAST
STATEMENTS IN THAT MEETING,
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
DETAILS WERE OF HIS PROPOSAL AND
THE SO-CALLED BIG DEAL, MY
INSISTENCE WAS CONSISTENT WITH
OUR SPEAKER'S, THAT WE NOT RAISE
TAXES.
AND THAT'S WHY THAT CONSTRUCT
DOESN'T WORK.
WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES ON THIS
I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF RAISING
TAXES ON PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING
TO MAKE IT RIGHT NOW AND CAN'T.
SO I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN
WHEN HE REFERS TO THE OTHER
GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE,
ALL OF WHOM HE SAY SUGGEST THAT
SOMEHOW WE NEED TO RAISE TAXES,
WHAT THE GENTLEMAN'S TALKING
ABOUT IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO
PRODUCE MORE REVENUES?
WE BELIEVE, MR. SPEAKER, THAT
YOU PRODUCE MORE REVENUES BY
HAVING GROWTH IN OUR ECONOMY.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU
PROMOTE GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY BY
CRANKING UP THE GOVERNMENT
SPENDING MACHINE BY TAKING MONEY
FROM PEOPLE WHO EASTERN IT,
WASHING IT THROUGH WASHINGTON'S
OUT.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
WE BELIEVE THAT GROWTH IS
CREATED THROUGH INVESTMENT,
THROUGH HARD WORK IN THE PRIVATE
BY ENTREPRENEURS, SMALL BUSINESS
MEN AND WOMEN, PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO SUCCEED BUT WANT TO EARN
THEIR SUCCESS AND ARE NOT
WAITING FOR GOVERNMENT TO GRANT
IT TO THEM.
SO I SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN, IF
THE AIM IS FOR US TO CREATE MORE
REVENUES, ONE WORD IN RESPONSE,
IT'S GROWTH.
I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN AS
FAR AS HIS REFERENCE TO THE
GALLUP POLL AND WHEN HE SAYS
THAT OVERWHELMINGLY PEOPLE IN
THIS COUNTRY WANT TO HAVE TAXES
RAISED AS PART OF THE SO-CALLED
SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEM --
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD ON THAT?
I WOULD YIELD TO THE
GENTLEMAN WHEN I'M FINISHED.
YIELD BACK WHEN I'M FINISHED.
TO THE GENTLEMAN'S SUGGESTION
THAT THAT'S WHERE THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC IS, I JUST DISAGREE.
I HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY
RIGHT NOW WHEN WE GOT
UNEMPLOYMENT OVER 9% OFFICIALLY.
WHEN PEOPLE ARE OUT OF WORK AND
MONTH AFTER MONTH CAN'T FIND A
WHEN SMALL BUSINESSPEOPLE ARE
HAVING -- BUSINESS PEOPLE ARE
HAVING TROUBLE KEEPING THE
LIGHTS ON, I DON'T TALK TO
ANYBODY THAT SAYS PLEASE RAISE
MY TAXES.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE
FOCUSED ON ARE THE HARDWORKING
PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE OF THIS
COUNTRY, WHO WANT A JOB.
WHO WANT TO SEE THIS ECONOMY
RETURN TO GROWTH.
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO UNDERSTAND
THAT IT'S CUTTING TAXES, IT'S
CUTTING THE OVERLY BURDENSOME
REGULATORY SYSTEM IN THIS TOWN
THAT WILL BRING BACK MIDDLE
CLASS JOBS.
AND SO TO THE GENTLEMAN'S
SUGGESTION THAT SOMEHOW WE HAVE
NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT JOBS IN
THIS INSTITUTION, I KNOW IT'S
NOT SURPRISING TO HIM THAT I
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
IT'S NOT.
I SAY TO THE
GENTLEMAN, WEEK AFTER WEEK WE
BROUGHT BILLS TO THE FLOOR, YES,
THAT DEAL WITH OUR FISCAL
SITUATION, THAT CUT SPENDING.
THAT.
THEIR HOMES, THEIR FAMILIES,
THEIR BUSINESSES.
BUT WE BROUGHT NUMEROUS BILLS
WEEK AFTER WEEK TO THE FLOOR
THAT GO TO THE ROOT OF THE CAUSE
OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY IN THIS COUNTRY AND
THAT IS WASHINGTON'S OVERLY
AGGRESSIVE AND BURDENSOME
REGULATORY REACH.
WE HAVE GOT TO GET BACK TO A
GROWTH POSTURE, MR. SPEAKER.
AND THAT MEANS CUT SPENDING,
LOWER TAXES, AND IMPLEMENT A
BALANCED AND SENSIBLE PRO-GROWTH
REGULATORY SYSTEM.
AS WELL AS FINALLY HOPEFULLY
RETURNING TO A MONETARY POLICY
THAT PROMOTES A STRONG DOLLAR.
I YIELD BACK.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR YIELDING BACK.
FIRST OF ALL OF COURSE I DIDN'T
SAY, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS
THEIR TAXES RAISED, INCLUDING
ME.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALL THE PRICES
FOR THINGS I BUY CUT IN HALF.
50% OFF SALE.
WE ALL LIKE THAT.
SO MUCH EASIER.
THAT'S WHY CREDIT CARDS
ENCOURAGE THE ECONOMY.
BUT YOU AND I BOTH KNOW WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN YOU USE YOUR CREDIT
AT SOME POINT IN TIME YOU GET A
BILL.
AND THE PEOPLE WHO SOLD YOU THE
GOOD OR LOANED YOU THE MONEY
EXPECT YOU TO PAY THEM.
AND I WILL TELL MY FRIEND THAT I
UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING.
WE HAVE JUST COME THROUGH
ARGUABLY THE WORST RECESSION
THAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SINCE
THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
AND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH
ECONOMIC POLICIES, WHICH BY THE
WAY STARTED AS YOU KNOW IN
DECEMBER, 2007, IN WHICH WE LOST
EIGHT MILLION JOBS.
BUT THE GENTLEMAN CONTINUES TO
SAY HE WANTS POLICIES WHICH IN
1991 AND 1994 WERE ARGUED WERE
POLICIES, WE ARE GOING TO GROW
OUR ECONOMY, EXPAND JOBS, AND
HAVE THOSE FOLKS THAT YOU TALK
ABOUT DO WELL.
I ASK THE GENTLEMAN, HE
MISREPRESENTS OUR POSITION.
I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR.
WE ARE NOT FOR ASKING PEOPLE WHO
ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT IN AMERICA
, WE ARE NOT FOR ASKING THOSE
WHO ARE STRUGGLING IN AMERICA,
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THOSE WHO
RELY ON SOCIAL SECURITY, WE ARE
NOT ASKING FOR THOSE WHO RELY ON
THEIR MEDICARE BENEFITS TO PAY
THE BURDEN OF THE SPENDING THAT
WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN OVER
THE LAST DECADE WHICH TOOK US
FROM $5.6 TRILLION OF DEBT TO
OVER $10 TRILLION OF DEBT.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THOSE
STRUGGLING AMERICANS WHICH THE
GENTLEMAN RAISES AS THE SPECTER
OF THOSE WE THINK OUGHT TO PAY
THEIR FAIR SHARE.
OH, NO.
WE ARE ASKING FOR THOSE WHO HAVE
DONE EXTRAORDINARILY WELL OVER
THE LAST DECADE WHO HAVE MADE
MILLIONS PER YEAR OVER THE LAST
DECADE.
SOME BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER
THE LAST DECADE.
OIL COMPANIES WHO ARE NOW MAKING
THE BIGGEST PROFITS THEY EVER
MADE.
AND OTHERS TO PAY A LITTLE MORE
SO THAT WE CAN STABILIZE THE
FINANCES OF AMERICA.
SO DON'T REPRESENT THAT IT'S
DEMOCRATS WHO ARE ASKING THOSE
STRUGGLING SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE
WE ARE NOT DOING THAT.
OR THOSE STRUGGLING WORKING
PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO, BY THE
WAY, HAVE BEEN STUCK IN THE MUD
UNDER THE ECONOMIC POLICIES THAT
WERE PURSUED CONSISTENT WITH THE
2001 AND 2003 ECONOMIC PROGRAMS.
WHICH HAS SEEN A GROWING
DISPARATE BETWEEN WORKING PEOPLE
AND THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN
AMERICA.
NOW, WE CAN CONTINUE ON THAT
PATH AND PUT ON THE BACKS OF
THOSE STRUGGLING PEOPLE YOU TALK
ABOUT, MY FRIEND, THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR THINGS
, OR WE CAN HAVE A FAIR AND
BALANCED PROGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT THE 74% IN THE
GALLUP POLL WANT.
THEY DON'T WANT THEIR TAXES
RAISED.
WHAT THEY WANT IS A FAIR AND
BALANCED OBLIGATION.
A FAIR AND BALANCED
PARTICIPATION IN CONTRIBUTION.
TO PAYING THE DEBTS OF THIS
COUNTRY.
THAT WE HAVE INCURRED, WE HAVE
INCURRED THEM TOGETHER.
YOU ARE NOT ALL RESPONSIBLE.
WE ARE NOT ALL RESPONSIBLE.
OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE AS YOU
WELL KNOW, THIS DEFICIT WAS
INCREASED ALMOST 90% UNDER THE
BUSH ECONOMIC POLICIES.
FAR LESS THAN THAT UNDER THE
CLINTON ECONOMIC POLICIES.
ABOUT HALF.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.
BOTH THE DEBT WENT UP, WE ARE
PAY IT.
YOU AND I BELIEVE NOT PAYING IT
IS NOT AN OPTION.
THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SAYS
CLEARLY THAT THEY URGE ALL OF US
FIRST IT IS CRITICAL THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT NOT DEFAULT IN ANY
WAY ON ITS FISCAL OBLIGATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND OUR SIDE HAS SAID,
YOU BET.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
SO LET'S ASK ALL OF US TO COME
TO THE TABLE AND THOSE WHO CAN'T
AFFORD IT OUGHT NOT TO BE ASKED.
BUT THOSE WHO CAN, THOSE WHO CAN
SHOULD BE ASKED TO DO SO.
NOT TO PENALIZE THEM BUT TO SAY
WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
AND THOSE WHO ARE BEST OFF IN
AMERICA, THOSE CORPORATIONS LIKE
THE OIL COMPANIES WHO ARE
GETTING SUBSIDIES AT THIS POINT
IN TIME, WHO SAID THEY DIDN'T
NEED SUBSIDIES IF OIL WAS OVER
$55 PER BARREL, THEY TESTIFIED
IN CONGRESS SOME YEARS AGO TO
THAT FACT.
IT'S BEEN TWICE THAT AND WE ARE
STILL GIVING THEM SUBSIDIES.
ALL WE ARE SAYING IS THAT
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
AND WE OUGHT TO HAVE A BALANCED
PROGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT THOSE 74% AND 77% OF
INDEPENDENTS ARE SAYING.
THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY WANT
THEIR TAXES RAISED.
THEY ARE NOT SAYING WE OUGHT TO
RAISE TAXES AND INCUR MORE DEBT.
THEY ARE SAYING WE OUGHT TO PAY
OUR BILLS.
THEY ARE SAYING WE OUGHT TO HAVE
A FAIR PARTICIPATION BY ALL
AMERICANS IN MEETING THIS CRISIS
THAT CONFRONTS US.
I WOULD HOPE THAT OVER THE NEXT
THREE WEEKS THAT WE COULD GET TO
A PLACE WHERE WE COME TOGETHER
IN A BIPARTISAN WAY AND ASK ALL
OF US TO PARTICIPATE.
AND THOSE WHO CAN CAN HELP US
CONFRONT THIS, BRING THIS
DEFICIT DOWN, BALANCE OUR
BUDGET, AND THOSE WHO CAN'T BUT
WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO MAKE
THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES
LIVE A QUALITY OF LIFE, WE'LL
HELP THEM OUT.
AND I THINK AS I SAID I'M GOING
TO STABILIZE THE ECONOMY, GROW
JOBS, AND WE'LL HAVE A BETTER
COUNTRY.
MR. CANTOR.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
AGAIN I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS CUT
CAP AND BALANCE WILL GET US
THERE, AND AS I SAID WE ARE NOT
GOING TO GET THERE CLEARLY UNDER
THOSE PROVISIONS BETWEEN NOW AND
AUGUST 2, AND I THINK THE
GENTLEMAN KNOWS THAT AND I HOPE
HE HAS SOME OTHER THOUGHTS IN
MIND, SOME OTHER PLAN IN MIND
OBVIOUSLY THERE HAVE BEEN A
NUMBER OF PLANS TALKED ABOUT AT
PRESENT IN A SPEECH ABOUT HIS
PLAN.
THAT WAS REJECTED.
THE GENTLEMAN SAYS IT WASN'T
SPECIFICALLY LINE BY LINE.
THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE IT WAS
REJECTED BEFORE WE GOT THERE.
MR. BOEHNER, YOUR SPEAKER,
DISCUSSED TRYING TO GET A
CONSTRUCT.
SO PERHAPS YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT
IS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CUT,
CAP, AND BALANCE ACT THAT WE
MIGHT SEE THAT WOULD BE A
BALANCED PLAN AND THAT WOULD
HELP US.
IF THE GENTLEMAN WANTS ME TO
YIELD, I'LL YIELD.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. SPEAKER.
THE
RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WHEN THE