Chris Van Hollen: “I thank my colleague from Michigan. We have our colleagues on the Republican side taking the position of the so-called…”

“I thank my colleague from Michigan. We have our colleagues on the Republican side taking the position of the so-called Grover Norquist pledge, a pledge to Grover Norquist's organization as opposed to the pledge we all take to do our best to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And under that pledge, if you close a corporate tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction, you have violated your pledge. If you say, ``You know what? Gas prices are doing really well. Oil companies are doing just great. We don't think they need a taxpayer subsidy. We are going to get rid of it,'' you can't get rid of that if you are going to use some of that money for deficit reduction. It's a violation of the pledge. So, yes, let's get serious about deficit reduction. Let's take a balanced approach. We have a bipartisan model--at least a framework--in Simpson-Bowles. Let's be serious about that. But the reason this process on the floor of the House today is not serious is because everybody recognizes the United States can't afford to default on its full faith and credit--everybody, that is, except for the folks who are apparently going to vote to say we can't raise the debt ceiling, that we are not going to take responsibility for paying for obligations already due and owing, budgets already passed. What kind of message is that to our children? You've got to pay for your debts. But you know what? You don't really have to; wink, wink, nod, nod.…”