[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4166-S4167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the past several days the 
American people have watched a serious debate unfold right here in 
Washington about our Nation's debt and about the future of our economy, 
and for many the debate has been extremely illuminating. It has done a 
lot to clarify where the two parties stand. Both sides agree that our 
deficits and our debt are unsustainable. But beyond that, the 
differences are stark.
  Republicans believe if you increase spending to the point that you 
can no longer pay the bills, then you need to find a way to cut costs. 
Democrats seem to think if you increase spending to the point that you 
can no longer pay the bills, you need to find other people to pick up 
the tab. This is a fundamental difference between the two parties.
  Republicans think Democrats should be held accountable for the way 
they have mismanaged the national checkbook over the past 2 years and 
Democrats seem to think that taxpayers should take the hit.
  Democrats spend beyond their means and now they expect a bailout from 
the taxpayers. That is what this debate is all about. It is about 
holding Washington accountable, for a change. It is about drawing a 
line in the sand and saying, no, the taxpayers will not bail out 
politicians. It is about refusing to subsidize the Democrats' 
irresponsible spending habits another day. Democrats have shown through 
their reckless spending over the past 2 years that they are not at all 
concerned about our fiscal future. They should not expect to be 
rewarded for that.
  The entire Democratic approach to this debate has been astonishing, 
really. I mean, here we are in the midst of two national crises: 14 
million unemployed and more than $14 trillion in debt--14 million 
unemployed and $14 trillion in debt--chronic unemployment and record 
deficits and debt. And what are the Democrats proposing? Higher taxes 
and more spending. In the middle of a jobs crisis they want to slam 
already struggling businesses with a massive tax hike. In the middle of 
a debt crisis they want to borrow and spend more money as a solution to 
the problem. This is not a negotiation, it is a parody.
  In a discussion about reducing the debt, they want to increase 
spending. Let me say that again. In a discussion about reducing the 
debt, they want to increase spending. In the middle of a jobs crisis 
they want to raise taxes--even as they claim to support job creation. 
Which is it? Yesterday the President went to a manufacturing plant to 
tout jobs. Yet even as he was speaking, his administration was looking 
to saddle manufacturing companies, including the one he was visiting 
yesterday, with billions of dollars in new taxes.
  According to a letter from a group of trade associations, including 
the National Association of Manufacturers, this particular tax would be 
``devastating'' to manufacturers. The President himself said as 
recently as 6 months ago that keeping taxes where they are enables 
businesses to hire more workers. Six months ago the President said 
that. In other words, he was saying that raising taxes leads to fewer 
jobs. So he can call for tax hikes but he cannot call for tax hikes and 
job creation. It is one or the other--six months ago making the 
argument that tax hikes lose jobs; today out touting jobs on the one 
hand and pushing for higher taxes on the other. He can't have it both 
ways.
  The Democrats' spending spree has brought us to the brink of an 
economic calamity and now they are telling taxpayers they will not do 
anything to prevent it unless the taxpayers hand over more money in the 
form of tax hikes. And they have the nerve to call their critics 
immoral. I want to know what you call spending trillions more than you 
have and then expecting others to pick up the tab; that is what this is 
all about, spending trillions more than you have and expecting somebody 
else to pick up the tab.
  Does anybody seriously propose tax hikes as a solution to a job 
crisis? Who proposes more spending as a solution to a debt crisis? Who 
thinks if we raise the debt limit now without enacting serious spending 
cuts and meaningful reforms first it will lead to greater fiscal 
discipline later? There is an important principle at stake in this 
debate. It is not about rich versus poor. It is not about an election. 
It is about whether Washington will ever be held accountable for its 
mistakes. That is why Republicans refuse to let the taxpayers take the 
hit when it comes to reducing the debt, and that is why all 47 
Republicans in the Senate support a balanced budget amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution.

  The debate we have been having over the past few days shows more than 
ever why we need a balanced budget amendment in Congress. A balanced 
budget amendment would require that lawmakers stop spending money we 
don't have. When we come back after July 4, we will fight for an 
opportunity to vote for it. Broke or balanced, that is the choice. The 
American people should know where their Senators stand on this issue of 
accountability. Senators can talk all day long about the importance of 
balancing the books and living within our means, but a vote in favor of 
the balanced budget amendment will show we actually mean it. A vote 
against it will show that they don't.
  Look, no one denies that both parties are guilty of spending beyond 
our means. But this White House has taken

[[Page S4167]]

wasteful spending to new heights, and its allies in Congress are all 
too quick to defend it. The last time the Senate voted on a balanced 
budget amendment, the government's annual deficit was about $100 
billion, the national debt was about $5.5 trillion, and it failed by a 
single vote--a single vote. Today, the annual deficit is $1.6 trillion, 
and the national debt is $14.5 trillion.
  The President and his party need to be held accountable. The fiscal 
mess they have helped create calls for rehab. That is what the balanced 
budget amendment would provide--a spending straitjacket. No more blank 
checks. If Democrats won't pass a budget of their own, it is time 
Americans impose a budget on them. Americans are not about to let 
Democrats use another crisis as an excuse to expand the size of 
government.
  If ever there were a time for Washington to pass through a crisis and 
come out smaller on the other side, it is right now. Republicans are 
totally united in this effort. All we need is 20 Democrats to join us. 
Washington should be forced to make the kinds of difficult choices the 
rest of the country has to make. Lawmakers should have to make the case 
for a spending increase before they approve it. Never again can they 
just spend away and then demand in the teeth of a crisis that taxpayers 
cough up the money--as I said earlier, the taxpayer bailout.
  It is time to put the American people back at the helm of our ship of 
state, and if that is what this vote achieves, then this debate we are 
having this summer will have been well worth it. If Washington is 
forced to finally reform its ways, then one day we will look back and 
say that the American people won this debate, and we will say the 
balanced budget amendment was just the thing we needed to get the house 
in order. Broke or balanced, that is the choice before us.
  I look forward to this vote. The American people clearly want it. 
Let's hold Washington accountable, and let's begin to restore power to 
the people who sent us here not to do our own will but to carry out 
theirs. That is the principle at stake. It is about the kind of 
government we want to have--a government of the people or a government 
above the people. That is the choice. Much depends on the outcome.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________