[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 191 (Tuesday, December 13, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8495-S8499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, this morning I rise to speak to the 
question the Senate will be focused on over the next day or so 
regarding a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I do not 
think there is any doubt that we have to reverse this fiscal 
recklessness, not just for our time but for all time.
  I have consistently and vehemently championed a balanced budgeted 
amendment for the past three decades in both the House and the Senate 
to prevent precisely the kind of fiscal quagmire we are enmeshed in 
today, with our Federal Government borrowing an astonishing 40 cents of 
every dollar we spend.
  In my 30 years in Congress, I have cosponsored a balanced budget 
amendment 18 times. I spoke or made statements in favor of it 35 times. 
So I have had some experience in this battle to get the Federal 
Government to balance revenues with expenditures.
  I learned that without a self-restraining mechanism, the debt over 
time only goes in one direction--up. In fact, since 1981 we have 
debated a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in the Senate 
on five different occasions and on four occasions in the House of 
Representatives through 1997. In the meantime, we have seen what has 
happened with the mounting debt.
  The impending vote to amend the Constitution represents an 
unambiguous choice between changing business-as-usual in Washington or 
embracing the status quo that we can no longer afford, that has brought 
this country to the edge of our fiscal chasm; the status quo that has 
led to more than 3 years without passing a Federal budget; the status 
quo that has brought us the first ever downgrade of America's sterling 
AAA credit rating; the status quo that was exemplified by the 
supercommittee's inability to agree on $1.2 trillion in debt reduction 
over the next 10 years.
  Now we have two competing balanced budget proposals pending before 
the Senate in a partisan duel that has become regrettably all too 
predictable in Washington. Our Nation is on the edge of a fiscal cliff 
and 20 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. There should 
not be two competing proposals on an issue as critical as our Nation's 
fiscal health and survival.
  We have been in legislative session for 86 days since July 1st, yet 
we can only consign about 8 hours or so to the idea on debating the 
mighty question of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  Prior consideration in the Senate, whether it was in 1982--it was 11 
days; in 1986 it was 8 days; in 1995 it was more than a month; in 1997 
it was another month. We are giving 8 hours to debate two competing 
proposals rather than addressing the differences through the amendment 
process so we can ultimately resolve the question once and for all of 
whether we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget.
  Amending is consistent with the tradition and practice of the Senate. 
Yet, regrettably, we will be denied that opportunity which is 
unprecedented, frankly, on this question. It is a question that clearly 
deserves much greater deference than is being accorded in the Senate.
  Thomas Jefferson once wrote,

       I place economy among the first and most important 
     republican virtues.

  And, yes, that is republican with a small ``r.''
  He went on to say,

       Public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared.

  He wrote in 1798:

       I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our 
     Constitution . . . I mean an additional article taking from 
     the Federal Government the power of borrowing.

  Jefferson understood the perils of borrowing. We are not even going 
as far as Thomas Jefferson was advocating. But he also recognized the 
danger of debt and deficits do matter.
  He said:

       One generation should not pay for the debts of another no 
     more than we should pay the debts of a foreign nation.

  Jefferson could not have been more right. We have now entered what 
some economists have labeled an economic danger zone because our gross 
national debt is approaching 100 percent of gross domestic product. Our 
outstanding Federal debt exceeds the size of entire economy. There is 
no question that high levels of debt have stunted economic growth, 
costing millions of American jobs at a time when we are experiencing 
the longest period of long-term unemployment and the worst 
postrecession recovery in the history of

[[Page S8496]]

this country, the second worst recession in 100 years.
  Just as disturbingly, the government currently pays $200 billion 
annually in interest to foreign countries--to foreign countries that 
hold our Treasury bonds, countries such as China and Russia. The cost 
of the net increase alone in interest will more than triple in the next 
10 years by the year 2021. That is just the net interest that we will 
pay to foreign countries because of our bonded indebtedness.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office's most recent long-term 
outlook states that by 2035 interest costs on our Nation's debt will 
reach 9 percent of the gross domestic product, more than the United 
States currently spends on Social Security or Medicare. CBO warned that 
growing debt would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis 
during which investors would lose confidence in the government's 
ability to manage its budget and government would thereby lose its 
ability to borrow at affordable rates.
  That is exactly what is happening in Europe. It could also happen 
here at any moment in time. It could be a small item that ultimately 
precipitates and triggers a debt crisis, that puts this economy in 
jeopardy and peril as we experienced so dramatically in America in 
2008. We do not know what all could ignite this explosive growth in 
debt.
  If interest rates were just 1 percentage point higher per year over 
the next decade, the deficit would balloon by $1.3 trillion from 
increased costs. To put these numbers in perspective, we have to look 
at the past. It took our Nation 200 years to accumulate its first 
trillion-dollar debt. Yet in just the past 3 years alone the national 
debt has soared by nearly $5 trillion.
  Let's just repeat that for a moment. In the first 200 years we 
accumulated $1 trillion in debt. In the last 3 years we have 
accumulated $5 trillion.
  So when the President stated last summer that we do not need a 
constitutional amendment to do our jobs, well, not exactly. If that 
were true, if such an amendment were not required for us to do our jobs 
then why do we find ourselves wallowing in this economic morass? If 
Congress actually possessed the capacity to forestall the skyrocketing 
debt of its own volition, why are we mired in a major debt crisis? Why 
are the CBO and other economic forecasters reiterating and underscoring 
the negative outlook for the future if we do not grapple with this 
debt?
  The facts speak for themselves. In 1986 when the Senate failed by one 
vote to pass a balanced budget amendment, the national debt topped $2.1 
trillion. In 1995, the Senate failed again by one vote to pass a 
balanced budget amendment, and the national debt at that time was $4.8 
trillion. In 1997, when the Senate yet again failed to pass it by one 
vote, the national debt was $5.3 trillion, a number we found 
staggering. But, apparently, it was not staggering enough, as the 
abysmal track record following 1997 dramatically demonstrates. In 1999, 
just 2 years after that fateful vote, the debt rose to $5.6 trillion. 
By 2009 it rose to $11 trillion, and last year to $13.5 trillion. 
Today, it is at $15.1 trillion. The bottom line is that from 1997 to 
2011 the national debt has almost tripled.
  In 1992, when I was serving in the House of Representatives, we 
debated a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. During one 
particular balanced budgeted debate on the floor, I said we have no way 
of knowing how bad things might get if we continue without a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  Unfortunately, we can only speculate where we would be today had we 
passed that balanced budget amendment some 14 years ago. But we can no 
longer afford to speculate about where we will be with respect to our 
debt 14 years from now.
  Let's not be confused as we hear all of the usual diversionary 
excuses why this amendment should not pass. I have heard it time and 
time again over the last three decades, as I have indicated. Those 
excuses have been reiterated time and again in the nine times it has 
been considered between the House and the Senate over the last three 
decades.
  I have heard how a balanced budget amendment will be overly 
restrictive, spending reductions too substantial, and that other 
measures would be equally effective without changing our Constitution.
  Let's not be distracted by the siren's call with the masterful art of 
deflection. As I recall, during the course of that debate in 1992 in 
the House of Representatives, I was challenged by a colleague when he 
asked:
  What if appropriations exceed estimated revenue? What if the 
President and Congress underestimate the amount of Federal revenues in 
a fiscal year? What if it requires budgetary adjustments as a result of 
a contracting economy, or inaccurate estimates?
  Well, I said at the time, as I do now: welcome to the real world of 
families and businesses in America that are trying to project their 
costs every day--current costs, future costs, whether they will have a 
job, how much they will get paid, and how much health insurance will 
cost--not to mention the 49 States that have adopted a balanced budget 
requirement That is the real world, but apparently not in the Senate 
and the House of Representatives. It is one we have long ignored to our 
fiscal peril.
  These are issues that day in and day out the State capitals have to 
deal with, as the Chair knows, being a former Governor of New 
Hampshire. My husband was a former Governor of Maine, and I know that 
States have to make tough choices and establish priorities, and they 
have to understand what is coming in and what is going out. Why should 
the Federal Government be any different?
  So now we have a fiscal gap here in Washington where there not only 
is a disparity between revenues and expenditures, but there is also a 
shameful imbalance between the trust people place in us as elected 
officials and the responsibilities we must carry out if we are to 
demonstrate the worthiness of that trust.
  Absent a permanent mechanism that compels and forces the Congress to 
set and fulfill its fiscal priorities, we will blithely continue in our 
wayward practices. Obviously, we only have to learn from the past to 
understand the future.
  Rest assured that we have already tried every statutory mechanism 
possible. Yet nothing we have implemented has withstood the test of 
time, circumvention, or clever gimmickry to bind both the House and 
Senate to provide continuity from Congress to Congress--nothing.
  We have witnessed the positive effects of statutory limits with past 
budget enforcement mechanisms, such as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, 
the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act that 
combined saved upward of $700 billion. Unfortunately, we allowed them 
to lapse because we could do it statutorily. We allowed these efforts 
to wither on the legislative vine. You could not do that with a 
constitutional amendment.
  When we talk about a deficit reduction package for the future, 
anything we implement today could be undone by tomorrow or by the next 
Congress if we do not have the binding effect of a constitutional 
amendment. That is the big difference. Congress does not want its hands 
tied. That is what this is all about--not tying Congress's hands, 
irrespective of the impact on the mountains of debt.
  We have squandered historic opportunities. I tried for a legislative 
trigger back in 2001 when we had projected surpluses to pay down the 
national debt and invest in Social Security and Medicare, but it was 
dismissed and derided. Senator Bayh and I tried to get that through, 
but people were not thinking about the future. I had seen from our 
experience in the past and I knew we had to protect the surpluses we 
had and invest them in the future. That didn't happen. People want to 
spend without restraint.
  As we sadly know, the promises to get a handle on budget and deficits 
were empty which is why we have not had budgets in the last 3 years--or 
why we passed only one appropriations bill last year for the first time 
since the 1974 Budget Act. If you have no discipline in the budget 
process, you have no discipline in spending and a mounting debt. That 
is the net effect of what has happened over the last three decades.
  The reality could not be more stark about the necessity for a 
balanced budget amendment. Yes, we do need one if we are ever to ensure 
fiscal balance and restraint.

[[Page S8497]]

  Finally, even Vice President Biden spoke to this issue in 1995, 
expressing the same frustration I do today. He said:
  There is nothing left to try except the balanced budget amendment.
  That is where we are. And I still do not understand why we have two 
competing amendments now. It is not as if we don't have differences, 
but why not amend one legislation? That is what the Senate is all 
about. Regrettably, it has become another cynical process in the 
Senate, an all-or-nothing proposition, a zero sum game, either your way 
or no way.
  We have two separate votes on two separate measures, creating a 
parallel universe with two different balanced budget amendments but 
zero opportunity to reconcile our differences. We know what the 
strategy is. It is called lip service. It is to allow everybody to say 
they voted for a balanced budget amendment, while the armies of the 
status quo employ every weapon to ensure it does not happen.
  I regret that we are not treating this issue with the deference it 
deserves--an issue that 70 to 80 percent of the American people support 
at a time in which the U.S. Congress has an approval rating of 9 to 12 
percent--it varies from day to day. We should be embarrassed about how 
this reflects on the institution because we are not focusing on the 
issues that matter to people in their daily lives. It matters because 
they understand that we are shackling future generations.
  We can either bring disrepute upon ourselves by continuing to 
mortgage our future to cover the fiscal offenses of today or we can 
rise to the occasion and meet our moral responsibility and bequeath the 
generation to come a nation unencumbered by the shackles of perpetual 
debt. The decision is ours and history awaits our answer.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I inquire of the Chair, how much time remains on our side 
for morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 39\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. I am sure I won't need all that time, but I ask unanimous 
consent to speak for as much time as I may use of that time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I express my appreciation to the Senator 
from Maine for her leadership on the balanced budget amendment issue 
for so long now. This is a fight that people have fought for so long 
that some have become very cynical about whether we will actually ever 
act in a responsible fashion to deal with the runaway debt our country 
continues to accrue where about 40 cents out of every dollar being 
spent today is out of borrowed money.
  We know this is not just a theoretical problem, it is very real. When 
we look at what is happening in Europe, with countries engaged in 
sovereign debt crises that have made promises they cannot afford to 
keep, the day of reckoning has come to Europe. The day of reckoning for 
the United States may not be far behind.
  I think it is really important to lay a few foundational points. Let 
me start with the preface of the Constitution of the United States of 
America because what we are talking about doing is amending the 
Constitution--something we have only done 27 times since the founding 
of our country. But the Constitution of the United States starts this 
way:

       We the people of the United States of America, in order to 
     form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic 
     tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 
     general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
     ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this 
     Constitution for the United States of America.

  It is important to recognize that this is a constitution created by 
the American people. This is not something handed down from on high 
that we cannot change or should not change. This is our Constitution. 
We own it. It is within our power to amend the Constitution when 
circumstances make it prudent for us to do so.
  Let me also refer to article V of the U.S. Constitution. This is the 
basis upon which we are seeking to amend the Constitution by this vote 
tomorrow. Article V says to Congress:

       When two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, 
     shall propose amendments to the Constitution.

  And then should the joint resolution pass with two-thirds the vote in 
both Houses, then it goes to the States, where 38 States--three-
quarters of the States--would have to ratify that amendment before it 
would become the fundamental law of the land.
  There is another provision in article V that I will talk about in a 
minute which allows the States, in the face of inaction by Congress, to 
ask for a constitutional convention to be established for that purpose. 
As I said, I will save that for a later time.
  Madam President, all 47 Members on this side have cosponsored S.J. 
Res. 10. But this doesn't have to be a partisan endeavor. Indeed, the 
last time, in 1997, when there was a vote on a constitutional 
amendment--and it failed by 1 vote in the Senate--11 Democrats joined 
Republicans to come within 1 vote of passing that joint resolution, 
which had already passed the House of Representatives. So this doesn't 
have to be and indeed should not be a partisan undertaking.
  Let me remind my colleagues, what did our financial situation look 
like in 1997? Our deficit was $107 billion--that is right, $107 
billion. Today, it is roughly $1.3 trillion. Our national debt, which 
recently broke the $15 trillion mark, back then was roughly $5 
trillion. So we have seen almost a threefold increase in our national 
debt since 1997, when we came within one vote of passing a 
constitutional amendment and sending it to the States.
  We know that throughout American history, our government has faced 
fiscal challenges. Our Founders had their own when they had to amend 
the Articles of Confederation to provide for a constitution that 
allowed us to deal with our financial problems. But what are the 
differences between those faced by the founding generation and those we 
face today? Back then, government was the solution to the problem. 
Today, the size and growth of government is the problem. The American 
people understand the difference, clearly.
  As I said, the American people are absolutely repulsed by the idea 
that Congress continues to spend 40 cents out of every dollar that is 
spent in borrowed money. I know people like to say this is a problem 
for the next generation and beyond, but all you have to do is look 
across the Atlantic Ocean to what is happening in Europe today, and you 
realize, no, this is our problem, in this generation now, in 
Europe. The ramifications could easily extend to the United States and 
create a recession, if not worse, as we go through a sovereign debt 
crisis.

  The American people also understand this huge debt we bear is a job 
killer because it dampens economic growth. Only by the private sector 
economy growing do you get the sort of job creation that will help get 
us out of this mess. Right now, we are muddling along at roughly 2 
percent of GDP, which is not even enough to deal with the unacceptably 
high unemployment. Yes, we had a break last week, when we saw the 
unemployment rate come down a little bit. But a closer look at the 
statistics reveals it was because so many people had quit looking for a 
job. They gave up.
  We also know this is a national security risk, this high debt. Former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said the debt 
was the single largest threat to our national security. This is the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You wouldn't think that was part 
of his portfolio, but that is what keeps him awake at night and worries 
him--our debt, and the fact that China is the major purchaser of that 
debt, a country with interests that are not exactly aligned with ours, 
to say the least.
  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the debt undermines our 
capacity to act in our own interests and sends a message of weakness 
internationally. Then there is a quote from a former colleague of ours 
way back in 2006, who said this:

       Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and 
     internationally.

  He also said:

       It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial 
     assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's 
     reckless fiscal policies.


[[Page S8498]]


  You may have guessed who said that. Yes, that was then-Senator Barack 
Obama.
  What I think people find absolutely unnerving, disappointing, and, 
yes, even shocking is the lack of leadership on this issue, not only 
because our national debt is a growing fiscal problem as well as a 
national security risk, but it has created a crisis of confidence in 
our political system and people's confidence in the Congress's ability 
to do what we get paid for, what we got elected to do, and that is to 
solve our Nation's problems, including our Nation's fiscal problem.
  President Obama understands this very well. That is why he appointed 
a bipartisan fiscal commission, now called the Simpson-Bowles 
commission, which came up with $4 trillion in debt reduction along with 
other recommendations, such as tax reform, which would make us more 
competitive globally. But since December 2010, when that report was 
rendered, what has the President done with regard to that report that 
received bipartisan support--I believe it was 11 out of the 18 members, 
including 3 Republican Senators at that time, Judd Gregg, Mike Crapo, 
and Tom Coburn? The President walked away from it. He walked away from 
it. What did he do when he gave his State of the Union speech shortly 
thereafter? He didn't even mention it.
  But what did he do? Did he come up with a counterproposal or a 
different proposal? No, he held back, and he waited until the chairman 
of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, and House Republicans passed 
a budget out of the House--something that has not happened in the 
Senate for more than 900 days--and then the President attacked. He 
engaged in scare tactics that I believe are beneath the dignity and 
responsibility of the Office of the President of the United States.
  Leadership on the national debt has not only been lacking from the 
White House, but Congress hasn't done much better. It is true what the 
Senator from Maine has said, the basic conundrum we have had at times 
when we have passed deficit reduction legislation, such as Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings and others, is that purely statutory fixes are fine but 
they can't bind future Congresses. We need a constitutional amendment 
that will make it the law of the land that cannot be ignored by future 
Congresses. This is what I hope we will do by embracing our 
responsibility and passing this constitutional amendment.
  The facts show that the time for a strong balanced budget amendment 
is now. It is today. Joint Resolution 10 is a strong balanced budget 
amendment that will protect the American people from runaway deficits 
and reckless spending. If ratified by three-quarters of the States; 
that is, 38 States, it would require a two-thirds supermajority of 
Congress in both Chambers to approve a deficit in any fiscal year. A 
supermajority would be needed in times of emergency to approve a 
deficit in any given year. And it can't be open-ended. It has to happen 
each year a deficit might be run.
  We can imagine that emergencies could occur, but it shouldn't be a 
routine matter, as it is now, where we engage in deficit spending. This 
amendment would provide exceptions where it would require a majority of 
both Chambers to approve a deficit during a time of declared war and a 
three-fifths supermajority in both Chambers could approve a deficit 
during military conflicts.
  So for those of our colleagues who are worried this balanced budget 
amendment would provide such a straitjacket it would deny us the 
flexibility to respond to our Nation's emergencies, the amendment 
itself provides the means to deal with those extraordinary 
circumstances.
  Joint Resolution 10 would also require a two-thirds majority to 
approve outlays beyond 18 percent of GDP. That is roughly what our 
revenue has been--roughly 18 percent of GDP--although today our 
spending is at 25 percent. Because of the recession and the fragile 
economic recovery, our income is roughly 15 percent. So we are running 
at roughly a 10-percent annual deficit.
  This amendment would require a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. We 
don't have a tax problem; we have a spending problem, and we are not 
able to keep up with the promises we have made both in terms of 
entitlements and other spending. This would require the discipline of a 
two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes in order to balance the budget. 
So we could do it when there was a broad consensus that it was 
necessary but not provide the easy out to raise taxes in order to 
balance the budget unless two-thirds said that was all right. It would 
also provide for a three-fifths supermajority to raise the debt limit.
  Finally--and this is important--the balanced budget amendment, Senate 
Joint Resolution 10, would require the President to submit a balanced 
budget to the Congress each year. The President has historically 
submitted a budget in, I believe, roughly February of each year, but it 
is rarely balanced. Indeed, the last budget submitted by 
President Obama was not even brought up for a vote by our friends 
across the aisle. When we insisted upon a vote on that budget, it lost 
97 to 0. No Democrat and no Republican voted for President Obama's last 
budget because it continued the reckless spending and the debt.

  It is important this body support a strong balanced budget amendment 
and not a fig leaf or cover vote, because Senate Joint Resolution 10 
has the strongest provisions on spending and taxes in addition to 
provisions that would allow us to balance the budget.
  I know there is another alternative that will be voted on, but I am 
afraid this alternative offers more of a mirage than a real solution. 
First of all, it does not include all spending. This would make 
government accounting even more mystifying, even more opaque, less 
transparent. Can you imagine families and small businesses doing 
something such as that, saying, well, we are going to balance our 
budget, but we are not going to include all the spending we do? Small 
businesses and/or families don't have the luxury of moving things off 
the balance sheet--in sort of Enron-style accounting--and neither 
should their government. Either you balance the budget or you do not.
  The alternative we will be presented an opportunity to vote on, next 
to this strong balanced budget amendment, does not protect the middle 
class from higher taxes. It would not have stopped the 21 tax increases 
that were enacted in the first 3 years of the Obama administration. 
That is right, 21 tax increases during the first 3 years of this 
administration. The problem in Washington is not that it is too 
difficult to raise taxes, the problem is it is too easy.
  A real solution to our debt crisis must permanently change the 
propensity to tax and spend with reckless disregard. A strong balanced 
budget amendment will actually solve the problem. Let's remember the 
disease here in Washington the balanced budget amendment is designed to 
cure is out-of-control Federal spending, and big deficits are a symptom 
of that disease. Any doctor will tell you just treating the symptom 
doesn't cure the disease. Without treating the underlying cause of 
those symptoms, we would not be making matters better, we would be 
creating again another illusion of a solution.
  The strong balanced budget amendment which I support, along with 46 
of my Republican colleagues--and I hope a significant showing on the 
other side--will treat the disease along with the symptoms. An 
amendment with too many exceptions and loopholes will not. A strong 
balanced budget amendment will reassure financial markets and the 
American people that we understand the magnitude of the problem.
  As I talk to my constituents in Texas and others around the country--
who are the type of people we are looking to to create jobs by making 
the investments, by starting businesses, and by growing existing 
businesses--they tell me with the growing debt, with uncertainty about 
tax policy, with overregulation, and with Washington's unwillingness to 
deal with a potential sovereign debt crisis, and slow economic growth 
in the private sector, they are going to sit it out. They are sitting 
on the sidelines. They are not going to take imprudent risks with the 
capital they have acquired after going through this recession and 
becoming leaner and becoming more efficient. They are not ready to get 
back in the game until

[[Page S8499]]

they get a signal from us we are actually serious about solving our 
financial problems.
  Unfortunately, the President not only has neglected his own 
bipartisan fiscal commission--the Simpson-Bowles commission--and fallen 
for the siren call of his political advisers to not offer a 
constructive solution but, rather, attack those who do, the President 
has compounded his mistake in this area by saying, ``We don't need a 
constitutional amendment to do our jobs.'' Presumably, that refers not 
only to our balanced budget amendment but to an amendment offered by 
the Democrats as an alternative to the Senate Republican balanced 
budget amendment.
  The President has claimed a balanced budget amendment is not 
necessary because ``the Constitution already tells us to do our jobs 
and to make sure that the government is living within its means and 
making responsible choices.'' Who does he think he is fooling? Who does 
he think he is kidding? The President does himself no credit, and, 
indeed, I think demonstrates a lack of commitment to dealing with our 
Nation's problems when he says things such as that. He knows the 
experience of this Congress--whether it is Republican administrations 
or Democratic administrations--has been that without a balanced budget 
amendment we simply are not going to have the tools necessary to get 
the job done.
  According to one White House spokesman, balancing the budget is ``not 
complicated.'' Well, if it is not complicated, why hasn't the President 
of the United States submitted a balanced budget proposal? His last one 
broke the bank, made the debt worse, didn't solve the problem, and was 
rejected 97 to 0 by a bipartisan vote in this body.
  The same White House spokesman said:

       All that is needed is that we put politics aside, quit 
     ducking responsibility, roll up our sleeves, and get to work 
     . . . get beyond politics as usual.

  I have to say, what bunk is that? Don't they know how little 
credibility that sort of rhetoric has when it comes to solving the 
problem? Just saying it does not make it so. What people are looking 
for is concrete action by the Congress.

  The strange thing to me was, when the President of the United States 
invited the Republican conference over to the executive office building 
several months back, he asked for ideas around the table. Several of 
us, including me, told him: Mr. President, if you would embrace 
solutions to solving these problems, we would work with you because we 
are Americans first and not members of political parties first. We are 
Americans. We didn't come here just to posture and to act like we were 
solving the problem while doing nothing. We actually are willing to do 
it because, frankly, we are concerned. Many of us are beyond concerned; 
we are scared. This is no longer just for our children and 
grandchildren. This is about the present generation. This is about us, 
and all we need to do is look at what is happening in Europe, and it 
could be our problem in the foreseeable future. I am not just talking 
about decades, I am talking about years. It could be earlier.
  Everything we read about the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and the 
history of these crises in the past is, once the public loses 
confidence in the ability of a sovereign nation to pay back its debt, 
then things slip away very quickly. We have seen that happen in Europe 
with the price of the debt on Italian bonds and Greek bonds going 
through the roof because people know they can't be paid back. If people 
begin to doubt for a minute our lack of resolve at dealing with this 
fiscal crisis and this debt crisis, we could well be not just in a 
similar mess, we could be worse off because there will be no European 
Union, there will be no IMF to bail out the United States of America, 
the largest economy of the world.
  Let me close for now by saying this is not just a matter of 
conjecture whether a balanced budget amendment would help and would 
work; 49 different States have some form of balanced budget 
requirement. Vermont is the only one that does not. Of these, 32 States 
have constitutional provisions. Additional States require that their 
Governor actually propose a balanced budget or require a balanced 
budget indirectly by prohibiting the State from carrying a deficit into 
the next year.
  But the point is, this is not just a matter of conjecture and 
guesswork. We know because we have seen at the State level that 
balanced budget requirements are effective. What do they do? Well, we 
know State balanced budget requirements are only effective when 
combined with limitations on taxing and spending. States with 
limitations on taxing and spending are less likely to raise taxes to 
balance the budget than States without such a limitation. States with 
taxing and spending limitations have a slower growth of government than 
States without such limitations.
  In other words, States with taxing and spending limitations have a 
slower rate of growth and cost and size of government than States 
without them. So we know a balanced budget amendment could work.
  I hope my colleagues--as frustrated as I am, on a bipartisan basis, 
with the lack of leadership on this--will show leadership. We shouldn't 
just look for leadership at the White House or anywhere else. We ought 
to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask what can we do to solve this 
problem. I submit that a balanced budget amendment would go a long way 
to putting us on the path to fiscal responsibility.
  Now, we can't do it overnight because we didn't get into this mess 
overnight. But just as Vice President Biden said back in 1995:

       I have concluded that there's nothing left to try except 
     the balanced budget amendment.

  That is what Vice President Biden said in 1995. I agree with him. But 
if it was true then, it is even more true now.
  So I hope tomorrow, when we have a chance to vote, we will vote for a 
real solution--a real balanced budget amendment, S.J. Res. 10--that 
will avoid the temptation to act once again as if we are doing 
something, without actually delivering a solution to the problem, by 
providing a cover, a fig leaf that, once again, will undermine the 
public's confidence in our commitment, in our willingness, in our 
leadership when it comes to the Nation's problems. Ultimately, the 
American people will have the final say. If we don't do it tomorrow, 
then the American people will have another chance to have an election 
and vote and presumably choose people who will deal with the problem.
  Ultimately, we know--getting back to article V of the Constitution--
if Congress does not propose a solution, to quote article V, the 
Congress ``on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the 
several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.''
  So the final word is not with the Members of Congress. Although we 
can solve the problem tomorrow if we voted on it and we passed it and 
encouraged our colleagues in the House to pass it, ultimately, there 
will be an intervening election. But, ultimately, beyond that, the 
Constitution--which is the Constitution of we, the people of the United 
States--the people of the United States will have the final word, 
whether it be in the next election in 2012 or by means of a 
constitutional convention called on the application of two-thirds of 
the States, of which I am told about 20 applications are already 
pending.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, I reserve the remainder of my time, 
and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________