[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S779-S781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Lee, Mr. McCain,

[[Page S780]]

        Mr. Enzi, Mr. Scott, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Blunt, Mr. 
        Moran, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
        Crapo, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Heller, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 
        Toomey, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Thune, Mr. Kirk, Mr. 
        Roberts, Mr. Portman, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. 
        Rubio, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Flake, Mr. Risch, Mr. 
        Perdue, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
        Sullivan, Mr. Daines, Mr. Rounds, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Coats, Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Cotton, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Shelby, Mr. Corker, Mr. Paul, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Sasse):
  S.J. Res. 6. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution 
proposing a constitutional amendment to require that Congress and the 
President handle the American people's money more responsibly and 
balance the Nation's debt and budget. Like the last two Congresses, the 
entire Republican Conference has cosponsored this proposal.
  I know the Constitution sets a high threshold for Congress to propose 
an amendment, but it is critical we do so for three reasons:
  First, piling up more debt year after year is imposing greater and 
greater harm to our economy and to our society. Last week, 
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before 
the House Budget Committee, noting that the national debt is expected 
to swell by another $7.6 trillion--trillion with a T--over the next 10 
years. He said:

       Such large and growing national debt would have serious 
     negative consequences, including increasing Federal spending 
     for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the 
     long term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to 
     unexpected challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of 
     a fiscal crisis.

  He is the Director of the Federal budget office and he said that on 
January 21, 2015. Just think about that. And he is a Democrat. He has 
been a very good budget director, as far as I am concerned, and I have 
enjoyed looking at his analyses over the years.
  Our Nation is on an unsustainable path and we simply cannot wait any 
longer to make responsible decisions for our future.
  Second, Washington will not keep our fiscal house in order unless 
required to do so by the Constitution. Congress has pretended that good 
intentions alone would keep our checkbook balanced. Congress has tried 
putting limits in place by legislation or other rules. Congress has 
stuck its head in the sand or at other times cried that the sky would 
fall if we really did get our fiscal act together. Over many decades we 
have demonstrated that nothing short of a constitutional requirement 
will work.
  Third, the American people have the right to set rules for how 
Washington handles their money. The Constitution is a rulebook for 
government and it belongs to the American people. Proposing an 
amendment does not add it to the Constitution but only sends it to the 
States for debate and consideration. And while it takes two-thirds of 
Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, it takes three-
fourths of the States to ratify it. That high level of national 
consensus may or may not exist, but the American people deserve the 
opportunity to find out.
  On June 7, 1979, nearly 36 years ago, I stood on this floor when I 
introduced Senate Joint Resolution 86, my first balanced budget 
amendment. In today's dollars the budget deficit that year was $95 
billion and the national debt was $2.6 trillion, which was about 30 
percent of our gross domestic product. I said then that only in 
Washington could this situation be described as anything less than 
obscene.
  The more things change, the more they stay the same. I concede a few 
things have changed since 1979. For example, the deficit for the 
current fiscal year is six times higher than it was in 1979, and the 
national debt is seven times as large. To put that number in 
perspective, the national debt is now larger than our entire economy.
  The situation is not only getting worse, it is getting worse faster 
than ever. More than 40 percent of the national debt accumulated since 
our founding has piled up under President Obama, and he has 2 more 
years in office. While those things have changed, and changed for the 
worse, the choice before us remains the same.
  Some of my colleagues might disagree with the CBO Director and think 
that piling up trillions and trillions of dollars in debt is no big 
deal; that these are just numbers in the air with no impact on the real 
world. Perhaps they think our large and growing national debt won't 
have any negative consequences, won't impede economic growth, won't 
restrain policymakers' flexibility to respond to challenges, and won't 
heighten the risk of the fiscal crisis. Some of my colleagues might 
believe we have no obligation to handle the American people's money 
responsibly or perhaps they believe this money belongs to government 
and not the American people at all.
  Some of my colleagues might insist, despite decades of demonstrated 
failure, that Congress can somehow get its fiscal act together on its 
own. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over 
and expecting different results.
  Some of my colleagues might say the American people should not be 
able to set fiscal rules for the government they elect. Perhaps they 
think the Federal Government should control the Constitution, not the 
other way around.
  I say to my colleagues who think those things: I can understand why 
you would oppose sending this balanced budget amendment to the States 
for consideration.
  But now a word to my other colleagues: If you think this growing 
mountain of debt is dangerous and must be stopped, if you believe we 
have exhausted every other means of stopping it, and if you say the 
American people have the right to decide how their government should 
operate, then I invite you to support this joint resolution, S.J. Res. 
6.
  The Senate has on four separate occasions voted on a balanced budget 
amendment since I introduced that proposal in 1979. You can see it on 
this chart. We actually passed one in 1982 when the national debt was 
$2.5 trillion. But the House, controlled by Democrats at the time, did 
not take it up.
  The Senate voted on another balanced budget amendment in 1994 when 
the national debt was $6.9 trillion. It fell a few votes short.
  Three years later, when the national debt was $7.9 trillion, we came 
within a single vote of passage in 1997.
  And in 2011, the fourth from the left there on the chart, we voted on 
the last balanced budget amendment I introduced. At that time, the 
national debt had grown to $15.1 trillion, and it is almost $3 trillion 
higher today.

  CBO tells us not only that the national debt will swell by an 
additional $7.6 trillion in the next 10 years, but that interest on 
that debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget. The low 
interest rates we see today, after all, will not last forever.
  CBO warns that, on our current path, interest costs alone will 
quadruple from $200 billion today to nearly $800 billion in 10 years. 
In only 6 years, if we do not change course, spending on interest will 
surpass either defense or nondefense spending. Every dollar spent to 
service debt cannot be spent protecting our country or helping our 
citizens. This is the fiscal equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. 
The debt keeps growing, the danger keeps building, while Congress keeps 
pretending and stalling.
  What if we had sent a balanced budget amendment to the States in the 
1970s, 1980s, or even 1990s? How different would the budget process be 
today?
  When I spoke here in June 1979, I offered two additional reasons for 
adopting a balanced budget amendment.
  First, I said a fixed spending ceiling ``requires that Congress think 
in order of budget priorities.''
  Second, I said:

       In my mind, a balanced budget or spending limitation 
     amendment offers the potential to impose new limits upon the 
     National Government, replacing those that have largely been 
     eroded over the years.


[[Page S781]]


  That is why the American people have never been able to use their 
Constitution to set fiscal rules for Washington--because doing so would 
set limits the national government does not want. But our liberty 
depends on setting and enforcing such limits.
  I will repeat what I said here in 1979:

       This is certainly not a trivial objective. Rather, it goes 
     to the heart of what our system of government is going to be 
     in the future.

  That is the choice before us, and before the American people.
  I have to say that if we look at the current budget, it is a fraud 
the President has submitted. It is pathetic. And even with that current 
budget, saying they are going to save us money, we are about a half 
trillion dollars in debt--in further debt, I might add. It is piling up 
in irreducible ways. It is something we have to do something about. We 
can no longer sit around and pretend that, somehow, Congress is going 
to take care of it, when Congress doesn't have the will to take care of 
it. A balanced budget amendment is an important part of changing that.
  I will speak later on the actual amendment and what it says and what 
it means and how it will work. I believe it is an appropriate way of 
bringing this country under control and getting us to live within our 
means. It will take time even if we start today. But we are not 
starting today.
  This administration cannot get anywhere near what it wants in this 
budget without a huge tax increase. We have had tax increase after tax 
increase after tax increase, and it never makes a dip in the Federal 
debt. We have to wake up around here and start doing some things right, 
or this country--the greatest country in the world--will not be able to 
remain so. But it has to.
  If we look at the rest of the world--we are in terrible shape 
throughout the rest of the world. There is no other country in this 
world that can lead like ours can--except for evil. There are countries 
that can really lead, but they would lead for evil. We have got to stop 
that. And the only way we can is to have a nation that lives within its 
means, does what is right, and balances its budget. It is going to take 
years, if we pass this amendment, to balance the budget. If the 
amendment gets passed and then is supported by three-quarters of the 
States--38 States--this amendment will do the job.
  Whatever we do, it is going to be tough. But that is better than a 
profligacy that is continuing to go along under all kinds of phony 
arguments that, when we look back on them, are really phony. They act 
as though they are really trying to do something about this, while 
spending us into bankruptcy, and more and more causing us to not be 
able to live within our means.
  We have got to change this, and I am convinced the only way we will 
is with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is the only 
way we can find enough people in this country who respect the 
Constitution to cause the result that we live--or at least start 
living--within our means.

                          ____________________