[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20102-20108]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the need for a balanced budget 
amendment is very great. You know how the national debt now is reaching 
a point where, if we don't intervene with a constitutional requirement 
for a balanced budget, it is going to become unsustainable. Statutes 
have not controlled deficit spending.
  I was an author of one of those statutes--former Senator Harry F. 
Byrd of Virginia and I as a Member of the House--back in 1979. For 15 
years that

[[Page 20103]]

law was on the books, and never in those 15 years was there a balanced 
budget amendment. It makes it very clear that laws will not control 
deficit spending.
  I concluded a long time ago, as I voted on previous constitutional 
amendments requiring a balanced budget that didn't pass, that a 
constitutional amendment is a must to provide Congress with the 
necessary discipline. The example right now in Europe of their fiscal 
and deficit situation is sobering. Nations that allow debt to grow out 
of control risk default. One of those countries is practically in 
default. If we don't take effective corrective action, the European 
future could be ours and sooner than we think.
  Each generation of Americans has enjoyed a brighter future than the 
previous generation. The failure of Congress to tame the deficit and 
the debt threatens the American dream for our children and 
grandchildren. The Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of 
liberty not only for ourselves but also for our children. This makes 
balancing the budget not just an economic issue but a moral issue as 
well, and creates a moral obligation to take action. A constitutional 
amendment is not only a first step in that direction but it will make 
sure the discipline is binding in future years.
  The balanced budget amendment will enforce a lower debt. Members 
taking an oath to adhere to its provisions guarantees greater fiscal 
discipline than what we have without that constitutional provision. 
They will take that oath seriously, just as is the case for the 46 
State constitutions that contain requirements their State legislatures 
balance their budgets. We always say the State legislatures and States 
are the political laboratories for our system of government. We ought 
to take the results of those laboratories and put them to use at the 
Federal level. I am urging my colleagues to vote for the resolution 
before us, which is S.J. Res. 10.
  There have been complaints this resolution would transfer to the 
courts the power of the purse, but that is a misreading of S.J. Res. 
10. The amendment prohibits the courts from raising taxes. The doctrine 
of standing, the doctrine of ripeness, and the doctrine of political 
question will prevent courts from deciding cases under the amendment.
  This is a lesson we should have learned. I think it was 1997--nearly 
15 years ago--when this body failed by one vote--and I am ashamed to 
tell you it was one Republican not voting for it--to enact such a 
constitutional requirement. But it didn't pass. If it had passed, we 
wouldn't be in the fiscal situation we are in right now. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for S.J. Res. 10.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I oppose the two balanced budget 
amendments before us. Senator Hatch's proposal would cap spending at 18 
percent of gross domestic product, forcing deep cuts to Social Security 
and other critical programs. Senator Udall's alternative, while less 
extreme, is still not a proposal I can support.
  I have consistently opposed balanced budget amendment proposals 
because Congress doesn't need a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget. We have done it before.
  In the 1990s, during President Clinton's term, we not only balanced 
the budget, but we created surpluses and 23 million new jobs. We cut 
wasteful spending, made smart investments, and ensured that everyone, 
including the wealthiest, paid their fair share.
  In 1993, we passed a budget plan without a single Republican vote. By 
1998, the budget had come into balance, and as President Clinton was 
leaving office in 2001, budget analysts were predicting surpluses as 
far as the eye could see.
  Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts and two wars put on a credit card 
created huge deficits.
  To get our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility, we don't 
need a balanced budget amendment. That is why the Senate has voted down 
balanced budget amendments many times--most recently in 1995, 1996, and 
1997. Instead, we need the political will to come together and make 
responsible choices for our country's future.
  Many economists believe that balanced budget amendments are bad 
policy because they limit the ability of the Federal Government to 
respond during times of economic crisis and recession.
  Limiting our ability to make smart, job-creating investments is no 
way to set a foundation for our country's long-term economic growth.
  Finally, while these proposals include exceptions for times of war, 
there is no exception for natural disasters. A minority of Senators or 
Representatives could block Federal assistance for any disaster, no 
matter how severe.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this balanced budget 
amendment and recommitting ourselves to our duty as a Congress to 
promote fiscal responsibility and economic growth.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today in full support of a 
balanced budget amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 
10, along with all of my fellow Republicans.
  Shortly, the Senate will vote on two proposals for balancing the 
Federal budget. One of those proposals, offered by my colleague from 
Utah, Senator Hatch, will provide a strong and meaningful change to the 
way this Congress performs it spending function.
  I thank the Senator for his continued hard work on trying to balance 
the budget, something he has been working on since 1995. Unfortunately, 
he, like all of the Members of this body, has seen the recent and 
disconcerting rise in debt.
  It is appalling that we continue to head down a path to destruction 
and fiscal lunacy. The American people are fed up with this. How do we 
know that? Recent polls say that only 9 percent of the population 
believes in the spending path Congress has chosen.
  For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, we had in excess of 
$1.3 trillion in deficit spending. In November of this year we 
surpassed $15 trillion in total debt. This rampant overspending will 
not end without a drastic change--without taking away the power to 
overspend.
  Not only have the American people told us this, our financial markets 
have told us this as well. Unbearable debt in the European markets is 
depressing our domestic financial markets. If left unchecked our own 
debt will continue to lower economic outlook.
  It is reprehensible that an issue of this magnitude and significance 
is subject to the partisan bickering and gamesmanship that often rears 
its head in politics.
  I encourage my colleagues to give solemn consideration to the 
proposal before us, as it will turn us immediately away from our 
overspending.
  We have to truly examine issues that are very difficult for a lot of 
us to deal with, and we have to make some very tough decisions.
  Too frequently, we have engaged in political theater instead of 
earnest efforts to resolve these long-term budget issues. The American 
people expect and deserve an honest budget debate and an honest budget 
process. When we pass this legislation and it is ratified by the 
States, the American people will finally get an honest budget, and they 
will get it every year.
  As many of my colleagues have noted, the idea of preventing a 
burdensome and crushing debt for future generations is a thing of the 
past. The time is now. The crisis is now. Congress has been shirking 
its budget responsibilities for so long that we are now the ones 
feeling the effects of the debt.
  I would like to take a moment to talk about some of the things the 
Republican proposal accomplishes. The President will continue to submit 
his yearly budget proposal--a budget proposal that is not only balanced 
but limits the size of the Federal Government to 18 percent of GDP. By 
comparison, last year spending was at almost 24 percent of GDP.
  Further, this legislation requires a supermajority to surpass the 
spending caps for things like emergency spending. We will end a 
longstanding budget gimmick of government spending in

[[Page 20104]]

the name of emergencies for things that are not truly emergencies.
  The rules would be even stricter governing spending of money in times 
of war instead of the general exemption we have now. This proposal will 
also force Congress to fix and save Social Security.
  Finally, one of the most important parts of this proposal is that a 
two-thirds vote of each House is required to increase taxes, helping 
prevent higher tax rates to pay for balancing the budget.
  We can no longer allow the American people to suffer by not providing 
the economic basis for recovery and growth. The equation is simple: A 
balanced Federal budget that is free of excessive debt leads to a 
healthy economy and sustainable job-creation activities.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the two 
balanced budget amendment proposals currently pending before the Senate 
and to explain why I will vote against both even though I support a 
balanced budget amendment.
  I fervently believe that the most pressing issue our country faces 
today is the need to gain control over the staggering Federal deficits 
and long-term debt that threaten our security. In thinking about the 
budget challenges we faced over the past year, I have often been 
reminded of something our second President said two centuries ago that 
remains hauntingly true today: ``There are two ways to conquer and 
enslave a nation,'' as President Adams put it, ``One is by sword and 
the other is by debt.'' President Adams' words have been echoed in our 
time by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, 
who argued earlier this year that the national debt is the greatest 
long-term threat to our national security.
  We can all agree that we must take on the challenge of addressing our 
deficit and debt. At the same time, as we have seen again and again 
over the past year, making tough choices is not an easy thing to do. 
Any responsible deficit reduction proposal will, by definition, be 
painful and unpopular because raising revenues and cutting benefits and 
favored Federal programs is painful and unpopular.
  I am prepared to vote for a plan similar to that proposed by the 
Bowles-Simpson Commission, the Gang of 6, or the Rivlin-Domenici group 
because I believe this approach is responsible and addresses the 
toughest challenges we face head-on. Also, I would support a clean 
balanced budget amendment, which would compel Congress to make tough 
choices to raise revenues as necessary, rein in spending, and balance 
our budget.
  However, the two proposals we are considering today, in my opinion, 
are problematic and marred by extraneous and ill-advised provisions 
that should never be part of our Constitution. These votes say so 
loudly how dysfunctional Congress has become. I want to vote for a 
balanced budget amendment that says clearly that Federal Government 
spending cannot exceed revenues. Yet I can't vote for either of these 
amendments because each contains a partisan part that does not belong 
in our Constitution.
  I do not take the idea of amending our Constitution lightly. As we 
consider these amendments, let's not forget that our Constitution is 
the supreme law of our land; it reflects America's first principles and 
highest ideals, guaranteeing the fundamental rights that have been the 
cornerstone of the freedom and opportunity at the heart of the American 
experience since our founding.
  However, given the dire fiscal situation we face--coupled with the 
reality that time and again Congress has been unable to break away from 
its partisan gridlock to make the painful but necessary decisions that 
must be made to save our Republic--amending the Constitution may be the 
only way to compel a balanced budget.
  I have come to this conclusion first because it is clear that our 
budget process is clearly broken. The truth is that we in Congress have 
failed to uphold our foremost constitutional duties: managing our 
budgeting process. With annual deficits over $1 trillion and our 
national debt increasing over $4 billion each day, this is no time for 
Congress to flout the very laws we established to keep our country's 
fiscal health afloat and manage the budget process responsibly.
  I am speaking in particular about the framework for our budget 
process which was first enacted into law in 1921 when Congress 
established the annual budgeting requirement and later in 1974 when the 
formal process for establishing a coherent budget was enshrined in law.
  The failure to pass a budget resolution for the past 3 years is 
symptomatic of the deep problems we face with regard to our budget, 
deficits, and debt. Likewise, statutory attempts such as pay-go have 
not produced the kinds of results we need. At the same time, as we have 
seen over the past several months, Republicans and Democrats cannot 
seem to agree on how to reform entitlements--the biggest driver of our 
debt and deficits--or reform the Tax Code to ensure that our tax system 
is fair for most Americans, less deferential to special interests, and 
able to sustain the financing of our country's priorities over the long 
term.
  It is regrettable that it has come to this, but it seems that perhaps 
the only way to get Congress to balance the budget is to make it a 
constitutional requirement.
  Unfortunately, both proposals before us today are marred by 
extraneous and, in my view, ill-advised and unnecessary provisions. The 
Republican version, for example, would require that total outlays for 
any fiscal year not exceed 18 percent of GDP and a two-thirds majority 
vote in both Chambers would be required to override this requirement. I 
believe it is unwise to impose, as part of our Constitution, an 
arbitrary spending cap that would handicap future Congresses without 
regard to the unknown economic realities that future generations of 
Americans may face. Unless we can see into the future, we should not be 
in the business of predicting what level of spending will be 
appropriate 25 or 50 years from now.
  Furthermore, the Republican proposal prohibits any bill that 
increases Federal taxes from becoming law unless it is approved by a 
two-thirds majority of both Chambers. This provision essentially gives 
extraordinary constitutional protection to potentially egregious tax 
loopholes and revenue-draining tax expenditures--the same parts of the 
Tax Code we have been trying to reform.
  Likewise, the Democratic balanced budget amendment is not without its 
own faults. A provision prohibiting Congress from passing any bill that 
provides a tax cut to millionaires during a year that we run a deficit 
is not a statement that needs to be part of our Constitution. Moreover, 
the Democratic alternative exempts Social Security, which would 
essentially prevent Congress from reforming the program, which I 
believe it essential to ensure its solvency for generations to come.
  On the whole, both the Republican and Democratic balanced budget 
amendments are short-sided for different reasons. Instead of focusing 
on the single task of providing a balanced budget requirement, 
ideological arguments abound in both proposals, making it virtually 
impossible to support either one.
  As a result, I will not support either proposal. Instead, I encourage 
my colleagues from both parties to support a clean version of a 
balanced budget amendment that is worthy of inclusion in our 
Constitution.
  If we work together to see beyond the fog of partisanship, it will 
become clear that there is not much disagreement about the basic and 
deeply troubling facts of our current fiscal crisis. For this reason, 
first and foremost, I hope Congress will step up and act on a specific 
and comprehensive proposal to reduce the deficit. In the end, process 
reforms will not allow us to escape the hard decisions we must face.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, Washington politicians do not live by the 
same rules that virtually all families and small businesses play by. It 
is your responsibility to balance your budget, spend no more than what 
is in your

[[Page 20105]]

bank account, and have a plan to manage common expenses such as 
student, home, and car loans.
  But in Washington, money is routinely borrowed from Peter to pay 
Paul, or in America's case, money is borrowed from China and others to 
pay for more government than we could ever afford. As a result, 
politicians have dug us into a hole of $15 trillion in debt, with no 
end in sight. Now more than ever, we need a balanced budget amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.
  In Florida's State government, we worked under a balanced budget 
amendment, and every year we worked tirelessly, had contentious 
debates, and made very tough choices to pass a balanced budget year 
after year. That responsibility and accountability is not unique to 
Florida, as practically every other State also works under a balanced 
budget amendment. We need to bring this same kind of fiscal restraint 
to Washington. And unless we enshrine strong balanced budget principles 
in our Constitution, Washington politicians will never stop. That is 
why it is critically important that the Senate approve a strong 
balanced budget amendment.
  The national debt is now over $15 trillion. When I was sworn into 
office about a year ago, the debt was just over $14 trillion. That 
means that in just 1 year, Congress has allowed our debt to increase by 
more than $1 trillion. Virtually nothing could stop it from happening, 
despite the fact that 2011 has given us a startling glimpse into our 
future as European nations face their day of reckoning for decades of 
reckless spending.
  This year's debt ceiling debate gave us an opportunity to get serious 
about controlling our debt and reform the way Washington spends money. 
But not enough people have been willing to come to grips with the 
reality that decades of reckless spending by both parties is leading us 
to a diminished future.
  As the Senate debates a balanced budget amendment this week, it is 
important to note that not all balanced budget amendment proposals are 
created equal. The version that I have joined all 47 of my Senate 
Republican colleagues in supporting, S.J. Res. 10, includes three 
elements I believe are key to truly handcuffing out-of-control 
politicians: a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes, a three-fifths 
supermajority to increase the debt limit, and a cap on all Federal 
spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product. The proposal put 
forth by Senator Mark Udall, S.J. Res. 24, contains no cap on spending, 
no taxpayer protections, and no strict mechanisms to ensure that the 
amendment is actually followed. Unfortunately, if ratified, this 
proposal would simply be another ineffective, disingenuous Washington 
move that would make it easier to raise taxes and still allow for more 
spending.
  The idea of not spending more money than we have is common sense for 
working families and small businesses. We need to bring that common 
sense to Washington, and we need a strong balanced budget amendment 
that is truly worthy of being added to our Constitution. The Senate 
must seize the moment by passing a real balanced budget amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the balanced budget 
amendment proposals before us today. I support a balanced budget. But I 
cannot support these proposals.
  All year, we have been discussing and debating how to have a more 
frugal government. But while we are trying to be frugal, how can we 
also meet our responsibilities to national defense and maintain our 
social contract? To achieve that we have to put politics and 
partisanship aside, and work together to find the sensible center. And 
the balanced budget amendment does not allow for that.
  I am for cuts. But our approach must be balanced like a three legged 
stool with responsible discretionary and military spending cuts; 
revenue; and reform that strengthens Medicare and Medicaid. The 
balanced budget amendment does not allow for that.
  Before we adopt a balanced budget amendment, we should know exactly 
what it is that we are doing. We need to know just how these programs 
are going to be affected. What cuts are going to be taken. How deep. 
What programs. And most importantly what the consequences will be to 
the health, safety, and security of the American people.
  How would a balanced budget amendment affect seniors? It attacks 
economic security for senior citizens through cuts to Social Security 
and Medicare. It breaks the social contract.
  Under the Republican plan, it cuts spending to 1965 levels before 
Medicare existed and when the average Social Security benefit was about 
$1,200 a year. That was 46 years ago, when making $8,000 a year was 
considered a fantastic salary. Would you want to go back and make 
$8,000 a year? I do not think so. I do not think we want to go back to 
that. Do we really want to go back to not having Medicare? Sure we need 
to reform and refresh Medicare, but do we want to end Medicare? I don't 
think so.
  How would a balanced budget amendment affect our ability to respond 
to natural disasters, when the 24-hour news coverage is over and people 
return to their regularly scheduled programs? States that are hit by 
disasters are just beginning the recovery process and depend on their 
Federal partners. Times of disaster are not for making choices between 
one State or another. Government must be there. We are all in this 
together. Just one snowstorm, wildfire, or devastating flood away from 
our own crisis. But the balanced budget amendment would force these 
terrible choices.
  What about funding for America's veterans in order to be able to meet 
their acute care, provide primary care connected to service-connected 
disabilities, and long-term care for those who bear the permanent 
wounds of war? What about funding for disability pensions for veterans? 
The balanced budget amendment makes funding for American's veterans 
with service-connected disabilities vulnerable to mandatory budget 
cuts.
  How will a balanced budget amendment affect the next generation? It 
denies educational opportunity to young people and an opportunity 
structure to working families. The balanced budget amendment puts 
funding for Head Start, Pell Grants, and funding that helps schools 
comply with Title IX funding for job training on the chopping block. I 
believe we must keep the doors of opportunity open, not slam them shut.
  How will a balanced budget amendment affect our Federal workers and 
everyone who depends on their work? The State of Maryland is home to 
some of the flagship agencies of the Federal Government and 130,000 
hardworking Federal employees live in Maryland. Agents at the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation work to protect our safety. Employees at the 
Social Security Administration provide actuarial information on how to 
keep it solvent and make sure the checks are out there on time. At 
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, they are scanning the universe for 
the secrets to life here on Earth. The mandatory budget cuts of the 
balanced budget amendment will require arbitrary cuts to the Federal 
workforce without certainty that the agencies will be capable of doing 
their job. These kinds of cuts are dangerous and harmful to the public.
  The Founders did not include a provision requiring a balanced budget 
at all times. They did not include a provision limiting the size of 
government to an arbitrary percent of the size of our economy. Instead, 
in our Constitution, the Founders said that Congress would have the 
power to borrow on the credit of the United States and the 
responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the country.
  Providing for the general welfare of the country means keeping the 
promise of our social contract to our seniors and our veterans. It 
means keeping the ladder of opportunity available to the next 
generation. And it means responding to natural disasters and 
maintaining a safe and secure homeland.
  Make no mistake. We must balance the budget. But we must do it based 
on principles that preserve economic security for senior citizens, that 
provide opportunity for young people, and that ensure opportunity for 
working families.

[[Page 20106]]

  I cannot and will not support any legislation that abandons these 
principles. Therefore, I will vote against this legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, in a short while, we will vote on two 
balanced budget amendments to the Constitution, at least one of which 
will be a true balanced budget amendment. One of those amendments, S.J. 
Res. 10, the amendment supported by every Senate Republican, addresses 
the fundamental crisis of our time; that is, the crisis of exploding 
debt caused by excessive spending. The other amendment does not address 
that crisis and, therefore, cannot put this country back on a sound 
fiscal footing.
  The votes we cast today will tell the American people whether we 
honestly acknowledge the fiscal crisis posed by our $15 trillion 
national debt and whether we are serious about prescribing an effective 
cure.
  Exploding budget deficits and skyrocketing national debt are symptoms 
of an addiction to overspending. A real solution must address the real 
cause of this crisis, not just its symptoms. Congress will not kick its 
overspending addiction alone but only if required to do so by the 
Constitution itself.
  One of the amendments before us today, S.J. Res. 24, simply cannot be 
a solution because it does not address the overspending that causes 
this crisis. This amendment, offered by my colleague from Colorado, 
Senator Udall, on behalf of the Democrats, purports to require balanced 
budgets but, for purely political reasons, explicitly exempts 
significant portions of the very government spending that will most 
aggressively drive our future debt.
  The Democratic alternative sets no overall limit on Government 
spending, allowing Congress to continue spending with impunity. The 
Democratic alternative does nothing to restrict the propensity of 
Congress and the President to raise taxes on families and businesses as 
a way of compensating for their failure to reduce spending and in order 
to fuel more spending in the future.
  In fact, as my friend Senator Kyl pointed out yesterday, the 
Democratic alternative actually makes it harder to cut taxes. To top it 
off, the Democrats' amendment not only sets no limits on Congress 
raising taxes, but it appears to allow judges to raise taxes to balance 
the budget.
  In other words, the Democratic alternative allows Congress to 
continue doing exactly what has caused this crisis in the first place. 
It allows Members of Congress committed to a tax-and-spend philosophy 
to continue sending taxpayer dollars to special interests at the 
expense of the general fiscal health of this country. The so-called 
solution that continues to enable out-of-control spending is no 
solution at all.
  Maintenance of this tax-and-spend status quo is the priority of those 
who support the Democratic alternative. Just listen to their criticism 
of my amendment, S.J. Res. 10, the one supported by all Republican 
Senators--every one of us. The Democrats criticize my amendment's 
requirement that Congress balance its books as too stringent. They 
criticize it for not allowing more stimulus spending, my gosh, and they 
criticize it for not allowing easy tax increases.
  The people of Utah, and most Americans for that matter, would respond 
that these are the very restrictions Congress needs. They would say 
these restrictions are long overdue and would be positive additions to 
our Constitution. It is no wonder the advocates of the wornout 
philosophy of tax and spend view the provisions of S.J. Res. 10, our 
constitutional amendment, as a threat.
  They are a threat. Our amendment's provisions are a threat to those 
whose only plan is to sit on their hands while our debt continues to 
skyrocket. The strong balanced budget amendment offered by the 
Republicans directly addresses the real cause of our budget crisis and 
offers equally direct solutions. It requires supermajorities. That 
doesn't mean we can't do things. It just says we have to have 
supermajorities to raise taxes. It means it requires wide bipartisan 
agreement for deficit or excess spending, as well as for raising either 
taxes or the debt limit.
  I would note a supermajority to raise the debt limit was in the 
balanced budget amendment that passed the Senate back in 1982. I know 
because I was the one pushing it. It passed the Senate.
  Our amendment limits both spending and the tax increases that fuel 
more spending. This is more than a balanced budget amendment. It is a 
fiscal discipline amendment or a constitutional amendment for limited 
Government.
  Much of the Western world now faces a debt crisis. The eurozone is 
nearly reaching the point of no return. The United States is closing in 
on that same point of no return with our total debt already equal to 
100 percent of our entire economy--of our GDP. The national debt now 
amounts to about $48,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. 
Interest payments alone on this debt are now greater than spending on 
most other Federal programs and would be even higher if interest rates 
were not at historic lows. Annual budget deficits are larger than the 
entire national debt when I introduced my first balanced budget 
amendment.
  Let me say that again. Annual budget deficits--just the deficit this 
year and last year, just standing alone; this year's budget deficit and 
the annual budget deficits of this President--are larger than the 
entire national debt when I introduced the first balanced budget 
amendment in 1979 and 10 times higher than when the Senate last voted 
on a balanced budget amendment in 1997.
  More than two centuries ago, America's Founders warned of the dangers 
of debt. Thomas Jefferson, the forbearer of the Democratic Party, said 
public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared. He would be aghast 
at what Democrats are trying to sell. Alexander Hamilton said there 
ought to be perpetual, anxious, and unceasing efforts to reduce debt as 
fast as possible. John Adams said the experience of other countries 
that accumulate debt should prevent us from doing so ourselves. He 
might as well have been speaking about Europe today. He would be 
appalled at what we are doing around here.
  Watching the failure of Congress and the President to get spending 
and debt under control, these Founding Fathers must be turning over in 
their graves, and I believe we continue to reject their wisdom at our 
peril.
  Despite all the evidence, opponents continue to claim Congress will 
make the tough fiscal choices by itself; that Congress does not need 
any help. After so many years of failure, that amounts to fiddling 
while our fiscal house is burning to the ground. That is the argument 
they make. Closing their eyes, shutting their ears, and repeating the 
mantra that Congress does not need a constitutional amendment is 
exactly what got us to the edge of the cliff we are standing on today 
and which we are about to go over, if we don't put some restraints on 
around here.
  If spending were a drug, Congress would be a very pathetic addict. An 
addict ignores evidence and denies he has a problem. An addict claims 
over and over that he can stop his addictive behavior any time. But 
similar to a real addict, Congress cannot kick the habit on its own. 
Congress needs some help. The Constitution is the way to get that help, 
and the Founding Fathers would have loved this amendment.
  Think of S.J. Res. 10 as a constitutional intervention. It will 
require not only that the Federal budget be balanced but that it be 
balanced in the right way. When we vote on these amendments, Senators 
will demonstrate where they stand on the great crisis of our time. 
Voting against any balanced budget amendment simply endorses the status 
quo. It ignores the evidence and pretends everything is fine, even as 
we head for the cliff. This is the only amendment that deserves the 
title of a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  Voting for the Democrats' alternative--S.J. Res. 24--also endorses 
the status quo because it barely touches the symptom--budget deficits 
and

[[Page 20107]]

debt--while ignoring the cause--government spending. Without covering 
all government spending and without setting real limits on spending and 
taxes, the Democrats' alternative does little more than put a bandaid 
on the problem. It isn't even a good bandaid that holds.
  The only proposal before us that effectively responds to our budget 
crisis is S.J. Res. 10. It is the only proposal that addresses the real 
cause of the unbalanced budgets that are dragging us into fiscal 
quicksand.
  This crisis threatens national security, economic prosperity, and 
maybe, most important of all, individual liberty. Congress will not 
solve this crisis by itself. S.J. Res. 10 is the only solution that 
addresses not only the symptoms of our fiscal crisis but the cause as 
well. These are the facts. These are simply the facts, and I encourage 
my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 10.
  I heard the distinguished majority whip talking earlier, and just for 
a minute I think he was asking: Why do this. You know you can't win. We 
don't know we can't win. But even if we can't, some fights are worth 
fighting, especially when our national security, economic prosperity, 
and individual liberty are at stake. That is what we are living with 
right now.
  The American people need to know where we stand, whether we will ever 
do anything real or do something real about our addiction to 
overspending. That is the bankruptcy of our country right now--the 
addiction to overspending. Our amendment ends that addiction. It 
provides 5 years to get there, so it is a reasonable provision. But it 
does force us to get there.
  The Democratic amendment doesn't even attack the real problem. It is 
there for political purposes. It is there so Democrats can say: We 
voted for a balanced budget amendment, even though it, basically, has 
little to do with balancing the budget.
  I was enamored with the talk of the Democrat budget chairman 
yesterday, Senator Conrad from North Dakota. He went through all the 
problems we have and how deep they are and how problematic they are and 
what an addiction it is and all of that. Then he said we can do it by 
just doing what is right under the Constitution and forcing ourselves 
to do what is right and just balance the budget without a balanced 
budget amendment.
  He couldn't have made a better case for the balanced budget amendment 
because I have been here for 35 years, and I can say there hasn't been 
a real effort except during the mid-1990s to do that. That was when the 
first Republican House of Representatives and Senate in over 40 years 
took place. It was when they did have a President, Bill Clinton, who 
recognized that the time had come to do something about spending.
  I have to give him credit for that in contrast to our current 
President who just demands more taxes and more spending all the time. 
There isn't anything or any person he wouldn't tax if he could get away 
with it except those unable to pay any taxes at all, and nobody wants 
to tax them.
  The fact is, I think the distinguished Budget Committee chairman made 
a tremendous case for our amendment. I can say we have been going on 
way too long.
  Back in 1997, we came within one vote of passing this amendment. That 
was twice now. Remember, in 1992 we actually passed an amendment, but 
Tip O'Neill and the Democrats killed it in the House at that time. But 
in 1997 we came within one vote. I actually had the votes as I walked 
to the floor, and then one of our weak-kneed Republicans who was 
threatened by the unions, who had been high up on the endorsement list, 
who wanted to be seen every time we had a press conference on this 
issue, buckled and voted the other way and we lost. Had we won that 
amendment in 1997, we wouldn't be in this colossal mess we are in 
today. Frankly, I, for one, hope we can get out of that mess, and the 
only way we are going to is through a constitutional amendment that 
does what this amendment we are presenting actually calls for.
  I just do not believe our friends on the other side are ever going to 
quit taxing and spending, and I have 35 years to prove it--except when 
the first Republican Congress in over 40 years came into being, and 
they had a President who worked with them, a Democratic President, by 
the way. I wish we had a Democratic President here who would work with 
us. He would go down in history as one of the most popular Presidents 
in history if he would do so. But, no, he wants to tax and he wants to 
spend. Frankly, I am fed up with it, and I think a lot of people are 
fed up with it. The people out in the hinterlands are all fed up with 
it, and they realize we need to put some restraints on Congress it has 
to live up to.
  That doesn't mean we can't get a supermajority to raise taxes or we 
can't get a supermajority to raise the debt limit or we can't get a 
supermajority to an undeclared war--to give a good reason why our 
friends on the other side might want to support this. But it does mean 
there will be restraints that will work and will keep this country 
secure and free.
  I reserve the remainder of our time. I ask that any time be divided 
equally, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to reserve the 
remainder of our time but to permit the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado to utilize his 5 minutes at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise this morning to speak 
in favor of the legislation that I have authored to amend the 
Constitution to require that Congress, on behalf of the American 
people, balance the Federal budget.
  Yesterday I spoke about the merits of a balanced budget amendment, 
and I appreciate the debate that has occurred on the Senate floor which 
was in the best traditions of the Senate. I particularly have enjoyed 
hearing Senator Hatch's point of view. I think we have some 
disagreements about how we implement a balanced budget amendment, but 
we both agree that we need to put the Federal Government's finances in 
balance. Perhaps if we both fall short today on these important votes, 
we can go back and work together in the best tradition of Senator Hatch 
and Senator Simon. Senator Simon, on our side, was a strong proponent 
in the 1990s of a balanced budget amendment. Senator Hatch referenced 
those efforts then.
  Let me quickly summarize my arguments for why we need a balanced 
budget amendment. I start out thinking about Coloradans and the common 
sense they apply to their everyday finances, and there is a big dose of 
Colorado common sense in my proposal. It is aimed at finding common 
ground that both parties and a big majority of Americans can support, 
and it starts with a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. 
That is the heart of the issue. It is something on which many of us 
agree. But my proposal also asks us to avoid the mistakes of the last 
decade that have resulted in debt that is not only significant but it 
is exploding.
  For example, it would prevent deficit-busting tax breaks for 
Americans who earn $1 million or more a year. Why should we continue to 
give additional tax breaks to the wealthiest among us during times when 
we are in these tough deficit situations?
  I would also create a Social Security lock box to keep Congress from 
raiding the trust fund to hide the true size of our annual deficits. We 
have been using the Social Security fund as a slush fund to remedy our 
budgeting problems. That would end.
  In sum, the proposal I brought forward is straightforward, it is 
simple, and upholds the principle: We should pay for our government in 
a responsible manner.

[[Page 20108]]

  I think, looking at the Presiding Officer, in your home State most 
Americans agree to that, most New Yorkers do. Most Coloradans certainly 
do.
  I also want to be clear, there are some important differences between 
my approach and my dear friend Senator Hatch's approach. We will vote 
on his proposal today as well.
  Senator Hatch's proposal--this is in my estimation--goes far beyond 
balancing our books, and it is a balanced budget amendment only in 
part. That is because it includes some unrealistic limitations on our 
government that could prevent us from securing the retirement of hard-
working Americans, undermine our national defense, and send the United 
States back to a time before Social Security, Medicare, and a host of 
other important programs were put in place to protect our middle class, 
the true heart of our country.
  Even worse, it locks in some special interest tax breaks that do 
nothing to grow our economy or create jobs. It, in effect, would turn 
the Constitution into a document that protects every special tax break 
that has been successfully lobbied over the years. That is not what our 
constituents, hard-working Americans, expect from a balanced budget 
amendment.
  On the other hand, my approach is straightforward. It requires us to 
pay for what we spend. It creates flexibility depending on the economic 
conditions that we face and the year in which we find ourselves. But it 
wouldn't lead to the erosion of seniors' retirement security or it 
wouldn't lock in special interest tax breaks.
  So I say to all of my colleagues, it is time to put aside our 
political differences, check our ultimatums at the door, and let's work 
across the aisle and challenge ourselves to put our country first 
through balancing the budget.
  Our debt is $15 trillion and it is growing. The bipartisan cochairmen 
of President Obama's commission on the debt have called our debt a 
cancer, and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral 
Mullen, has said it is the single biggest threat to our national 
security. It is clear it is time to act. We have run out of time to 
act.
  So, as I close, I just want to say the American people have demanded 
we get our fiscal house in order. As usual, they are a few steps ahead 
of us, and it is now time for us in the Congress to catch up. So I am 
asking my colleagues of both parties and both Chambers to support my 
proposal. This is the right approach. It will enhance our economic 
security. It will ensure that we keep faith with our children. We 
shouldn't pass off this unsustainable debt to our children.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
proposal. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. How much time do I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 45 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete these 
remarks. It might take a few seconds beyond.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, critics suggest a vote for our balanced 
budget amendment is a waste of the Chamber's time. That is pure bunk.
  The same folks who say we should not be voting on the Republicans' 
balanced budget amendment have also offered up their own amendment to 
show their constituents that they too want to balance the budget.
  I can tell you now that it is the Democratic alternative that misses 
the point, for a number of reasons. One, it doesn't address the true 
crisis. We have a crisis of spending. We are $15 trillion in debt, and 
the Democratic alternative does nothing to address it.
  No. 2, it carves out massive portions of government spending from 
their definition of Federal outlays. No. 3, even its balance 
requirements, the most basic feature of any balanced budget amendment, 
are easily overridden. No. 4, there is no cap on Federal spending. And, 
No. 5, there is no supermajority requirement for tax increases.
  Put it all together and this is what you get with the Democratic 
balanced budget amendment. You get a constitutional amendment that is 
going to force Congress to raise taxes on families and businesses to 
pay for out-of-control government spending. The Democratic alternative 
should be rejected. It might look good from a distance but up close it 
does not even begin to address our Nation's fiscal crisis.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________