[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10232-10237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, our Nation has an over $14 trillion debt 
and unless we can get a handle on it--I have a chart which I think 
shows what our future will look like if we stay on the current 
trajectory. You can see that the path leads higher and higher in debt 
to GDP levels. That level is unprecedented in American history. You 
have to go back to World War II when we had this kind of debt to GDP. 
The chart shows we are going to face an ever increasing burden and 
debt.
  Without shoring up our finances, we know what our future will look 
like. This week, we saw that the country of Greece had to approve an 
austerity package to be eligible for their next disbursement of a 
multibillion dollar bailout loan from the IMF and other European 
countries. This austerity package included 28.4 billion euros in 
spending cuts and tax increases. That is exactly what will happen if we 
don't do anything. We will reach a time when we will be facing massive 
cuts in spending and tax increases, if we don't get our fiscal house in 
order.
  But that isn't necessary, because there is a better way to solve this 
problem. Instead of more debt and spending, we can pass a balanced 
budget amendment that would prevent us from spending more than we can 
take in. We know what the effect of this will be on our future as well.
  We have States across this country--49--that have some type of 
balanced budget requirement, including South Dakota. That is the reason 
why our State's budget is always balanced. Our legislature cannot go 
home until that happens. We need that same sort of discipline here in 
Washington, and a balanced budget amendment would bring that about.
  I have with me on the floor a colleague from Nebraska, Senator 
Johanns, who also served as his State's Governor. My understanding is 
that the Senator from Nebraska, when he was Governor, had a balanced 
budget requirement in Nebraska's constitution. I wonder if he can 
explain the effect that had on his State, and whether it forced them to 
make some of the tough choices necessary to get a budget balanced.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
about a topic that I think has made all the difference in the world for 
my State of Nebraska.
  I did have the privilege, a few years back, of serving as the 
Governor of the State of Nebraska. Until I came out to join the Cabinet 
as Secretary of Agriculture, I served about 6 years. Before that, I was 
the mayor of our State capital in the community of Lincoln, a great 
community. We followed the same pattern at the Governor's office that 
we did at the mayor's office. And we Governors had a simple principle: 
We did not spend money we did not have.
  Before I talk about the balanced budget amendment, let me explain how 
that worked as mayor of Lincoln. My budget staff would go to work. They 
worked on the budget pretty much year-round--really, it was a year-
round endeavor--and at some point in the process I would get a stack of 
paperwork that was about an inch thick, with line after line after line 
after line of items they were proposing we needed to spend money on to 
keep the city running. There would be everything from police cars to 
whatever, to salaries. I mean, imagine what it takes to run a city, and 
it would be on that list. I would go through item by item, page by 
page, studying each entry. Ultimately, we came to a conclusion for each 
entry: Yes, I believe this is necessary to keep our city going.
  Well, somewhere in that thick stack of paperwork, I would turn over 
the page and I would come to a page where there was a red line drawn 
through the items. The significance of that red line was that 
everything above that red line we had money for and everything below 
that red line there was no money for. So if the next entry below the 
red line was something that I wanted to see happen as the chief 
executive of that community, I had to cut spending to eliminate 
something else because, you see, when I went to the city council I 
couldn't go to them and say: For operations, we are going to borrow a 
whole bunch of money. That didn't change at all when I became the 
Governor of the State of Nebraska.
  Our constitution requires a balanced budget. It is very 
straightforward. It basically says: You can't spend more than what is 
coming in. You can't buy things you don't have money for.
  Let me add another piece to this--and this makes our State quite a 
bit different, I think, than virtually any other State in the United 
States. Way back when our constitution was written, those who sat down 
to write the constitution--with amazing foresight--said: At some point 
politicians, in their passion to get reelected, are going to say to the 
people, they can have all of this, and then finance it by borrowing 
money. Well, they didn't want that. So there is literally a provision 
in our constitution that, in essence, says: You can't borrow any money. 
I think the limit is something like $100,000 or $500,000, and that is 
it.
  If you drive across the roads in Nebraska, I will just point out, 
they are paid for. Why? Because we don't spend money we don't have. Our 
constitution will not allow us to do it. So year after year, when we 
get together, we look at the priorities of State. It might be 
education, it might be something relative to human services, it might 
be roads. But whatever it is, the executive branch--me, as Governor, 
working with the legislature--would decide what we are going to fund 
and at what level.
  Now, I could guarantee the people of Nebraska three things would 
happen by the end of the legislative session: No. 1, a budget would be 
passed; No. 2, it would be balanced; and, No. 3, we would not borrow 
money for those first two things to happen. A budget would be passed, 
it would be balanced, and we weren't going to borrow money to make that 
happen. That has been going on for decades and decades and decades.
  Some of my colleagues are probably ready to rush down to the floor 
and say: Oh, Mike, that sounds so backward. But here is what I have to 
say. During this very difficult economic time--and all of us agree it 
has been one of the toughest times since the Depression--unemployment 
in Nebraska has not gone over 5 percent. Unemployment today in Nebraska 
is 4.1 percent. Let me say that a bit differently. Ninety-six percent 
of people able to work in Nebraska have a job--96 percent.
  This year our legislature actually recessed early and--I believe I 
remember this correctly--they unanimously passed the State budget. 
There are Democrats in the legislature, there are Republicans in the 
legislature, and there are Independents. One might ask: How did they do 
that? They did it because they felt a responsibility to the State and 
to their constitution to get a budget done, to make sure it was 
balanced, and not to borrow money to get there.
  Let me contrast that with what is happening out here. What is 
happening out here is that for decades and decades and decades, we, as 
the Federal Government, have said to the people: Don't you worry. We 
can be all things to all people. We can give you this and we can give 
you that because we have this big credit card. Well, that credit card 
today is now at $14.5 trillion and growing--growing and growing and 
growing.
  When I go back home and do townhall meetings, and I look across the 
room and I see young people or children, it pains me to tell them that 
I know who is going to be responsible to pay off the credit card. It is 
not Mike Johanns, who turns 61 this year, although it should be my 
responsibility; it is going to be our children and our grandchildren 
who will have their own priorities, their own desires, and their own 
wishes. They are going to be saddled with trillions and trillions and 
trillions of dollars of debt before they can even address their own 
priorities.
  I will end with this thought. What is the merit of a balanced budget 
amendment? Well, when I was 20 years old, our Nation owed $380 
billion--$380 billion. It is projected that when I reach

[[Page 10233]]

65, just 4 short years from now, our Nation will owe $20 trillion. It 
is time to be honest with the American people. We will not solve this 
problem unless we put discipline in place--as our States have done; as 
the great State of Nebraska has done--which would essentially say, year 
after year, President after President, Senator after Senator, House 
Member after House Member, we have to live within our means.
  That is what the balanced budget amendment is about. You see, without 
this, there will always be a way to get around it, to do something and 
not accept the responsibility of running this country with fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from Nebraska. As a former executive--both as mayor and Governor--he, 
obviously, has had to make the hard decisions necessary to get the 
books to balance both in the city of Lincoln and the State of Nebraska. 
As he has observed, the economic circumstances the State of Nebraska 
finds itself in today are so much better than other places around the 
country.
  Now, granted, there are lots of factors that contribute to that. Part 
of it has to do with the business climate in some States around the 
country. But, clearly, it is also a function of the discipline the 
State of Nebraska imposes on itself through its balanced budget 
amendment and the decisions of the leaders in that State, both 
legislators and Governors, in order to make that possible.
  So I think the experience of the Senator from Nebraska is valuable in 
helping us shape the debate that ought to occur on this balanced budget 
amendment. I would say one of the features of the balanced budget 
amendment that we are both cosponsoring is that it caps spending at 18 
percent of our entire economy. That is not a number picked out of thin 
air. It is a number that comes from the historical level of taxation 
for the past 40 years. In the past five times the budget was balanced 
in Washington--and bear in mind five times probably in the last 40 
years--spending averaged just under 18.7 percent of GDP--not too far 
off what the cap under the balanced budget amendment would require.
  Further, we know in 2007--a year in which we had tax laws that are 
very similar to current tax laws--revenue was 18.5 percent of GDP. So 
if we could constrain spending to 18 percent of our entire economic 
output, we would be able to balance the budget without raising taxes.
  Our colleagues on the other side continue to claim the problem could 
be fixed if we would only raise taxes on a few rich people, tax 
corporate jets, stop giving tax breaks to American energy production, 
and those sorts of things. The truth is, the tax proposals from 
Democrats put only a relatively minor dent in the deficit. To truly 
balance the budget through tax increases we would have to see 
astronomical rate increases that would hit not only high-income earners 
and corporations but the middle class and small business as well.
  This is clearly not what the American people want. It is not what I 
want. Simply raising taxes on job creators isn't going to improve our 
economy. It is only going to hurt it more. And tax increases aren't the 
only threat to our economy. We also know these current levels of debt 
are costing us about 1 million jobs a year as well, and these debt 
levels are only predicted to increase.
  In his experience as a Governor, I guess I would ask my colleague 
from Nebraska whether when it came time to make these hard decisions 
about balancing the budget, did the notion of raising revenues, 
increasing taxes, come into play? I am sure that was a debate that was 
always raised. It always is. You can either reduce the amount of 
spending or you can raise taxes on someone.
  It strikes me the problem we have in Washington is not that we don't 
have enough revenue. We have plenty of revenue. We just have too much 
spending. I am curious to know in the State of Nebraska what his 
experience was in terms of this debate we have about more taxes or less 
spending.
  Mr. JOHANNS. We adopted the philosophy in the State of Nebraska that 
we wanted to be job creators. We wanted to have that low unemployment. 
So we recognized it is not government that is going to create the jobs. 
After all, people don't want a bigger, grander, greater State 
government--or Federal Government, for that matter. Our responsibility 
was to create the right climate so a small business had an opportunity 
to grow and expand; that a large employer, looking across the United 
States for a great place to locate, would know they had an opportunity 
to grow and expand a business in the State of Nebraska. So we fought 
tooth and nail.
  Let me give a current example. If we dial the clock back to about 
November of last year, our current Governor, David Heineman, was faced 
with a great challenge. He had about $1 billion he had to somehow make 
up to balance the budget over a 2-year cycle. For a State such as 
Nebraska, that is a powerful amount of money. In Washington, where we 
talk about trillion-dollar programs, such as the stimulus, et cetera, 
that may not sound like much. But it is a huge amount of money to our 
State.
  I suppose our Governor could have said: Well, if we just hit the 
taxpayer here more, and hit the taxpayer there more, then all of this 
will balance out. But he adopted very much the opposite view--which is 
exactly what I expected of Governor Heineman. He said: We are going to 
balance the budget, and we are going to do it without raising taxes. 
That philosophy is absolutely right.
  Families are tightening their belts, they are balancing their 
budgets, and they are doing everything they can. They are suffering 
through economic times that are tough. Why would we hit them harder? 
Why would we go to our families, who are already struggling, and say: I 
have to take more money out of your billfold and send it to the State 
capital?
  So he led and he stepped forward and he said, Here is a plan to 
deliver a balanced budget. And do you know what. He didn't send 
somebody else to go into that room. He went himself and said this is 
the plan that I believe in for the future of our State. He was there 
through every minute, every hour, every second of the legislative 
session, and at the end of it, with no tax increases, they balanced the 
budget. I would have to check this, but if memory serves me correctly, 
I think that plan passed unanimously. In our State legislature we have 
members who are more liberal than others, more conservative; we have 
some who are Democrats, some who are Republicans. But do you know what. 
Our chief executive led. And, again, I draw a sharp contrast here.
  There is one nationally elected official in our Nation, and we call 
him Mr. President. The President pays the filing fee and convinces the 
Nation that he or she is the right person to occupy that office, and 
there is no substitute for their leadership.
  We need to have our Chief Executive, the man we call Mr. President, 
deliver a plan that he believes is the right direction for our country. 
That is the key to this issue.
  I will be very clear. I like the plan of Governor Heineman. In tough 
times, you pull back. When the revenues are a little bit better, you 
can do some things and establish some new priorities. But what happens 
out here is there is no prioritization. It is spend on everything. 
Spend on everything that walks by. Some day our kids and grandkids are 
going to have to pay off the credit card. I don't think that is right.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his observations. In 
a minute I want to turn to the ranking member of the Senate Budget 
Committee to talk about setting priorities, because that is something 
we are not doing here.
  I do want to point out in the course of this discussion, however, 
that what you have said is exactly right. You cut spending and you grow 
the economy. One of the things you need to do is you have got to create 
jobs, you have to get economic expansion going. The way not to do that 
is to raise taxes, and that is the prescription many of our

[[Page 10234]]

colleagues on the other side would like: Let's get more revenue and 
raise taxes.
  That is absolutely the opposite thing that you would do when you have 
got a downed economy and you are trying to create jobs. What we ought 
to be looking at is how do we reduce the size of government, get us 
living within our means, and getting the economy growing and expanding 
again and creating jobs.
  I want to point out one thing. This is important, in my view. We are 
planning right now, to the extent that there is any planning going on 
here--and, unfortunately, without a budget it is very difficult to 
prioritize. But there are expectations about what revenues are going to 
be for the foreseeable future.
  There was an interesting op-ed piece earlier this week in the Wall 
Street Journal written by Larry Lindsey, who is a former economic 
adviser to President Bush and also former Federal Reserve Governor, who 
pointed out that the current predictions for the debts and deficits in 
the coming years are very optimistic for a couple reasons.
  One is that the White House and the CBO are using very optimistic 
numbers for growth in our economy. While I hope they are correct, I am 
concerned that they could be very much overstating the potential for 
growth in our economy. If more realistic numbers were used, what Larry 
Lindsey recognized in that story was that the impact of the financial 
crisis on our economy, our debt numbers could jump by an additional $4 
trillion over the next 10 years by assuming a more historic growth 
level, given the times that we have been through.
  At the same time, the President and the CBO are also predicting that 
interest rates are going to remain much lower than they have 
historically. What Mr. Lindsey pointed out in this op-ed was that if 
interest rates normalize--in other words, reset to what are the 
historical averages--it would cost us an additional $4.9 trillion more 
over the next 10 years to finance our debt than what we are currently 
expecting. So those two factors alone would have an $8.9 trillion 
negative impact on these forecasts for the next decade. Again, it 
points to the importance of getting spending under control and doing it 
now.
  He finally pointed out that the new health care law is another 
significant hidden cost. If you look at what employers are increasingly 
being faced with, many of them are going to choose to dump their 
employees into these public exchanges and you are going to see the 
additional costs of anywhere from about $74 billion to $85 billion a 
year over the next 10 years.
  You start adding that up, you add in the economic growth 
assumptions--again, I hope they are right. But assuming they are wrong, 
you have lower levels of economic growth, which I think are probably 
more realistic levels. If you have more realistic interest rates at 
least in terms of historical averages, these long-term predictions get 
awful in a real hurry.
  The nice thing about having a balanced budget amendment is you are 
forced to make those decisions every year. Instead of dealing with 
these long-term predictions, which are often inaccurate, each and every 
year the budget has to be balanced. So if interest rates go up, the 
budget has to be balanced. If employers put their employees on the 
exchanges, the budget has to be balanced. If there are fictional 
savings from these independent payment advisory boards that are being 
created and those aren't realized, the budget has to be balanced. If 
taxes don't produce as much revenue as predicted, the budget has to be 
balanced.
  This is the very simple solution that, as the Senator from Nebraska 
pointed out, so many States have come to, so many States have concluded 
that you have to have some sort of a requirement to balance the budget 
is the most powerful fiscal reform we could have here in Washington, 
DC.
  We have credit agencies that are questioning our long-term budget 
outlook. If we did a balanced budget amendment, I think there wouldn't 
be any question that our country would be able to pay all of our bills.
  I was a Member of the House of Representatives back in 1997. I think 
the Senator from Alabama was here at the time. There was a vote on a 
balanced budget amendment at that time. We didn't vote on it in the 
House because the Senate voted on it first. The Senate came within one 
single vote of passing a balanced budget amendment. Had they done that, 
we would have been able to pass it in the House. We had the votes for 
it. We could have sent it on to the States. I can't help but thinking 
how different our fiscal situation would be today if they had had that 
one additional vote back in 1997 to get us a balanced budget amendment.
  Many of our colleagues here campaigned on a balanced budget 
amendment. Hopefully when we get a chance to vote on it--and I hope we 
do here in the next few weeks--we will see whether the rhetoric matches 
the actions.
  But all that is to say we have a major fiscal challenge facing this 
country. For all the reasons the Senator from Nebraska noted, we are 
handing our children a burden of debt that is not fair to them, 
trillions and trillions of dollars. We have to bring some discipline to 
the process of budgeting around here. What is unfortunate--and this is 
why I want to turn to our colleague from Alabama, because he is the 
ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee--we have done nothing in 
792 days to prioritize spending.
  This Federal Government spends $3.7 trillion annually of the 
taxpayers' money, and we have not passed a budget for 792 days, let 
alone one that actually balanced.
  My State of South Dakota spends annually about $3 billion. This 
Federal Government borrows $4 billion every single day. The borrowing 
of the Federal Government exceeds in 1 day what the State of South 
Dakota spends in an entire year. That is the dimension of the problem 
we are dealing with. All that being said, it has been 792 days since we 
produced a budget here in the Senate.
  I say to my colleague from Alabama, clearly this is a problem that 
needs to be addressed. Wouldn't the Senator say this is reflective of 
the lack of political courage, the lack of political will, the lack of 
discipline around here? We have colleagues on the other side who say we 
don't need a balanced budget amendment. That is a gimmick. All we have 
to do is balance the budget. Well, where is it? Where is the budget, 
and where is the budget it is supposed to balance? It is not happening. 
So I think the balanced budget amendment is a simple, straightforward 
way in which to deal with a massive challenge facing us in the future, 
and we need some discipline imposed upon Federal spending on the 
Congress that so many States have, and as the Senator from Nebraska 
pointed out, as the Governor of his State he was able to exercise.
  I would refer to my colleague from Alabama to ask him his thoughts 
about where we are with regard to the budget, and is our lack of 
discipline here--or, I should say, is our lack of willingness to pass a 
budget not a reflection of a lack of discipline that exists in the 
Congress today and an unwillingness to make the hard choices that are 
necessary to get this fiscal train back on track?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Thune so much for his comments, and 
that of Senator Johanns. They are raising a fundamental question.
  We have never, ever been in a financial situation in our country that 
is as systemically deeply dangerous as we are today. You go through a 
war and you borrow a lot of money. You go through a recession, maybe 
your debt goes up some. We are systemically in a recession, but we are 
also in long-term projections of a dangerous surging level of debt, as 
your chart shows.
  Last year the Democratic majority moved a budget out of committee. 
Senator Thune is a member of that committee, and remembers that debate. 
Senator Reid declared that he wasn't going to bring it up. It was never 
brought up on the floor of the Senate or even debated.
  This year, apparently the majority leader decided once again we would 
not have a budget, and directed that the Budget Committee not even mark 
up a budget. So we have not even commenced work on a budget this year.

[[Page 10235]]

  Indeed, the majority leader said it was foolish for the country to 
have a budget this year, which is stunning, since during the 792 days 
we have been without a budget the debt of the United States has 
increased some $3.2 trillion. It is a stunning thing.
  So, yes, I believe that history shows in the past, and based on the 
real crisis we face in the future, there has never been a more 
important time for us to do what so many States do: Have a balanced 
budget amendment that requires us each year to balance that budget. I 
believe this is the right thing for us, and it would be so much better 
for our country.
  Senator Johanns is here, and he talked about executive leadership. 
You and Senator Thune were talking about how dangerous the debt path we 
are on is, how much greater it was in Nebraska's situation. Alabama has 
had to cut spending. But we are not cutting spending at all here. We 
haven't been. We have been increasing spending here.
  I wanted to ask you a serious question. Do you feel that the first 
responsibility of a Chief Executive of the United States, the 
President, would be to honestly tell the American people that this is 
not just a political dust-up, but that we are facing a very serious 
debt crisis that could actually put us into an economic tailspin again, 
knock us down again, and the debt numbers we are seeing will look even 
worse? Do you feel he has that responsibility, and do you feel it has 
been met?
  Mr. JOHANNS. Senator Sessions raises an excellent point. Having 
served in the executive branch pretty much exclusively until I came to 
the Senate 2 years ago, there is only one leader. I not only believe 
that the Executive--in this case, the President of the United States--
has that responsibility, but I feel very strongly that that 
responsibility has not been discharged.
  I fully appreciate the need to go out there and drive a message and 
get votes and get yourself elected or reelected. That, of course, is 
what democracy is all about. But there is a point at which the election 
is over and that needs to be set aside, and there needs to be someone 
who can lead on behalf of the entire United States.
  We are all Senators, but it is the people of Nebraska who vote for 
me. We only have one nationally elected official, and that is the 
gentleman I referred to previously who is called Mr. President. There 
is no substitute for that, not in our system of government. It is 
absolutely incumbent upon the President to lay out in terms U.S. 
citizens can understand what we are facing.
  I will be very candid. I could not be more disappointed with the 
President's comments yesterday. It is his podium. He is free to talk 
about whatever he chooses to talk about, and he does not need the 
advice of Mike Johanns. But I will tell you what a great opportunity 
that was to talk about the dire situation of our budget and to lay out 
in stark detail what brings us to this situation and invite the 
American people to understand the difficulty we are facing and, most 
importantly, to put a plan out that the President stands behind.
  Let me tell you what happened this year. The President put out a 
plan. The plan came to the floor of the Senate. It was so disregarded 
it did not get a single vote. It was not a serious plan. No one took it 
as a serious plan.
  Think about that. No Republican, no Democrat, no Independent, no 
liberal, no conservative, no moderate said this is the right plan for 
the future of this great Nation; not a single one in this Senate. That 
is a very serious situation for our Nation.
  It is time to be serious about this and present a serious proposal 
that makes the hard choices. Don't tell me you can solve this problem 
by, well, everybody is going to pay higher taxes who makes over a 
certain level. I did the math on that. When I first heard that I said: 
OK, let me understand that better. If you earn over $250,000 a year, 
what would the tax rate have to be for those earners just to balance 
the budget for that year? I am not talking about the massive amount of 
debt that lies in front of our children and grandchildren. Just to 
balance the budget that year, the tax rate would be 90 percent. It has 
gotten worse because our deficit has grown to $1.6 trillion--but 90 
percent. Actually, I think, if I redid that math, it would be closer to 
100 percent.
  That may be a great political talking point. It may be tested, it may 
be polled, it may be a 70-percent talking point, it may be an 80-
percent talking point, but I tell you what, it is not going to solve 
the problem this Nation faces. It is not the pathway that deals with 
the massive problem we have, and there is no one else who can speak to 
the Nation like the President of the United States.
  Senator Sessions cannot, Senator Johanns cannot, Senator McConnell 
and Senator Reid, with all their stature, cannot either. That bully 
pulpit is unique to the President of the United States, and we have yet 
to see that responsibility met.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator, the former Governor for those 
comments. I do believe it is difficult for Congress to ask the American 
people to make sacrifices if the President does not acknowledge clearly 
and articulately the deep crisis we are in and why those sacrifices 
have to be made. It is not that we want to; it is because we do not 
have the money and we have to make some changes in what we do. That is 
why a number of us called on Majority Leader Reid to not recess next 
week. Let's stay and do something about the debt.
  I understand we may now be staying next week, but I am not at all 
sure that the plan is to deal with anything involving the greatest 
threat to our Nation, which is our debt. Apparently, they want to talk 
about other issues. That was not what drove the concern. It was not 
about a patent bill--much as I would like to see it passed. That was 
not what we were concerned about when we said we need to be in next 
week. It is because, by the end of this month, maybe the first of 
August, we will see a monumental bill of some kind produced by the 
Democratic majority in the Senate, brought out here, and we are going 
to be asked to vote for it in a matter of hours, being told every 
minute that the country is about to sink into oblivion if we don't sign 
it and vote for it, not knowing fully what is in it, not fully having 
studied it, the American people not knowing what is in it. That is 
wrong policy. We object to that.
  I believe the regular order in this Senate should be conducted, that 
we ought to have a proposal brought forth so it can be amended, so it 
can be analyzed, so it can be accounted for. How much taxes are going 
to be raised by the President? What taxes does he propose to raise? 
What does Senator Reid want to do? Let's see those numbers and let's 
debate them and let's have amendments. That is why we need to be here 
next week, not to deal with a patent bill or some other legislation. 
That is why we called for it and I am prepared to work and I believe 
our colleagues are, but it needs to be on something significant.
  The history of our Congress and the surging debt crisis we face is so 
significant that we have to have a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment. We almost passed that before. It would have been so much 
better had we done so. Let's do it this time and change the course of 
our country. Nothing clears the mind so well as the absence of 
alternatives. When Senators and Congressmen have no alternative but to 
live within their means, they will figure out a way to do it. But if we 
can find an alternative, history tells us too often we will, and we 
will act irresponsibly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was, frankly, shocked by the comments of 
the President of the United States yesterday at his press conference, 
telling Congress it needed to get to work. I guess the President forgot 
his party controls the Senate, and Republicans, being in the minority, 
have no ability to place matters on the agenda or to force a vote on 
issues over the objection of Senator Reid, the majority

[[Page 10236]]

leader, and the Democrats who control the Senate.
  I guess the thing that rankled me so much is, rather than hold a 
press conference and tell Senator Reid to get to work on the budget, 
the President should have picked up his telephone or invited Senator 
Reid to come to his office and said: Harry, we need to pass a budget. 
We need to take care of this debt crisis. We need to take care of this 
cliff we are getting ready to fall off on August 2, that Secretary 
Geithner has warned us would have, perhaps, calamitous impacts on 
markets and on the economy and on interest rates charged on our 
national debt, among other things.
  I guess the most galling thing, listening to the President make this 
kind of outrageous speech, engaging in blatant electioneering, 
campaigning sort of rhetoric, class warfare, is that this comes from a 
person who, since January 2011, has had 31 fundraisers, including one 
tonight in Philadelphia. I wonder if he is going to cancel his 
fundraiser in Philadelphia tonight to meet with Leader McConnell and 
Speaker Boehner to try to work on this threat that he was so emphatic 
about yesterday. I predict he will not cancel his fundraiser in 
Philadelphia tonight to get to work on something that only he can do, 
which is to negotiate a grand bargain with Republicans and Democrats 
that will solve this problem.
  We know he had time on Monday to videotape an appeal to his donors 
who wanted to solicit donations from people so they might win a dinner 
with President Obama and the Vice President. He had time to do that. 
Yet it was not until Monday of this week that the President himself 
first took ownership of this issue, after Majority Leader Cantor and 
Assistant Leader Kyl said we cannot negotiate with the Vice President 
because they keep insisting on raising taxes, and we are not going to 
go there.
  The President had his first meeting with Republican Leader McConnell 
and the majority leader to talk about this issue that he was flailing 
Congress about not doing its job just yesterday. Frankly, he should be 
embarrassed. But, unfortunately, the threshold for embarrassment here 
in Washington seems to be much higher than in the rest of the country.
  The President said Republicans were blocking the deal on the debt 
limit because they had taken tax increases off the table. That is 
right. We believe it is a terrible mistake, with unemployment at 9.1 
percent--much higher in many regions of the country--to raise taxes on 
the very people whom you are depending on to create jobs. What is his 
message to people who cannot find a job because people are not hiring? 
What is his message to people who are out of work and they cannot pay 
their home mortgage and they lose their home? It is higher taxes. Let's 
just raise taxes and everything will be fine.
  We do not have a taxing shortfall. The American people pay plenty of 
taxes already. What we have is a spending binge by the Federal 
Government. Tax revenue is roughly 18 percent of our gross domestic 
product, but spending is 25 percent, hence the $1.5 trillion deficit 
this year and the $14.3 trillion debt so far, which threatens our 
Nation's future.
  Frankly, it rankles many of us to have the President engage in such 
blatant demagoguery and blame-shifting, when he himself is unwilling to 
take responsibility for his duties, which are to lead by example. We 
are ready to work with the President to try to solve the Nation's 
problems. The House has passed a proposal. It is not perfect. I don't 
necessarily agree with all of it. But there are plenty of other 
proposals out there that will fix the Nation's fiscal problems, one of 
which is the President's own fiscal commission itself. He appointed it, 
a bipartisan fiscal commission that reported back in December, entitled 
``Moment Of Truth,'' otherwise known as the Bowles-Simpson Commission, 
a bipartisan commission the President appointed himself. But he has 
ignored it.
  There is another one, the Domenici-Rivlin Commission, a bipartisan 
commission that made recommendations. The President has ignored it.
  The President yesterday said: ``Call me naive, but my expectation is 
that leaders are going to lead.'' That is what the President himself 
had the gall to say yesterday to the American people when he himself 
has displayed an astounding lack of leadership. As I said, we are ready 
to work with the President. I know Senator McConnell invited him to 
come over to Congress and explain how this increase in taxes was 
somehow going to create more jobs in America; how we were going to 
solve the problems with Medicare--which is going to run out of money in 
a little over a decade. I hope the President takes him up on that 
invitation.
  It is not a partisan issue. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said 
our national debt sends a message of weakness internationally.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said that 
``the single greatest threat to our National security is our debt.'' If 
America goes broke, how are we going to pay for our national defense 
and security that not only Americans depend on but so many countries 
around the world depend on America being strong to protect them from 
tyrants and dictators and terrorists? But if our economy goes bust, if 
interest rates go up to historic norms, our economy could spiral out of 
control. But there is not going to be a bailout for the United States 
of America. Our economy is simply too big. The International Monetary 
Fund, the Europeans, and others are not going to bail us out while we 
continue to spend recklessly about 43 cents out of every dollar in 
money borrowed from these young men and women here sitting in front of 
me. Every baby born in America today comes into this world $46,000 in 
debt. It is irresponsible. It is wrong.
  The American people sent a message in November of 2010 that they were 
sick and tired of Washington operating business as usual, and they were 
not going to take it anymore. And the American people should not take 
it anymore.
  I believe we have an opportunity here. In Texas, we don't recognize 
problems; we recognize challenges and opportunities. We are a positive 
bunch of folks. This is a grand opportunity for Democrats and 
Republicans to come together to do the Nation's business, to be 
serious, not to be reckless, not to give speeches like the President 
gave yesterday as part of his reelection campaign. Absolutely 
disgraceful. He should be ashamed. I respect the office of the 
President of the United States, but I think the President has 
diminished that office and himself by giving the kind of campaign 
speech he gave yesterday.
  We do have a solution. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and 
others of us have sponsored a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. This would be a responsible way to deal with this 
problem, and I hope we will get a vote on that shortly. But in the 
meantime, there is no reason we cannot solve this problem. All we need 
is the President to step up and give us a proposal. So far, he has laid 
back and criticized everybody else and said: Where is your proposal? 
How come you haven't done your work? Well, he has not done his work by 
proposing a responsible solution.
  We will have a debate. We will have amendments. We will make 
constructive suggestions. We will do it in the light of day and not 
behind closed doors, which is where these negotiations are occurring 
now. Why does this need to be done in secret? Why, as Senator Sessions 
said, are we, the elected representatives of the American people, left 
with a fait accompli shortly before the deadline that says: You either 
pass this or the country's economy goes down the tubes. That is not 
what the American people expect of us. That is not what they deserve.
  Sure, there are going to be differences of opinion, but that is what 
this Senate is for--to work those out. We all understand we are not 
going to get what we want 100 percent of the time, but we do deserve to 
have a fair and open process, transparent and visible to the American 
people. I get to offer suggestions, they either win or they lose, and 
then ultimately the majority vote determines the outcome. We respect 
that as the process by

[[Page 10237]]

which these differences are resolved. But we cannot do our job when the 
President doesn't do his job and make a responsible proposal, when 
Senator Reid will not bring a budget to the floor.
  It has been 2 years since the Senate has had a budget. No one in the 
United States of America or anywhere around the world can operate with 
that sort of recklessness and irresponsibility. Everybody has to have a 
budget. My family has a budget. Every business has a budget. Only by 
having a budget can you determine what your priorities are. What are 
the things you have to have or do? What are the things you can put off 
until tomorrow? What are the things that maybe would be nice to have 
but you cannot afford?
  Every family, every business has to go through that process but not 
the Senate and not, apparently, the President of the United States. The 
proposal he made, which doubled the debt in 5 years and tripled it in 
10 years, called for huge new tax increases. Yet, when it came up for a 
vote--and only because Republicans forced a vote on that--it lost. It 
didn't get any support. I think it was 97 to 0. Not even our friends 
across the aisle could support the President's outrageous proposal back 
then. So why doesn't he come back with a new one? Why doesn't he stay 
at the table? Instead of going to Philadelphia tonight and raising 
money, why doesn't he call Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, Minority 
Leader Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid into his office and sit down 
and do his job, just do his job?
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. On my way here, Mr. President, I had the great 
pleasure of running into the Redway family, a few minutes ago, visiting 
from the State of Connecticut. Jack Redway is a former public servant 
in the State, and he is here with his wife Sue and other members of his 
family. When I told them I was on my way here to talk on the floor of 
the Senate, they asked me what the subject was. When I told them the 
Senate is debating the debt, the deficit, and the budget, one of them 
said: Same old, same old.
  We are here on the same old, same old issues. But the American people 
have had enough. They have had enough of the tax breaks and the special 
giveaways and the sweetheart deals that go to the special interests and 
that have driven our deficit to sky-high, intolerable levels. We are 
now at a turning point and really at a precipice where we simply cannot 
afford these kinds of tax breaks and sweetheart deals any longer, and 
the people of Connecticut are saying enough is enough to the same old, 
same old deals with these special interests. We ought to come together 
on a bipartisan basis. Not only do we have a right and opportunity, we 
have a responsibility and an obligation to say enough is enough and to 
eliminate these kinds of tax breaks that squander and waste scarce 
resources.
  The ethanol subsidies have been voted on by this body, 
overwhelmingly, by Republicans and Democrats, rejected. And the reason 
is quite simply that we can save $400 million each month, close to $2.5 
billion by the end of this year if we eliminate these subsidies on 
ethanol. We shouldn't be divided on this issue going forward. We ought 
to be united on a bipartisan basis because these scarce resources are 
necessary to make sure we do not burden our children and their children 
with this kind of debt going forward.
  The loophole that enables corporate jets to be depreciated at a 
faster and higher rate than commercial airplanes adds to the debt and 
the deficit in hundreds of millions of dollars. If we are serious about 
debt reduction and addressing the deficit, we should eliminate that 
loophole. It is about making the Tax Code fair and effective.
  Over the last decade the big five oil companies have taken home more 
than $1 trillion in profits while enjoying tens of billions of dollars 
in taxpayer subsidies. Those moneys, whether you call them revenues or 
taxes or breaks, whatever the nomenclature, whatever the rhetoric, they 
are a loss to the taxpayers and the people of the United States of 
America without any reason because these five oil companies are among 
the most profitable and lucrative in the history of the world, and they 
don't need that money.
  It is time to say enough is enough to the kinds of hidden subsidies 
that go to special interests, and there are others that we ought to 
scrutinize and eliminate in the name of fairness and effectiveness in 
our government so that we can be serious about addressing our debt and 
our deficit.
  Budgets are about choices. Some choices are not easy. We face tough 
choices, but we ought to put to use the common sense of the American 
people, to say enough is enough to the same old, same old hidden 
subsidies, tax breaks, special giveaways to special interests. Cutting 
Medicare benefits or Medicaid will not make us stronger. Firing 
teachers will not make us stronger. Forcing kids out of college will 
not make us stronger in Connecticut or across the country. None of 
these measures will make us stronger or fairer as a nation, nor will 
rolling back our investments in innovation and research, which are 
vital to the high-tech jobs of the future, nor will cutting our 
investments in the essential means of transportation--high-speed rail, 
so important to Connecticut. None of these cuts will bring back jobs, 
which has to be our priority.
  Economic growth and job creation must be put first, and the way to do 
it is to eliminate the wasteful tax subsidies, the breaks for special 
interests. Eliminating them will make us stronger, it will make us 
fairer as a nation.
  I urge us to come together and put aside whatever the labels and the 
rhetoric and the nomenclature as we call them and do the right thing to 
make our Nation stronger and fairer.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________