[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11633-11648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to speak on behalf of the resolution 
before us--the so-called cut, cap, and balance resolution--and explain 
briefly why it represents a better approach to resolving the financial 
crisis our country is faced with than the alternative, which seems to 
be myopically focused on raising taxes, as if our problem in this 
country were taxes. Our problem is spending. That is why the reference 
to cutting spending, capping future spending, and ensuring that we 
never go back to our errant ways by passing a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution, which would forever prevent us from getting into 
the same position we are in now where we have to keep coming back to 
increase the Nation's debt ceiling. That is why the emphasis on 
spending.
  Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and certainly the 
President of the United States, say: I will not agree to anything 
unless you raise taxes.
  Why are Republicans so opposed to the President's approach? Why are 
we focused on reducing spending rather than raising taxes? Why is it 
important? First of all, because spending is the problem, not taxes. 
Spending in this country, under President Obama, has gone from the 
historic level of about 20 percent of our gross domestic product to now 
25 percent in just 3 short years. That is a historic growth in 
spending. We have never been this high. Under the Obama budget, as far 
as the eye can see, we are going to be above the historic levels--never 
below, I believe, 23 percent of the gross domestic product and, as far 
as I can see, very close to that 25 percent. Spending is the problem.
  Some will say: Well, the government has collected less income taxes 
in the last couple of years.
  That is true, but it isn't because tax rates have changed. We have 
had the same tax rates for the last decade. They have been constant. 
The only reason there is less revenue coming into the Treasury right 
now--the so-called tax take of the government--is because the economy 
is in the tank. People are unemployed. They are not working. They are 
not making as much money. Businesses are not making as much money, so 
they are not paying as much in taxes.
  So what is the answer? To raise tax rates and try to squeeze more 
blood out of this turnip, to try to get more out of a sick economy? No. 
The answer, of course, is to try to get the economy well again so 
people are working, they make more money, businesses make money, they 
all pay more in taxes, and then we will be back at the historic levels 
of tax-take by the Federal Government, and presumably the folks who say 
taxes are the problem will then be satisfied.
  But how do we grow the economy? How do we get it well? We know one 
thing for sure not to do; that is, impose taxes on an already weak 
economy. The President himself, last December when we reached agreement 
between the Congress and the President on extending all of the current 
tax rates, made that exact point. He said:

       To raise taxes at this time when the economy is weak would 
     be the worst thing for economic growth and job creation.

  He was right. He was right then. If anything, our economy is in worse 
shape now. Now we are at 9.2 percent unemployment. We continue to 
stagnate. If we have a sick economy, the last thing we want to do is 
impose more taxes on that economy.
  One of our colleagues here in the Senate, our colleague from the 
State in which I was born, the Cornhusker State of Nebraska, Ben 
Nelson, said:

       Raising taxes at a time when our economy remains fragile 
     takes us in the wrong direction. If we start with plans to 
     raise taxes, pretty soon spending cuts will fall by the 
     wayside.

  I couldn't agree with him more.
  I think there is some bipartisan consensus--though certainly I 
recognize many Democrats would like to raise taxes, but I think 
economists and most Americans appreciate that when the problem is 
spending, when spending has gone up so dramatically, the answer is to 
reduce the spending, get it back down at a minimum to where it was, and 
not raise taxes.
  The second reason we are focused on the spending side and why we 
therefore support the cutting of spending, the

[[Page 11634]]

capping of that spending, and making sure we have the constraint of a 
constitutional amendment to restrain us from our impulses in the future 
is because it never fails that tax hikes always hit more than the 
people at whom we are aiming. It doesn't hit just the millionaires and 
billionaires; it hits a lot of other people.
  When the alternative minimum tax was created, the idea was to make 
sure that--and I could be a little wrong on the number--I think it was 
125 millionaires couldn't use deductions and credits to get out of 
paying their taxes. We were going to create an alternative minimum tax. 
They would have to pay some tax even if they had lots of credits and 
deductions they could take. Well, 2 years ago it was going to hit 23 
million Americans, and I think this year it is something like 32 
million. Again, I could be a little bit wrong on the number, but let's 
just say between 20 million and 30 million people. So we started out 
with about 125, and now that tax hits well over 20 million and I think 
over 30 million households a year. Why wouldn't we want to do something 
about that? We do every year. We pass what we call a patch so that it 
doesn't affect those people because we never intended it to affect them 
in the first place. We aimed at the millionaires, and we hit over 20 
million other Americans.
  The same thing would happen here. How many millionaire and 
billionaire households are there that report income of above $1 
million? The answer is 319,000. Out of the whole United States, there 
are 319,000. How many people would actually pay the increased tax in 
the upper two brackets where these people are located? Well, that 
number turns out to be 3.6 million people right now. What will it be in 
20 years? We will probably be up to the 20 and 30 million category 
again.
  The point is, we aim at 300,000 people, and we end up hitting 10 
times that many people--3.6 million people. That is how many people 
there are in the top two brackets that the President's proposals would 
hit.
  There is another unintended consequence. It doesn't just hit the 
millionaires and billionaires, it hits small business owners. Small 
businesses create two-thirds of all of the jobs coming out of an 
economic downturn such as we have had, out of a recession. Small 
businesses usually--or at least 50 percent of small business income--
let's put it that way--is reported in these top two income tax 
brackets. We have an individual person, and he is not a corporation, so 
he reports his income taxes in one of the two top income tax brackets. 
What happens when we raise the tax on that 50 percent of the folks, the 
small business folks? Are they more likely to hire or are they more 
likely to just sit on their hands? Obviously, the answer is they are 
not going to hire more people.
  Earlier this week, I quoted from several small business folks who, of 
course, said precisely that. The experts all agree on this issue. When 
we raise taxes on the top two rates, we hit a lot of small businesses.
  One of the taxes the President proposed raising--as a matter of fact, 
his own Small Business Administration did a study and reported that tax 
``could ultimately force many small businesses to close.'' So we aim at 
the millionaire and the billionaire, and we end up hitting small 
businesses. By the way, since this Small Business Administration report 
has been in the news, I have noticed the administration is not talking 
about this particular tax anymore. Well, that is fine, but the reality 
is that the others they are talking about would also hit small 
businesses and force many of them to close.
  Who else gets hit by this tax on millionaires and billionaires? We 
have some experience. Back in 1990, we thought we would impose a luxury 
tax on millionaires and billionaires. We were going to tax things such 
as yachts and jewelry and luxury items, and so on. Well, that lasted a 
little less than 3 years when all the people who made the yachts 
marched on Washington and said: Hey, you just put us out of business, 
and we repealed that tax. I think it was over 9,000 people who were put 
out of business.
  It is interesting that the same proposition translates to today. What 
was one of the provisions in the stimulus bill? Now, the stimulus bill 
was opposed by all but I think two Republicans, and all the Democrats 
supported it. Well, it was the tax treatment for corporate jets. 
Republicans didn't support this special tax treatment for corporate 
jets, but the President did. It was in his stimulus bill because it was 
thought it would help to create or save jobs.
  Accelerated depreciation, which is the tax treatment here, was 
beneficial to the people who make these airplanes--more beneficial from 
a tax standpoint--and it might well be that jobs were either created or 
saved as a result of that. But that tax provision that was so important 
to creating or saving jobs when the stimulus bill was passed now all of 
a sudden is something that is evil because presumably people who fly in 
business jets are people to be attacked, to be demagogued.
  We have heard the President of the United States talk about this. He 
talks about the special tax loophole for corporate jets. Well, it is 
his tax loophole, and he put it in there because he thought it would 
create or save jobs. Now, who is it going to hurt? The business guys 
will still fly on their corporate jets; it is just that the jets will 
cost more money, but probably fewer people will be working, making 
those planes. Is that good policy or bad policy? I am all for having 
that debate. I am not going to defend the corporate jets; I will defend 
the people who make them. But let's have that debate in the context of 
tax reform, which we have all said we are for doing, so that if we 
decide it is good policy to eliminate that accelerated depreciation 
provision, we do that and then we apply the savings to reducing tax 
rates overall, which is exactly what the President said we should do.
  In his State of the Union speech, he pointed out that America is not 
competitive with the rest of the world. We have the highest corporate 
tax rate in the world, and he said we have to get it down. What we 
ought to do is eliminate loopholes in the Tax Code and then, with the 
savings, reduce overall corporate rates, so instead of paying 35 
percent, our corporations would pay maybe 20 or 25 percent, which is 
still above the world average of developed countries, but at least we 
would be more competitive.
  So what is the right policy? Should we be demagoguing corporate jets 
or should we think through the policy? We might just be hurting regular 
Americans, and maybe we should think twice about the kind of political 
language we are using.
  Even oil and gas--we have to tax the big oil companies. Everybody 
knows we put the tax on, and the next thing we know we are paying more 
tax when we fill up our car at the local service station. So we should 
think through whom we are really going to hit with these taxes on 
millionaires and billionaires and big corporations.
  Even the death tax--the death tax is part of the taxes the President 
would like to have rates go up on, to go back to the 45-percent rate. 
That is almost half--45 percent--of the estates. Now, a lot of these 
estates are small businesses, farms, ranches, and a lot of times they 
have to sell all or part of the business or the farm or the ranch in 
order to pay the estate tax. So who are we really hurting when we do 
this?
  I have a friend who had a small printing business in Phoenix. He was 
one of the largest charitable givers in our community, a fine, 
wonderful man. His name was Jerry Wisotsky. He created the business 
from nothing, moved out from New York City, and had over 200 employees 
when he died. He had Boys & Girls Clubs named after him. He and his 
family contributed as much money to charity in Phoenix as anybody I 
know. Well, they had to sell the business because the estate taxes were 
eating them up. The out-of-State company that bought the business 
didn't contribute to the local community. They didn't contribute to 
charity. Who got hurt when we imposed that estate tax, that death tax 
on Jerry's family?
  So let's just stop and think. One reason we don't want to focus on 
taxes and we would rather focus on spending is because a lot of times, 
when we focus

[[Page 11635]]

on millionaires and billionaires, we end up hurting a lot of other 
people instead.
  The third reason and, frankly, the most important from an economic 
standpoint, of course, is the fact that tax hikes kill job creation and 
economic growth, and I alluded to this in the second point I made. 
Fifty-four percent of all of our jobs are from small businesses, and 
when we hurt small businesses' ability to hire people, obviously we are 
hurting families, we are creating more unemployment, and we are 
preventing the economy from rebounding.
  I mentioned the fact that the top two brackets of our income-tax code 
is where at least half of all of the small business income is reported 
and taxes are paid. That is one of the areas where the administration 
wants to increase taxes. Why would we do this when, as the Small 
Business Administration says, it would force many small businesses or 
could force many small businesses to close? It doesn't make sense. That 
is why we are focused on cutting spending, capping that spending over 
time, and ensuring those caps stay in place through a balanced budget 
amendment.
  I think the American people have an understanding of this. There have 
been a lot of polls quoted lately. I just wish to refer to one, which 
is only a week old. It is the Rasmussen poll from last Thursday. The 
question was asked whether there should be a tax hike included in any 
legislation to raise the debt ceiling--a pretty straightforward 
question. Rasmussen is a very reputable pollster. This was just 1 week 
ago. Most voters said no. Only 34 percent thought a tax hike should be 
included. Fifty-five percent disagreed, said it should not. Among those 
affiliated with neither political party--the so-called Independents--35 
percent favored it and 51 percent--a majority--opposed including a tax 
hike in the legislation to raise the debt ceiling.
  So we are with the American people on this issue. It isn't necessary. 
Taxes aren't the problem. It affects a lot more people than they ever 
think it will. Finally, if we want to really hurt economic growth, if 
we want to really kill job creation, then just pile more taxes on to 
the economy. It doesn't make sense. That is why we are so insistent on 
supporting legislation that would cut spending rather than raise taxes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, yesterday, I was on the Senate floor 
talking about this piece of legislation that is now pending before the 
Senate, passed by the House of Representatives earlier this week. I am 
a sponsor and supporter of cut, cap, and balance and believe it is a 
path toward responsibility that we need to demonstrate in the Senate, 
in the Congress, and here in America.
  It seems to me it certainly is irresponsible not to raise the debt 
ceiling, but it is equally or more irresponsible not to raise the debt 
ceiling without making adjustments in the way we do business in 
Washington, DC. Clearly, cutting spending is a component of that, 
capping spending is a portion of our national economy, returning it to 
the days, just a few years ago, in which we were spending ``only'' 18--
I say ``only'' in quotes, perhaps--``only'' 18 percent of our gross 
national product by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, in the last 
few years that 18 percent has grown to 24.2 percent.
  So reducing some spending, capping that spending in the intermediate 
future, so it does not exceed a certain portion of the national 
economy, and, finally, passing a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution seems to me to be a reasonable, rational approach to 
solving the problems we face.
  I also indicated yesterday that in my view there is a fourth 
component. It is cut, cap, balance, and grow. I do not want us to 
forget the importance of a growing economy. The last time we had our 
budget that was in balance, close to being in balance, was at the end 
of the term of President Clinton. Yes, there was some spending 
restraint back in those days, in those years. Republicans and Democrats 
could not get together and pass major pieces of legislation that 
increased spending, so that spending restraint was an important 
component.
  But the other part of that is the economy was growing and people were 
working and, as a result, they were paying taxes. That is the more 
enjoyable component of our work, in addition to restraining spending, 
capping its percentage of the economy, and putting a balanced budget in 
place so we do not get back into this mess.
  The other aspect of that is to make sure we make the policy decisions 
in our Nation's Capital that allow a businessperson, an employer, to 
make the decision that now is the time to invest in plant and 
equipment, now is the time to add additional employees. Yet there are 
so many aspects of decisions that have been made in our Nation's 
Capital over a long period of time that now come together and 
discourage an individual business owner, a potential employer from 
making the decision: I am going to invest in the economy.
  We have all heard the numbers as to the amount of money sitting on 
the sidelines in the U.S. economy. In my view, the recession we are in 
has lingered longer than necessary because there is so much uncertainty 
in regard to what is going to happen next, and a large portion of that 
uncertainty comes from the inability to predict what policy decisions 
are going to be made in the Senate, across the hall in the House, and 
what the Obama administration is going to propose and potentially put 
in place in regard to rules and regulations.
  I certainly hope my colleagues in the Senate will take the proposal 
by the House of Representatives as serious work. I certainly agree 
there can be negotiations had. There has been, as I indicated 
yesterday, some concern about the specific language of the 
constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget, and we ought 
not draw the line in the sand and say it has to be exactly the way it 
is written.
  Let's come together and work to find a reasonable, rational solution 
based upon the outline this legislation provides. From time to time, it 
has been considered a radical piece of legislation--labeled that way. 
Yet so many of the things we do in our everyday lives, that States 
across our Nation encounter and the way they conduct business are 
certainly capsulized in cut, cap, and balance.
  I know there has been significant talk about raising taxes. I heard 
the Senator from Arizona speak to this before, just a few moments ago. 
When an individual is struggling to pay the bills, they do not often 
have the opportunity to ask for a pay raise. What we do at home, what 
we should do in our own lives, is to reduce our spending levels. Simply 
asking for more money to meet our current obligations is not usually an 
option.
  That tax issue goes with my comments a moment ago about the 
importance of growing the economy. Too often, we look at taxes as a 
source of revenue. I am for raising revenue, but I am for raising 
revenue by a growing economy and people being at work paying those 
taxes, not by raising the tax rates but by improving the economy and 
allowing good things to happen to families, individuals, and businesses 
across the country. So that Tax Code is an important component of this 
issue of growing our economy and getting our deficit back in line, back 
to some level of responsible behavior here.


             One-year Anniversary of Dodd-Frank Legislation

  Mr. President, the additional point I wish to make--in addition to 
what I have said already today but also in addition to what I said 
yesterday to the Senate--is that this is the 1-year anniversary of the 
passage of Dodd-Frank.
  Huge financial regulations were put in place by legislation that, 
just 1 year ago today, was passed by the House and Senate and signed by 
President Obama. In my view, that legislation is another component of 
the difficulty in knowing

[[Page 11636]]

what is coming down the road--hundreds of regulations yet to be 
proposed, pursued, and enacted, so many of our businesses and financial 
institutions do not know what to expect and, therefore, again are 
waiting to see what happens in the Federal Government, what decisions 
are made here, in this case not by Congress now but by regulators up 
the street in our Nation's Capital.
  So on this anniversary of the passage of that legislation, I wish to 
again highlight what I think is a commonsense reform to that 
legislation. A part of Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. A number of Senators have signed a letter to 
President Obama trying to make clear that before a head of that Bureau 
is going to be confirmed by the Senate, we believe that structural 
reform, change in the nature of that organization, needs to occur.
  Again, these seem very straightforward and common sense to me. But 
rather than have a single head of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, I would ask that--in fact, I have introduced legislation to do 
this, and my colleagues, in signing that letter, asked the President to 
help us change that individual to a board or commission similar to 
other government agencies charged with financial oversight, so the 
power does not rest in a sole individual.
  Then, again, one would think Congress would never want to give up the 
authority to determine the appropriations for this agency. Instead, the 
law, as currently written, provides for a draw against the Federal 
Reserve as compared to where almost all agencies have to come to 
Congress and ask for their appropriations, which gives us, as 
legislators--me, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as 
ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on 
Appropriations--the opportunity to review, to have input, to provide 
oversight. We ought to change that formula by which the money comes 
directly from the Federal Reserve and put it back with the 
responsibility of this Congress making those decisions.
  Finally, we want to have banking regulators--who oversee the safety 
and soundness of our financial institutions today--given meaningful 
input into the Bureau's operation, all designed to provide greater 
opportunity for us as Members of Congress, for the American people, to 
have input and oversight over what will be one of the largest agencies, 
most powerful regulators in our country's history, and certainly having 
significant creation of new rules and regulations that are going to, in 
some fashion, affect the U.S. economy.
  Many of my community banks feel so overregulated today. There is a 
real concern or fear about making loans today--something that is very 
important for an economic recovery, that aspect of growing the 
economy--because they do not know what the next set of regulations is 
going to be.
  In fact, for the passage of Dodd-Frank--the legislation we are now 
observing the 1-year anniversary of it becoming law--the GAO, our 
Government Accountability Office, estimates that the budgetary costs of 
Dodd-Frank will exceed $1.25 billion. In addition to that, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next 10 years, 
Dodd-Frank will take $27 billion directly from the U.S. economy in new 
fees and assessments on lenders and other financial companies.
  So as we look at the legislation that is pending before us--cut, cap, 
and balance--my hope is we will expand--once we pass that legislation, 
we will get back to aggressively pursuing a projob, progrowth agenda. 
Jobs certainly are important for us in generating the revenues 
necessary to fund the Federal Government and to reduce our national 
debt. But there is nothing more important to Americans, to Kansans 
across our State, than being able to have a secure opportunity for 
employment, to put food on the family table, to save for their own 
retirement and their children's education.
  I do believe--seriously believe--that a significant message that was 
delivered by the American people in the election of November 2010 was 
the reminder to us that we have the responsibility--again, government 
is not a creator of jobs, but we are the creator of an environment in 
which the private sector can create jobs.
  So let's cut, cap, balance and grow the economy and strengthen the 
opportunity for every American to have a valuable and viable job, with 
the hope of improvement in their own lives, and, most importantly, make 
certain we pass on to the next generation of Americans the ability to 
pursue that American dream.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity of addressing the 
Senate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the bill that is 
before the Senate today. But as a part of that, we are now in the midst 
of a true fiscal crisis in this country, and I want to address 
something that has been debated over the last several days, discussed 
over the last several days, criticized over the last several days. It 
has been the subject of a lot of misinformation--by colleagues on my 
side of the aisle particularly--about the proposal that has been 
submitted by the so-called Gang of 6, of which I happen to be a member. 
And I am someone who for the last 7 months has participated in 
discussions with two of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, as 
well as on the other side of the aisle, to try to find a bipartisan 
solution to being able to repay the $14.3 trillion our Federal 
Government owes, and that we have all participated in creating.
  The misinformation that is going around from my friends is very 
disturbing. People are here on this floor throwing out numbers that are 
wrong, giving specifics on a piece of legislation that has not even 
been written, and yet they are talking as though they are experts on 
the subject of a matter that my five colleagues and I have been 
discussing and debating among ourselves for the last 6 months--and we 
have not even put the legislation out there yet. So it is pretty 
disturbing to me that there are some people in this body who want to 
see nothing done and I assume want us to continue down the road of 
borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we are spending. I am not 
willing to do that. I think we were sent here with a commitment from 
our constituents to solve the serious problems this country faces. The 
only way we are going to solve this fiscal problem we have is to 
generate 60 votes in this body in support of some proposal.
  I am going to talk in support of the proposal we have under 
consideration now because I think it is a potential solution. I am very 
appreciative of the authors of the cut, cap, and balance bill. I am 
appreciative of our leadership for at least trying to come forward with 
something and put it on the table to give us the opportunity to debate 
those ideas.
  I think there have been a number of very positive proposals that have 
come forward and hopefully that will come forward in the next few days 
to allow us to debate this issue and to primarily solve the problem 
relative to the debt ceiling and solve the problem relative to the 
long-term debt we have.
  I have to say, I am disturbed about some of the comments and 
statements--even from folks who were critical of the plan we put 
forward for cutting too much spending. These are the folks who have 
been ranting and raving about the fact we are spending too much money 
in this town, and now they are complaining about the fact we are 
cutting too much in spending.
  I look forward to continuing this debate. I want to say the proposal 
that we put forward was intended from day one to be a framework, not 
the final product, but a framework, for this body as well as the House 
to discuss as a way forward for solving the issue of how we are going 
to repay this $14.3 trillion. We never, ever intended for it to be in 
the mix on solving the issue of the debt

[[Page 11637]]

ceiling that needs to be raised, according to the Department of the 
Treasury, by August 2.
  Because we happen to have come to a conclusion of our negotiations 
this week, at the same time the debate on raising the debt ceiling is 
reaching its height, that has obviously created the impression on some 
folks that our proposal is intended to solve the issue of the debt 
ceiling. And it is not. It categorically is not. I want to make that 
perfectly clear.
  That being said, if there is any part of our agreement, any part of 
our principles that can be utilized by the leadership of the House and 
the Senate to figure out a way forward on the debt ceiling, for we have 
no pride of authorship. We hope leadership will take advantage of 
anything that can be used to try to generate the necessary support in 
this body as well as in the House to solve the issue of this deadline 
we are facing on August 2.
  I rise today in full support of the cut, cap, and balance 
legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and I commend my 
fellow Senators in this Chamber who have taken it upon themselves to 
offer solutions to the large and growing problem of our debt and our 
deficit.
  A majority of Republicans here in the Senate as well as a majority of 
those in the House believe that legislation that cuts government 
spending and makes tough enforcement mechanisms on the Federal budget 
is the right way to bring spending under control. I am also proud to be 
a cosponsor of a separate balanced budget amendment. I firmly believe 
all of these proposals will structure and control the Federal 
Government's spending, just as Americans have demanded. We are in the 
middle of a fiscal crisis. Last year, the government spent at a rate of 
25 percent of our gross domestic product and took in revenues of about 
14 percent of our gross domestic product. The result of that is that 
last year, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, we had in 
excess of a $1.5 trillion deficit. It looks as though we are headed in 
the same direction this year. This is totally unsustainable. Our 
financial markets have told us that. The folks who are in the process 
of putting together another sale of our bonds have told us that. We 
know people who are looking at buying those bonds are looking very 
closely at how this body acts over the next several days.
  Some people have said the bond market is the most honest financial 
market out there, as the bond market tends to track truest to the 
debtor's overall fiscal standing.
  The bond-rating agencies have already told us that we are approaching 
the edge of what the market will bear. We are close to the brink of our 
self-imposed debt limit of $14.3 trillion.
  We must give serious, solemn consideration to any plan that will turn 
us immediately away from our overspending. We need to be mindful of the 
consequences of a default. Forcing the administration to make spending 
decisions is only one problem we face.
  A default and the subsequent rise in interest rates means we will 
find ourselves deeper in debt, and rampant inflation will prevent us 
from achieving fiscal solvency.
  Current levels of discretionary and mandatory spending cannot be 
sustained. Mr. President, I say that with respect to every area of the 
Federal Government. We cannot allow any area of the Federal Government 
to go untouched. If we do, we will allow that area of government to 
continue to grow out of control. We must cut Federal spending anywhere 
we can and in every department of the Federal Government.
  We also have to reform entitlements. We have to look at the 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.
  On Tuesday of this week, the House made an historic vote. Its Members 
decided that Congress can no longer feign interest in securing our 
financial future. They took the right step of voting to cut spending 
and place rigid caps on remaining expenditures with tough budget 
enforcement mechanisms. I commend them for their efforts.
  Now is the time to join our colleagues in the House. We must look for 
new ways of ensuring that the Congress cannot break promises.
  The best path forward toward fiscal stability will set a firm 
foundation, and this legislation will do exactly that.
  George Washington gave clear guidance when he told the House of 
Representatives that no consideration ``is more urgent than the regular 
redemption and discharge of the public debt.''
  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.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, 
Cap and Balance Act.
  I have been watching the debate on my TV back in the office this 
afternoon, listening to the arguments made pro and con, and thinking to 
myself that back home in Georgia there are a lot of folks who live 
around me who are scratching their heads wondering why cut, cap, and 
balance is such a bad idea because they have also had to cut, cap, and 
balance.
  The call I left before I came here to speak on the Senate floor was 
from a minister and his wife whom I know. They are retired. Both of 
their daughters are married and live away from Georgia. Both of them 
have been in financial difficulty, and both are on the brink of losing 
their homes. Through the counseling of the minister and their support, 
they counseled and showed them where to cap, cut, and balance so they 
could make their mortgage payments and not lose their homes. Americans 
have had to do that all over the country. The present economic 
situation mandates that. There are no excuses with the IRS or bill 
collectors or people with whom you may do business. If you don't pay, 
there are consequences.
  America as a country must ask of itself what we impose and ask of 
every citizen in our country. I think also there are probably a lot of 
members of the Georgia Legislature who are watching this debate and 
scratching their heads. In my State, in the last 4 years we cut $5 
billion--from a $22 billion budget to a $17 billion budget. Do you know 
why? It is because our Constitution says we have to have a balanced 
budget. We can't borrow to pay for everyday operations, and we must 
live within our means. We have had to cut, and a lot of those cuts have 
been painful.
  Many States are coming back now. There was an article the other day 
about States that are coming back and showing future months of growth 
in revenues and in their income, and even looking to surpluses that 
will come in the years to come. Why? Because when they had to do it, 
they balanced their budgets and capped their expenditures, and they did 
what their Constitution requires.
  This proposal tells us, first of all, to make cuts that would 
materialize early of about $51 billion. It would be a downpayment on 
the process to continue the cutting process to reduce our deficit and 
our debt. It has a formula for capping expenditures in the future, 
going from 21.7 percent of GDP to 19.9 percent of GDP which, by the 
way, falls within the realm of the last 40-year average, until the last 
few years when we have gone from 20, 22, 24, to 24.6 percent of GDP.
  It is not unreasonable to ask us to impose upon ourselves a cap 
consistent with the averages of our past. Remember this: As we get our 
arms around our spending and live within our means, business will 
prosper, revenues will go up to companies, taxes will go up, and that 
percentage of GDP will give us a broader margin. It is only when we are 
in a declining economy, a recessionary environment, where revenues go 
down,

[[Page 11638]]

that caps are hurting a lot because we are not empowering business, 
profits go down, and revenues go down for the country.
  On the balanced budget amendment, this provision leaves room for 
negotiation between the bodies as to what the caps will be in the 
balanced budget amendment, whether it would be a supermajority of 60 or 
67 to raise taxes. It is a realistic approach to cause us to sit around 
the table in Congress and negotiate what is wrong for the country. If 
it is right for almost every State in our Union to have to balance 
their budgets, to cap their spending, and to limit their borrowing, it 
should be right for us.
  This proposal is right for America. It is basically what we require 
of our citizens. It is now time we required it of ourselves. I am proud 
to join my fellow members of the Republican Conference of the Senate to 
vote for a new discipline for America that cuts excessive spending, 
caps wasteful spending, and, over time, allows us a roadmap to have a 
balanced budget and a GDP ratio to expenditures that is doable, 
workable, and historically justifiable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Pilots' Bill of Rights

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me make a comment on 
something totally unrelated to the subject of the day, which is that we 
have a significant bill coming up that the occupant of the chair and I 
have put together. It is called the pilots' bill of rights. The reason 
I want to say something about it is it is getting toward the end of the 
week. It happens a week from today--the largest gathering anyplace in 
the world of pilots who will get together in Oshkosh for the big event. 
I have been going to that for 32 consecutive years. We have probably 
the most significant piece of legislation we have ever introduced at 
Oshkosh. We are going to have literally thousands--I am talking about 
200,000 pilots who are single-issue people.
  I have been a pilot for 50 years. I know how these people think. The 
pilots' bill of rights is going to offer an opportunity to these 
people, who might be accused of something by the FAA, to have access to 
the evidence against them. It is something that everybody is for. As a 
matter of fact, it is something that--I haven't said yet, but I just 
heard that the air traffic controllers are supporting this effort. So 
we are going to have a lot of people. We already have 34 cosponsors.
  The reason I want to say this, I know not many Members are listening, 
but a lot of staffers are. Pilots are single-issue people. They are 
going to want to know who is cosponsor of the bill. We will be talking 
for a period of 2 hours in two different settings. We will have 
literally thousands of pilots there.
  I encourage very strongly people who may be listening to us right now 
to have their Members look at this carefully. As I say, pilots are 
single-issue people, and this is their issue. I did this twice--once in 
1994, when we were able to use the population at Oshkosh to push over 
the top the first product liability bill that changed our manufacturing 
of aircraft from a major importer to a major exporter. That all 
happened at Oshkosh.
  Another time it happened was with Bob Hoover, whom I think would be 
considered to be the best pilot in America today. He is up in years, 
but this guy had a problem that we helped him with, an emergency 
revocation. We did it in Oshkosh.
  I hope we get a lot more people who are interested in general 
aviation, and particularly if you are on the general aviation caucus 
and you are not on this bill. There are going to be an awful lot of 
questions.


                         Cut, Cap, and Balance

  Let me make a few comments about the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. I can 
remember coming to the floor standing at this podium about 15 years 
ago, and this was during the Clinton administration. I came here 
because the Clinton budget for the entire country at that time was $1.5 
trillion. I came down and stood here and said: How is it possible to 
sustain a level like $1.5 trillion? That was to run the United States 
for the entire year of 1996.
  Now I think the outrage this year is that in President Obama's 
current budget, the deficit alone was $1.65 trillion. In other words, 
the deficit alone, right now, is greater than what it took to run the 
entire country for a period of a year in 1996.
  That is something we can't continue doing. I believe the spending has 
gone so out of line that it is not believable. It is not possible for 
people to think this could be happening. President Obama has managed to 
increase Federal spending by over 30 percent, to an average of $3.6 
trillion a year--$3.6 trillion. I was complaining about $1.5 trillion, 
and this is just 15 years later.
  Is anybody listening out there? Does anybody really care? Maybe since 
I have 20 kids and grandkids I am a little more sensitive to the fiscal 
destruction of this country. This has caused our national debt to 
increase by 35 percent. Today, we have to borrow 40 cents for every 
dollar we spend. It just happened. This is something that we have to 
address.
  I think we are so wrapped up now in saying how are we going to get 
this done by this deadline of August 2. I remind everybody of something 
that most people don't know, and it is a shock. They think this is the 
first time in the Obama administration that we have talked about 
increasing the debt limit. It is the fourth time. He keeps coming up 
with trillions of dollars of deficit each time--$5 trillion in three 
budgets. Believe me, it is not anybody else in this Chamber. It is not 
in the other Chamber, the House. It is one person--the President--who 
has come out with his budget. He signs it and sends it to us.
  Well, that is a total of $5 trillion over the last three budgets. 
Some may think it is just not possible that this could be happening. 
This is the fourth time he wants to increase the debt limit.
  This is the strategy: Go out and spend all this money like drunken 
sailors, and then come right up to the last minute and say the world is 
going to come to an end unless you increase the debt limit. You have to 
stop someplace, and I decided the last time he did this that I was 
going to stop unless we had some type of discipline.
  The only discipline out there is the cut, cap, and balance budget 
amendment. I think we need to look at this carefully because if you 
stop and put this down--what I normally do on something like this is 
say: How does this affect the average person? This increase in debt 
just in this period of time would be $11,000 for every man, woman, and 
child--an increase from the time this President took office. That is an 
increase, and the total amount of debt they would owe would be $46,000. 
That is the day they are born. Happy Birthday.
  Well, over the past several weeks, we have talked about what to do 
about the debt limit. I have looked at the three major plans out there. 
Looking carefully, the problem I have with the plan that has come up--
called the Gang of 6, or the Gang of 7 depending on which group you are 
looking at--is that it has some intangibles in there.
  For example, the military cuts--it doesn't say where they are, but we 
are talking about it--almost $1 trillion over a period of 10 years.
  I am on the Armed Services Committee. I can tell you that I don't 
know where that will come from until they come up with more specifics--
and they might do it, and it might be plausible. As it is right now, 
the cut, cap, and balance legislation is the only one I have seen that 
would really work. I haven't been involved in all these discussions. A 
lot of people are certainly working to try to come up with answers, the 
ones going to the White House every other day talking with the 
President. I don't happen to be one of those. My major concern right 
now--and I will at least mention this, because I have done several 
shows today to try make people understand--is, yes, the deficit and the 
spending, all that is

[[Page 11639]]

terrible, but what is equally as bad--and that nobody knows about--is 
what is happening in terms of the regulations. We have all these 
programs this administration has tried to pass. I would say the main 
one that people are familiar with is cap and trade. Remember the old 
thing that has been going on for 10 years now--the cap and trade? That 
would cost the American people somewhere between $300 billion and $400 
billion a year. That is a huge thing. Bringing that figure down to 
every taxpaying family in my State of Oklahoma, it would be a little 
over $3,000 a year, and you get nothing for it.
  According to the President's own Director of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, when I asked her on the record if we 
were to pass any of these cap and trade bills, would it reduce 
CO2 emissions--assuming you want to reduce CO2 
emissions--she said no, because this is only applying to the United 
States. Let me carry it one step farther. As we run out of ways to 
create energy in America, we will have a job flight from our 
manufacturing base, which would have to go to places such as China, 
India, and Mexico, where they do not have any emission restrictions. 
So, if anything, it would increase emissions.
  I am very proud of the Senate, because now we have perhaps, at the 
very most, 24 votes to pass cap and trade. So what does the President 
do? He says: Fine, we will do it through regulations. So, through 
regulations, he is attempting to do that. And we will hear next week of 
another example. In fact, there are six major areas where regulations 
are costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Another one he 
is going to announce next week is going to be a tightening in the 
standards on MACTs, and it is one that is going to cost in the 
neighborhood of $90 billion each year. So in just two of these 
regulations you have $400 billion a year in costs to the American 
people. People just aren't aware of that.
  Some smart guy in my office went back and said: You know, you are not 
the first person to be concerned about the cost of these regulations. 
Politicians don't talk about it because no one understands it. But 
Ronald Reagan, back in 1981, said this:

       Overregulation causes small and independent businessmen and 
     women, as well as large businesses, to defer or terminate 
     plans for expansion.

  That is what he said. And then he said:

       I have asked Vice President Bush to head a cabinet-level 
     task force on regulatory relief.

  That was the first Bush he was referring to there. So they realized 
it back then, the cost of overregulation. But it has gotten to the 
point now where it is every bit as important as the spending problem.
  But we are talking about the spending problem right now, and there is 
nothing complicated about it. When you spend more than you take in, you 
go into debt, and we can't keep doing that forever. We keep getting 
these budgets from the President each year--three budgets now totaling 
a greater increase in debt than all Presidents since George Washington 
combined. Nobody seems to understand and no one seems to care that we 
can't keep doing that. We are going to have to do something about it 
for future generations. I think we are going to do it. I hope when this 
vote comes up--and I think it has been set for tomorrow--on the cut, 
cap, and balance legislation, it will be something that will be 
seriously considered, particularly by people who are coming up for 
reelection in 2012. They need to be thinking about this, because this 
will be a huge issue. To stand here on the floor and not vote for a 
balanced budget amendment--during this crisis we are facing now--is 
something everyone will have to answer to.
  So while the caps we talk about in the cut, cap, and balance 
legislation would be over a period of time, it is no good unless you 
have some kind of enforcing mechanism. This bill we will be voting on 
tomorrow, I understand, does have that enforcement mechanism. It has 
sequestration. These are automatic cuts, so that if Congress decides it 
is going to spend above the caps that are allowed, then automatic 
sequestration goes into effect. It works. It is enforceable.
  We have watched spending go up. I am reminiscing here that this has 
been going on for a long time. People are saying: Well, we are not 
going to be able to pass a cut, cap, and balanced budget bill because 
they have been trying to pass a balanced budget amendment for some 40 
years or so and they haven't been able to do it. I think this is a 
unique time that is different than the past 40 years. This is the first 
time I have seen where the average person knows we can't sustain this 
thing. We can't go from a budget running the United States of America 
from $1.5 trillion and then all of a sudden it is $3.5 trillion under 
just one President. You can't continue to do that.
  I remember way back many years ago, when I was in the State 
legislature, there was a great Senator named Carl Curtis from Nebraska. 
Carl Curtis was quite elderly at that time, and he had been trying to 
do a balanced budget amendment for probably 20 years at that time. This 
was back in the 1970s. He came to me in the State legislature in 
Oklahoma and said: I have an idea. The argument they use against a 
balanced budget amendment is that three-fourths of the States would 
never ratify it. So, he said: Let's preratify a budget balancing 
amendment.
  He was kind of a genius. I happened to be the first State legislator 
he approached, and he asked me to take it on as a project. So the State 
of Oklahoma was the first State in history to preratify a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution. It was kind of fun. Then it was 
so popular that others started doing it, and we got right up to the 
three-fourths but couldn't quite get over that. But that is something 
that took place many years ago.
  This is something we know is not easy, it is something that is 
difficult to do, but we now have another chance. It is the first time 
we have had a chance where the majority of the people, by polling, are 
expressing their outrage and stating that we are going to have to do 
something. Even though we have raised the debt limit countless times, 
this is the one time it is getting all this attention, and it is 
getting this attention because we all know we have something that is no 
longer sustainable. So we have another chance at the balanced budget 
amendment provision in the cut, cap, and balance bill, and it would 
prevent the debt limit from being raised until Congress sends one of 
the three balanced budget amendment proposals to the States for 
ratification. In other words, the amendment would have to pass both 
Chambers by two-thirds majority before the debt limit is allowed to 
increase. This makes sense. It is a permanent solution to our problem.
  Within 5 years of ratification, the amendment would require Congress 
to pass a balanced budget every year, and it would cap total spending 
at 18 percent of GDP. Right now it is above 20 percent of GDP, so it is 
even lower than the caps we have had before. It would also require a 
two-thirds majority to raise taxes. We all know conditions could 
change--we could be in a war--so this does have a deficit provision 
which I think is very responsible. The balanced budget amendment is the 
only reform that will put our Nation on a true path for permanent 
fiscal stability. It will force comprehensive and real changes to the 
Federal Government and its spending priorities. If it is ratified, it 
would avert the risk of a debt crisis. In short, it would put our 
Nation on a path to limited government it has not seen in years. So I 
think this is the opportunity.
  We have three different opportunities coming up. We have heard about 
the proposal by the Republican leader and by, I think, the majority 
leader. That might be some kind of last effort, and maybe that is what 
we will be considering. But the first and the best and the easiest--and 
the most fiscally responsible--is the cut, cap, and balance bill. So we 
will have that opportunity tomorrow. It is very significant we take 
advantage of that opportunity. I am not the pessimist most people are. 
I think we have a shot at this thing. If the American people are 
watching carefully, we could pass this thing.

[[Page 11640]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come down here frustrated and hopeful. I 
want to see the glass half full even though we have been through a 
frustrating number of days and months dealing with our debt crisis, and 
here we are careening toward another crisis. Congress went through this 
earlier in the year. It seems as though the only way we ultimately get 
things done is to take it right up to the edge and then come through 
with an agreement. I don't think it is fair to the American people. It 
clearly isn't a formula for providing certainty in our economy for 
those who are running businesses and for households that are making 
tough decisions.
  If there is one word that characterizes where we have been this 
entire year, it is ``uncertainty''--uncertainty about what the future 
is going to look like. Are we going to default or not? Do we have 
enough money to pay the bills or not? What are the consequences of a 
potential default? When we had the continuing resolutions to provide 
funding for the rest of the year, we went from one extension to another 
extension to another. Everything is in limbo. How can you run an 
economy, how can a business man or woman make a decision if they don't 
know what is coming down the line in terms of taxes, in terms of 
regulations, in terms of the economic climate, in terms of whether 
people will be buying, selling, or just sitting on their money?
  Into the third year of a slowdown and recession, the economy is 
growing but not growing at a rate that is putting people back to work. 
We all want to get the economy moving again, and inserting certainty 
into the process will certainly be a positive step forward.
  I think there is virtually unanimous consent that this government has 
grown too big, it spends too much, it doesn't have the revenues to pay 
for what it does, and there needs to be real reform taking place soon.
  We are 12 days away from August 2, the date the Treasury Department 
has indicated we run out of money and don't have enough to pay our 
bills. Obligations that have been committed to and promised can't be 
paid because we won't have the funds to do so on August 2.
  We have known this day was coming for a long time. We were originally 
told we would run out of money in March, and then for some reason it 
was moved to May and then to August. I don't know how they are moving 
money around at the Treasury to extend this particular date, but it 
appears we are now at the end of the road, we are at the wall, and 
decisions have to be made.
  Are we going to take the necessary steps, make the tough decisions, 
and do what we need to do to control our spending, to put in place 
mechanisms that will ensure we don't continue to do what has been done 
over the past several years, and put policies in place that will 
stimulate our economy and get people back to work? After all, it is 
really all about jobs. It is all about an economy that is providing 
opportunities for young people coming out of college and high school, 
opportunities for people to buy homes and raise their families and save 
money and send their kids to school, to keep a good-paying job, to be 
able to pay the mortgage and all the bills that come to the household 
every month. That is really what it is all about. Unless we address 
these issues before us here fiscally, we are not going to get to the 
point where people have hope for the future.
  I said I am frustrated, and I guess I just expressed some of that 
frustration, but I am also hopeful. I am hopeful because in times of 
crisis, solutions can be found. We wish we could do it in a more 
systematic way. We wish we had done it in the past several months, but 
we didn't, so here we are. And now I think the focus is clearly on 
getting to a solution.
  We are debating a plan called cut, cap, and balance--cut because we 
are spending more money than we can afford to spend; cap because we 
want to put procedures in place not to spend more than we can afford in 
years to come; and balance, a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution so that when Members come here and put their left hand on 
a Bible and their right hand in the air and swear to uphold and support 
and defend the Constitution of the United States--and that Constitution 
says you can't spend more than you take in, you need to balance your 
budget just like households and businesses all across America, and 
virtually all of our States have these either in statute or in 
amendment form, the Federal Government excepted.
  I don't believe Congress has demonstrated the discipline necessary to 
run a fiscal house that is anywhere close to balanced. Despite all the 
wonderful speeches that we are going to cut this and do that and 
provide for this and provide for that, we have just seen an explosion 
of debt, an explosion of spending regardless of what the revenues 
coming in happen to total. A constitutional balanced budget amendment 
will give us the spine and backbone and the duty and responsibility to 
uphold the Constitution in that regard and achieve and make the tough 
choices, make the tough votes every year.
  This happens in our State every year. We somehow survive, and in fact 
we are doing pretty well because our legislators have to go before the 
people and say: That is a good idea; but we have to balance our budget. 
We could raise your taxes to pay for that if you want that extra 
program or we can cut another program and substitute the money saved 
from that for this program or, we just can't go there. We don't have 
the money. These are the choices we have to make, and this is the 
responsibility we have.
  I said I am hopeful. Why am I hopeful? I am a baseball fan, sports 
fan, basketball. I have seen so many sports situations where the 
announcers have said or the spectators have observed that it is 
hopeless, there is no way they can come back, there is no way they can 
pull this out, but then I have seen miraculous comebacks in the fourth 
quarter of basketball games, maybe the last 2 minutes, in the bottom of 
the ninth where you have just about written off any chance of victory 
at all, and all of a sudden they come from behind. Whether it is 
soccer, baseball, basketball, or any sport, we all have experienced 
situations that give us hope.
  Even though the clock is ticking down, as it is on this debt limit 
date, and even though some are saying we are never going to get there, 
I am hopeful we can come forward with a sensible plan. In my opinion 
and in the opinion of many, the cut, cap, and balance is a plan that 
can get us to where we need to go. Clearly, first we need--and cut does 
this--to address our spending issue, and then cap so that we don't keep 
running into this year after year, and then balance so that we are 
committed to it for the long term. In order to get there, this 
provision before us gives us the opportunity to do just that.
  The reforms that we need to address--not just cutting but addressing 
the out-of-control, deficit-driving entitlement programs that need to 
be reformed in order to save those benefits and save those programs for 
the future, not take them away and not watch them go into insolvency--
all those need to be addressed, and I hope they will be, and this is 
the plan that can get us there.
  We will be voting on this tomorrow morning, and I am urging my 
colleagues to look at this in a serious way.
  There has been a lot of criticism of various plans that Republicans 
have put forward. Yet the President hasn't put anything forward. My 
colleagues across the aisle, the Democrats, haven't put a budget 
forward or a plan. We get criticism because they don't like this part 
of our plan or they don't like that part of our plan. We aren't saying 
our plan is perfect, but where is yours? We have nothing to measure it 
against. Democrats are in the majority

[[Page 11641]]

in the Senate, but nothing has been brought forward here for us to 
debate or vote on. There is no way we can stand here and say, here is 
our plan, what do you like about it, what don't you like about it, or 
for you to stand here and say, here is our plan. Let's work together to 
meld these two things together. Maybe we can find a compromise. Nothing 
has been provided by the other side.
  We are here with cut, cap, and balance, and people said: No, that is 
not the one. People have said: Gang of Six--no, that is not the one. 
People have said that of other provisions that have been brought 
forward: No, that is not the one. Well, OK, fine. You don't like that? 
What is the one? What is the one that gets us there?
  So as we approach the very end, we have to understand that the 
consequences of what we do are enormous. Doing what is right for the 
future of America and the future of the American people, the future of 
generations to follow, is what ought to be driving us at this point 
toward reaching a rational, sensible solution to put us on the path to 
fiscal responsibility and get our financial house in order.
  Just hours are left before we have this vote, and if this vote 
doesn't pass, as many are predicting it won't, and the President has 
said he will veto it if it does, I am still hopeful we can pull 
something out here in the bottom of the ninth. And if it doesn't pass, 
where do we go next? So we need leadership, and we need leadership from 
the leader of our country to guide us where we need to go if they are 
going to just simply reject everything we put forward.
  Let's be very careful how we evaluate our vote tomorrow and the 
implications it has for the future of this country and the fact that 
the clock is ticking louder as we careen toward a serious crisis on 
August 2.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, since I was sworn into office this January, 
about 6 months ago, the House and the Senate have both been 
understandably and properly concerned with one issue that has perhaps 
eclipsed every other issue that has come before us in this half-year 
period of time; that related to our national debt and the anticipated 
expiration of our debt limit which will hit in just a couple weeks. 
Many Americans are understandably concerned and have articulated the 
concern that if we pass the debt limit deadline of August 2 without 
raising the debt limit, there could be catastrophic financial 
consequences.
  In light of that, I, along with a number of my Republican colleagues 
both in the Senate and in the House, have introduced legislation called 
the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act to address the debt limit, to address it 
head on. It says we will raise the debt limit if three conditions are 
met: first, that we make significant cuts to domestic discretionary 
spending for the fiscal year 2012 budget; second, we need statutory 
spending caps to put us on a smooth but steady glidepath toward 
balancing our budget sometime within the next decade; third, we need a 
balanced budget amendment passed out of Congress and submitted to the 
States for ratification.
  We think all three of these steps are necessarily required before we 
take the significant additional step of raising the debt limit. Because 
of the fact that it took us a long time to get to this point, the point 
where, by the end of the year, we will have accumulated $15 trillion in 
debt--about $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, between 
$120,000 and $150,000 for every wage earner in America; this is a lot 
of money--before we extend that debt limit again by an additional $2.4 
trillion, we have to solve the problem. We have to address the problem 
that led to its creation in a real, lasting, binding fundamental way.
  That is why the most critical part of this legislation, while each 
part is important, happens to be found in that which rests upon the 
idea of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We as Members 
of Congress could decide right now that over the next 10 years or 15 
years, it might be a good idea to cut spending by $2 trillion, $3 
trillion, $4 trillion, $5 trillion, $6 trillion, perhaps more--but if 
we made that promise today as a downpayment to the American people in 
exchange for the permission of the people to raise the debt limit, it 
is a promise we cannot make good on because we cannot bind a future 
Congress.
  This Congress was sworn in in January of 2011. Elections will be held 
in November of 2012 and a new Congress will be sworn in based on those 
elections in January 2013. The same thing will happen again in January 
2015 and every 2 years after that for the duration of our Republic. The 
decisions we make right here, right now can affect the here and now and 
can be binding for the here and now, but we cannot reasonably expect 
and we cannot ask the American people, when making a decision so long-
lasting and precedent-setting as this one, to simply trust us that 
future Congresses will see things the same way we do.
  The only way we can bind a future Congress is by amending our law of 
laws, that 224-year-old document painstakingly ironed out by some of 
the brightest men of the last several centuries in Philadelphia 224 
years ago.
  When we amend the Constitution, we make it possible to bind a future 
Congress. That is what we need to do. We have had some interesting 
debate and discussion surrounding this proposal. Last Friday, I 
listened with surprise and dismay as our President said we don't need 
to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, but we do need 
to balance our budget. In the opinion of the President, Congress just 
needs to do its job, not amend the Constitution.
  I think I understand his point. I think he is suggesting that for 
Congress to do its job it needs to balance its budget. But I have to 
ask the question, how has that worked out for us? Have past Congresses 
balanced their budgets? Has the current Congress balanced its budget? 
Overwhelmingly, the answer is no. It happens every now and then. Some 
would describe those instances where it has balanced in the last two or 
three decades as an accident; others, a momentary blip; still others 
would suggest it was the product of accounting gimmickry rather than an 
actual act of budget balancing when that occurred.
  Regardless, we know that balanced Federal budgets are newsworthy 
indeed because they are very rare. I look forward to the day when they 
are no longer newsworthy, when they are customary, and the only way to 
make them customary, based on our experience as Americans throughout 
most of our Nation's history, is by amending the Constitution to 
require it, to make this a binding and permanent law.
  I was shocked and dismayed again to learn that our Senate majority 
leader, Senator Reid from Nevada, stated just a few hours ago that he 
does not like this legislation. He made some very disparaging comments 
about it, notwithstanding the fact and completely ignoring the fact 
that this is not just the best legislation to address the debt limit 
issue, right now it is the only legislation. It is the only legislation 
that addresses this issue that is moving through Congress and that has 
been reduced to legislative language. It is certainly the only one that 
has been passed by one body of Congress and is now moving over to the 
Senate.
  He is criticizing something when he himself has not offered anything. 
This is the only show in town. Given how close we now are to the August 
2 deadline and, in part, because we punted this so long and, in part, 
because we have not been having the debate and discussion in Congress 
we should have been having for months, this is it. This is the only 
proposal.
  If Senator Reid has suggestions on how we might change this proposal, 
I am all ears. I would love to hear what they are. If he has his own 
proposal, I would love to see what that is. But

[[Page 11642]]

simply to stand from that desk over there and disparage this 
legislation is inexcusable, absolutely inexcusable, given the fact that 
he has offered nothing.
  Let me read some of his words. He said: ``The American people should 
understand that this''--``this'' meaning the Cut, Cap, and Balance 
Act--``is a bad piece of legislation, perhaps some of the worst 
legislation in the history of this country.''
  I don't know what he is referring to. He didn't give specifics, nor 
has he given any specifics on what he would like to see in its place or 
how it could be improved. My suggestion to our Senate majority leader 
is, if he has ideas, please put them on the table because, as we 
approach this debt limit deadline, we are running out of time. The 
clock has been ticking for 6 months. We have known this was going to 
happen. This is not news to us.
  Why, then, has there been so little debate and discussion in this 
body? Why is it that we spent weeks and weeks and weeks, often dealing 
with legislation that paled in comparison to the importance of this 
issue. The clock kept ticking and we kept debating and discussing other 
legislation far less important.
  This, in my opinion, was a gross dereliction of duty. But we still 
have a few weeks. We can still deal with it. We can still address it. I 
suggest strongly that we address it by starting with that legislation 
that has actually been proposed and that we have full debate and 
discussion.
  But, no, we are told. Even after the House of Representatives earlier 
this week passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, passed it with 
bipartisan support, by the way--no fewer than five members of the 
Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives voted to support 
this. That was passed Tuesday night. We were told later we would be 
having a vote on Saturday or perhaps Monday. Then, just a little while 
ago, we were informed by the Senate majority leader that the vote would 
be tomorrow, giving us little or no time for actual debate and 
discussion on the floor of what is still, to this moment, the only 
legislation moving through to address this issue.
  This is not an appropriate moment for demagoguery. Demagoguery on an 
issue this important can result in a lot of unnecessary pain. No one 
disputes that there could be significant negative economic consequences 
associated with not raising the debt limit. I do not dispute that, not 
for a moment. That is exactly why I put my neck on the line in order to 
file this legislation because nothing else was moving forward. I didn't 
want to do it, but when I was sworn in as a Senator just a few months 
ago, I understood it was my obligation to do what I could to make 
things better, to make our constitutional system work. So I filed it.
  It is an insult, not only to me and to my colleagues but to all 
Americans when addressing an issue this important, to have so little 
debate and discussion over this issue. I find it appalling. I find it 
reprehensible. I demand an explanation, and I demand an alternative 
solution, if the Senate majority leader is going to pick this apart and 
say he will not do it. Moreover, I will remind the Senate majority 
leader that just a few short years ago, in 2006, when we had a 
different President, belonging to a different party, and this body was 
in control of another party, if my memory serves me correctly not only 
did then-Senator Barack Obama vote against raising the debt limit, 
calling the need to do so the product of a failure of leadership that 
he was not willing to condone and perpetuate, but every single one of 
his Democratic colleagues joined him in that vote. Not one of them 
voted to raise the debt limit.
  Here we are again approaching the debt limit. Here we are again with 
only Republicans stepping to the plate and offering a solution. Only 
this time the solution is a permanent one. Unfortunately, in 2006 and 
prior and in subsequent debt limit extension votes, there was no 
serious debate attached to it as to a permanent solution.
  We have to amend the governing document, the law of laws, the only 
kind of law that can bind future Congresses in order to solve this 
problem. We have to do it now. This is part of what it means to be an 
American.
  We, as Americans, crave liberty and we eschew tyranny to any degree. 
Every single time we authorize deficit spending we fuel the unfettered 
expansion of the Federal Government and all its power. We commit 
ourselves and our posterity to a future that will include working more 
and more hours and days and weeks and even months just to pay their 
Federal tax bills every single year. That is time they will not get 
back. That is time we will not get back. That erodes our individual 
liberty.
  It also erodes our liberty when the same regulatory structure that 
exists today grows bigger and bigger every year because we are 
borrowing now more than $1.5 trillion every single year--not because of 
some aberrational condition, some unusual development that requires an 
unusual expenditure of borrowed money, but just to cover our basic day-
to-day operations. This is what fuels the perpetual expansion of 
government, and when government expands perpetually, our individual 
liberty is diminished, unfortunately, and to a corresponding degree. 
This is unacceptable.
  But there is a way home. The way home is found in limiting the role 
of government. We can limit the role of government most effectively at 
this point in time, I believe, by limiting the pool of money to which 
Congress has access. The only way to do that is through a 
constitutional amendment.
  I wish to close by addressing one final argument that sometimes has 
been used in response to and against the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. 
Many of its detractors are making the claim that I find extraordinary, 
a claim that says: Why are you even supporting this because it can't 
pass. It is a little bit akin to saying: Why do we even play the Super 
Bowl when it is expected that one team is going to beat the other team. 
We have to play. But this one is not a game. This one is for real.
  When we vote after debating and discussing, Members of this body can 
and will be held accountable to our constituents. So it will be up to 
me and each of my colleagues in this body to decide how to vote on this 
issue. For those who make the unfortunate decision to vote against 
this, notwithstanding the fact that 75 percent of the American people 
strongly support the idea of a balanced budget amendment; 
notwithstanding the fact that 66 percent of Americans--both of these 
figures according to a CNN poll today--support the principles 
underlying cut, cap, and balance; notwithstanding the fact that this is 
the only permanent way of solving our debt problem, if Members of 
Congress and Members of this body choose to vote against this 
legislation, they will do so, I believe, at their own peril. They will 
have to face their constituents and explain why a handful of them were 
unwilling to raise the debt limit, unwilling to address this problem, 
unwilling to fix the perpetual deficit spending habit of Congress 
simply because they did not want a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. I think that is a tall order. I think that is difficult 
to explain. I think those who try to make that explanation to their 
constituents will do so at their own political peril. But, more 
importantly, the vote they cast will be at the peril of the people of 
the United States of America, of their liberty, of their economic 
stability and of their ability to prosper now and in the future.
  We can turn this ship around, but in order do it we need robust 
debate and discussion, and our constituents deserve more. The American 
people deserve more than to have the kind of sleight-of-hand scheduling 
and the kind of dismissive, cavalier attitude toward what is being 
characterized correctly by many as the fight of an entire generation.
  We need to pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. It is not only the 
best solution, it is the only solution. The time is running out, and I 
urge each of my colleagues to support this.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

[[Page 11643]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Utah. I am just a bit taken 
aback by the majority leader's decision to alter the course that I 
thought we were on that would allow for debate and work on a bill to 
deal with the budget, the debt ceiling, and our budget deficit 
tomorrow. In some of his comments he made today after he changed his 
mind yesterday, he said:

       I'm committed to allowing a fair and full debate on this 
     bill. I want the proponents and opponents to have time to air 
     their views.

  And so forth. Then he says:

       I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and 
     senseless as anything that has ever come before the Senate. I 
     am not going to waste the Senate's time day after day on this 
     piece of legislation which I think is an anathema to what our 
     country is about.

  And he goes on to say:

       The American people should understand this is a bad piece 
     of legislation, perhaps the worst legislation in the history 
     of this country.

  That is what the majority leader said just a few hours ago. Well, let 
me ask Senator Lee--he is newly elected from the State of Utah. He has 
traveled all over the State.
  Did the Senator share with his people at various times in his efforts 
that he thought a constitutional amendment, like so many States have to 
contain spending, is good and sound policy? Did they hold that against 
the Senator or does he think his election was an affirmation of the cry 
of the American people that we take some action that would actually 
constrain spending?
  Mr. LEE. On countless occasions throughout the State of Utah, I have 
articulated the fact that I believe we have no business raising the 
debt limit without first adopting permanent structural change in the 
form of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. The people of Utah 
elected me in part based on that promise. Elections have consequences, 
and in my case this was one of them.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am flabbergasted by the majority leader's comments. 
He said:

       I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and 
     senseless as anything that has ever come up on the Senate 
     floor.

  Well, wouldn't the Senator say that compared to all the other 
legislation we are talking about passing--and some of it has some teeth 
to it, I acknowledge--but compared to all of that, a constitutional 
amendment that requires us to live within our means is certainly not a 
weak piece of legislation.
  Mr. LEE. I would hardly call it weak. Quite to the contrary. Calls 
for legislation such as this date back a couple of hundred years. 
Thomas Jefferson was arguably the first one to suggest this kind of 
proposal. He called for it again and again, and those calls have 
continued throughout most of our history, but they have accelerated in 
recent decades. They have accelerated because this body has refused to 
balance its budget, and it has abused its borrowing power to the point 
we are spending more than $1.5 trillion a year more than we bring in. 
It is bankrupting our country. We are burying our children under a 
mountain of debt. We are killing jobs, we are spending money we don't 
have, and that is wrong.
  I would hardly call legislation designed to deal with that in a 
permanent binding way senseless, and I am insulted that the majority 
leader would suggest that this is somehow senseless just because he 
doesn't like it because it will make him less powerful.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I think that is getting to the nub of the matter. 
I think it is a sense in which--now for a constitutional amendment to 
pass, it has to have a two-thirds vote in the Congress, both Houses, 
and three-fourths of the States. Once passed, no majority leader could 
come in next year and say: Well, I know I have been in favor of 
balanced budgets, but I don't want to do it this year. I have more 
spending I want to occur.
  It would, indeed, curb the power of the majority leader and actually 
some newly constituted Senate to spend more money than the government 
takes in, would it not?
  Mr. LEE. Yes, it would. The whole purpose of the balanced budget 
amendment is to restrict our power and give that power back to the 
people where it belongs. The power has been abused here. It has been 
abused over a prolonged period of time, and it has been abused to a 
severe degree. This is why the election of 2010 brought about some 
significant outcomes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I couldn't agree more. I think the American people 
rightly have concluded that our Congress of the United States that 
borrows 40 percent of the amount of money it spends--because it is 
spending more money than it takes in--is acting irresponsibly.
  As I have noted earlier, somebody said: Oh, you know, the tea party 
is angry. Well, why shouldn't they be angry? We have completely 
mismanaged the American people's business. We are elected to be 
responsible leaders. Nobody, I believe, would come to the floor of this 
Senate--I would like to see if it happens--and defend what we are 
doing, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend no matter what it is 
on. And the President proposed his budget for next year that would 
include a 10-percent increase for education, 10-percent increase for 
energy, 10-percent increase for the State Department, and we are 
spending money that we don't have.
  So I think a constitutional amendment would require a major 
participation by the American people and all the States of America 
would discuss it. If the American people decide they believe Congress 
needs to be restrained and pass that constitutional amendment, what is 
wrong with that? Isn't that a legitimate way for the American people to 
have their voices expressed according to the Constitution?
  Mr. LEE. There is nothing wrong with it, and quite to the contrary. 
This is exactly the kind of activity that our Constitution 
contemplates, authorizes, and with good reason. I should note here it 
is significant that in this body each State is represented equally. A 
relatively small State such as mine, the State of Utah, has the same 
number of Senators as a large, heavily populated State such as 
California or such as New York because we represent the States. We 
represent the States as States.
  One of our jobs is to make sure that their sovereign interests are 
vindicated in this body. To suggest that we should not balance our 
budget, to suggest that we should not propose a balanced budget to be 
considered by the States--keeping in mind that it is the States 
ultimately that ratify it if three-fourths of them choose to do so--is 
insulting to the very States we represent. It somehow suggests our 
States can't handle it when the States overwhelmingly, almost every one 
of them, balance their budgets every year.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I agree with that, and it is just odd to me--and 
contrary to the heritage of the Senate--for the majority leader to 
assume as much power as is being assumed now. I am ranking member on 
the Budget Committee, and essentially the Democratic leadership told 
the Budget Committee not to even mark up a budget this year even though 
the statutes of the United States in the United States Code require 
Congress to have a budget.
  I know the Senator is a skilled lawyer. His father was Solicitor 
General of the United States. It is probably the most prestigious 
position a lawyer can have in America, in my opinion. To be able to 
stand before the U.S. Supreme Court and to represent the U.S. 
Government in court is an honor that is very high. So he is a student 
of the law, and I know he is familiar with the statutes of the United 
States that require a budget. It doesn't say you go to jail if you 
don't, I will admit, but it says we should have a budget.
  Does the Senator think the people in Utah--and I think the people in 
Alabama--would think we should have a budget because it is the right 
thing to do, No. 1, and, No. 2, we should do it because it is the law?
  Mr. LEE. It is the law, and notwithstanding the fact that we don't 
have a court order enjoining us to do that, we still have taken an oath 
to uphold the Constitution. I think that means especially on an issue 
so fundamental, so important, so sweeping as the budgeting process, we 
should be complying

[[Page 11644]]

with that law or at least making an effort to do so.
  What I see here is not only a lack of effort to comply with that law 
but a deliberate, conscious effort made with malice aforethought to 
avoid the law. That is damaging. That is wrong.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The House of Representatives passed this bill. They 
passed it by more than a few votes to spare and sent it here. I believe 
if the American people knew what was in it, they would favor it. The 
people in my State would favor it. I think the American people would 
favor it. How does the Senator think the good people in the House, the 
good people of America, who overwhelmingly favor a restraint in 
spending and balancing our budget, would feel about the leader 
curtailing our debate on this important subject and saying:

       I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and 
     senseless as anything that has ever come on this Senate 
     floor. I'm not going to waste the Senate's time.

  Mr. LEE. I think the American people would be profoundly disappointed 
by that statement. More importantly, they would be profoundly disgusted 
by the fact that it wasn't enough for the Senate majority leader simply 
to say: I disagree with it or to point out areas in which he might 
disagree with it or might want to improve upon it. He went so far as to 
say it is not even worth our time to debate and discuss this. That 
smacks of tyranny. Americans don't respond well to tyranny, and this is 
unacceptable.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I have to say I think we are having a problem in the 
Senate. I consider the majority leader a friend. I know it is a very 
difficult job. I have said that many times. I wouldn't want it. Trent 
Lott said it is like herding cats or it is like pushing a wheelbarrow 
with frogs; you put one in and two jump out. It is a tough job, but he 
asked for it.
  The Senate is a great institution. I don't know what Robert Byrd, the 
late Senator from West Virginia, would say if he were here. I think I 
know. I think he would be very uneasy about the process we have gone 
through this year when, through the power of the Chair, the majority 
leader has blocked legislation after legislation, has blocked us moving 
forward with a budget, refusing to allow the committees to move 
forward, and refused to allow the budget even to come up last year.
  We are now I think 812 days without a budget in the Senate, running 
the largest deficits the Nation has ever run, and those deficits are 
not transient. They are not going to turn around when the economy picks 
up a little bit. It is a systemic, deep, structural problem, and we are 
endangering our future. We are being blocked from even being able to 
discuss it while people meet in secret over at the White House with the 
Vice President, with the President, and a few others meet with a group 
of Senators. Nobody elected them, but they are good people. If they 
want to meet, that is fine. We need to be seeing legislation, actual 
bills we can take to committee and score and see how much they cost.
  Being the student of American law and the Constitution as the Senator 
from Utah is, and being knowledgeable about common people, does the 
Senator think the American people think there is something wrong with 
this process, where we have gone all year long and not done anything of 
significance to deal with the most significant issue facing our Nation 
maybe in the next decade, and that is the size of our debt?
  Mr. LEE. Absolutely. Absolutely. Look, the American people understand 
that power is most dangerous in government when it is consolidated into 
the hands of a few people. It becomes even more dangerous when that 
power is wielded under cover of darkness.
  The great thing about sunlight is it illuminates and it disinfects. 
We need that illumination and that disinfectant during that process, 
because it is corrupt. A process that allows something of such profound 
importance to be decided by a handful of people, who tell their 
colleagues: You plebeians don't worry about it; this is for us high-
minded people; we will decide; you will follow; and we will do it in 
such a way that you won't have time to read it, to review it, to debate 
it, to discuss it; this is corrupt, and it has to end.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think what the Senator has said is 
sadly too truthful. I do believe this is a corruption of the process. I 
believe it has been happening over a period of time since I have been 
here. I have seen it happen more and more. Both parties have done a lot 
of this, but I do believe it has reached a new height this year.
  I think Senator Reid believes in the Senate. I think he respects the 
Senate. I do. But I think he is under constant pressure, and they have 
decided that--some of his Members, I guess, didn't want to stay here 
this weekend. They wanted to go home. They had a speech they wanted to 
give or a party they wanted to attend or a fundraising event they 
wanted to go to, so they don't want to stay here this weekend. Just 
yesterday, I think it was, Senator Reid was complaining about the House 
going home this weekend, and promising we would stay here and we would 
work. Now, all of a sudden, anybody who stays here and wants to vote on 
a bill that passed by a substantial majority in the House of 
Representatives, he says is acting--he says the bill is anathema to the 
Senate, and senseless, and not worth our time to talk about. How does 
he get to decide this?
  Mr. LEE. He gets to decide it only if we allow him to decide it. We 
outnumber him, and if we vote contrary to his will, we can overrule 
him. If enough Members of this body are willing to stand up for truth 
and justice and the American way, debate and discussion and the rule of 
law, this thing he is trying to do to us won't happen. We can have 
actual debate and discussion.
  We have responded. We have responded politely and well to his 
directive that we would stay here this weekend. We had made plans. We 
have canceled plans in our home States. All of a sudden, his high and 
mighty speech earlier this week telling us we had to stay here is no 
longer important when he disagrees with some legislation we put 
forward. He would rather shut down debate and discussion. He would 
rather end the process that is absolutely necessary to avert this 
crisis that is quickly coming than he would to have to confront the 
facts, offer up his own solution and respond to the valid points that 
have been made in this debate and in this discussion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It is an important issue, I think. I really do. I wish 
to make this point: There is only one bill that has passed and been 
advocated, that is actually on the floor of the Senate, that raises the 
debt ceiling and changes our debt course in America, and that is the 
bill the Senator from Utah has brought up--the cut, cap, and balance 
bill--the bill he has been so articulately describing and advocating. 
That is the only bill.
  They say this is senseless. Well, do you have anything that raises 
the debt ceiling and does something about the debt of America? Does 
anybody else in the Senate? Or, if they bring it up, will they be 
blocked from bringing it up? I don't see it. The only legislation is 
this legislation. It is not senseless. It is very significant.
  When I came to the Senate the first year in 1997, we voted on an 
amendment to balance the budget, a constitutional amendment. We thought 
the votes were there to pass it, taking all the people who voted for it 
and when they said they were going to vote, there were enough votes to 
pass it, it appeared, and at the last moment several Senators changed 
their vote and it only got 66 votes. Had it had 67, it would have gone 
to the States. I am convinced that balanced budget amendment would have 
passed. Had it passed, we wouldn't be in the financial crisis we are in 
today. Now that is a fact, I believe.
  I don't think this is a senseless process. I believe people--if they 
don't agree with this legislation, if they don't agree with it, let's 
hear why. But to come down and trash it--trash the Members of the House 
who voted for it, trash the American people----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent to have 1 
additional minute.

[[Page 11645]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. To inquire, was there a time limit on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a time limit earlier, and it was 5 
p.m. to 8 p.m. equally divided, and now a Member of the other side is 
here. All the remaining time has expired for the minority.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy. I would 
say, forgive me if I am a little bit offended. I don't think it is 
wrong to be offended when the majority leader walks in here and says a 
piece of legislation that is critical, I believe, to the future of 
America is senseless, not worth discussing. He changes his mind 
entirely and is going to file a motion. I guess he figures he will have 
the majority Members of his party who will stick with him and kill off 
the legislation tomorrow morning. I think it is a very valid piece of 
legislation, an important piece of legislation, and the only piece of 
legislation in the Senate that would raise the debt ceiling. I think it 
is worthy of respect, it is worthy of full debate, and ought not to be 
demeaned in the way it has.
  I respect my friend, the majority leader. I am sure it is a 
frustrating job and every now and then you kind of say things maybe you 
wish you hadn't, but I don't think this is a senseless piece of 
legislation. I think it is important and worthy of the greatest 
consideration in the Senate.
  I thank Senator Lee for his efforts to promote it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise tonight to discuss the so-called 
cap, cut, and balance legislation that has come to us from the House of 
Representatives.
  Congress is a coequal branch of the Federal Government. I have always 
believed it is a forum for informed, bipartisan debate of public 
policies that we all agree should help us achieve greater equality, 
opportunity, and treatment under the law, while nurturing and caring 
for our young and vulnerable, producing well-paying jobs, and investing 
in the future. That is why I have established good working 
relationships with my colleagues in both the Senate and the House and 
on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, this legislation abandons 
each of these principles.
  The challenge facing Congress today is urgent. The stakes are 
extremely high. Congress must raise the debt ceiling to fulfill our 
commitments and take meaningful steps to reduce our deficits and debt. 
However, the policies needed to achieve these goals cannot be 
negotiated at the expense of the safety net that our seniors, children, 
working-class, long-term unemployed, and minority communities depend 
upon, nor should they come at the cost of good government.
  The House legislation falls far short of what is needed. It makes no 
pretense to partisanship. On the contrary, it is a model of extreme 
bipartisanship. Moreover, it threatens to turn a recession into a 
depression. It will cut, cap, and kill Medicare, and it will leave 
millions of the Nation's sick, disabled, poor, long-term unemployed, 
and elderly to bear an unreasonable share of burden of deficit and debt 
reduction. These are our citizens who are already struggling. 
Meanwhile, the ``cut, cap, and kill'' bill would protect and defend the 
tax havens and shelters of the wealthiest.
  The balanced budget amendment portion of this legislation would do 
even more long-term harm. It would make future periods of economic 
weakness worse and restrict our ability to respond. Even though we all 
know it is not a part of the regular Federal budget, it would use 
Social Security revenues and spending as part of the formula to 
determine whether the Federal budget is in balance and, if not, Social 
Security would be subjected to the same cuts as other Federal spending. 
We cannot forget that an important reason Americans expect us to fix 
our debt and deficit is to preserve and protect their Social Security 
and Medicare benefits.
  I will continue to work to preserve our Nation's social safety net 
and seek a balance between raising revenues and cutting spending in 
which all Americans contribute to the solution.
  That said, I will oppose the House bill because it will not do any of 
that. This legislation was quickly and poorly considered. It leaves the 
vulnerable exposed to harm and seeks to weaken Congress's power to 
govern. I cannot support it.
  Thank you, Mr. President. 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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2560, 
with time allotted to the majority.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I wished to come to the floor 
this evening to join a number of my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle who are concerned about the Federal budget and our ever-
increasing deficits and debt.
  But today I am also speaking on behalf of the 4.5 million Coloradans 
who are worried we will not have the discipline to do anything about 
it. They know our great Nation will not win the global economic race 
unless we take some responsible action on the floor of the Senate and 
soon.
  I have to say, I do not think the debate we have been having offers 
them a whole lot of solace. I say that because instead of getting to 
work on the bipartisan Gang of 6 deficit reduction plan, which draws 
from the President's bipartisan fiscal commission, headed by--I have to 
say this--two true American patriots, former Senator Alan Simpson and 
North Carolinian Erskine Bowles, instead of getting onto that plan and 
the substantive proposal it makes, we are debating what looks to be a 
bumper sticker campaign gimmick called cut, cap, and balance. I have a 
hard time even saying it.
  But I have to say, I have spent a good deal of time analyzing budget 
tools. After all, I was one of the first--and one of currently only a 
few--Democratic Senators who signed on to a balanced budget amendment 
to our Constitution this Congress.
  I have also been fighting for many years for other smart budgeting 
tools, including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a line-item veto, and a ban 
on earmarks, which would help reduce waste and rein in Federal 
spending.
  But let me be clear that cut, cap, and balance is not about balancing 
the Federal budget because when we read the bill, it becomes clear it 
is simply about ideology. While the name of the bill seems reasonable 
enough--it is conveniently designed literally to fit on a bumper 
sticker--the language of the bill does not represent a balanced 
approach to deficit and debt reduction, and for that reason alone I 
cannot support it.
  As I said, I have supported the idea of a balanced budget amendment, 
even though a number--maybe I should say most--of our caucus has 
opposed the idea. However, the balanced budget amendment contained in 
cut, cap, and balance is not about balance. It is about locking in--if 
we look at it--special interest tax breaks for corporations and the 
wealthy, which would then force Draconian program cuts that would harm 
our Nation's middle class, not to mention the most vulnerable in our 
communities all across our country.
  I have to say, this is not a balanced way to pursue deficit 
reduction. It makes a balanced budget nearly impossible to achieve when 
we get into the guts of this idea because it ties literally one hand 
behind our back by preventing the Congress from closing wasteful 
special interest tax breaks.
  In addition, the bill in front of us holds the increase in the debt 
limit hostage. The debt limit needs to be raised by August 2 to avoid a 
first ever government default on our debt obligations. Cut, cap, and 
balance dictates

[[Page 11646]]

that the debt limit cannot be increased until Congress approves a 
constitutional balanced budget amendment.
  Even if one is the most optimistic person in the world, a scenario 
for passage, ratification, and implementation of a balanced budget 
amendment shows it is unlikely to take effect for at least 10 years--10 
years--not 10 days, 10 years.
  I have always maintained that a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution--which, again, I wish to mention I support--should be a 
backstop put in place only after we have made the tough decisions about 
reducing our spiraling deficits in the here and now.
  If we were to tie our Nation's obligations to pay its bills to the 
passage of a one-sided and partisan balanced budget amendment, that 
would be bad enough as it is. But cut, cap, and balance would also lead 
to severe--severe--cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and it would 
actually lock in billions of dollars in tax breaks currently in our Tax 
Code which benefit the wealthiest citizens as well as Big Oil and 
corporations that have spent decades shipping jobs overseas.
  This is such an egregious proposal that I have a sneaking suspicion 
it was not actually designed to pass the Senate. I believe it was 
designed to be a campaign gimmick because it certainly does nothing to 
address the problems we face right here and now, which is the looming 
default of our government, the U.S. Government.
  Let me be clear--and I think the public has begun to understand 
this--raising our debt limit is not about future spending or paying for 
more government; it is about paying our previous bills. Business 
leaders, economists, rating agencies, and especially Treasury Secretary 
Geithner have told us our credit rating, were we to default, would take 
years to rebuild and that our country would never be the same if we 
were to default on our debt.
  You know this, Mr. President. You are a businessman. We cannot ask 
for a do-over, a mulligan, if we default on our debt. We cannot say: 
Oh, we were just kidding. This is truly the real deal.
  I wish to share some ways we would be directly affected by a 
government default. Paychecks for soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and 
at bases around the world conceivably would not go out. FAA towers 
could shut down. Border crossings could close. Operations at the FBI 
and the CIA would be put at risk. Safety inspections of the food we eat 
and the cargo that enters our ports could halt.
  The resulting spike in interest rates would ironically make our debt 
even harder to tackle because each 1-percent rise in interest rates 
alone would result in $130 billion in increased interest payments on 
our national debt each year.
  Perhaps most important, hard-working American families would also 
feel the crunch. A spike in interest rates would effectively force a 
tax on all Americans and American businesses due to increased consumer 
costs. As important, failure to raise the debt limit would lock up 
credit markets because the United States would no longer be seen as a 
reliable credit risk.
  Coincidentally, yesterday, an important consumer protection law, 
which Senator Lugar and I introduced and passed--and the Presiding 
Officer helped us with on the floor last year--went into effect. It 
provides Americans with free access to their credit scores, which is so 
important to understanding their own credit risk.
  FICO--this is some good news in a day that has a few dark clouds 
hanging over it--FICO has estimated as many as 500 million credit 
scores will be given to Americans for free each year because of this 
important bipartisan law.
  In working on this legislation, I learned a lot about credit scores: 
what they mean, how they are calculated, and how critical they are to 
economic success. But--and I am tying this back to our discussion 
today--it got me wondering, what would America's credit score look like 
if we defaulted on our debt? Nearly two-thirds of a credit score is 
based on an individual's total debt and payment history.
  So here is how I think our great Nation would score if we do not 
raise the debt limit by August 2. We all know our debt is spiraling out 
of control. That is demerit No. 1. But if we now also are unwilling to 
pay our debts--demerit No. 2--we will be left with the credit score of 
a deadbeat.
  I do not think that is the way we see ourselves or want to see 
ourselves in the 21st century's global economic race. We want to be at 
the head of the pack. We want to win that race. But to see ourselves as 
a deadbeat, that is not what America represents to me. It certainly is 
not the way Coloradans see us.
  The people see this very clearly. They are ahead of us. They 
understand the risks we face. I wish to share a couple letters that 
Coloradans got into my hands just this last week.
  Sarah Jane wrote me last week, and she was to the point. She said:

       Dear Senator, I am furious about the games being played 
     with the debt ceiling. This is really abusive to this 
     country.

  Another Coloradan, Nicholas, sent me an e-mail that said:

       Dear Senator Udall, Republicans are calling for big cuts to 
     vital programs and refusing to increase revenue. This is 
     lunacy. As a native Coloradan, I and most others here work 
     for a living. We don't own yachts, planes, or mansions. The 
     thought of Republicans gutting the social safety net in order 
     to prevent millionaires and billionaires from paying a little 
     extra tax makes me wonder what we really value in this 
     country.

  I could not agree more. We have some tough choices to make, but some 
Members of Congress are so lost in their ideological rhetoric that 
finding an agreement on our deficits and debt seems out of reach. It 
feels to me--I truly do not want to say this, but it feels to me as if 
some of our colleagues would be perfectly fine with shutting down the 
Federal Government out of the belief it has grown too large. They 
believe a catastrophic shock to the system is the only remedy.
  But I have to say, our fiscal imbalances are not caused by the things 
they keep saying they want to cut. Foreign aid, Federal salaries, and 
other programs are a tiny percentage of overall spending. In fact, 
Appropriations Chairman Inouye, the dean of the Senate, the President 
pro tempore of the Senate, noted last week that ``in constant dollars, 
adjusted for population growth, non-defense discretionary spending is 
at the same level in Fiscal Year 2011 as it was in Fiscal Year 2001, 
when the Federal Government ran a $128 billion surplus.''
  The fact is, our fiscal imbalances are caused by three historical 
irregularities: record low revenues, an increasingly aging population, 
and heightened security needs in the wake of September 11. They each 
demand thoughtful and balanced solutions, and only a bipartisan deal 
will get us those balanced solutions.
  I have to say, no matter how much bloated rhetoric we hear, there is 
one simple fact; that is, we are all in this together. But it seems to 
me often--and unfortunately--we are in the same canoe paddling 
furiously upstream away from the waterfall behind us off our stern, but 
half our crew has thrown their paddles overboard in protest.
  I do not get it. I do not understand it. What is so agonizing is that 
we have a bipartisan solution right in front of us. As I mentioned at 
the beginning of my remarks, I was thrilled to see the Gang of 6 this 
week report a responsible, balanced, and very bipartisan agreement. I 
do not agree with every aspect of it. I do believe, however, that the 
plan would responsibly reduce our debt and protect our middle class, 
while also allowing our economy--not only allowing but incenting our 
economy to grow.
  This plan has already received bipartisan support--not just here but 
across the country. It is my feeling rather than arguing we ought to be 
acting on those recommendations. Many of us just want to get to work. 
It is hot here. We have taken our jackets off and can roll up our 
sleeves. I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who share 
that sentiment even if others here are demanding they remain quiet 
about it.
  There is no question that the fiscal challenges in front of us demand 
a bipartisan solution, but the clock is running, the sand is rapidly 
running out of

[[Page 11647]]

the hour glass, and we have to get to work on making the necessary 
changes to get our fiscal house and its foundation in order.
  Frankly, some issues should rise above partisanship, politics and 
campaigns--our country's economic and national security. By the way, 
the two are linked. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen--the Presiding 
Officer and I serve on the Armed Services Committee--made it very clear 
that they see one of our biggest threats as the country's fiscal 
situation. A broke country is going to be a weak country. So our 
economy and national security fall in the category that ought to be 
above politics and partisanship.
  Cut, cap, and balance is wrong for our country. It represents more 
divisiveness, way too much gamesmanship, and more politics. Let's 
listen to our constituents. I shared letters from two of them from my 
State of Colorado who are pleading with us to get to work and focus our 
attention on the sensible, bipartisan Gang of 6 plan.
  Let's combine it with a debt limit increase to ward off default and 
work together and pass it into our laws before our national credit 
rating is downgraded and it damages our chances of winning the global 
economic race.
  That is what Coloradans are expecting of me, and that is what I 
expect of the 100 of us who are so fortunate enough to serve in the 
Senate. I am not being dramatic. I am not a particularly dramatic 
individual. But I have to tell the Presiding Officer and my colleagues 
that I think nothing less than the fate of the U.S. economy hangs in 
the balance.
  I am willing to stay here day and night, weekends, holidays, to help 
put a long-term balanced and bipartisan plan in motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                        Tribute to Bruce Sundlun

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the 
debt ceiling that is rapidly approaching. But on this particular day, I 
cannot come to the floor and speak about anything without just making 
one, I guess I would say, note of personal privilege; that is, that 
today is a particularly sad day in my home State of Rhode Island 
because one of the great Rhode Islanders has passed away.
  Former Gov. Bruce Sundlun, whom I worked for for many years and 
formed a very devoted affection for has died peacefully at home with 
his family after one of the most accomplished and eventful lives in 
Rhode Island history.
  I know my senior Senator, Jack Reed, and I will be back on the floor 
at a later time to give Gov. Bruce Sundlun his proper due and 
recognition. But for all he has meant to me, for all he has meant to 
our State of Rhode Island, for all he has meant to the people whose 
lives have been made so much better or who have been protected from 
very bad outcomes by his courage and by his determination, I simply 
could not overlook that at this point. So more will follow on my dear 
friend, Bruce Sundlun.
  So to the matter at hand. Less than 2 weeks from now, our Nation is 
going to hit its statutory borrowing limit, and it may begin, for the 
first time in its history, defaulting on its obligations.
  Unless we act very soon, the Treasury of the United States of 
America, long the issuer of the safest and the most conservative 
securities in the world, will simply run out of money. Social Security 
checks, as the President has already said, would be at risk. Millions 
of American families would suddenly lose their household income. The 
Treasury would have to suddenly stop paying more than 4 out of every 10 
Federal dollars, choking off all the economic activity supported by 
those funds.
  Private sector projects across the country that depend on Federal 
dollars or Federal permits or Federal regulatory approval, all would 
grind to a halt--a catastrophic triple whammy on our economic activity.
  In addition, an increase in interest rates would likely freeze 
investments and cause the financial markets to plummet. So reaching the 
decent limit will not just put us back into recession, it would risk 
economic calamity. With the stakes so high and with time so short, it 
is unfortunate that the House Republicans who created this completely 
unnecessary crisis have sent us this so-called cut, cap, and balance 
bill.
  This bill, which cuts no tax loopholes, not one, and puts no cap on 
corporations offshoring jobs or earnings and dodging U.S. taxes, would 
do one thing: It would kill Medicare. Consistent with the Republican 
2012 budget, this bill puts the costs of deficit reduction right down 
on those who can least afford it: senior citizens, the disabled, and 
our children.
  The cut, cap, and kill Medicare plan the House Republicans have 
proposed would begin with steep cuts to Federal programs in 2011, while 
we are still in this recession, slashing domestic spending by over $111 
billion, and eliminating 700,000 jobs from our economy when we need 
them the most.
  It would also require immediate cuts to social safety net programs 
likely reducing--or eliminating even--student loans, Pell grants, 
school lunches, Medicaid, and food stamps, some of the most important 
programs to families who are struggling to get back on their feet 
during this prolonged period of high unemployment. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  The second part of the cut, cap, and kill Medicare bill would limit 
Federal spending beyond 2012 to levels significantly lower than during 
the Reagan Presidency. In fact, our Nation has not seen spending at 
those low levels since 1966. Mr. President, 1966 was a time when only 
9.2 percent of the population was retired and drawing benefits, 
compared with 12.9 percent today.
  So the effects of those spending levels would be even harsher. The 
cap on Medicare and Social Security makes no adjustment for the $2.5 
trillion of Social Security reserves that Americans have paid into that 
system, that the government then went and borrowed. It makes no 
adjustment for that being their money or for the aging population that 
we are experiencing.
  So with a fixed cap, and baby boomers retiring in greater numbers, 
the Republican plan forces devastating cuts to Social Security and 
Medicare benefits. There is simply no other way. It would address our 
deficit in the worst way possible, by taking an axe to the retirement 
programs on which tens of millions of retired Americans rely and which 
most every working person in America looks forward to.
  For ordinary Americans, this approach is wrong. Frankly, it is 
unthinkable, although it is the goal of a few determined extremists who 
are driving things within the House Republican Party.
  Finally, the cut, cap, and kill Medicare bill would hold the debt 
limit hostage to an extremist constitutional amendment that has been 
widely criticized, even by many responsible voices on the right. If 
this dangerous constitutional amendment were to pass, the Congress of 
the United States would be unable to respond to an economic or national 
security emergency without steep supermajority votes, giving even more 
leverage to small extremist factions in Congress, as if it is not clear 
that is already not too much of a problem.
  As dangerous, this constitutional amendment--this is hard to 
believe--this constitutional amendment would make it easier to cut 
Medicare and Social Security benefits than to take away tax subsidies 
from Big Oil, from offshoring corporations, and from billionaires. It 
would make it easier, as a matter of law, to cut Social Security and 
Medicare benefits than it would be to go after these special interest 
corporate tax loopholes and the gimmicks that allow billionaires to pay 
lower tax rates than truck drivers in this country.
  It builds a constitutional preference for corporate and special 
interest loopholes into our Constitution, a Constitution renowned 
around the world for its commitment to equality. Into this great 
document that has shown the light of equality around the world, we 
would build a preference for corporate special interests over working 
people and the retirements they count on.

[[Page 11648]]

  Constitutional amendments traditionally move this country forward. 
This would be a colossal step back. In summary, adding all those 
different features of the cut, cap and kill Medicare bill together, the 
Republicans in the House would require such severe spending cuts that 
the only way to achieve them--the only way to achieve them--would be 
to, in fact, get rid of Medicare as we know it and slash Social 
Security benefits for seniors.
  It would hurt those who depend on government the most, while giving 
special protection to special interests and corporations with tax 
loopholes and subsidies that permit them to pay lower tax rates than 
middle-class families--in some cases, with some of our most profitable 
corporations--no taxes at all. That is what gets protected.
  House Republicans know their cut, cap and kill Medicare plan has zero 
chance of passing the Senate. It is not going to happen--not now, not 
ever. It has already drawn a veto threat from President Obama. 
Nevertheless, as this deadline looms closer and closer, with those 
terrible consequences portending, the House Republican extremists have 
forced this piece of political theater while ignoring serious and 
constructive proposals for deficit reduction such as Budget Committee 
chairman Kent Conrad's plan, which would reduce deficits by $4 
trillion, more than the House's budget plan. We actually do better at 
solving the deficit than they do. But we do it with every dollar in 
spending cuts matched by a dollar in new revenue from closing tax 
loopholes and tax gimmicks. This plan would stabilize the budget and 
would reassure the financial markets, and would do so without cutting 
Social Security and Medicare benefits on which our seniors rely and 
which all working Americans are counting on. It is one of the basic 
freedoms we have as Americans--to know that that is waiting for us.
  I was proud to introduce a resolution earlier this month which would 
express the sense of the Senate that ``any agreement to reduce the 
budget deficit should not include cuts to Social Security benefits or 
Medicare benefits.'' I am grateful to Senators Blumenthal, Sherrod 
Brown, Merkley, Franken, Boxer, and Gillibrand who have joined with me 
on the resolution, and I invite all of my colleagues to do the same.
  The Conrad budget proves that we need not attack Medicare and Social 
Security to deal with our deficit. His budget is living proof that 
there is no reason to attack Medicare and Social Security to get 
through our deficit situation. That attack on Medicare and Social 
Security is a willful and unnecessary act by the Republicans.
  Well, Rhode Islanders, in increasing numbers, have been writing to me 
urging me to continue fighting to preserve these retirement programs, 
to preserve this infrastructure of American freedom. Time is running 
short, and Americans are counting on their elected representatives to 
do the right thing. It is time to do the right thing.
  Let me close by reading a piece from an editorial in The Economist 
magazine. The Economist is a very conservative publication, and it is 
very much in favor of free markets. I would say, by and large, it is a 
Republican journal. Here is what The Economist said about the situation 
we are in now:

       The sticking point is not on the spending side. It is 
     because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the 
     wilder eyed members of their party and the cacophony of 
     conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a 
     single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax 
     take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully 
     cynical . . . even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed 
     to do so. And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the 
     Republicans look. Earlier this year, House Republicans 
     produced a report noting that an 85 percent to 15 percent 
     split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for 
     successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical 
     evidence. The White House is offering an 83 percent to 17 
     percent split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that 
     none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal 
     rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans 
     were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer. Both 
     parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal 
     recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on 
     the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

  So it is not just Democratic Senators coming to the floor to point 
out that the crisis we are at is an unnecessary one. It is a 
manufactured crisis, a crisis driven by extremism, and it is a crisis 
that threatens the survival of Medicare and Social Security--two 
cornerstone programs in the economic security and in the freedom of 
ordinary Americans.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________