[Pages S4814-S4826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2560,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 2560) to cut, cap, and
balance the Federal budget.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 10 a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in about an hour, we are going to vote on
a package that was sent to this body by the House of Representatives.
Let me first comment on the context within which we consider this
legislation. I think it is very important to remind our colleagues and
remind citizens across the country who are perhaps watching and
listening that our country is borrowing more than 40 cents of every $1
we spend. That is unsustainable. It cannot be continued for long.
I think all of us know that the circumstance we are in is
extraordinarily serious. Here is what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff told us just a year ago:

Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.

I believe that is the case. Our gross debt now is approaching 100
percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. We have not
seen a debt that high since after World War II. It is extraordinarily
important that we take on this debt threat. It is extraordinarily
important for our country's future economic well-being that we change
course.
The legislation that has been sent to us by the House is one of the
most ill-considered, ill-conceived, internally inconsistent pieces of
legislation I have seen in my 25 years in the U.S. Senate. It has all
the earmarks of something that was hastily thrown together, really
pasted together.
This legislation includes an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. We are better than this. The Congress is better than
this. Certainly, the country is better than this. Let me just be brief.
The fundamental problems with this balanced budget amendment are as
follows: One, it restricts the ability to respond to economic
downturns, having all the potential to make an economic downturn even
more serious. It uses Social Security funds to calculate balance and
subjects that important program to the same cuts as other Federal
spending, even though it is funded separately. It shifts the ultimate
decisions on budgeting in this country to unelected and unaccountable
judges. Finally, it requires a State ratification process that could
take years to complete. We need a long-term debt resolution now, not in
the sweet by-and-by.
The proposal before us has all of the potential to turn a recession
into a depression. Why do I say that? Because it would prevent Congress
from taking urgent action to provide lift to the economy in the midst
of a severe economic downturn.
Here is what Norman Ornstein, a distinguished scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute, said about this:

Few ideas are more seductive on the surface and more
destructive in reality than a balanced budget amendment [to
the constitution]. Here is why: Nearly all our states have
balanced budget requirements. That means when the economy
slows, states are forced to raise taxes or slash spending at
just the wrong time, providing a fiscal drag when what is
needed is countercyclical policy to stimulate the economy. In
fact, the fiscal drag from the states in 2009-2010 was barely
countered by the federal stimulus plan. That meant the
federal stimulus provided was nowhere near what was needed
but far better than doing nothing. Now imagine that scenario
with a federal drag instead.

The Washington Post editorialized:

Worse yet, the latest version [of the balanced budget
amendment] would impose an absolute cap on spending as a
share of the economy. It would prevent federal expenditures
from exceeding 18 percent of the gross domestic product in
any year. Most unfortunately, the amendment lacks a clause
letting the government exceed that limit to strengthen a
struggling economy.

That has all of the potential to turn a recession into a depression.
Two of this country's most distinguished economists, Alan Blinder,
former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, former
consultant, adviser to Senator McCain in his Presidential campaign,
evaluated the government response to the last downturn. Their
conclusion: Absent that Federal response, we would have had ``Great
Depression 2.0.'' The legislation before us would have prevented that
Federal response.
They call this legislation cut, cap, and balance. They misnamed it.
They should have called it ``cut, cap, and kill Medicare'' because that
is precisely what it would do. Why do I say that? Because when I
referred earlier to the inconsistency of this legislation, this is what
I was referring to. They have two different spending caps in the
legislation before us. In one part of the legislation, they say the
spending cap would take spending from 24.1 percent of GDP to 19.9
percent. That is in one part of the bill before us. In another part of
the bill--the constitutional amendment--they say the spending cap would
be 18 percent of GDP. So I do not know who cooked this up, but you
would think they would have at least gotten on the same page as to what
is the limitation on spending.
What does it mean if you have a balanced budget amendment with a cap
of

[[Page S4815]]

18 percent of GDP? Here is what it means--by the way, the
constitutional provision would certainly trump the conflicting
provision that is in this legislation. So the cap would not be 19
percent of GDP, the cap would not be 19.9, it would be 18 percent of
GDP. What would that mean? Well, this dotted black line is 18 percent
of GDP. If you fund just Social Security, defense and other nonhealth
spending, and interest on the debt, you are at 18 percent of GDP. There
is not a dime left for Medicare. There is not a dime left for Medicaid.
Is that really what they intend? It must be because that is what it
says. So Medicare is finished. Medicaid is finished. Anybody who votes
for this ought to understand what they are voting to do.
Here is a former top economic adviser to President Reagan. Here is
what he said about the amendment that is before us:

In short, this is quite possibly the stupidest
constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks
like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a
napkin. Every Senator cosponsoring this legislation should be
ashamed of themselves.

That is a former top economic adviser to Ronald Reagan.
I have been here 25 years. I don't think I have ever seen a piece of
legislation more unprofessionally constructed than the legislation
before us.
But those are not the only problems. When they titled this ``cut,
cap, and balance,'' they could have also called it ``preserve, protect,
and defend tax havens and tax shelters'' because that is the other
consequence of this legislation. Why do I say that? Because it would
take a two-thirds vote to increase revenue--a two-thirds vote. That
means attempts to shut down these offshore tax havens, these abusive
tax shelters--because they would raise revenue--would take a two-thirds
vote.
What does that mean? Well, here is a little building down in the
Cayman Islands. I have talked about this many times. It is a little 5-
story building that claims to be home to 18,857 companies. They claim
they are doing business out of this little building. I have said this
is the most efficient building in the world. Quite remarkable that
18,857 companies are doing business out of this little 5-story
building. I am told there are not many people coming and going from
this building during the day.
Are 18 companies really doing their business--they call this
``headquarters.'' Is that really their headquarters? We all know that
is not their headquarters. We all know what is going on. It is not
business; it is monkey business. What they are doing down there is
avoiding the taxes all the rest of us pay.
This amendment would protect this scheme. You want to protect this
scheme, vote for this amendment. How big is this scheme? Well, here is
what our own Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has told us:

Experts have estimated that the total loss to the Treasury
from offshore tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion a
year, including $40 billion to $70 billion from individuals
and another $30 billion from corporations engaging in
offshore tax evasion. Abusive tax shelters add tens of
billions of dollars more.

You want to lock in these abuses? You prefer to pay more in taxes
yourself so that people can engage in these scams? Vote for this
amendment. Vote for the legislation that is before us. Vote for what is
on the floor because you will protect them forever more.
I end as I began. This is perhaps the most ill-conceived, ill-
considered, internally inconsistent legislation I have ever seen in my
25 years in the Senate. I hope my colleagues have the wisdom to vote
no.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.

Honoring the 88th Birthday of Robert Dole

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like this Chamber to know that
today marks the 88th birthday of one of the great Members of this
Senate body, a true American hero, former majority leader Bob Dole.
As I reflected on the extraordinary life he has led--I had the
privilege of serving under him as a Senator and working with him in the
private sector, getting to know him and his wife--I could not help but
note that the leadership he provided in comparison to the lack of
leadership that is being provided in this body now stands in great
contrast. There is an absence of leadership and seriousness of purpose
that Bob Dole would never have allowed had he been majority leader.
I say that because I come to the floor today greatly troubled by the
remarks that were made here in this Senate yesterday and again this
morning by the majority leader regarding the bill that is before us.
The issue here takes two tracks, one of which is the content of the
amendment and the bill that is before us that was voted on by the House
of Representatives, passed by the House of Representatives, and sent
over for us to debate and pass. We can disagree--and I think there has
been some misrepresentation of what this bill actually does--we can
disagree about the contents of it, but we have an obligation and a
responsibility to debate those contents and to put every Member of this
body in a position of saying ``yea'' or ``nay'' on amendments that
might be offered to improve it or to change it or to modify it and,
finally, whether to support it or not support it. The vote here this
morning denies us that opportunity. This is a vote on a motion to
table.
You know, there are a couple of definitions of ``table''--more than a
couple. One of those is getting to the table to negotiate something,
just as the NFL players and owners are doing and, much more seriously
and with many more consequences to the future of this country, what we
ought to be doing--putting it on the table, debating it, addressing it,
expressing your support or nonsupport, defending it, characterizing,
mischaracterizing. That is what this body is about. It is the world's
greatest deliberative body, and we are deciding not to deliberate this
bill at all.
The second definition of ``table'' is taking it off the table. So the
majority leader has said: I am not going to allow you to debate it. I
am not going to allow amendments. I am not going to allow up-or-down
votes so the American people know where we are.
This is a motion to table, so we don't even have the opportunity to
debate it.
It was the majority leader himself who said: We are going to be in
session every day until we get this settled. Now he comes down here and
says: I am not going to waste 1 more day on this. Yet there is nothing
on the agenda. Senators who were told to be here every day, that there
will be a vote on Saturday, are now told: We are having a vote this
morning--on Friday at 10 o'clock--and then you can go home for the
weekend. He hasn't even told us when we need to come back. What kind of
a contradiction is that? What kind of leadership is that? We don't know
whether we are supposed to be here or are not supposed to be here. Are
we supposed to be debating what is happening with one of the most
serious crisis we are facing, that the country has ever seen?
Particularly in the financial area, it is the most serious, perhaps
except for the Great Depression. And we are told we do not even have
time to debate this, that this is a waste of time.
I quote the unbelievable statement that has been made by the majority
leader:

This piece of legislation is about as weak and senseless as
anything that has ever come on this Senate floor.

Really? I can spend half an hour talking about senseless legislation,
egregious legislation, discriminatory legislation that has come to this
floor and been debated and not just tabled. To characterize the serious
efforts of the Members of the House of Representatives and the Members
of the Senate, including some Democratic Members, to try to fix this
problem--to characterize that as ``senseless and wasteful''--``I am not
going to spend one more day of time,'' he said, ``on this senseless
legislation.''
I thought on reflection the majority leader would come here this
morning and say: Perhaps I overstated the problem. Let me better
explain where I think we are, where we need to go.

But, no, he comes down and he doubles down this morning--doubles
down--and says: ``It is a very, very bad piece of legislation.''
``Without merit.'' ``It gets in the way.'' It gets in the way? We are
talking about dealing with cutting spending that we know we cannot
afford. We talk about putting some caps on it so we don't keep doing
this in the future, so we have a path to

[[Page S4816]]

fiscal responsibility. We are talking about a balanced budget so we
live within our means. That is getting in the way?
This body has failed its responsibility to be faithful to the
Constitution and faithful to the people of America. As a consequence of
that, we are sitting here saying we are not even going to debate
something that was brought forward with hundreds, if not thousands of
hours of effort. Maybe you don't like it, and maybe you don't agree
with it. Well, stand up and say so and tell us what you want to do
about it.
The majority leader and his party have not brought one piece of
legislation to this floor. The President of the United States has not
offered one proposal in writing that we can work with. We have not had
the opportunity to debate for 1 minute anything the other side has
offered. So we bring something forward, and it is called a ``worthless
piece of junk.'' Is that what the American people sent us here to do?
I came here to find a result to the dire fiscal situation our people
are in, and the majority leader comes down here and says we are not
responding to the will of the people. Where has he been? What planet is
he on? Responding to the will of the people? They are sick and tired of
government spending more than it has. They are sick and tired of being
told they are handing over debts to their children that are never going
to be repaid. And we are told that we want to take this off the table
so we can't even debate it.
I woke up in the middle of the night so frustrated and so angry after
spending last evening saying I am hopeful that we can come together and
work something out, and the well gets poisoned last evening by the
majority leader and gets poisoned again this morning. Those of us who
have worked our tails off to try to get something done are told this is
a piece of junk. That is not what I came here to do. That is not what
we came here to do.
I didn't come here to get mad this morning. But I am just tired of
this stuff that goes on around here. When Democrats and Republicans--
and the majority leader knows it--are meeting in back rooms together,
signing letters together to the President to ask him to step up--32
Democrats and 32 Republicans--the President ignores that and does
nothing until the very end, and he comes here and says: Look at me. I
took care of everything.
America is worried to death about the future. To say we haven't done
anything except put forward a worthless piece of legislation--it is so
worthless we are not even going to allow you to talk about it or debate
it, we are not allowing amendments to take place, we are not going to
give it the respect it is due. So if you do not like it, come down here
and tell us you do not like it, and let's have a vote on why you do not
like it instead of just simply saying: Take it off the table.
I guess we are all getting frustrated. There is a 100-and-some degree
heat index outside. I can understand people getting worked up about all
of this sort of thing. But the future of America is at stake. This
majority leader is not allowing us to deal with it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I stand here today as a cosponsor of the
cut, cap, and balance legislation and as a supporter of that
legislation. Here is the insanity that has gripped not only this body
but all of Washington. We are literally in here where we will have the
third year in a row of deficits over $1 trillion.
In fact, current projections are that this annual deficit will set a
record--a very dubious record, I might add--of $1.6 trillion-plus. We
were promised 3 years ago if this enormous, gargantuan effort to force
more spending into the economy with the stimulus plan were passed, that
trillion-dollar effort would put this country on a path to recovery. It
has done nothing except raise our debt and pass the problem on to our
children and grandchildren.
After weeks and months of work on an idea to rein in the spending and
to come to grips with where we are in this country, we are literally at
a point where, within minutes, we will vote on a motion to table that
effort. We will be right back to where we are today. We will be right
back to a situation where we will face trillion-dollar deficits. We
will be right back to a situation where every economist in the world is
telling the United States of America--the largest economy--that its
spending is not sustainable. We will be right back to rating agencies
looking at our government debt and saying: You have not come up with a
plan to rein this in, so you are being targeted to be downgraded.
What we are really right back to is this: We have a government that
is too big. We have too many promises that have been made, where no one
had any idea how they would be paid for. By the end of the year, we
will have a deficit of $15 trillion, which is significantly
understated. In 4 more years, we will have a debt of $20 trillion,
which will still be significantly understated. Somehow there are
Members of this body who are arguing that this is a better way--to
table cut, cap, and balance so we can return to where we are today.
Is it any wonder that those of us who are concerned about this and
concerned about the future of our children and grandchildren are coming
to the floor and saying: Wait a minute. This is destroying our Nation.
Mr. President, I have risen today, as I have many times over the last
days, to say: Support this effort. Support cut, cap, and balance. I am
pleased to be a cosponsor of this very important legislation which has
the potential to change the direction of what we are doing. I am going
to be one of the people who support this legislation.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I echo the comments of my colleagues from
Nebraska and Indiana who have expressed their support for the cut, cap,
and balance approach to dealing with our debt crisis. It had 234 votes
in the House, and it is the only plan out there.
As my colleague from Indiana said, the Democratic leadership in the
Senate has yet to produce a plan that will meaningfully deal with the
greatest crisis our country has faced in my service in the Congress;
that is, this massive, out-of-control debt the Senator from Nebraska
pointed out which could lead to much higher interest rates along the
lines of what we are seeing in some of the European countries, which
would absolutely crush this economy.
If we are serious about growing the economy and creating jobs, we
have to get Federal spending under control. We need a smaller Federal
economy and a larger private economy. What has been happening since
this President took office is that we continue to grow government. We
have added 35 percent to the debt. Spending has increased by 24
percent--non-national security discretionary spending--at a time when
inflation was 2 percent. Federal spending has been growing at 10 times
the rate of inflation. The number of people receiving food stamps has
gone up by 40 percent. The unemployment rate is up by 18 percent, and
2.1 million more people are unemployed today than when this President
took office.
The policies of this administration are not working when it comes to
getting people back to work and getting spending and debt under
control.
I was listening to my colleague from North Dakota with great interest
when he was here earlier denouncing the whole idea of a balanced budget
amendment--like it was coming from some foreign planet. He talked about
how ill-conceived and ill-considered and stupid this approach is--cut,
cap, and balance.
Well, my observation about that is, the failure of the Democrats to
produce a budget in over 800 days is exhibit No. 1 for why we need a
balanced budget amendment. We ought to be embarrassed in Washington,
DC; we are not doing the people's work; we have not passed a budget in
over 800 days. Yet the other side comes down here and denounces the
idea of a balanced budget amendment, which all 49 States have some form
of, that requires them to balance their budgets every single year.
My colleague from North Dakota knows that. His State has it and my
State of South Dakota has it. It is a very straightforward concept that
the people of this country clearly understand.
Now, he takes issue with the way this particular balanced budget
amendment is written. Fine. Come up with your

[[Page S4817]]

own proposal. But don't suggest that having a constitutional amendment
that requires this place to do something that it hasn't been doing for
the last 25 or 30 years is literally a bad idea. What we have today is
dysfunctional. It is broken. It doesn't work for the American people.
It is an embarrassment. That is why we need to put something on the
books that will impose a discipline on this Congress to get spending
and debt back under control and help us do something about the runaway
debt that is putting a crushing burden on future generations of
Americans.
If you don't like this balanced budget amendment and think the cut,
cap, and balance proposal is not prescriptive about this particular
balanced budget amendment that many of us are cosponsors of, then come
up with another one. But let's put something in place that enshrines a
responsibility and obligation and a requirement for us to live within
our means every single year.
We cannot continue to spend money we don't have. We have demonstrated
year after year around here that we continue to add more and more and
more to this debt. Under the President's budget proposal, that debt
would have doubled in the next decade. That is why I think when his
budget proposal was put on the floor of the Senate it got zero votes.
Not a single Democrat or Republican voted in favor of what this
President put forward in his budget submission earlier this year.
Since that time there has been an absolute lack of leadership out of
the White House. The President has been completely missing in action.
The Democratic leadership has put forward no plan of their own. We have
in front of us something that achieved majority support in the House a
few nights ago when 234 Members of the House voted for this proposal.
It is a serious, meaningful effort to cut spending now, cap it in
future years, and put in place a balanced budget amendment which is
long overdue and, frankly, if it had passed 15 years ago in the Senate,
we would not be in the position we are today. It failed by a single
vote--one vote--in the Senate in 1997.
I cannot help but think how much better off we would be today in
terms of the spending situation had we gotten the necessary two-thirds
vote in 1997. But it is never too late to do the right thing. We have
an opportunity to do that today.
To hear our colleagues on the other side get up and belittle the
effort that has been made by a lot of people who are trying to do
something about a problem that will wreck this country if we don't fix
it is not befitting of this institution.
This is going to be a tabling motion instead of a debate on cut, cap,
and balance because my colleagues have decided this isn't worthy of
consideration on the floor of the Senate. I think it is a terrible
reflection on this institution, when something is brought forward in
good faith--a serious, meaningful effort to address spending and debt
and to put this country back on a sustainable fiscal course--and we are
not even going to debate it. We are going to have a tabling motion in a
few minutes.
I hope my colleagues will defeat that motion and allow us to continue
to debate this proposal and get an up-or-down vote on what will
meaningfully address the problems this country faces.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, unlike any Republican in the House or the
Senate, I have voted for a balanced budget. We balanced the budget
under President Clinton. Not only balanced the budget, started paying
down the national debt. He was able to leave hundreds of billions of
dollars in surplus to his successor, who determined with Republican
votes to go to war in Iraq and pay for the war with a tax cut. That is
why we had to borrow the money from China and Saudi Arabia. Not a
single Republican voted for a real balanced budget when they had a
chance to. In fact, it passed the Senate only because Vice President
Gore came and broke the tie.
I was proud to have voted for that balanced budget. Not a gimmick,
but a real balanced budget. We had to actually make tough choices. We
did it. We balanced it. We had a surplus.
When we talk about amending our Nation's fundamental charter, the
Constitution of the United States, it is not something Congress and the
American people should feel forced to do in the face of a financial
crisis. I take seriously my senatorial oath to support and defend the
Constitution.
I know there are a lot of pressure groups demanding that elected
representatives sign pledges about what they will and will not do. The
pledge I follow, which is the one I was honored to make again at the
beginning of this Congress, is to uphold the Constitution. That is what
I intend to do as I represent the people of Vermont.
The House-passed bill, H.R. 2560, which the Senate is now
considering, claims to impose a balanced budget on future Congresses,
but it doesn't even contain the proposed constitutional amendment that
supporters are seeking to adopt. Nor did the bill pass with two-thirds
of the Republican-controlled House voting in favor.
That threshold is what is required for us to pass a constitutional
amendment. The House vote was more than 50 votes short of that
necessary number.
The process by which this bill has been brought to the floor of the
Senate is an affront to the Constitution that we are sworn to protect
and defend. Instead, the House still denies authority needed to meet
the Nation's obligations until Congress passes a type of constitutional
amendment that will actually make it more difficult for us to reduce
our national debt. That kind of constitutional blackmail has no place
in our democracy, no place in our laws.
I wonder whether anyone who respects the Constitution can support
such an approach. Here is the convoluted language the House bill
includes about an amendment to our Constitution:

H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res
10 in the form introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56
in the form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it
requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that
contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and
requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote
in both Houses of Congress.

The Founders didn't include a constitutional requirement for a
balanced budget or a prohibition against incurring debt in our
Constitution. They knew full well that would have been foolish,
dangerous, and self-defeating for the Nation they were seeking to
establish.
I respect the wisdom of the Founders and will uphold the
Constitution, which has served this Nation so well for the last 223
years. Let's not be so vain as to think we know better than the
Founders what the Constitution should prescribe.
I reject the notion that for political reasons we need to rush
consideration of an ill-conceived and evolving proposal for a
constitutional amendment. I will stand with the Founders. I will defend
their work and our Constitution, and I will oppose the proposed series
of constitutional amendments, which, incidentally, haven't even had a
hearing.
Have we forgotten how the Revolutionary War was financed? Have we
forgotten how the national government took on the debt of the states
after the Revolutionary War? Have we forgotten that in 1792, just four
years after the ratification of the Constitution, the budget deficit
was 38 percent of revenues? Have we forgotten how President Jefferson
financed the Louisiana Purchase expanding the country westward? Do we
not remember what happened during the Civil War, how we emerged from
the Great Depression, and won World War II? Do we not even recall that
during the administration of the last Democratic President, we had
balanced the budget after defeating a proposed constitutional amendment
and were reducing the deficit with billions of surpluses?
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are permanent.
They are not bills or resolutions that can be abandoned or fixed. They
are not just a bumper sticker or a sound bite. Each word matters to
hundreds of millions of Americans and future generations.
I have never seen--and I have been here 37 years--the solemn duty of
protecting the Constitution treated in such a cavalier manner. I wish
those who so often say they revere the Constitution would show it the
respect it deserves rather than treating it like a blog entry.

[[Page S4818]]

We have already seen scores of proposed constitutional amendments on
budgetary matters. None has been adopted and for good reason. The
Senate amendment referenced in the House bill is one of approximately
60 proposed so far this Congress. It remains a moving target, not a
finished product worthy of consideration as an addition to our
fundamental charter. The House bill itself proposed three different
constitutional amendments and a catchall to include some proposal not
yet introduced. Last night some members claimed that this catchall
somehow allows flexibility. If we are going to limit the authority on
the debt ceiling by requiring a constitutional amendment, there should
not be ambiguity in what the amendment would actually do to hardworking
Americans. This shows the lack of seriousness with which Republicans
have approached this entire matter.
These partisan constitutional amendment proposals are inconsistent
with the views of our Founding Fathers. George Washington did not want
our Constitution to constrain the national government from being able
to respond to events as warranted. He led this Nation into being and
knew that financial constraints had no place in the Constitution. The
Constitution expressly provides for the power ``to borrow money on the
credit of the United States'' and for Congress ``to lay and collect
taxes'' and duties and ``to pay the debts and provide for the general
welfare of the United States.'' That is what Congress has been required
to do since the outset and that is our responsibility today. We should
be acting without further delay to preserve the credit of the United
States and to provide for our people.
The proposed amendments are also inconsistent with the views of
Alexander Hamilton, a key author of the Federalist Papers and the
creator of the American financial system that allowed us to become the
greatest economic engine in the history of the world. The United States
was born in debt, of course, and debt has been needed to fund some of
America's greatest chapters. Hamilton even termed national debt at
times ``a national blessing.'' The Constitution allows for the Federal
Government to borrow money at certain times, for wars, infrastructure
building, and economic bad times. That fiscal policy can help drive
development and unite the Nation. It should not be turned into a
divisive wedge against the least powerful among us.
I am concerned this is another example of how some in recent years
have sought to impose their view by unilateral objection to compromise
with minority obstruction. That has, at times, seemed to be the rule in
the last few years. Some have tried to undermine the legitimacy of
President Obama. Filibusters and requirements for supermajorities have
become routine. They have stymied congressional action on behalf of the
American people.
This year should be a cautionary tale that convinces all Americans
that the risks of default and ideological impasses to them, to interest
rates, to financial markets, and to our household budgets are too
great. We need only recall the game of chicken some played with the
government shutdown earlier this year. The threat to push the United
States into default on its obligations for the first time in our
history is wrong. It is made possible by rules that empower a partisan
minority.

I cannot help but think if we don't take the steps we should, we will
see our interest rates go up. We will spend hundreds of billions of
dollars in extra interest to China, which they can spend on
infrastructure, medical research and education, but we won't have it
here in the United States. That is what the other side seems to want.
We saw this before, in 1996, when a Government shutdown and a debt
limit crisis went on for months as part of a partisan ``train wreck''
intended to extort President Clinton. It is happening, again, this year
as some seek to gain political advantage over President Obama. The
creditworthiness of the United States is too important to be sacrificed
for partisan political advantage but that is what is being threatened.
Indeed, this House-passed bill, with its proposed constitutional
amendments, makes that more likely, not less.
Charles Fried, President Reagan's Solicitor General, said a few years
ago that supermajority requirements ``are against the spirit and genius
of our Constitution, which is a charter for democracy; that is, for
majority rule.'' He was right then, when the Senate rejected an earlier
constitutional amendment on budgetary matters, and that truth remains
the same today.
We have seen the danger that irresponsible brinksmanship promotes. We
should guard against building into the Constitution a supermajority
requirement for fiscal policy. That invites political blackmail and
gridlock. We have seen enough of that already.
I suggest that Congress should not subject our ability to govern to
any greater hurdles that would empower the tyranny of the minority on
economic policy. Instead of hamstringing Congress with more
supermajority requirements, we should be looking for ways to increase
our ability to take necessary action to deal with a fast changing and
increasingly interdependent global economy.
The source of our budgetary problems does not lie with the
Constitution. The Constitution remains sound. What is lacking is the
political judgment and the courage to do what is right.
Having again sought to use the debt ceiling to create a political
crisis, congressional Republicans refuse to enact a program of shared
sacrifice to put us on a better financial path. In fact, Senate
Republicans filibustered the debate of a resolution calling for such a
plan.
It is telling that the Republican posture is now to require the
Constitution to be amended.
The last time we balanced the budget, not a single Republican voted
for that balanced budget, and yet it created enormous surpluses. These
proposed constitutional amendments will not cut a single dime of debt
from the Federal budget. Rather than deal with our problems, some want
to require that we deface the Constitution with a measure that will, by
its own terms, not be effective for 5 years, if it were to be adopted
by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and then ratified by three-
fourths of the States. Put another way, that is at least three election
cycles from now. They get their bumper stickers today, but kick the can
down the road for three election cycles.
Economists have noted that all of the last five Democratic Presidents
have reduced public debt as a share of GDP. The last four Republican
Presidents did the opposite with the country's indebtedness increasing
during their administrations. During President Reagan and Bush's
administrations the Federal debt more than tripled. During the Clinton
administration, budgets were balanced and we were paying down the debt
from the budget surplus being generated. Then, during the
administration of George W. Bush the debt nearly doubled again to more
than $10 trillion dollars.
We should not amend our Nation's fundamental charter of liberty to
include arbitrary and inflexible requirements in order to look tough on
spending, but without regard to the consequences.
A respected Republican Senator from Oregon, Mark Hatfield, had it
right 15 years ago when he said that a ``balanced budget comes only
through leadership and compromise.''
In 1992, the Senate and House took the hard votes to enact a
budgetary plan that led us to a balanced budget and budget surpluses
during President Clinton's time in office. Not a single congressional
Republican supported the plan. They favored talking about
constitutional amendments then, as well. The balance we achieved was
later squandered by the next President, as his policies also wreaked
havoc with the financial sector and threatened the entire economy. The
near meltdown of the financial markets during the last year of the Bush
administration and the resulting recession threatened to drive our
economy and that of the world into depression just 3 years ago.
President Obama and the Congress responded to pull it back from the
brink.
In a recent editorial, USA Today put it this way:

[A] funny thing happened after that amendment failed in
1997. Thanks to prior deficit-reduction deals and a strong
economy, the federal government ran a surplus in 1998 and for
the next three years. Then an economic downturn, huge tax
cuts, two unfunded wars and unfunded expansion of Medicare
plunged the budget back into the red, where it has been ever
since.

[[Page S4819]]

The moral is, Congress doesn't need a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget. It just needs the will to do
it and the willingness to compromise over how. But rather
than make the tough decisions about spending cuts and revenue
increases, it's always easier to vote for a balanced budget
amendment.

I will ask that copies of this and other editorials and opinion
pieces from leading newspapers be printed in the Record.
The House-passed bill is an end-run around the Constitution's
requirements for amendment. It does not have the required support of
two-thirds of even the House Chamber. Equally important, it is not
necessary. Congress has the power now to take steps to avoid a
government default and get us on the path to balancing the budget, just
as we did at the end of the Clinton administration. This debate is a
distraction from the hard work and hard choices that need to be made.
The good news is that we do not need to amend the Constitution to
balance the budget. Never have. Never will.
The proposed constitutional amendments would also perpetuate bad
policy. They are intended to enshrine tax breaks for millionaires and
wealthy corporations. It is no wonder that Alexander Hamilton described
supermajority vote requirements as ``poison.'' We need a balanced
approach to fix the deficit problem. We cannot merely cut our way to
balance any more than eliminating congressional earmarks will balance
the budget. We will need to close the most egregious tax loopholes and
everyone will have to sacrifice and contribute their fair share.
There should be no mistake: The proposed amendments to the
Constitution are not just unnecessary, they are unwise, unsound, and
dangerous. In my view, the House-passed bill and the proposed
amendments it requires demeans our Constitution. Never in our history
have we amended the Constitution--the work of our Founders--to impose
budgetary restrictions or to require supermajorities for passing
legislation. Yet now we are saying: Let's do it on a whim. Let's do it
without any hearings. Let's do it because we can do it.
It would for the first time enshrine minority rule and undermine our
constitutional democracy. It will destabilize the separation of powers
among our three branches of Government and put into the hands of
bureaucrats and judges the fiscal policy of the United States.
Who is to decide what the ``GDP'' was for a particular time period,
what is to be included and what is not? How often do those estimates
and artificial constructs get revised? Since when do economic surveys
and extrapolations become embedded in the Constitution? What justifies
the constitutional permanence of the number 18, as opposed to 17 or
18.5 or 20? Do we really want judges deciding whether an economics line
written into the Constitution has been breached? What remedies could
judges order if they find a breach? Who has standing to bring those
challenges? None of these questions has been adequately debated or
considered.
Alternatively, we could end up with future Congresses having to slash
Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, unable to respond to natural
disasters or national security emergencies. I note that the budget
proposed this year by Representative Ryan and the House Republicans
with all its draconian cuts and the end of Medicare as we know it would
not satisfy this arbitrary limit. Nor would the budgets of President
Reagan. Consider whether we could witness future Congresses unable to
meet the arbitrary limit and going into violation of that unsound
constitutional prescription and the Constitution itself?
At the beginning of our Republic, the national Government took on the
debts of the States. These proposed constitutional amendments are a
recipe for pushing costs and responsibilities onto the states. And
doing so at a time when State governments need our help, not more unmet
needs.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered several balanced budget
amendments over the years. The Senate proposal this year is even more
extreme than the version the Senate rejected in 1995 and again in 1997.
It is reckless and foolish to rush Senate consideration of such a
radical proposal to change our Constitution, without process or
consideration.
All Senators swear an oath to ``support and defend the Constitution
of the United States.'' That is our duty and responsibility. The
pending amendments to the Constitution threaten the constitutional
principles that have sustained our democratic form of government for
more than 200 years. The Constitution allows America to flourish and
adapt to new challenges. We have amended it only 17 times since the
Bill of Rights was added.
Our Constitution deserves protection. I stand with the Constitution
today and I will support the motion to table this ill-conceived
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the materials to which I referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From USA Today]

Our View: Budget Amendment Wrong Vehicle for Right Principle

In 1997, the Senate came within a single vote of passing a
constitutional amendment mandating a balanced federal budget.
Backers made all the same arguments you'll hear today when
the House takes up a new version of the old elixir: An
amendment will finally force Congress to balance the budget,
we'll never have a balanced budget without one, and so on.
But a funny thing happened after that amendment failed in
1997. Thanks to prior deficit-reduction deals and a strong
economy, the federal government ran a surplus in 1998 and for
the next three years. Then an economic downturn, huge tax
cuts, two unfunded wars and an unfunded expansion of Medicare
plunged the budget back into the red, where it has been ever
since.
The moral is, Congress doesn't need a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget. It just needs the will to do
it and the willingness to compromise over how. But rather
than make the tough decisions about spending cuts and revenue
increases, it's always easier to vote for a balanced budget
amendment.
And not just any balanced budget amendment. Rather than
embrace the same legislation that almost passed in 1997 and
would surely attract Democratic votes this time around,
backers have made the latest version so extreme that it's
virtually certain not to pass both chambers of Congress, much
less the three-fourths of states required for ratification.
This new version--part of the Republicans' ``Cut, Cap and
Balance'' plan-- sets a permanent limit on spending equal to
18% of the economy, a level it hasn't achieved since 1966.
(The plan of conservative House Budget Committee Chairman
Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would leave spending at around 20% of GDP
for the next two decades as Baby Boomers retire.) Raising
taxes would require two-thirds of votes by the House and
Senate.
Reading between the lines, it's clear that many supporters
care less about cutting the deficit than about rewriting the
Constitution to embrace an economic theory that shrinks
government and makes it almost impossible to raise taxes.
Certainly, balancing the budget is a sound goal. We've been
supporting it in this space for more than 20 years. Congress
and successive presidents have demonstrated an inability to
match revenue and spending. Something has to be done to
change the incentives.
But the fatal flaw in virtually any balanced budget
amendment is that it ties the government's hands in times of
economic distress. When those sorts of crises hit, the
government needs to be able to move quickly to rescue major
financial institutions and deploy ``automatic stabilizers,''
such as unemployment benefits and food stamps that steady the
economy until private-sector forces can create a recovery.
Failure to intervene caused the Great Depression of the
1930s, and had a balanced budget amendment been in place when
the financial crisis struck in 2008, there's no doubt at all
that we'd be living through another one now.
Backers also argue that because states have to balance
their budgets, the federal government should, too. But the
federal government has responsibilities the states don't,
most notably to protect national security. And when state
revenues collapse, the federal government serves as a
critical lifeline.
Preferable alternatives to a constitutional amendment
include pay-as-you-go requirements and firm spending caps
that require lawmakers to make choices, rather than run up
debt. But why make tough choices now when you can vote for a
gimmick that someday, maybe, would address the problem?
____

[From the New York Times, July 4, 2011]

More Folly in the Debt Limit Talks

Congressional Republicans have opened a new front in the
deficit wars. In addition to demanding trillions of dollars
in spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation's debt
limit, they are now vowing not to act without first holding
votes in each chamber on a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution.
The ploy is more posturing on an issue that has already
seen too much grandstanding. But it is posturing with a
dangerous purpose: to further distort the

[[Page S4820]]

terms of the budget fight, and in the process, to entrench
the Republicans' no-new-taxes-ever stance.
It won't be enough for Democrats to merely defeat the
amendment when it comes up for a vote. If there is to be any
sensible deal to raise the debt limit, they also need to
rebut the amendment's false and dangerous premises--not an
easy task given the idea's populist appeal.
What could be more prudent than balancing the books every
year? In fact, forcibly balancing the federal budget each
year would be like telling families they cannot take out a
mortgage or a car loan, or do any other borrowing, no matter
how sensible the purchase or how creditworthy they may be.
Worse, the balanced budget amendment that Republicans put
on the table is far more extreme than just requiring the
government to spend no more than it takes in each year in
taxes.
The government would be forbidden from borrowing to finance
any spending, unless a supermajority agreed to the borrowing.
In addition to mandating a yearly balance, both the House and
Senate versions would cap the level of federal spending at 18
percent of gross domestic product.
That would amount to a permanent limit on the size of
government--at a level last seen in the 1960s, before
Medicare and Medicaid, before major environmental legislation
like the Clean Water Act, and long before the baby-boom
generation was facing retirement. The spending cuts implied
by such a cap are so draconian that even the budget recently
passed by House Republicans--and condemned by the public for
its gutting of Medicare--would not be tough enough.
Under the proposed amendments, the spending cap would apply
even if the government collected enough in taxes to spend
above the limit, unless two-thirds of lawmakers voted to
raise the cap. More likely, antitax lawmakers would vote to
disburse the money via tax cuts. Once enacted, tax cuts would
be virtually irreversible, since a two-thirds vote in both
houses would be required to raise any new tax revenue. It
isn't easy to change the Constitution. First, two-thirds of
both the Senate and House must approve an amendment, and then
at least 38 states must ratify the change.
But expect to hear a lot about the idea in the days ahead
and in the 2012 political campaign, with Republicans eagerly
attacking Democrats who sensibly voted no.
Democrats, undeniably, have a tougher argument to make. A
fair and sustainable budget deal will require politically
unpopular choices on programs to cut and taxes to raise.
Americans deserve to hear the truth: There is no shortcut, no
matter what the Republicans claim. Nor is their urgency to
impose deep spending cuts now, while the economy is weak, as
Republicans are insisting.
What is needed is enactment of a thoughtful deficit-
reduction package, to be implemented as the economy recovers.
If politicians respect the voters enough to tell them the
truth, the voters may reward them at the polls.
____

[From the Washington Post, July 14, 2011]

A Balanced Budget Amendment Isn't the Answer

(Editorial)

Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget is a
bad idea that never dies. It's not surprising that the
current avalanche of debt has inspired renewed calls. Given
that the political system appears unable to discipline itself
not to spend more--trillions more--than it takes in, why not
tie lawmakers' hands to prevent them from piling ever more
debt on the national credit card?
The answer: The constitutional cure, while superficially
tempting, would be worse than the underlying disease. A
balanced-budget amendment would deprive policymakers of the
flexibility they need to address national security and
economic emergencies. It would revise the Constitution in a
way that would give dangerous power to a congressional
minority.
The latest push from lawmakers advocating the amendment is
to couple a vote on the proposal with an agreement to raise
the debt ceiling. On the surface, this argument seems benign
enough: Why not give states the chance to decide whether the
Constitution should mandate a balanced budget? But
policymakers have an independent responsibility to assess
whether an amendment is wise. This one, especially in its
latest incarnation, is not. It would require a two-thirds
vote in both houses of Congress to run a deficit in any year.
The same supermajority would be needed to enact any tax
increase. Compare those hurdles to the version of the
amendment that passed the House in 1995, which called for a
slightly lower three-fifths vote in each house to pass an
unbalanced budget or increase the debt ceiling and a mere
majority vote to increase taxes.
Worse yet, the latest version would impose an absolute cap
on spending as a share of the economy. It would prevent
federal expenditures from exceeding 18 percent of the gross
domestic product in any year. Most unfortunately, the
amendment lacks a clause letting the government exceed that
limit to strengthen a struggling economy. No matter how shaky
the state of the union, policymakers would be prevented from
adopting emergency spending, such as the extension of
unemployment insurance and other countercyclical expenses
that have helped cushion the blow of the current economic
downturn. The 18 percent cap on spending is so severe that
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's economic plan
would violate its strictures. So would any budget passed
under President Ronald Reagan. With health-care costs rising
and the number of retiring baby boomers increasing, it would
be next to impossible to keep spending to that low share of
the economy.
Both houses of Congress are expected to vote on the
amendment next week, but a responsible lawmaker's obligation
does not end at voting against this version. Even a less
draconian rendition--without the spending cap or with lower
thresholds for approving tax increases or running deficits--
would be the wrong approach. If a balanced-budget amendment
had been in place when the economy crashed in 2008, Congress
would have been unable to respond with a stimulus package or
efforts to stabilize banks and auto manufacturers. Even if
you believe that was the wrong policy response, it is
important that Congress retain the flexibility to craft the
correct one.
The fiscal situation is perilous. It's commendable that
members of Congress are trying to right it. The balanced-
budget amendment remains a deeply flawed approach to
achieving a noble goal.
____

[From the New York Times, July 17, 1990]

No to a Balanced Budget Amendment

The balanced budget amendment that the House will vote on
today is impractical, unenforceable and wouldn't end Federal
deficits. But it would litter the Constitution with a vacuous
promise, and invite greater cynicism in budget-making.
Deficits are arbitrarily defined and easily manipulated.
Achieving a specific level, like zero, has no special
economic significance. And trying to hit that target could
play havoc with valuable Federal programs and a declining
economy that might need deficit spending.
Yes, Congress should keep deficits from spiraling upward.
But there is no immediate crisis, and the deficit--compared
with the size of the economy--has already been cut in half
under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget law. More needs to be
done. The prudent way is to amend Gramm-Rudman to make it
work better, not spoil the precious Constitution in a
quixotic search for a quick fix.
The proposed amendment would require a three-fifths vote in
both houses to run a deficit. That, say the sponsors, would
provide the flexibility to run deficits when they are needed
but stymie unnecessary borrowing. But nowhere does the
amendment come to grips with political reality. Evasion would
be simple. Congress could move programs ``off budget,'' like
funds for the savings and loan crisis.
The amendment also would require Congress and the President
to agree on revenue and expenditure estimates. But
politicians have a common interest in fudging such
projections and pretending to pass a balanced budget. The
amendment's only safeguard against self-serving projections
is the proposed three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling.
That way legislators eventually would be forced to confront
the issue. Yet garnering enough votes would be easy since to
vote otherwise would bring the Government to a screeching
halt.
As for states that have balanced budget amendments, they
also have separate capital accounts. That allows them to
borrow money for long-term investments in infrastructure.
There is no separate capital account in the Federal budget.
So a requirement to balance the budget would create a
horrific incentive for Congress to avoid costly investments
in railroads, education and research.
Congress has been unable to make the Gramm-Rudman budget
law work fully as intended. But amending it to plug loopholes
would be far easier, and better, than drafting a skimpily
worded constitutional amendment.
____

[From the Washington Post, July 18, 2011]

Why a Balanced-Budget Amendment Is Too Risky

(By Norman J. Ornstein)

It is no surprise that a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget would reemerge now--there's the symbolism
of standing for fiscal rectitude and wrapping that position
in the cloak of the Constitution. And nearly all states have
constitutional provisions to balance their budgets, so why
should the federal government be different?
But the answer to that question is a key reason a
constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget would
be disastrous.
A sagging economy requires what we call countercyclical
policy, stimulus to counter a downturn and provide a boost.
The need for countercyclical policy became apparent in the
1930s, after the opposite response to economic trouble caused
a dizzying collapse; its application early in Franklin
Roosevelt's presidency succeeded in pulling the United States
out of the Depression (until a premature tightening in 1937-
38 pulled us back down into it).
Countercyclical policy is what every industrialized country
in the world employed when the credit shock hit in late 2008,
to avoid a global disaster far more serious than the one we
faced. Under a balanced-budget amendment, however, no
countercyclical policy could emanate from Washington.
Spending could not grow to combat the slump. And while the
Obama stimulus did not jump-start a robust economic recovery,

[[Page S4821]]

any objective analysis would find that absent the $800
billion stimulus, the economy would have spiraled down much
further.
State balanced-budget requirements make the option of a
federal balanced-budget amendment dangerous. When state
revenue declines during economic downturns, state spending on
unemployment and Medicaid increases. To balance their
budgets, states have to raise taxes and/or cut spending, the
opposite of what is needed to emerge from a fiscal funk. This
is the economic equivalent of the medieval practice of
bleeding to cure any ailment, including anemia. In 2009, the
fiscal drag from the states amounted to roughly $800 billion;
in effect, the stimulus from Washington merely replaced the
blood lost by the state-level bleeding.
Even balanced-budget amendments that have a waiver for
recessions are a risk because there is often a lag between a
recession itself and when it is recognized. That lag could
produce more inopportune bleeding.
The amendment under consideration has its own deep flaws.
The Republican proposal would cap spending each year at 18
percent of gross domestic product. Because the formula is
based on a previous year's economy, it would mean, according
to Republican economist Don Marron, a cap of more like 16.7
percent of GDP. This in turn means that the House-passed
budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, which calls for draconian
cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary
domestic programs, would not be nearly draconian enough.
Accounting for population changes, the 16.7 percent limit
would mean slashing Social Security and Medicare well below
the levels contemplated by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles
fiscal commission, and cutting discretionary spending by half
or more. It is hard to make the case that decapitating food
inspection, air traffic control, scientific research, Head
Start, childhood nutrition programs and more, as the
amendment would almost certainly require, would lead to a
healthier economy, itself a necessity to solve the debt
problem.
To be fair, the amendment has a safety valve--a two-thirds
vote of both chambers can authorize a deficit. But imagine
the chances of securing a two-thirds vote in this Congress.
Similarly, its requirement that 60 percent of both houses
vote to increase taxes or the debt limit would result in
political gridlock and opportunities for legislative
blackmail.
That this amendment has been endorsed by all 47 Republicans
in the Senate, and that a dozen Republicans have pledged not
to increase the debt limit without the amendment, are sad
commentaries on our politics. But the effects should this
amendment be adopted would be frightening.
Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute and coauthor of ``The Broken Branch: How
Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on
Track.''
____

[From the News Leader, July 17, 2011]

Balanced Budget Amendment Unwise

Instead of making a good faith effort to work toward a
compromise and actually do something good for the country,
Republicans in Congress once again are bandying about a feel-
good piece of legislation that could only further hogtie the
government.
The balanced budget amendment is a flag conservatives love
to run up the pole when they think they can get the American
public to hate free-spending Democrats a little bit more.
It's disingenuous at best. Congress should not require a
special rule that says its members use common sense when
making vast and expensive decisions. When it comes to
international conflicts, domestic terror threats and economic
recessions, the added steps of arguing to get around a
balanced budget amendment is not what is needed.
But when it comes to running the government, members of
Congress need to use forethought and that not-so-common
common sense to avoid unproductive tax cuts, conflicts
without reasonable exit strategies and the ability to find
solutions when deficits grow too large.
The timing of our own Rep. Bob Goodlatte's amendment might
sound quite reasonable to a lot of people right now. But it
isn't reasonable. It's another ploy by those who don't want a
solution to the real problem, but just a way to make gullible
followers believe they've found a solution to our budgetary
woes.
A balanced budget amendment does not equal smaller
government with less spending. Like any household, the only
way to balance a budget is by trimming expenses and adding
revenue. Pressed to balance a budget would force Congress to
raise taxes, especially if we are to hang on to high-cost
government entities like Social Security and Medicare.
It's not a solution. Demanding that a balanced-budget
amendment go along with any agreement toward raising the debt
ceiling simply will drag the whole thorny mess down even
more.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. I would appreciate the Chair letting me know when 4
minutes has expired.
Let us put this debate in context. In 2010, we had a major election
in the country. The people who were elected in the House made promises
to their constituents: If you send me to Congress, I will try to change
the system and deal with the fact our Nation is being run into the
ground.
We have more debt than any future generation can ever pay off, with
40 cents of every dollar we spend being borrowed money. If you are born
today, you inherit about $48,000 of debt. We are spending more on
Social Security payments than we collect in taxes. Medicare is
underfunded by $30-something trillion over the next 75 years. When you
add up all entitlement programs, we are about $50 trillion short of the
promises we have made.
Simply put, the House Republicans who were elected, during their
campaigns said: I believe Congress is out of control. We are going to
become Greece, and I want to do something about it.
What did you expect when they got here? They would say: Okay, I have
been taught the real way the Congress works, and it is all okay. They
did something about it. Congratulations. Anytime a person running for
office fulfills the promises they made to their constituents, they have
done a great service to democracy.
Cut, cap, and balance is the House effort to reduce spending not 10
years from now but this coming year. The problem with all these plans
and the very sincere efforts in the past to solve our debt problems--
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 between
President Clinton and the Republicans--and I was here then when we
achieved balance, because we restricted the growth of entitlements such
as Medicare, we restricted doctor and hospital payments, and we
actually balanced the budget for a year or two, but then we found out
how much it was hurting doctors and hospitals. We didn't institute real
reform. We began to nickel and dime doctors and hospitals, and guess
what. We stopped the program and we spent all the surpluses.
How do you get $14-trillion-plus in debt? Both parties are working
together. This has been a bipartisan effort for about 30 years to run
the country into the ground. I want a break. I want to have a
bipartisan effort to save the country from becoming Greece, and the
only way you can do that is to put ideas on the table.
Please, I say to my Democratic colleagues, let this debate go
forward. If this is not worth debating, what would be? How do you save
the country from becoming a debtor nation to the point the next
generation can't inherit the American dream? If you have a better plan
than cut, cap, and balance, please show it to us. We are willing to
raise the debt limit, but we are not going to do it without changing
the reason we got in debt.
The cut part reduces spending in 2012 by $100 billion. That will
cause some pain, but it is eminently doable. It is about 3 or 4 percent
of the Federal budget. I think most people at home believe they can cut
their budget 3 or 4 percent. If they had to do it to save their family,
they would. We are talking about saving the country.
The cap is an effort to control spending over 10 years to wipe out
the $1.4 trillion deficit. We are going to become Greece because we are
going to have 100 percent of debt to GDP in about the next 20 years,
and a trillion-plus deficit has to be changed. You can't do it
overnight, but you should be able to do it over 10 years.
The centerpiece of the House legislation is the balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution. What rational person believes that
Republicans on this side and Democrats on that side are ever going to
find a way to fix our Nation's problems without something new
happening?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 4 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
After 40 years, the evidence is in. The Congress is broken, and
unless you change the system fundamentally, we are going to run our
Nation into the ground. So I support a balanced budget amendment.
Here is the way it works: You have to get two-thirds in the Senate
and the House and three-fourths of the States

[[Page S4822]]

have to ratify the balanced budget amendment. Give the people of
America a chance to have their say. Let's pass a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution before we take the country and put it in
a situation beyond redemption. The only thing that is ever going to
change this body, I am sad to say, is some discipline imposed by the
Constitution itself.
I promise my colleagues to work with you where I can. But for the
rest of my time in the Senate--and I don't know how long it is going to
be--I am going to push a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,
because I don't trust the Congress to do the hard work on its own. And
when I say that, I mean Republicans too.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to table
the motion to proceed to H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of
2011. At this critical juncture in our Nation's history, the Federal
Government's record of fiscal recklessness proves we must work to
guarantee fiscal responsibility not just for our time, but for all
time. In that light, I believe it deserves debate and an open process
that would allow for changes and improvements so we can ultimately pass
a measure ensuring we are never again confronted with a vote to raise
our Nation's debt ceiling. And I am therefore deeply disappointed and
troubled that the majority in the Senate is not permitting us to
proceed to any further discussion or votes on this bill.
To achieve that goal, an indispensible element of the cut, cap, and
balance bill is the balanced budget amendment--and I have been a
champion of balanced budget amendments throughout my tenure. And in
fact, this legislation before us represents the one and only
opportunity we will likely have as we lead up to the debt ceiling
deadline to consider and pass just such an amendment. Given our
historic $14.3 trillion national debt, the record $1.6 trillion deficit
for the current fiscal year, and the unrestrained and skyrocketing
growth of government programs and services, we have little choice but
to seriously and thoroughly debate measures to bring certainty and
solutions to our broken budget process. We must commence a process that
will force our government to reevaluate priorities and live within its
means.
Indeed, this is a threshold moment in our Nation's history to
determine precisely what kind of nation we want to be. Will our fiscal
future be held hostage to interests overseas, threatening both our
national and economic security? Will we cede our destiny to countries
like China, which already holds approximately one-fifth of our gross
debt? Or will we seize the financial reins, pass a constitutional
balanced budget amendment, and reclaim our future?
Given what is at stake and Congress's perpetual disregard for fiscal
responsibility, frankly, the burden is squarely upon the opponents of
this resolution to justify how business as usual is sustainable for our
Nation. Indeed, last week the President asserted that, ``we don't need
a constitutional amendment to do our jobs.'' Well, if that were true,
if such an amendment isn't required for us to do our jobs, why then do
we find ourselves wallowing in this economic morass? If Congress
actually possessed the capacity to forestall skyrocketing debt of its
own volition, why are we mired in a major debt crisis?
So let us not be confused as we hear all of the usual diversionary
excuses why this amendment shouldn't pass. And having cosponsored a
balanced budget amendment 18 times since my very first days in
Congress, and having made statements in favor of it 35 times on the
Senate and House floor, believe me, I could recite them all by rote--
how a balanced budget amendment will be overly restrictive, spending
reductions too substantial, and that other measures would be equally
effective without changing our Constitution. I recall during a House
floor debate in 1992, colleagues asked: What if appropriations exceed
estimated revenues? What if the President and Congress underestimate
the amount of federal revenues in a fiscal year? What if it requires
budgetary adjustments as a result of a contracting economy, or
inaccurate estimates?
And my response then was the same as it is now--welcome to the real
world! That is what families, businesses and frankly, 49 States that
have adopted balanced budget requirements confront day in and day out.
State governors and legislators cannot leave their Capitols if their
budgets aren't balanced and the U.S. Congress should be no different.
Instead, we have not only a fiscal gap in Washington but a shameful
imbalance between the trust the American people have placed in us, and
the responsibilities we must carry out if we are to demonstrate
worthiness of that trust. The demonstrable reality is that, absent a
permanent mechanism that forces the Federal Government to set and
fulfill its fiscal priorities, Congress will blithely continue its
wayward practices. Indeed, the reason many lawmakers don't want a
balanced budget amendment is the exact reason why it's essential--and
that is to permanently end the types of legislative trickery that have
brought our country to the edge of a fiscal chasm.
The facts speak for themselves. On March 4, 1997, when the balanced
budget amendment failed to pass in the Senate by one vote, our gross
debt was $5.36 trillion, a number we rightly all found staggering! But
apparently it wasn't staggering enough, as the abysmal track record
following 1997 dramatically demonstrates.
In 1999, just 2 years after that fateful vote in which the balanced
budget amendment failed to pass, the debt rose to $5.6 trillion. By
2002--it was $6 trillion. In 2004--$7 trillion. In 2006--$8 trillion.
By 2009--it rose to $11 trillion, and last year to $13.5 trillion. The
bottom line is that from 1997 to 2011, the national debt has almost
tripled. Tripled--to an unprecedented $14.3 trillion. And now we are
asked to raise the ceiling again to $16.5 trillion.
Our government has balanced its budget only five times in half a
century. Five times. Our 1997 deficit was $22 billion; this year's is
projected to be 73 times as high, at $1.6 trillion. Does anyone know
any families out there in America who are voluntarily spending 73 times
what they spent in 1997? Families across the country have been paying
down their credit cards. They are facing reality, while Congress
continues to binge-spend, unabated.
In 1992, I said on the House floor that, ``we have no way of knowing
how bad things might get if we continue without the balanced budget
amendment.'' Well, regrettably, now we do know, and the situation is
dire as our outstanding debt now projected to reach 100 percent of GDP
this year--which some economists have labeled an ``economic danger
zone.'' In fact, economists report that gross debt levels above 90
percent of GDP slow economic growth by 1 percent per year, resulting in
approximately 1 million jobs lost. So I defy anyone to explain how we
could have amassed these mind-numbing levels of debt relative to our
GDP, and yet a balanced budget amendment is not a necessity.
We have tried every statutory structure possible yet nothing we have
implemented has withstood the test of time, circumvention, or clever
gimmickry to successfully and consistently bind both the House and the
Senate to provide continuity from Congress to Congress, to act in a
fiscally responsible manner. Nothing. And no one can disavow the
consequences of this lack of self-imposed accountability, which has
engendered shockingly deficient oversight and review of our spending
and Federal programs, both those already existing, and those proposed.
As a result, we continue to pile on program after program with
impunity.
We have witnessed the positive effects of statutory limits with past
budget enforcement mechanisms such as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act,
the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act that
saved upward of $700 billion, and those measures led to 4 years of
surpluses. But we allowed them to lapse, to wither on the legislative
vine, and that has led us directly to the ``wild west'' mentality of
today in which our entire budget and appropriations processes have
virtually disintegrated.
Congress is required by law to adopt a budget resolution by April 15,
yet in the past 36 years Congress has met that deadline just six times.
Throughout the last 10 years, Congress has approved a budget resolution
on only six occasions. Congress failed to complete action on a budget
resolution for 5 fiscal years--1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2011--

[[Page S4823]]

that all ended with large, spendthrift, omnibus appropriations measures
or continuing resolutions.
Last year, no budget and no appropriations bills passed for the first
time since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974, almost
resulting in a shutdown of the Federal Government in April 2011. We
have had 87 continuing resolutions in the past 14 fiscal years and
passed not even a single one of the 12 individual appropriations bills
for the current fiscal year. This tacit acceptance of dysfunction in
our budget and appropriations processes has only exacerbated the trend-
line of unbridled federal spending, and it is symptomatic of the
miniscule value Congress has assigned to averting economically
corrosive deficits and debt.
It is certainly not as though we lack the time to fulfill our legal
requirement to complete budgets by April 15--and just ask the American
people if they aren't required to meet their tax filing deadline on
April 15! In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
reports that from January 5, 2011, through July 1, 2011, the Senate has
been in session for 541 Hours, 243 hours of which have been spent in
Morning Business--that is 45 percent of our time spent in
nonlegislative activity. We couldn't have voted on a budget resolution?
No wonder only 18 percent of the country believes Congress is doing its
job, which only makes me wonder--who exactly are those 18 percent?
Even when we had the historic opportunity of 4 consecutive years of
Federal surpluses beginning in 1998, we squandered it with a deplorable
lack of foresight. In 2001, the last year of surpluses when our debt
was $5.8 trillion, I introduced a legislative trigger mechanism to link
long-term Federal budget surplus reductions with actual budgetary
outcomes and later led a bipartisan, bicameral group with Senator Bayh
to offer a subsequent amendment, recognizing that federal surplus
projections were merely that--projections. Yet both measures were
dismissed and derided.
And what has been the result? Since 2002, the Nation has run a
deficit each and every year and our gross debt has increased from $6.2
trillion to almost $15 trillion. Over the past 5 years alone,
government has managed to increase spending by a remarkable 40 percent,
contributing to the largest budget deficits in our history over the
last three consecutive years. We are now borrowing roughly 40 cents of
every dollar we spend.
The reality could not be more stark--the balanced budget amendment is
the only vehicle before us that will guarantee that a balanced budget
will be the rule, rather than the exception--because it will compel
Congress, through the ultimate authority of the Constitution--to return
to the regimentation and discipline of the budget and appropriations
processes, and thereby force the government to establish priorities and
abide by those priorities.
To paraphrase a statement I made during one particular balanced
budget debate in the House, the Constitution is not for window
dressing. It is not to score political points for any particular party.
It is not for more games and gimmicks--and in fact, as I have stated
many times, if it were a gimmick Congress would have passed it long
ago! Rather, the purpose is to protect current and future generations
from the crushing weight of ever-escalating debt that threatens
America's security and our very way of life.
There should be no mistake--debt and deficits are always a dangerous
combination, and especially at a time when we are experiencing an
unprecedented period of long-term unemployment with more than 22
million Americans unemployed or underemployed, and another 2.2 million
who want a job, but are so discouraged they stopped looking for work
altogether. Consider that, in the 29 months since President Obama took
office, unemployment has dipped below 9 percent for only 5 months, and
actually increased to 9.2 percent in June. And yet at a moment when
every dollar government spends should be wisely dedicated to job
creation to return us on the path to prosperity, we are forced to
commit an astounding $200 billion per year just to service our debt.
The cost of net interest alone will more than triple in the next 10
years to reach nearly $1 trillion per year in 2021. In fact, the CBO's
most recent long-term outlook states that by 2035 interest costs on our
Nation's debt would reach 9 percent of GDP, more than the U.S.
currently spends on Social Security or Medicare! And if interest rates
were just one percentage point higher per year, over ten years the
deficit would balloon by $1.3 trillion from increased costs.
Ironically, the conversations in Washington are about how the markets
will react if we do not raise the debt ceiling, but the markets are
already reacting. Standard & Poor's recently downgraded the Nation's
outlook from ``stable'' to ``negative,'' Moody's warned that our
``AAA'' rating could be lost if we do not reduce deficit spending, and
large funds like PIMCO are divesting holdings of U.S. bonds.
And let's be perfectly clear--it is not only our economy that may
suffer should we dive into the fiscal abyss. When ADM Mike Mullen, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, identifies the national debt as
the single biggest threat to our national security--that ought to
compel us to stand up and take notice. Yet in the absence of a balanced
budget amendment, any fiscal foothold we may gain with measures
implemented in this Congress could be summarily reversed by subsequent
Congresses--whereas, a balanced budget amendment would establish an
indissoluble contract with future generations that would cement fiscal
responsibility in perpetuity.
So let us be unambiguous what this debate is about. It is a
fundamental disagreement between those who are concerned about our
future economic standards, and those who are willing to erode the
economic opportunities that have become the very hallmark of the
American dream. You see, the dirty little secret is that those who
oppose a balanced budget amendment don't want their hands tied . . .
they don't want the fiscal restraints. Well, to them I say, this is
America--can't we do better?
Well, we can do better, and we must--and therefore, I will vote to
proceed with this legislation. Critically, it contains a provision that
exempts Medicare, Social Security, and veterans benefits from the
spending caps. At the same time, I recognize it is not a perfect bill.
In fact, again I believe there should be a full and open debate during
which members can offer amendments to improve this legislation and I
regret that the majority here in the Senate will preclude that
possibility.
I can foresee a number of improvements I would propose, including the
addition of a ``pay-for'' title in the legislation that would provide
for additional, mandatory savings including eliminating ethanol
subsidies and direct agricultural payments to high-income farmers, and
rescinding unspent stimulus and TARP funds, that could be better
utilized within Medicare and Medicaid. And we must also enact
straightforward budget policy reforms so that Congress no longer relies
on accounting gimmicks. These are but a number of the improvements that
would save billions of dollars and put our nation on a path toward
fiscal responsibility.
Again, the central question before us is as old as the founding of
our great republic--and that is, what kind of nation do we want to be?
That was the same question that historian David McCullough addressed
years ago before group of legislators when he discussed the milestones
achieved by Congress when leaders worked together.
``Think what your institution has achieved,'' he observed. ``It was
Congress that created the Homestead Act. It was Congress that ended
slavery. It was Congress that ended child labor. It was Congress that
built the Panama Canal, the railroads and the Interstate System. It was
Congress that created Social Security. It was Congress that passed the
Voting Rights Act. It was Congress that sent Lewis and Clark to the
West, and sent us on voyages to the moon.'' And some acts of Congress,
he pointed out, like the Marshall plan and lend lease, were achieved
under crisis conditions.
I honestly believe that this spirit of accomplishment can be re-
captured--and what could be a more fundamental place to start than with
the future fiscal health of our Nation? We can either bring disrepute
upon ourselves by continuing to mortgage our future to

[[Page S4824]]

cover the fiscal offenses of today or we can rise to the occasion, meet
our moral responsibility, and bequeath the generations to come a nation
unencumbered by the shackles of perpetual debt. The choice is ours, and
history awaits our answer.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the path to deficit reduction is difficult,
but some of the essentials are clear for all to see. We must cut
spending, which will require real sacrifice on the part of American
families. We must also add revenue, which has plunged so dramatically
thanks to Bush-era tax cuts that flow primarily to the wealthiest among
us. And we must avoid proposals that would see the most vulnerable
among us pay the highest price for deficit reduction.
That is the path a broad array of budget experts, Democratic and
Republican, tell us is the only way to relieve our debt problem. And it
is the path the American people tell us they understand that we need to
take. In survey after survey, poll after poll, Americans voice their
support for a balanced approach to deficit reduction, one in which we
cut spending, yes, but also address revenues by closing tax loopholes
and asking the wealthiest among us to share in the sacrifices that are
required to bring down the deficit. And they tell us, unequivocally,
that they do not want us to fall short of our commitment to the most
vulnerable, especially those who depend on Social Security and Medicare
for a secure retirement.
So this is the true path to deficit reduction: targeted and sometimes
painful spending cuts; closing tax loopholes, asking wealthy taxpayers
to join in the sacrifices we must make; and protecting the social
safety net on which our most vulnerable citizens depend.
We can choose that path, difficult though it may be. Or we could take
a path like the one laid out in this legislation--a path leading
straight off a cliff. The American public has made it clear to the
Republicans in the House of Representatives that its budget objectives,
as laid out in the draconian budget plan they sent to us earlier this
year, are unacceptable. Rather than heeding that message, Republicans
have sent us a plan that's even worse than the first.
The budget championed by House Republicans this year would have added
more than $6,000 a year to the typical senior's medical bills. The plan
before us today tacks another $2,500 or more onto that bill.
The budget plan from House Republicans this year cut billions from
Medicare to clear the way for billions in tax cuts for the wealthy. The
plan before us today would enshrine protection for those tax cuts in
the Constitution by requiring two-thirds majorities in both Houses to
enact any revenue increase, making it virtually impossible for future
Congresses to reverse such disastrous policies, or to remove tax
loopholes for oil companies or tax incentives for companies that ship
jobs overseas.
The budget plan from House Republicans this year would cost an
estimated 700,000 jobs by removing support from an already weakened
economy. The economy has, if anything, become more worrisome since that
budget came to us, but the legislation before us today follows the same
destructive path.
Let us be clear: What Republicans have proposed is to abandon our
commitments to the safety, security and prosperity of the American
people. They would slash Medicare and Social Security, and leave the
rest of the budget so threadbare that it could not cover our important
priorities. The American people want us to reduce waste and redundancy
in Federal spending. But they do not want us to stop protecting the air
we breathe and the water we drink, stop inspecting our food supply,
stop patrolling our streets or borders or educating our young people or
ensuring safe air travel or any of the things that help keep them safe
and healthy and secure. And yet there is no doubt that under this plan,
we would stop doing some or all of those things. We would have no
choice.
It is especially disturbing that many of the same people arguing for
these destructive policies are responsible for the policies that
brought on our deficit to begin with. Republicans are quick to blame
President Obama's policies for the deficit, but the vast majority of
our current woes stem from policies adopted during the previous
administration by Republican majorities in Congress. Republicans pushed
for massive tax cuts, tax cuts that weren't paid for and that flowed
overwhelmingly to the wealthy. Republicans pushed for a war of choice
in Iraq that was not paid for.
Our Republican colleagues like to compare the Federal Government to a
family. Families have to balance their budgets, they say; why can't the
government? Well, the Federal ``family'' had a balanced budget under
Democrats. Republicans wrecked our fiscal discipline with the Bush tax
cuts and wars that were not paid for, and now they want middle-class
and vulnerable Americans to pay the price. If the government is a
family, then Republicans are the guy who gets a big raise, blows the
whole raise plus the family savings on a hot rod, gets fired from his
job, loses his income, and decides to stop paying the kids' tuition so
he can keep the hot rod.
That is the path they propose, in this legislation. We can't follow
that path. The better path is difficult, but it is clear. I hope our
Republican colleagues will abandon the path of ruin, reject this
destructive bill and join us in making the hard choices that the people
we serve need us to make, and soon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of one of my
gravest concerns, which is our Nation's fiscal future.
All of us--Democrats, Republicans, liberals, moderates,
conservatives--face a choice about whether we will seize the moment
before us and confront our great fiscal nightmare or whether we will
let this moment pass us by. Clearly, we face tough and difficult
decisions. The decision we make as Members of Congress must be the
right and responsible ones or our beloved Nation and our hard-working
families will needlessly suffer.
In my State, when I became Governor, we faced challenging times--
growing debts and tough budget choices. When I was first elected in
November of 2004, the first thing I did afterwards was go to New York
and talk to the rating agencies--the people who knew our State best--to
find out what our gravest challenges were. I went back home and we
started making changes.
I did not blame anyone--any past administration, Republican or
Democrat or any other body. I was elected to fix things, not to put
blame on people. As West Virginians, not as Democrats or Republicans,
we set about fixing the problems of our State. We didn't raise tax
rates. People came to me and said we needed to do that, but I couldn't
look people in the eye and do that without trying to run our State more
efficiently.
The difference between what we did back home and what is happening
here in Washington is that we faced these choices together. We worked
across party lines in a responsible way to address our fiscal
challenges. In doing so, we set our State on the right fiscal path
and--let me stress again without sacrificing our moral responsibility
or obligations to our seniors, our veterans, and the people most
challenged in our society. We did that without raising their tax rates.
Right now, because we made the right choices, our State is doing
well. Even in these most difficult, challenging financial times, we
have had record surpluses every year--6 years in a row. For the last 3
years, we have been one of the few States in the Nation that has an
increase in our rating from Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch, the
rating agencies. We did this by living within our means. It is the
reason why I am such a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment.
It makes you put in place your priorities based on what your values
are. I truly believe most Americans support a balanced budget. Every
family I know in my State and in this Nation works off of some sort of
a budget. Nearly all our State governments operate on a balanced
budget. I have never seen another place, except here in our Nation's
Capitol--our government in Washington--that puts a budget together
based on what they want to spend, not on how much they have to spend.

[[Page S4825]]

But how we balance our budget is critically important. We have a
moral responsibility and an obligation to our seniors, our families,
and those who are the most fragile in our challenged society. That is
why I cannot support the cut, cap, and balance plan passed in the
House, which we will be voting on shortly. As a moderate Democrat who
is also a proud fiscal conservative, I agree with the bill's goal of a
balanced budget. However, I cannot support the path it takes.
The cut, cap, and balance plan does not reflect who we are or what we
want to be as Americans. I believe we need to cut but not so deeply and
without regard for our seniors and the most vulnerable. I believe we
need a cap on our spending but not at a level that could destroy the
most important and vital programs we have in our society. I strongly
believe we need a balanced budget amendment but only one that takes a
responsible and reasonable approach.
Clearly, we can all agree it is time for us to make the difficult
choice that will get our financial house in order, but we must do so
with the right plan in a responsible manner--one that keeps our
promises to our seniors, our veterans and, most importantly, our
children. And like it or not, neither Democrats nor Republicans can
tackle this enormous challenge on their own. This is not a political
problem, this is an American problem, one we all face. We should put
politics aside and truly put our country first.
Earlier this week, I saw that spirit at its finest. On Tuesday of
this past week, the Presiding Officer, along with 49 of our other
colleagues, came together to listen to the Gang of 6, who worked so
hard on ideas based on the President's fiscal debt commission.
Democrats and Republicans rolled out the first bipartisan proposal to
address the Nation's fiscal nightmare. At that meeting, 50 Senators
from both parties--evenly split--came together to listen to the hard
work of the Senators who spanned the ideological spectrum. At that
moment, the Gang of 6 turned into what we affectionately called the
``Mob of 50.''
And for the first time in these negotiations about our fiscal future,
we had a bipartisan plan with momentum that was putting our country
first.
We should not waste this moment. We must work together to cut
spending and attack waste, fraud, and abuse in every sector of our
country, every department, every program that needlessly costs our
Nation hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
We must work together to reform our Tax Code, not to raise tax rates
but to make fairness a priority. It is simply unfair that hard-working
middle-class families in West Virginia and all around this great
country would pay more in taxes than a Fortune 500 company such as GE,
which didn't pay a cent, or billionaires such as Warren Buffett who
pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Democrats and
Republicans must work together to remove unnecessary loopholes,
subsidies, and tax credits we simply cannot afford in light of our
ballooning debt.
It is time to end the three wars we have that we are spending so much
on and the resources we can't afford and the lives we can't spare.
I say to all this is a time for us to come together as Americans, to
put our politics aside, and do what is right for all of the future of
this generation and for this country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to say to my friend from West
Virginia, he has been a great addition to the Senate. We of course know
he replaced the great, the legendary Robert Byrd. The people of West
Virginia should be very happy with the performance of Joe Manchin and
his executive experience as the Governor of the State of West Virginia,
which had an impeccable record with surpluses every year he was there.
He has brought this talent to Washington, and it has been very helpful
to us all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 5 months ago, President Obama unveiled
the only concrete statement he has made to date on our Nation's budget
crisis, a 10-year budget plan so preposterous, so unequal to the moment
that it was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 97-0. The President's
response to this crisis was to pretend it didn't exist.
Two months later, the President doubled down on his vision for a
future of debt by demanding that Congress raise the debt limit, without
any cuts to spending or a plan to rein it in. It was a total abdication
of leadership and it wasn't sustainable.
So over the past several weeks, the President has been doing his best
impersonation of a fiscal moderate. He has talked about balance and
left it to others to fill in the blanks.
Here is what Democrats in Congress have proposed as a solution: more
spending and higher taxes to a debt crisis.
Yesterday, with the clock ticking, we heard reports of a volcanic
eruption among Democrats at the suggestion that we should solve this
crisis by focusing on reducing Washington spending.
The solution to this crisis is not complicated. If you are spending
more money than you are taking in, you need to spend less money. This
isn't rocket science. We could solve this problem this morning if
Democrats would let us vote on cut, cap, and balance and join us in
backing this legislation that Republicans support.
But the first step in solving a problem is to admit you have one, and
too many Democrats refuse to admit that Washington has a spending
problem. That is why Republicans have insisted that we focus on
spending in this debate.
The reason we have a $14 trillion debt is because no matter how much
money Washington has, it always spends more; and the only way to cure
the problem is to stop enabling it. Americans get it, and I want to
thank every American who has spoken out in favor of cut, cap, and
balance. Today, the American people will know where we stand.
A vote to table this bill is a vote to ignore this crisis even
longer. A vote to get on this bill is a vote for getting our house in
order.
I urge my Democratic colleagues one more time to reconsider their
position. Join us in support of a future we can afford.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to all my friends, and new Senators,
welcome to the United States.
This is a vote on the piece of legislation that was described by my
friend, the chairman of the Judiciary, as well as anyone else: It is
violative of our Constitution.
This is a vote on this matter, and we are going to dispose of this
legislation as it needs to be so President Obama and the Speaker can
move forward on a matter that will have some revenue in it and send it
over here, and we can move forward to complete our work to make sure we
don't default on our debt.
As a result of our conversation here, I move to table the motion to
proceed to H.R. 2560 and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Gillibrand) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester

[[Page S4826]]

Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--46

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--3

Gillibrand
Kerry
McCain
The motion was agreed to.
<bullet> Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the
vote on the motion to table the motion to proceed to the Cut, Cap, and
Balance Act, H.R. 2560. If I were able to attend today's session, I
would have supported the motion to table the motion to proceed to the
Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, H.R. 2560.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that due to my attendance
at a dear friend's funeral this morning, I was not in the Senate to
cast my vote for the cut, cap and balance legislation. I fully support
cut, cap and balance and I am proud that Republicans put forward a
concrete proposal to cut spending, balance the budget, reign in the
spiraling debt that imperils our children's future and ensures that our
Nation continues to meet its obligations.
The Democratic leadership has failed to put forward any meaningful
proposal to break this impasse, but instead continues to set up
procedural road blocks to keep Republican plans from passing and force
votes on nonbinding legislation that will do nothing to solve our
problems. The Democrats, led by President Obama, continue to insist
that our fiscal difficulties can be fixed by raising taxes on
individuals and small businesses--the exact policies that will deepen
our economic woes, not fix them.
Both parties must now find a reasonable, responsible path forward to
address head-on our debt crisis, end the mortgaging of our children's
future and make certain that our Nation meets its debt obligations, as
we Americans always have. If Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Ronald
Regan could find agreement on such matters, we can too. We must put
politics aside and do what is right for our Nation.<bullet>
<bullet> Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, no one disputes that we must
act now to reduce our growing debt. The interest we pay on our debt
costs us dearly in lost opportunity to invest in America. We spend
millions of dollars a year paying interest to countries, like China,
that we should be investing here in America to create jobs and get our
economy moving again. At the same time, it is essential that we do not,
for the first time in history, fail to pay our obligations and default
on our debt. Doing so will only make our economic and debt challenges
more difficult, and could make it almost impossible to turn our economy
around.
Unfortunately, I think this legislation is shortsighted and mistaken.
It neither guarantees that the United States will not default on its
obligations, nor does it provide a balanced blueprint to addressing our
long-term budget obligations. Instead, it would constitutionally
protect tax breaks for millionaires and special interest while forcing
benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare beyond those proposed in
the House Republican budget.
This legislation also distracts from making the hard choices we need
to make to reduce the deficit and at the same time create jobs and grow
our economy. The legislation makes it almost impossible to increase
revenues, even on the millionaires and billionaires who are doing just
fine in this economy. It also fails to reduce Pentagon spending, which
accounts for more than half of our discretionary spending budget,
forcing more pain on families, seniors and other hard-working
Americans.
We must address our budget challenges, but we cannot do so on the
backs of our seniors and working families. For these reasons, I am
opposed to this legislation, and while I was ill and could not vote, I
would like the record to show that I would have voted to table the
motion to proceed on HR 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. I am
strongly opposed to this legislation.<bullet>

____________________