A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my clear and unequivocal support for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, Senate Resolution 10.

With our out-of-control and unsustainable debt threatening nothing less than the American dream and the opportunities that will be available for our children and our grandchildren, we need to pass a meaningful balanced budget amendment, and this, in my view, can be one of the single most important steps we can take to get America's fiscal house in order and to save our country from looming insolvency.

Madam President, 49 States in this country have some requirement to balance their budget. The Federal Government should be no different. My home State of New Hampshire has a legal requirement to balance its budget and has long followed this commonsense tradition of fiscal responsibility.

This is a subject I have discussed extensively with my constituents over the last year while I have done townhall meetings throughout our State focusing on our Nation's debt crisis. I have done a PowerPoint presentation to show my constituents the hard numbers on the fiscal state of this country. And it is deeply troubling where we are today: 3 straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits, over $15 trillion dollars in debt, Medicare and Social Security on a path to insolvency as early as 2024 and 2036, respectively, and nearly half of our debt--47 percent--currently is being held by foreign entities, and the single biggest foreign holder of our debt is China.

I also talk about spending and deficits in terms of how it relates to your average New Hampshire family. In New Hampshire, if you use Washington's budgeting logic where we are borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar--in 2008, the New Hampshire median household income was $66,000. If you used Washington logic, the amount that family would spend would be $107,000 or $41,000 more than they earned. That would never fly in New Hampshire where families sit around their kitchen tables and they use their common sense to balance their budget. Yet in Washington we continue to perpetuate this borrowing to sustain our government every day.

If you look at where we are, one of the most troubling statistics that really impacts our economic growth is the share of our gross debt to the size of our economy or our GDP. That is now 100 percent. Just 5 years ago, that ratio was closer to 60 percent.

As many of us in this Chamber are aware, economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff have concluded in a study that over the past century, for nations that reach where we are, where total debt reaches over 90 percent of the size of our economy, there is a negative impact on economic growth. And we can expect lower job growth and fewer economic opportunities. We certainly cannot afford that in this troubling time for Americans.

So not only do we need to get our fiscal house in order because it is the right thing to do so we are not dependent on other countries such as China to fund our government, we also need to do it so we can provide opportunities for future generations of Americans.

New Hampshire citizens understand we cannot keep spending money we do not have. They make those commonsense decisions on their own family budgets. Small business owners in New Hampshire are astounded when I tell them our Federal Government is operating without a budget. They would never run their businesses without a budget. But they do not understand why Congress cannot even perform such a basic function of passing a budget blueprint.

It has now been 958 days since the Senate last passed a budget. I have to say that I was really honored and excited to be the newest appointment to the Senate Budget Committee. However, I have been incredibly, incredibly disappointed that we have not in that committee done the hard work that needs to be done, the thing that is right for this country--to sit down, to make the hard choices, to put together a budget blueprint and to pass a Senate budget, to have the robust debate on the Senate floor about how we prioritize our spending and how we live within our means. The American people deserve better. They deserve us to do our job and to pass a budget for our country that is fiscally responsible.

In that time, in those 958 days that the Senate has not passed a budget, the Nation's debt has increased by $3.9 trillion. When you think about it, it is deeply troubling. I am hopeful that if we bring forward and pass the requirement of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, it will also force Congress to do the basic function of putting together a responsible and balanced budget for our country.

I cannot emphasize enough the urgency of passing this budget control measure, the balanced budget amendment, Senate Resolution 10. I think it is important for my constituents and the American people to know, if we pass the balanced budget amendment in this body, in the Congress, this is putting the question to you, to the American people, to decide, do you want the Federal Government to balance its budget?

So when we pass an amendment to the Constitution, we are simply sending along to the States the decision of should we amend our Constitution. I cannot think of anything more important than sending that question to the American people, to our State legislatures, to decide should we live within our means; should we be bound by the same requirements the States have, by the same common sense we find at home to balance our budgets and live within our means.

Madam President, for fiscal year 2011 we spent 24.1 percent of our GDP. That is well above the historical spending average of a little over 18 percent, if we go back to 1960 where the revenue we had has come in. So we are at a huge trajectory of spending at 24.1 percent. Yet in 2011 our revenues only accounted for 15.4 percent of our economy because of the difficult times we are in relative to our economic growth.

Under the Republican proposed balanced budget amendment, we put the handcuffs in place that are needed to put us on a path to eliminate this by capping Federal spending at the historical level of revenue at 18 percent. Why is this important? It is important because we can't continue to spend well beyond our means. We have to acknowledge that a meaningful balanced budget amendment will also cap Federal spending at its historical levels.

It is not difficult to see what will happen if we don't get control of our fiscal situation right now. Budget shortfalls will only get much worse, driven by massive increases in entitlement spending and interest payments, and the reality is the failure to act will result in America going the way of what we see happening in Europe right now, the way of Greece, Italy, and Ireland: our economy in tatters and our standard of living greatly diminished.

We cannot let that happen to our country. We must act now. We must pass this balanced budget amendment in the Senate and send that question to the House and also send that question to the States so the people of this country can decide if we should be responsible and have to balance our budget. Left unchanged, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and other mandatory health programs alone will eventually grow to consume every single dollar of the revenues our government takes in.

Without reform, the Social Security trustees project the program will be insolvent by 2036. As a result, beneficiaries may see a benefit cut of 23 percent in just 25 years. The Medicare trustees project it is even more immediate and dire. The Medicare trustees project Medicare will be insolvent by the year 2024.

It doesn't have to be that way. We need to show the political will and courage to reform these programs, make them sustainable, and to reform them and preserve them for those like my grandparents, who are relying on them, and for future generations to know that these programs will be there. But if we fail to take this challenge on now and continue to kick the can down the road, then these programs will be greatly diminished, and they will continue on an unsustainable path that is bankrupting our country.

In this debate, it is important to remember that in 1997 the balanced budget amendment failed to pass this body by only one vote. At that time, our national debt stood at $5.4 trillion. We now have a $15 trillion debt. That debt equates to about $128,000 per household. That is a huge amount of money to an average household. Under the Budget Control Act, which I opposed last August, the debt will be allowed to reach a new limit of $16.4 trillion, left unchecked.

Congress has raised the debt limit 79 times since 1960, and in just 4 short months since the debt limit was last increased, over $700 billion has been added to our debt, since we took that action in August.

Speaking of the debt limit, the Republican-backed balanced budget amendment will require a congressional supermajority to raise the debt ceiling. That means three-fifths of both Chambers will have to approve unless it is a time of war. That would require a majority in a time of war. That is a very important measure because we can't continue to increase the debt limit without addressing the underlying drivers of this fiscal crisis that faces our country.

I also want to briefly touch on taxes. The Republican version of the balanced budget amendment, S. Res. 10, would require a supermajority to raise tax rates. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Under S. Res. 10, a two-thirds approval of both Houses of Congress would be required for any bill ``that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue.''

My friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing an alternative--S. Res. 24--to the balanced budget amendment that I have just described. While this proposal sounds good, it fails to squarely address the magnitude of the challenges we face. It doesn't apply to all spending. It also doesn't contain a cap on spending. It does nothing to strengthen our entitlement programs, and it does nothing to make it harder to raise taxes. It does nothing to make it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling. In my view, it is insufficient to be meaningful to pass along to the States for a vote.

The Republican alternative contains the elements that I just talked about--a balanced budget, spending caps, a supermajority to raise taxes, and making it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling, unless and until we address the underlying causes of our fiscal crisis.

This issue is deeply personal for me. I fundamentally believe all of us have a duty to make this country stronger than we found it. As the mother of two young children, Katherine, now 7, and Jacob, 4 years old, who are both very excited for Christmas, I want the American dream to burn as brightly for them as it has for me. It is not too late for our country or for this body to make the tough decisions that will put our country on a fiscally responsible path.

I feel a solemn duty to make sure we make those choices now and that we don't continue to kick this can down the road to future generations and burden them with a debt they did not incur. The last thing I want is for my children to ask me: Mom, you knew we were going bankrupt. What did you do to save our country?

Now is the time for courage. All of us recognize the enormity of the fiscal challenges we face, as well as the dire cost of continued inaction in this body. The Republican balanced budget amendment provides a solid foundation that will set our Nation on a fiscally responsible path. This is an urgent need that we have right now. We cannot do what we did in 1997 and fail to pass the balanced budget amendment. We should send this question to the States and let them decide, let the people of this country decide: Should we live within our means? Should we balance our budget? Should we deal with this debt crisis now and make sure our children and all children and our grandchildren will have the same opportunities we have been blessed to have in the greatest country on Earth?

I urge my colleagues to support S. Res. 10.

Mr. President, good to be with you again. I spent most of the morning with you and now part of the afternoon.

This is a difficult issue for a number of us in the Senate because we have friends on both sides of this issue. It is also a difficult issue for a lot of people because we do not want to be unmindful of the concerns raised legitimately by merchants for a number of years about debit charges they have had to pay, and we don't want to be unmindful of the concerns raised by banks, whether they be big or little, or by credit unions.

I was talking to one of my colleagues who said: I don't want to vote on this again. We had to vote on this once. I don't want to vote on this again. As one guy said: I certainly don't want to have to vote on it twice.

Another colleague said to me: I don't like the idea of just kicking the can down the road, having a 24-month pause and then maybe a new Congress and new administration and maybe it will all go away. That is not what I am interested in doing.

Another of my colleagues said to me: Why don't we fix this problem? Rather than kick the can down the road for 24 months, why don't we say: Let's fix this problem. As it turns out, four of our colleagues who voted with the Senator from Illinois, the author of the Durbin amendment, voted with Durbin originally when the amendment was first offered. They actually sat down, two Democrats and two Republicans, they and their staffs, hammered it out, worked with Senator Tester and they worked with Senator Corker as well and that is who wrote the bill. Did they get input from the merchants? I am sure they did. Did they get input from the banks? I am sure they did. I would hope so. That is the way this place ought to work, where Democrats and Republicans actually work together on legislation, and we seek input from not just banks, not just credit unions, not just merchants, but consumers as well.

I think back on the life I have been privileged to lead. I spent a lot of years in the Navy and had the privilege to serve my State as Governor and now in the Senate with my colleagues. I know any number of times in my life I have done things I was sure were the right thing to do but had an unintended consequence. I was sure I did the right thing, but as things turned out, there were consequences I didn't anticipate, and what I had to do was go back and help be part of the solution in addressing those unintended consequences.

Senator Durbin put his finger on a big problem, and the problem he put his finger on is--actually, more than 1 year ago but a number of years ago--we have a situation with the use of debit cards where merchants are disadvantaged. They don't have a lot of options, and they end up having to pay large fees to banks--sometimes big banks but sometimes small banks--and they don't have that much choice. They don't like that. They would like to see us do something about it. So what Senator Durbin proposed is a way to deal with that.

He intended in his legislation not only to try to help consumers and merchants, but he also tried to protect small banks, those with under $10 billion in assets, and to protect credit unions and their members.

I wish to see if we have a quote here. These banks have different regulators, credit unions have different regulators. I don't have quotes from all of them, but here is a quote Senator Tester shared with us. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, when he was talking about the unintended consequences. Here is what Sheila Bair of the FDIC said. She is talking about institutions, community banks, smaller ones, under $10 billion of assets.

We are concerned that these institutions may not actually

receive the benefit of the interchange fee limit exemption

explicitly provided by Congress, resulting in a loss of

income for community banks and ultimately higher banking

costs for their consumers.

She said that in her testimony before the House.

John Walsh is the Comptroller of the Currency. He said:

We believe the proposal takes an unnecessarily narrow

approach to recovery of costs that would be allowable under

the law and that are recognized and indisputably part of

conducting a debit card business. This has long-term safety

and soundness consequences--for banks of all sizes.

That is what they said. They think we have a problem. Their job is not to be the lapdog for financial institutions. Their job is to regulate financial institutions.

I tried to think about some times where we have abuses to clean up and how we go about doing it. This sounds strange for a guy from Delaware to say this. We had big abuses in credit cards. It was pretty much impossible for most people to get a credit card application in their mailbox, look at that application--maybe they got six of them that same week--and decide which of those four, five or six were actually in their best interest to fill out and submit. We had credit card banks taking advantage of people in ways that were untoward, I think unethical. What we did in the Banking Committee, where I served, is we held not just a hearing, we held extensive hearings for months-- for months. We did the same thing in the House, and we asked the Government Accountability Office to help us with an in-depth study of the credit card industry to try to decide what changes were needed. There are watchdog agencies. They came back and said these are our recommendations. Out of all those hearings came a lot of ideas too.

The Senate passed legislation. They passed legislation in the House. The banking industry didn't like it much. They complained about it. We went to conference with the House and the Senate and worked out a compromise. The banking industry didn't like it much. The regulators of the banks were required to help us implement the legislation and they had to write regulations. They had to write regulations that were true and consistent with the underlying law and they did and the banks didn't like it much. They were promulgated, some immediately, some over several months, and eventually they got the job done. I think consumers are better off. Did banks make as much as they did on credit cards? No. We know that personally in our State. But are consumers treated fairly? Yes; they are. Part of what happened was extensive hearings involving GAO, getting input from a lot of folks with different views on this, and then acting in light of the process.

I think what is different in this case, I don't believe the Banking Committee--I can't speak for other committees in the last Congress, but I don't believe the Banking Committee or other committees in the House or Senate actually had the opportunity to hold hearings and bring people in, in the last Congress, and say this is what is good about the amendment proposed by our friend from Illinois and this is what is bad. I don't think we had GAO--GAO did not have the opportunity to come in and say we were never invited to come in. We never invited them to come in on the debit card side and, therefore, their voices were not available to us, and that is unfortunate.

Here is what happened. Legislation was passed. Senator Durbin offered it with the best of intentions. He said: We have a problem. We should fix it. Here is my suggestion. He essentially said we should regulate the marketplace. We should regulate the marketplace for debit cards. The free marketers said: No; we ought to let market solutions work, harness market forces--something I generally agree with--but in this case they were not working so he came up with an alternative and said let's see if there is another way to do this. Unfortunately, with the best of intentions, we have these unintended consequences. The question is, What do we do about it?

We have a situation where I am not sure consumers are going to be advantaged by the current law as it reads. Big banks, they will be OK. They can take care of themselves. But a lot of smaller banks, the people squawking the loudest, the folks from the community banks, they have been beating on my doors and other doors, and the folks from the credit unions, they are less able, frankly, to look out for themselves, and that is despite the intent, the explicit effort by the author of the amendment, to provide them exemption. The regulators say, frankly: Sorry. It does not work.

That suggests to me that we hit a pause button, we hit a pause button not for 2 years but at least for the next as much as 6 months and say to the regulators: OK. Do now what we should have done a year or two ago. Complete an in-depth study, look at the concerns of the merchants, look at the concerns

of the consumers, look at the concerns of big banks, middle-size banks, small banks and credit unions, and come back to us with what you think to be a fair approach. You have 6 months to do it. If you can do it in less time, let's do that.

If they come back to us and say: Look, the legislation as written, current law, is fine for consumers, it is fine for institutions of all sizes and is fair to the merchants--if they come back and say this, basically, the Durbin language in the law prevails. If they say that is it, the regulators have spoken and we are done.

If they come back and say we have a problem here, these outfits, the regulators, have a period--I think it is up to 6 months--to figure out regulations that can then be implemented after the 6 months to fix the problem. Some will say how do we know they will do anything for consumers? They just did it for credit cards 2 years ago, and the bankers did not like it. They still do not like it. We have the pain in my State in the employment numbers to reflect that they didn't like it. We still live with that pain and discomfort, but who is better off? Consumers are better off. They are better off because Congress did its job. We were deliberate about it. We sought input from all sides. The regulators did their job, and it has been implemented in a prompt way.

I wish to close maybe with this thought.

There is an outfit called Michaels. We have a Michaels store not far, actually, from where my family and I live in Wilmington. They sell art supplies. It is a national chain and a pretty successful company. They were in the news big time recently--not because of a good story but because of a data breach story. A lot of folks who had accounts with them, their customer information was disclosed. There was great concern on the part of the consumers, the customers, that there had been this data breach and some of their sensitive information was going to be at risk. It involved hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of customers.

To whom did they turn to fix this problem? Did they turn to Michaels and say: You fix this problem. No, as it turns out, they didn't. Some probably did, but most probably didn't. Do you know to whom they turned? They turned to their banks. They turned to the issuers of the credit cards and said: You fix this problem. You issue a new credit card for us, and you cover this for us. And the banks did that. They were beholden to do that.

Finally, I am not here to carry the water for the banks. I think we are all here to do what we think is right. To my colleagues who are undecided on how to vote--I know some are. They don't want to choose between their two favorite children, whether it is the merchants on the one hand or the financial institutions, credit unions on the other hand. They don't have to choose between two children. They can ask themselves: What is the right thing to do? Try to understand what is in this amendment, a bipartisan amendment prepared by some of the people I most respect here in this body, and drill down on that. Listen to guys like Barney Frank who don't have a dog in this fight but have a lot of knowledge, and try to make the decision they think is the right decision.

Thank you very much.

Madam President, I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire on some of what she said with respect to facing up to our deficit and debt. This debt does present a clear threat to our country, and it must be confronted. I agree with her entirely on the question of the importance of that and the priority of it.

I disagree entirely with respect to this amendment that is before us. I came to the Senate floor to address this balanced budget amendment because I believe it would be a profound

mistake for this country. In fact, I believe if this amendment were in force today we would be in a depression. I believe adopting this amendment would have and could have disastrous consequences for the economy and for the future strength of this Nation.

I would like nothing more than to have a balanced budget. I believe in balanced budgets. I believe this debt represents a clear threat to the country. But I do not believe a constitutional amendment is the way to achieve it. I believe the way to achieve it is for us to make the decisions to balance the budget, to cut the spending, to raise the revenue, to actually balance the budget--not leave it to a constitutional amendment or to unelected judges or to the States but to make those decisions here and now.

I have been part of the fiscal commission where 11 of 18 of us agreed to a plan to get our debt under control. I have also been a part of four Democrats and four Republicans who have produced a plan that would get us back on track.

Here are the key provisions in the proposal before us. First, it would require the adoption of a balanced budget each year unless two- thirds of the House and the Senate voted to waive the requirement.

Second, it would cap spending at 18 percent of the prior year's gross domestic product, again, unless two-thirds of the House and the Senate voted to waive the requirement.

We have not had a spending level of 18 percent of GDP in as long as I can remember. So that is a formula I think that goes against the reality of the needs of this country--not only the need for support for education but also for our national defense.

It would prohibit passage of any bills that increased revenue unless two-thirds of the House and the Senate voted to waive the requirement. The Senator just showed a chart that showed revenue at the lowest level it has been in 60 years as a share of our national income. Again, revenue is the lowest it has been in 60 years. This constitutional amendment would say it would take a two-thirds vote to change it. Really? Revenue is the lowest in 60 years, and we are going to have a two-thirds vote to change it? Boy, that is a guarantee we are not going to have the necessary revenue to balance the budget anytime soon.

It would require a three-fifths vote in the House and Senate to increase the debt limit.

Here are what I see as the key problems with this proposal. First, most important, it would restrict our ability to respond to economic downturns. It would effectively block the implementation of countercyclical policies. This would only compound economic declines and possibly throw us into a recession or even into a depression.

Two of the best known economists in this country did a review of what would have happened absent a Federal response after the events of late 2008. Alan Blinder, former deputy head of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, the head of Moody's Economics, a former campaign adviser to John McCain, did an analysis of what would have happened in this economy absent the Federal response--the TARP and the stimulus. Their conclusion is that had we not had that Federal response, we would be in a depression today. We would have 16 percent unemployment. We would have 8 million more people unemployed.

This amendment would have prevented that response. What a mistake, what a profound mistake. Further, this amendment uses Social Security funds to calculate balance and subjects the Social Security Program to the same cuts as other Federal spending. Further, it shifts ultimate decisions on budgeting to unelected and unaccountable judges.

Finally, The State ratification process for a balanced budget amendment could take years to complete.

We don't have years. We need to act now, and we don't need an excuse for inaction by saying: Oh, we passed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that will not take effect for God knows how long.

Here are some additional problems that are specific to this proposal. The 18 percent of GDP spending cap is Draconian and unrealistic, particularly given the retirement of the baby boom generation and rising health care costs. The restriction on legislation that raises revenue would effectively prevent any increase in revenue, even if it is part of a bipartisan, balanced debt reduction plan.

What a profound mistake that would be. Again, I repeat: Revenue as a share of our national income is the lowest it has been in 60 years. Spending as a share of our national income is the highest it has been in 60 years. So this proposal would absolutely handcuff us on the revenue side of the equation, locking in deficits for God knows how long. It doesn't make sense.

Making it more difficult to raise the debt limit, this proposal increases the likelihood of default. We saw the turmoil created by our near default this summer. Why would we want to make an actual default far more likely to occur?

We can also see that on our current course, by 2021, spending on Social Security, Defense and other nonhealth care spending and interest alone will reach more than 18 percent of GDP. What is missing? Medicare. If we stay on our current course, under this balanced budget amendment, Federal spending on Medicare would have to be completely eliminated. Let me repeat that. On our current course, by 2021, spending just on Social Security, Defense, nonhealth care spending, and interest alone will reach more than 18 percent of GDP. What is missing? Medicare. Medicare would have to be completely eliminated if we aren't to change what we are doing with Social Security, not to change what we are doing with Defense and other nonhealth care spending. Obviously, we can't do anything about the interest expense. That has to be paid.

It is notable an 18-percent spending limit is so unrealistic that even the House Republican budget would violate this restriction in every single year. Let me repeat that. This 18-percent restriction on spending is so unrealistic that even the House Republican budget would violate this provision in each and every year of its life.

Norman Ornstein, a respected scholar at the American Enterprise Institute--a Washington think tank--described a balanced budget amendment as a very dumb idea. In a column in Roll Call earlier this year, he wrote:

Few ideas are more seductive on the surface and more

destructive in reality than a balanced budget amendment. 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.

Mr. Ornstein has it exactly right. A balanced budget amendment would have a devastating impact on our economy at the worst possible time. Mr. Ornstein is not alone in that sentiment. Macroeconomic Advisers, a leading economic forecaster firm, had this to say in a company blog posted in October:

If actually enforced in fiscal year 2012, a balanced budget

amendment would quickly destroy millions of jobs while

creating enormous economic and social upheaval. The effect on

the economy would be catastrophic.

Let me repeat that. The effect on the economy would be catastrophic.

Continuing the quote:

No model could capture the ensuing chaos and uncertainty,

which would make matters far worse.

Macroeconomic Advisers went on to conclude that enforcing a balanced budget amendment in 2012 would result in 15 million fewer jobs.

Let me repeat that: 15 million fewer jobs. That is largely in line with the Blinder and Zandi analysis of what would have happened absent the Federal response to the economic downturn.

Here is what Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration economic adviser, wrote in a New York Times online column in November:

The idea of mandating a balanced budget through the

Constitution is dreadful. And the proposal that Republican

leaders plan to bring up is, frankly, nuts. The truth is that

Republicans don't care one whit about actually balancing the

budget. If they did, they would want to return to the

policies that gave us balanced budgets in the late 1990s. Of

course, no Republican favors such policies

today. They prefer to delude voters with pie-in-the-sky

promises that amending the Constitution will painlessly solve

all our budget problems.

We must absolutely address the Nation's deficit and debt. Our friends on the other side have that exactly right. Our economic future depends on our ability to put the budget back on a sound long-term path. That is why I believe what is actually needed is for us to put our energy and effort into writing a budget that actually balances, cutting the spending, raising the revenue, making the tough choices. That is the best way forward.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is not the answer, and this balanced budget amendment is particularly troubled. It would restrict our ability to respond to economic downturns, it would impose a Draconian and unrealistic spending cap, and it would effectively prevent any increase in revenue, even if it is part of a bipartisan balanced deficit reduction plan.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

On a separate matter, let me just say when my colleague said we don't have a budget, we do have a budget. I sometimes think our colleagues missed out on what happened on August 2. We passed the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act provided a budget for this year and for next year. That is the budget we are operating under. It was passed in the Budget Control Act on August 2.

So when they put up these signs that say we haven't had a budget for 958 days or 858 days, that is not right. We do have a budget. They may not particularly like the budget. They certainly may not like the way it was done because it wasn't done through the regular process. It wasn't done as a budget resolution. It was done as a law. Budget resolutions are not signed by the President of the United States; they are purely a congressional document. The Budget Control Act is actually a law. It imposed a budget for this year and next year and 10 years of spending caps. That is the law of the United States. That is a budget.

For my colleagues to stand and say we don't have a budget, it almost makes me wonder, did they miss out on the debate and the passage and the signing of the Budget Control Act? I tell my colleagues, that is our budget. It is in law. It is not just a resolution, it is the law of the land.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, one of the things about a debate such as this is that I have something I always do, and that is I will sit down and cross off things I was going to say that somebody else has already said. Unfortunately, almost everything has been said, but there are a few things that have not. I wish to put this in a more of a historic perspective.

I can remember back in 1968. In 1968 I was elected to the Oklahoma State Senate, and at that time we were all concerned about the deficit spending and the debt in this country. I remember so well a kind old gentleman from Nebraska. He was U.S. Senator Carl Curtis. Carl Curtis contacted me--because I was kind of an aggressive person at that time-- and said, I have an idea. I have been up here trying to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and I have been trying for years to do it. One of the primary objections they have is they could never get the majority, the three-fourths necessary to ratify the Constitutional Amendment. He said, this is my idea: Let's go ahead and get three-fourths of the States to preratify a budget-balancing amendment to the Constitution. I thought that was an ingenious idea, and so we did.

I passed a resolution in the Oklahoma State Senate in 1968 that said we were going to preratify it. In fact, we came within one State of having the three-fourths necessary to do that; not that that would have preratified it, but it would have taken away the argument that Carl Curtis had that they objected to in that they would never be able to ratify this in the States. I thought that was a great idea. We came close to doing it way back in 1968. I remember this very well. I was trying to impress upon the American people how much that debt was, and at that time the debt was $240 billion. I said, if you take dollar bills and stack them up, by the time you get to $240 billion, it is the height of the Empire State Building. That was only $240 billion.

A lot of the groups and Members who are opposed to passing the balanced budget amendment think we don't need one. They actually believe Congress and the President can balance the budget without any enforceable accountability. But in 1986 when the amendment failed by one vote--and I remember that year so well because that was the year I was elected to the House of Representatives here in Washington--the national debt at that time was $2.1 trillion. By 1997, when the Senate considered the amendment again, the debt had risen to over $5 trillion, and it got up to about $10 trillion when this President took office, and that is where this all starts.

What has happened since President Obama has been in office is something that is totally unprecedented in the history of this country. In the years he has been there, it has gone up 42 percent. I was concerned back in 1968 with $248 billion, and now the increase in this short period of time has gone from $10 trillion to $15 trillion.

I think everyone knows the need to reduce spending is evident. We don't have to do anything more than look across the Atlantic. I think my friend from Wyoming covered that pretty well. When you stop and think what has happened to these countries over in Europe--and it is not just Greece and Italy; there are other countries too. They could not resist their insatiable appetite to spend money they did not have. What has happened there is happening in this country. I agree with my friend from Wyoming, we are right behind Europe in this case.

I remember, and probably everyone in this Chamber remembers, during your elementary years reading about the history of this country. A guy named Alexis de Tocqueville came to the United States. He came here, oddly enough, to study our penal system. That was back in the founding years of this country. When he got here, he was so impressed with the wealth of our Nation that he stayed and wrote a book. In this book he talked about how one plot of land was given to each person who came over and they were able to keep the benefits of their hard labor, and the prosperity was indescribable at that time. It is said in the last paragraph of the de Tocqueville book that once the people of this country find they can vote themselves money out of the public trust, the system will fail. That is why I say this is not an ordinary time. This is not 1968, 1986, 1997, where we tried this before. This is to the point where we will realize the accuracy of de Tocqueville's prediction.

It has been publicized recently that 47 percent of the people are not paying Federal taxes and not paying income taxes. That is dangerously close to that 50 percent he was talking about several hundred years ago. So this year Washington has been patting itself on the back with the Budget Control Act we passed in August which cut spending by $900 billion over the next 10 years. We are slowly starting to chip away at appropriations bills. These have not been as advertised. They have not come close to solving the problem. This is demonstrated by the fact that next year's deficit is still expected to be right around $1 trillion. I know this is kind of offensive to some of the people who participated in this great committee that was charged with the great responsibility of finding $1 trillion over 10 years.

When I talked to a large chamber group in Oklahoma on Monday morning--we had over 500 people there--I said: Can you understand what is happening here in terms of the request that has been made of coming up with $1 trillion over 10 years?

As the Senator from Wyoming said, the President submits a budget. It is not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the House, not the Senate. It is the President. He has now submitted three budgets. In his three budgets he has had deficits each year of almost $1.5 trillion.

I remember in 1997 going down to the floor when Bill Clinton was President of the United States, and that was the first $1.5 trillion budget to run the country. That was $1.5 trillion to run the entire United States of America. Yet this President has come up $1.5 trillion in deficit over and above the revenues we had each year for 3 years.

If you have the requirement of coming up with $1 trillion over 10 years and yet this President has increased the deficit by almost $5 trillion in the short period of time--it probably will be $6 trillion by the time the last budget is realized--then how in the world are you ever going to dig out of this? Well, the answer is you cannot.

Further, when I was talking to the people in Oklahoma on Monday, and I said, the requirement for the first year was $44 billion--if you take $44 billion as a requirement to cut spending in the first of 10 years and yet the President has had an increase of $1.5 trillion in his budget for 1 year, obviously that is not much of a requirement.

Obviously, that is not much of a requirement. That is not going to do. So to me that demonstrates what we are not able to do without having a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The amendment we have makes it difficult to raise taxes. It also requires that the President and Congress pass a balanced budget each year. It does something else that is very significant. The amendment would also limit the amount of spending allowed to 18 percent of GDP, which is the historic level of revenue the Federal Government has collected since World War II.

So it covers these things. People complain about it, saying: Well, we do

not know. There could be times of crisis. There could be times of war.

This has it built in. If we are in a declared war, you do not have to follow the guidelines in the balanced budget amendment. In fact, you could actually violate it because that is in times of war. We understand that. If it is not a declared war, you can do it with a supermajority. So this has those built in safeguards to take care of contingencies that we cannot determine what they are right now, such as war, such as a crisis we have.

Now, some of those people--not too many people will come to the floor and say this, but in their own minds they still believe this idea that more government spending can actually make the economy grow. And I do not know how they can still believe that after what they call the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It was $825 billion. That was supposed to be a stimulus package. That was supposed to stimulate the economy. Yet only 3 percent of that actually went to things that specifically would stimulate the economy, such as roads, bridges, and things we were supposed to do. It was all financed with extra government debt and with projects such as Solyndra, which has gotten a lot of attention recently, and other projects. It was more social engineering. We all know that. So we know you cannot increase spending to pull us out of the situation we are in. They also said that would cause the unemployment rate to get down to well below 8 percent. Of course, we know now that it did not do that. So none of the projections actually came to be realized. The economy is still very weak despite the fact that the President was able to secure nearly $1 trillion in stimulus spending. It did not help this time. It is not going to help again. It never helped in the past.

To enforce the amendment, the courts would be prevented from mandating tax hikes. Further, to raise the debt limit, a three-fifths majority of both Chambers--both, not just one--would be required.

So it does take care of all of these contingencies that I think would be necessary and answers the complaints that people have who say it would be dangerous to have a balanced budget amendment.

I know it works. The funny thing about it, when they say it will not work, look at the laboratories we have for the Federal Government. My State of Oklahoma, balanced budget amendment. It has all of these things built into it. In fact, it is not as generous as the one we are advocating. But nonetheless, I remember my years in the State legislature. We would get up toward the end of the year, and they would say: Well, wait a minute, we can't do that because we can't go into a deficit. If the States can't do it, we can pass the same thing.

So I would merely say, try to put it in the historic perspective. If you do that, then you will see why it is a sense of urgency that 47 percent of the people are on the receiving end of government. It would turn around and get to that point where, as Tocqueville said, we cannot go beyond.

Remember in 1968 the Carl Curtis thing. That was a $240 billion deficit; 1986, $2.1 trillion; in 1990, it was up to $10 trillion. It took all of that time to get up to $10 trillion. That has almost doubled with this one administration, with this President. So this is not business as usual. This is not like the balanced budget amendments have been in the past. They are structured very much the same way, but the sense of crisis is here.

I have 20 kids and grandkids. What we do here is not going to affect me personally, but it is going to affect future generations. This is an opportunity to really do something meaningful.

I urge the support of S.J. Res. 10, a strong balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I believe we are on the pending amendment?

Let me compliment Senator Boxer for her leadership on this bill. She pointed out this EDA bill brought forward is about jobs. It is about offering jobs in underserved areas. These are areas in which it is difficult to create jobs in good times, but in hard times they get hit even harder. The EDA program leverages a small amount of public support for private sector investment that creates jobs in underserved areas.

In my State of Maryland, EDA projects have been very successful in bringing jobs to the rural parts of Maryland--to western Maryland and to our eastern shore. They have leveraged private sector investment, and we maintained and created jobs.

Yesterday on the Senate floor I gave specific examples of EDA projects in western Maryland and on the eastern shore of Maryland. I talked about an old manufacturing plant that was saved under an EDA grant, leveraged 10 to 1 with private sector investment, saving over 100 jobs and creating another 20. These are jobs that are important for economic growth in our community.

We all understand this recovery has been a very difficult one for us to get moving at the pace of job growth that we know we need for this Nation. We all talk about what we can do for our budget deficit, but I hope we all would agree the most important thing we can do would be to create more jobs.

The majority leader has brought forward three major bills now to create jobs. We would like to have a little cooperation from the other side of the aisle so we can get these bills to the President for signature. The FAA bill, which deals with the modernizing of our air system, which will create jobs and will make air transportation safer, is caught up in conference. Let's get it done and bring it to the President. We had the SBIR bill before us that will help small businesses that are in innovation as far as job growth. We had so many nongermane amendments offered to it we could not get it to the floor of the Senate.

Now we have an EDA bill that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee by a near unanimous vote, that over the history of the EDA has not been controversial in its reauthorization, and now it looks as if we are going to see numerous nongermane amendments offered in an effort, basically, to just ignore the importance of the underlying bill that can create jobs for our communities.

I urge my colleagues to, yes, come forward with their amendments. Let's debate them. If they are not relevant to creating jobs under the EDA bill, then let's be reasonable. Let's not have a whole series of amendments that are totally beyond the scope of this bill, such as the debt limit issue or repeal of our financial reform of last year. I don't mind debating those issues, but they should not be debated at this particular moment.

I do hope we will be able to get to the reauthorization bill. I pointed out yesterday that one of the highest priorities, from our local people in Maryland, on need was additional help from the Federal Government for planning dollars. Planning dollars allow local communities to develop a strategy that can help them with economic growth in a community.

I can tell you, having recently been out to Cumberland, MD--a great and beautiful part of our State of Maryland--they used to have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Many of those jobs have

moved on. They do have a strategy, but they need the planning help to put that together so they can come forward with a game plan, attracting more private sector interest in order to create more job opportunities for families to stay in the western part of our State. It is that type of assistance that is critically important to America.

I come back to the point Senator Boxer raised. The purpose of this bill is to create jobs--save jobs and create jobs. We need to get on with that business in the Senate. That is why I am proud to have worked on the Environment and Public Works Committee to bring this bill forward. I hope my colleagues will be judicious with their amendments so we can get this bill through the Senate, to the House, so we will have an opportunity to get this to the President in the very near future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer amendment No. 407.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I will speak at a different point about this amendment, but it is an equitable amendment dealing with the interest charges on government loans that are paid off in the middle of the month to prorate the interest. It is a consumer issue. I think it will help American families. I will explain it in more detail in a later part of the proceedings.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, earlier today, I voted against the interchange fee amendment, Senate amendment No. 392 offered by the junior Senator from Montana and I would like to explain why. Before I do that, I would like to acknowledge two important points about Senator Tester. First, I appreciate the fact that he made significant changes to his amendment in an attempt to reach a middle ground on this issue. And the concern he has for small community banks and credit unions is beyond question. Having said that, I did not reach the same conclusion he reached that we should delay the regulatory process with regard to interchange fees.

Most of the concern raised has been expressed against the Federal Reserve's December 2010 draft interchange fee rulemaking. It was a draft proposal. Let me repeat that: it was a draft proposal. The Federal Reserve received 11,000 comments on the draft rulemaking. The final rulemaking, due any day and scheduled to take effect in July, will reflect those comments and suggestions. We need to let the regulatory process work. If the final rule doesn't work as Congress intended, we have a number of options to fix it, up to and including a congressional resolution of disapproval. If the Senate had approved the Tester amendment, it may have been ``fixing'' a problem that doesn't exist.

The Federal Reserve's rulemaking was required by a provision contained in the Wall Street reform bill Congress passed last year. The senior Senator from Illinois was the author of that provision. He modified it to exempt smaller banks and credit unions with assets under $10 billion. Now we are being told the exemption is unworkable. Again, we haven't seen the final rule yet but I don't agree with the premise.

Andrew Kahr is a leading financial services expert. He was the founder and chief executive officer of First Deposit Corp, which later became Providian. He recently laid out the following arguments, which I find cogent, on the American Banker Web site:

One argument is that the clearing networks, of which there

are only four that matter, will not support the ``two-tier''

interchange system . . . Ridiculous. Visa is the largest of

the networks. It's already announced that it will implement

Durbin. (Maybe this is an object lesson as to why Visa

remains No. 1.)

For the small banks, MasterCard is the only other

significant player. If MasterCard finds it politic not to add

one more wrinkle to a skein of interchange levels that is

already of Byzantine complexity, then let the small banks

gravitate to Visa in order to benefit from Durbin.

A second argument of the big-bank lobbyists is that

merchants will reject the debit cards of small banks if these

carry a 1 percent interchange cost, versus 0.3 percent for

the large banks. Really? Then why don't these merchants

reject all credit cards, with interchange of 2 percent or

more, if the customer could instead use a debit card? When is

the last time a merchant politely asked you whether you could

pay with a debit card instead of a credit card?

Mr. Kahr concludes that if interchange fee revenue for the big banks drops but stays the same for the small banks and credit unions, the small banks will reap a competitive advantage. They will be able to impose lower fees, pay more interest, and give greater rewards to depositors. As he put it, ``anything that reduces revenue for big banks but not for small ones should help the latter compete more effectively against the former.''

Here is why I supported Senator Durbin's amendment to the Wall Street reform bill to regulate these fees in the first place. Banks do not compete with each other on the fees that merchants pay them for debit card use. Instead, Visa and MasterCard fix fee rates on behalf of all banks. There is no naturally occurring market force that keeps interchange fees at reasonable levels. The Visa and MasterCard duopoly is so dominant that merchants cannot refuse to accept their cards. Consequently, Visa and MasterCard don't lower interchange fees--they raise them, to entice banks to issue more of their cards. Retail merchants have no leverage to stop this escalation. As a result, the U.S. has the highest debit interchange fees in the world, averaging 1.14 percent of each transaction and amounting to over $16 billion per year. These fees affect merchants, universities, charities, government agencies, and everyone else who accepts debit cards as payment. The fees end up getting passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices for everything from groceries to gas to textbooks.

The Durbin provision stipulated that fees set by Visa and MasterCard on behalf of big issuing banks must be reasonable and proportional to costs incurred by the issuer that are ``specific to a particular electronic debit transaction.'' Some argue this is too narrow. The problem with the Tester amendment, well-intentioned as it may have been, is that it was too broad. It directed the Federal Reserve to let Visa and MasterCard set fee rates to ``all fixed and incremental costs associated with debit card transactions and program operations.'' The term ``program operations'' wasn't further defined and could have created a potentially enormous loophole. Rates could actually go higher under this standard.

I appreciate the hard work the junior senator from Montana put into his amendment. If the Federal Reserve's final rule truly presents problems for community banks and credit unions, I will join him in the effort to fix it. For the time being, I think we should let the regulatory process proceed and that's why I opposed the amendment. We helped out the banks; now it is time to help out consumers and America's small businesses.

Thank you, Madam President, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kyl in supporting the balanced budget amendment that Senators Lee and Hatch have crafted. I commend them for their hard work, and I particularly thank Senator Hatch for his principled leadership over the years in this effort. In the mid-1990s he almost got us to a balanced budget amendment to send to the States, and this time I hope he--showing his leadership again--will be successful.

Washington's runaway spending and crippling debt burden underscore the need for us to have a balanced budget in this country. If Washington doesn't stop spending more than it takes in, I fear there will be an economic collapse, and, perhaps more profoundly, it will threaten the very foundation of our Nation--the freedom of individuals to thrive and to prosper.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the huge debt burden we have is already crippling the economy. There was a recent study done by respected economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that shows that the debt burden of 90 percent of the economy will reduce a country's economic growth by 1 or 2 percentage points. Our gross debt right now is 100 percent of our economy. Growth this year is likely to be closer to 2 percent total, pretty weak growth. So 1 percent to 2 percent more would mean a 50-percent or even a 100-percent growth increase in this country. This means over 1 million new jobs could be created right now if we didn't have these huge deficits building up annually to a record debt that is now over $15 trillion.

It is unacceptable that we have the economic growth that we do because it

is keeping people from achieving the opportunities they seek at a time when there are almost 22 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, and we need to do everything we can to give the economy a shot in the arm. Part of it is getting our fiscal house in order and stopping this record deficit and debt. We should not condemn people to chronic unemployment through inaction in Washington.

However much lawmakers at times want to do the right thing, it seems as though the political system and the budget rules around here create a bias for spending and deficits. When I left the post as Director of the Office Management and Budget in the last Presidential administration--that was in 2007--the budget deficit was $161 billion, which is about 12 percent of today's budget deficit, and I thought that was way too high. In fact, that year I proposed, on behalf of the President, a budget that actually balanced over a 5-year period because at that time we were so concerned about growing deficits and debts. Again, that was only 12 percent of today's deficit.

In that time, as OMB Director, I was convinced that we need to have a discipline in Washington to balance the budget because we need to have some incentive to prioritize. Washington, again, seems to have this bias toward spending and deficits that I think can only be resolved through what 49 States have, which, again, is this power to be able to tell the elected representatives that we have to figure out how to prioritize; we have to figure out how, at the end of the day what every family in America does, what every business in America does, which is to figure out how not to spend more than we take in.

Study and experience led the Founders of our country to create the best system of government ever devised: a Republic with enumerated powers. Similarly, study and experience should lead us to enact a balanced budget amendment. The times demand it. We need to reverse this system's bias in favor of deficits and debts. We need a balanced budget amendment in order to preserve the Founders' vision of a limited government of enumerated powers.

But the fact is, Congress has not been able to get its spending under control through any other means. Some have called for a far higher tax rate. In other words, instead of dealing with the spending that is increasing dramatically--by the way, spending has gone up 21 percent just in the last three years. But instead of dealing with that, people say: Why don't you just raise taxes to catch up with the spending? That way we would have a balanced budget through higher and higher revenues.

I guess what I would say is, Congress has a spending problem not a revenue problem. The growth in the entitlement programs, of course, is the long-term driver of this spending problem. The cost of these entitlements, along with interest on the debt, is projected to squeeze out the cost of every other Federal program within the next couple of decades, leaving little to nothing for other government priorities.

People say, well, the revenues as a percent of our economy are relatively low now, and that is true. Coming out of the recession, we have not had the growth we had hoped for and that has resulted in lower tax revenues coming in.

Historically, tax revenues have been 18 percent of our economy. Today they are lower than that and closer to 14.5 to 15 percent. Spending has been at about 20 percent of our economy historically since World War II. Today, that spending is over 24 percent of our economy.

What happens over the next several years, based on the Congressional Budget Office analysis, is the revenues begin to increase as a percent of the economy even if the 2001 and 2003 tax relief is not continued. In that case, the revenues increase even more dramatically up to 21 percent or 22 percent of the economy.

So the fact is, the spending is on a trajectory to go up from a historic 20 percent to 24 percent now to 30 percent to 40 percent to 50 percent over the decades. We cannot catch that spending with enough taxes. It simply cannot be done and have a viable economy. So we have to deal with the spending side of the ledger. Even if we do raise taxes to chase the trajectory, we will upset that balance between the Federal Government and a free, robust private sector that encourages innovation and gets people back to work.

If the Federal Government ends up taxing every dollar of earnings, we will have taken away the space for Americans to pursue and enjoy the rewards of their hard work, risk-taking and innovation. The Founders might have used another phrase to describe what a free economy promotes: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today we are talking about how we ensure that we have economic growth so that we can bring back the jobs, and that will not happen through the level of taxation that would be required to catch up to the record levels of spending.

To address Washington's natural inclination toward taxing and spending, a successful balanced budget amendment needs to do more than just require the outlays be less or equal to receipts. Again, it should include a spending cap because of the problems I have talked about with regard to the projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office over the coming years and decades. It should also demand a supermajority should Congress seek to enact antigrowth tax hikes.

I think this balanced budget amendment, crafted by Senators Hatch and Lee, by doing that strikes a good balance. It also addresses the concern about a balanced budget amendment limiting the Federal Government's ability to spend in a time of war. If there is a declaration of war against a nation-state, a majority vote in both Houses would allow for deficit spending. If the Armed Forces are engaged in a military conflict that has not been given a full declaration of war, a three-fifths vote in both Houses would allow for deficit spending. This is in keeping with the intention of the Founders.

In Federalist 34, Alexander Hamilton drew a distinction between monarchies and republics. He said, the chief source of expense in every government was defense spending. But republics, Hamilton counseled, should not use this to live beyond their means. He wrote:

There should be as great a disproportion between the

profusion and extravagance of a wealthy kingdom in its

domestic administration, and the frugality and economy which

in that particular become the modest simplicity of republican

government.

Washington has spent and overspent. This has led us away from that frugality that was the intention of our Founders. A balanced budget is the only way to get back to frugality and to that ``modest simplicity of republican government.'' And that is republican with a small ``r.''

If we don't restrain spending through a balanced budget amendment, we will effectively inhibit and ultimately undermine the liberty of the Americans. We will threaten the American dream, the hope that each generation is able to pass on to the next generation a better life so that they are able to flourish and to meet, again, their achievements, their objectives in life through opportunity that can be created through a growing economy.

It is time for Congress to prioritize. It is time for Congress to make tough decisions. We should do it with the discipline of a balanced budget. Time has shown us there is a need for a requirement to make those decisions.

My home State of Ohio has that discipline. In fact, over the past year, Ohio has had to make some tough decisions to close a budget gap of about $8 billion. Here in Washington, we have a budget gap that is far higher. This year the government will bring in about $2.2 trillion and spend about $3.7 trillion. This gap is huge and growing, and just as 49 States do, we need to discipline Washington to force Congress to make these tough decisions to prioritize on behalf of the American people so that we don't have this crippling effect on economic growth, so that we can begin to see the kind of robust recovery we hope for coming out of the recession.

For all these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the balanced budget amendment. It is obvious America's government is spending, taxing, and borrowing too much. That is why Congress should approve the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was a good idea when Thomas Jefferson supported it, and it is an even better idea today.

America is a great experiment in self-government. Self-government requires self-control. Early thinkers about America's democracy worried about the capacity of the government to borrow in a way that would cripple our freedom.

Children cannot vote, but the Congress of their parents can put our kids into debt. We should fight fiscal child abuse by ending such borrowing that hurts our kids' long-term economic future.

In recent days, we witnessed clear warning signs that the days of big borrowing are ending, not because Congress has changed its free- spending ways but because lenders are increasingly worried that they will never be repaid. This summer, America lost its triple-A credit rating, according to Standard & Poor's. This loss of confidence mirrors a crisis in Europe reflecting a collective judgment that Greece and Ireland and Portugal and Spain and even Italy may not be able to repay the amount of money they have borrowed. As Prime Minister Thatcher reportedly said, ``Eventually governments run out of other people's money.''

In this environment, it is important to show how we are different from Europe. If we approve the balanced budget amendment and cut spending, we will restore confidence in the Federal debt, in America's economy, but most important, in the ideal of self-government.

America owes $15 trillion or about $40,000 for each new American born. For their sake, we need to restrict the ability of the current generation to obligate young Americans to pay their debts.

Should this amendment fail, we will wound the long-term credit of the United States. More deeply, we will hurt the ideal of self-government and self-control that is the foundation of our freedom.

Egypt

I would like to take this moment to talk about another issue; that is, we as Americans support freedom and democracy and the rights of all peoples. But, as Gaza taught us in 2006, free elections by themselves do not make up a democracy. There are times when people are offered a chance to elect party leaders who offer them only one election to affirm a dictatorship. We can also learn from the year 1938 that the dangers of ignoring developments abroad are huge. Now, in the wake of the Arab Spring, we turn away from that region at our own peril.

On November 28, the first stage of the Egyptian elections began, which will inaugurate a new electoral system forming a bicameral legislature. This first stage determines about 30 percent of the 498 seats for the government's lower chamber, called the People's Assembly.

Before Egyptians arrived at the polls, protesters filled Tahrir Square in Cairo. As a result, over 40 Egyptians were killed. Many are objecting to the military's interference in the electoral process and the decision to force elections well before secular parties had time to build their capacities. According to public polling and sources on the ground, this will likely hand an electoral victory to the Muslim Brotherhood and more radical Islamist elements within the Egyptian society. Although elections will last until March of 2012, the prediction of a Muslim Brotherhood victory is already becoming a reality. Early data shows an alarming trend of Islamist domination of the Egyptian Parliament.

On December 5, the High Electoral Commission announced that leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, had received a plurality of 36 percent of the vote, while the secular Egyptian Bloc had gained less than 12 percent. When we include the runoff elections, which took place last week, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood has won 73 out of 150 seats or 49 percent of the currently contested outcomes. This is the same party that led a pre-election rally of 5,000 chanting ``one day we shall kill all the Jews'' and ``Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Judgment Day is coming.''

While many expected the Brotherhood to do well, there were other surprises. Salafist parties, made up of anti-Western hardliners who follow a particularly radical version of Islam, are also faring particularly well. Surpassing predictions, they received 24 percent of the vote in the first round.

Importantly, these elections also included the so-called liberal districts of Cairo and the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria. The weakness of liberal parties--namely, their inability to reach out to voters effectively with a serious agenda--is now fully exposed. Islamists are taking full advantage of deeply rooted networks that extend from the mosques into Egypt's poor districts. Their grip in the traditionally conservative areas of Alexandria proved particularly tight, and these areas are also home to a majority of the Coptic Christian community.

It is clear that if Islamist parties and candidates continue their currently won gains in other elections, they will capture 60 percent of the national vote in Egypt. This will situate the new Egyptian Parliament around deep ideological differences between Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and liberal groups, making the Brotherhood the power brokers between Egyptian left and right.

What does this all mean? By January, the United States could face an Egypt defined by a hatred of Israel and many of the freedoms we hold dear--a freedom of expression, of women's rights, and the right to practice any religion. This Egypt counts Iran as a friend and poses a threat to the Camp David Peace Accords, which have served as the cornerstone for Egypt's strategic position for 30 years.

Do we expect that an Islamist-led Egypt will prevent weapons from arriving in the hands of Hamas? Will an Islamist-led Egypt help preserve a free South Sudan? Will an Islamist-led Egypt act to protect Coptic Christians who make up about 10 percent of Egypt? Will we see continued violence, as we saw on October 9 in Maspero, which killed 27 civilians and injured hundreds? Will an Islamist-led Egypt do what we expect with more than $1 billion of U.S. foreign assistance? Will they continue to share intelligence and to work against terrorism? These are all questions that may become critical issues for the national security of the United States very shortly.

All of this instantly prevents foreign investment and tourism that would help the Egyptian economy. The IMF has forecasted a little over 1 percent growth for the Egyptian economy next year. They said inflation will top 11 percent, while almost 12 percent of Egyptians will be out of work. Recently, the Egyptian pound traded at its lowest level against the dollar in 7 years.

This time last year the region was on the threshold of exciting change, but today Egypt sits instead on the threshold of a very dangerous path.

The United States--and especially our State Department in particular--should do what it can to keep Egypt attached to peace and good relations with the West. The United States is now on the verge of a historic defeat and reversal of American interests in Egypt. Currently, if there is an Obama administration plan for handling a new Islamist Egypt that rejects peace with

Israel and allies with Iran, I don't know it, and I don't know if anyone does. We must keep our finger on the pulse of this process. Liberal voices in Egypt must work to preserve the democratic goals of the January revolution.

Recently, I had the privilege of meeting some of Egypt's best and brightest young liberal leaders. They would like to build a free Egypt that respects women's rights and religious minorities and the rule of law. I was encouraged in meeting with them but only hope that the coming election is not like a 1930s election in Germany, where people in Egypt are given one choice--to affirm a dictatorship--and then that is the end.

If a radical Islamic government arises in Egypt--one that disavows the Camp David Peace Accords and no longer acts as a stable strategic partner in the Middle East--then we will look back on the recent election in Egypt and its successors in December and January as the turning point for a historic reversal of the United States.

My hope is that the State Department watches this very carefully. My hope is that we have a plan to make sure this critical country stays within the U.S. orbit. But my fear, given the recent elections in Egypt, is that we have already lost quite a bit of ground.

If current trends continue, then by the middle of next year we will have a Muslim Brotherhood government in command of the Suez Canal, in charge of Cairo--the second center of learning in the Arab world--along the border of our Israeli allies, friendly to Hamas, friendly to Iran, and hostile to Europe and the United States. My hope is that over the holidays we will work very hard and diligently with our allies--and especially liberal forces in Egypt--to make sure that reversal doesn't happen.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, with all due respect, I plan to support the amendment that has been addressed by my good friend from Iowa. Having come from the small business world, I am fully aware of the cost of these things, and tomorrow I will be introducing an amendment that is going to address something different, but really something with higher figures on it; that is, the cost of the EPA regulations.

This is something that is a little bit different than what my friend from Iowa has been talking about. When we stop and think about the regulatory things that are going on right now with the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act--we are talking about greenhouse gas regulations, things that should be addressed by legislation but are not, so they are trying to do it through regulation: boiler MACT, that is the maximum-achievable technology; utility MACT; ozone, actually the changing of the ozone standards when they are not using--as the law requires--the newer, updated information; and particulate matter and coal ash and some of the rest.

But I am saving that for tomorrow. I am only saying that now because there is a cost to overregulation. That is what I know my friend, Senator Snowe, is trying to get at. It is my understanding--correct me if I am wrong--that we are not trying to get recognized and move current amendments aside. Is that correct now? I will not try to do that.

However, I do want to mention that probably the most significant single amendment we are going to have on the EDA reauthorization bill would be the one to take down the maximum amount from $500 million to $300 million. It is kind of interesting because this program in my State of Oklahoma has been very successful. Believe it, time and time again, we have been able to do things, attract businesses and industry.

Down in a little town called Elgin, OK, adjacent to the Ft. Sill live range, we have been able to put together something that is going to attract about a 150,000-square-foot building, all of that with a very small initial grant. So it has worked well.

I understand some of the critics of this program. In some areas maybe it has not worked that well, if it has. However, I have noticed this, and since some of this jurisdiction is in the committee of which I am the ranking member, the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is important to look at these things.

In these difficult times, I think it is important not to authorize more than we could anticipate would be very prudently appropriated. Since we have been authorizing $400 million in the past, and the total amount is something less than $300 million, I am going to have an amendment that would take down the existing limit on this, which is $500 million, down to $300 million. That will be amendment No. 430. It is already submitted.

Interestingly enough, while I do not agree with President Obama on many things, he seems to agree on this, and I am going to read a statement he made: ``The Administration supports

the passage of S. 782.'' But down here it says:

However, the bill would authorize spending levels higher

than those requested by the President's budget, and the

administration believes that the need for smart investment to

help Americans win the future must be balanced with the need

to control spending and to reduce the deficit. The

administration looks forward to working with Congress in

reducing the limits of this bill.

So I am going to make it easy for the administration and introduce this amendment No. 430. It is submitted right now. We are hoping to be able, at some point, to start setting aside and getting up these amendments for votes. That is one of the major reasons, as one of the sponsors of this bill, we have a lot of things we need to be talking about on the Senate floor.

We have done nothing around here. We have not done appropriations. We have not done anything except a handful of noncontroversial judges--and some controversial, I might add. But, nonetheless, we should be talking about these things. There are a lot of things we want to get done, and certainly this is one of them.

The other amendment, though, that is a little less understandable because it involves something that I throw in the category of being just not believable. We have a critter in Oklahoma and it is also around other parts of the country. It is called a Lesser Prairie Chicken. Going all of the way back to my days in the State legislature--I am talking about a long time ago, before a lot of you guys were born--people were concerned about the Lesser Prairie Chicken and were always trying to protect it. Yet our farmers and ranchers had a problem with that because they burrow down and make holes and our cows and our horses will break legs and all of that kind of thing.

That has nothing to do with what is happening today except they are talking about having that--right now it is actually a candidate for an endangered species, and the reason is because they are claiming that, of course, the population is dwindling. Well, it is not. The problem is, we have too many of them. This is kind of interesting. The State-- for those of you whose geography is not too good--immediately north of my State of Oklahoma is Kansas. In Kansas they have a hunting season for the Lesser Prairie Chicken, but you can go a mile south across the Oklahoma border and it would be protected. It is ludicrous that they would do that.

Here is another reason--a problem. First of all, federally mandated uses of alternative energy such as wind and all of that I think is inappropriate. We have all the resources we need in fossil fuels to run this country. We have the resources, in terms of oil, gas, and coal. We have enough to run this country for 100 years without being dependent on the Middle East.

These are things we should be doing. Well, when you have these mandated percentages, that means you have to go into other forms of energy where the technology is not quite there. Now, wind technology is there, although a lot has to happen before it is going to be in a competitive match and not have to be subsidized. Nonetheless, Oklahoma happens to be in the wind belt. You go through Oklahoma, you can see in northern Texas all the way through Oklahoma and southern Kansas, we are in the wind belt. The problem we have--I have airplanes. I have many vices; flying airplanes is one of them. So I am over the western part of Oklahoma almost every weekend.

When I take people who have not been there, they are amazed at the numbers of windmills. At any one place out there you can see 200 or 300. So it represents a huge investment. A lot of stakeholders are involved in it and they have said that certain things are going to happen. But wait a minute. If they end up listing the Lesser Prairie Chicken, that is going to all of a sudden put Fish and Wildlife in a position where they can stop this wind energy that is taking place right now. The reason they can, and it will not be their fault--they will say, well, it is a habitat. It is threatened because there are towers, and predators are on these towers and looking down. Then they would have to stop that from taking place.

They could conceivably have to take down millions of dollars' worth of investments that are there right now. So I have an amendment to this bill that is going to preclude them from being able to list it.

By the way, I have had a visit with the candidate who has been nominated to be Director of Fish and Wildlife, Dan Ashe. I had him, along with Secretary Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, in my office. We talked at some length about some of these things, and he has made a commitment to come out to Oklahoma and to see what a hardship this would be.

So I think it would be an excellent idea to find some vehicle--and this vehicle seems to be the one that is being used right now to put such legislation on--that would preclude them from listing the Lesser Prairie Chicken.

The private investment in Oklahoma wind power is, of course--we are one of the top States--we are at No. 13 of all 50 States in terms of wind. It could be significantly curtailed. State Senator Bryce Marlatt in Oklahoma noted that it was already a $300 million investment just in the last 3 years. So we want to protect this investment.

We have OG&E, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, recently announcing the construction of a high-power line from Oklahoma City to Woodward. Woodward is kind of the mouth of the Panhandle. Then, eventually going into Guymon, all the way through what used to be called no man's land in the Panhandle of Oklahoma. These would be multimillion-dollar investments that could be severely challenged by the listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken.

So I will be offering that amendment. I already submitted the amendment and would look forward to explaining that further as the time comes.

In the meanwhile, tomorrow I do want to get into the cost of the regulation. If we are really sincere in this country right now about doing something to promote business and industry, the first thing we need to do is get the bureaucrats off the backs of the businesses out there that are planning to expand and those that are in existence today. So we will be addressing that tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Missouri is full of amazing Americans. At the very top of this list is my friend, Frankie Muse Freeman. She has been selected to receive the extraordinary honor called the Spingarn Medal, the NAACP's highest national honor.

Each year, the NAACP selects only one person in this country to receive the prestigious Spingarn Medal in recognition of particularly outstanding achievement.

We in Missouri are so proud of Ms. Freeman for her many accomplishments, including receiving this most distinguished award. While I am honored to come to the floor and congratulate Frankie Freeman, I regret that I will not be able to be in St. Louis, at the St. Louis City and County Freedom Fund Dinner to deliver these remarks and celebrate this great woman and her many admirers and supporters in the St. Louis area.

Frankie Freeman is an amazing story. She is 94 years old and still has the passion to serve her community. At age 16, Ms. Freeman enrolled in her mother's alma mater, Hampton Institute. In 1947, before the Presiding Officer or I were ever born, she earned a law degree from Howard University Law School. During that time period, as one might imagine, there really were not law firms that hired either women or African Americans, much less an African-American woman.

So what did Frankie Freeman do? She decided to open her own law firm. She began her practice with divorce and criminal cases and with a huge dose of pro bono cases. After 2 years she became legal counsel to the NAACP legal team that filed suit against the St. Louis Board of Education in 1949. In 1954, Freeman was the lead attorney for the landmark case, Davis v. St. Louis Housing Authority, which ended legal racial discrimination in public housing in St. Louis.

In the almost 60 years since that decision, Ms. Freeman has tirelessly fought for civil rights at home in St. Louis and across the Nation. She has endured abuse and discrimination, but through it all she worked with intellect and dignity while employing one of her very best weapons, a warm and friendly personality and a very quick smile.

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson appointed her to serve as the first woman on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She continued to serve on the Commission under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter.

Recognizing that there was still much work to do to end discrimination, Ms. Freeman joined with others to help form the bipartisan Citizens Commission on Civil Rights. Frankie Freeman's work has earned her many awards. She holds honorary degrees from multiple universities, including Hampton University, the University of Missouri, St. Louis University, Washington University, and Howard University. Now she has been inducted into the National Bar Association's Hall of Fame.

Despite this long history of accomplishments, Frankie Freeman still knows what is important--serving the community she loves.

At age 94, she remains active in her local community by volunteering at her church. Throughout her career, she has served on several local boards, including the National Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis and the United Way of Greater St. Louis. Along the way, she also found time to write a book about her life, which I highly recommend to anyone for an inspiring story, a uniquely American story of a woman who had a vision at a time when women who looked like her weren't supposed to have a vision.

Ms. Freeman will become the 96th recipient of the Spingarn Medal this July when she is honored during the NAACP national convention in Los Angeles. Past Spingarn medalists include Maya Angelou, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This impressive list of exceptional Americans whose company Attorney Freeman will now join gives you a sense of the caliber of person Attorney Freeman is.

There is no doubt that attorney Frankie Freeman is deserving of this distinction. I am so proud of her for being honored with this recognition of her lifelong dedication to justice and civil rights. She is such an inspiration to me, and she has been an inspiration to thousands of young people during her life, an inspiration to so many Americans, regardless of race, an inspiration for what she stands for and what she has accomplished in her lifetime. I am so grateful to call her my friend, and I thank her for all she has done for the people of St. Louis, the people of Missouri, and the people of this great Nation. Congratulations and thank you, Frankie Freeman.

Mr. President, I will spend a few moments talking about the Economic Development Administration. There are lots of times we debate legislation on the floor, and we do it in almost an academic way. We think of the proposals in the abstract. Unfortunately, there are many times we don't think about the real consequences of legislation. This year, at this time, this legislation feels very consequential to me. It feels very consequential because of what my State has gone through.

The Economic Development Administration plays a substantial role in making Federal resources available to assist communities that are affected by disasters to rebuild and recover.

As my colleagues in this Chamber are well aware, the first half of this year has been devastating to my State. Since the start of the year, 28 States have suffered at least one federally declared major disaster.

Missouri has been particularly hard hit, starting with the severe storms on New Year's Eve. We also had severe flooding along the Mississippi River, multiple tornadoes, including one that struck and caused severe damage to St. Louis and, obviously, the historic tornado that has, in fact, done such damage to the community of Joplin. We are also expecting additional extensive flooding along the Missouri River in northwest Missouri. Many families there are steeling for the worst as we wait for the waters to arrive.

When disaster strikes, the Federal Government steps in, as it should, to support the efforts of State and local government, nonprofit groups, and the faith community to help communities recover and rebuild.

In Missouri, EDA works with all 19 regional planning commissions in a collaborative role to help carry out projects deemed important by local elected officials and community leaders, particularly in the event of a natural disaster.

The Economic Development Administration's explicit mission includes the assistance of regions ``experiencing sudden and severe economic dislocations, such as those resulting from natural disasters.''

I just visited with people from a radio station in Joplin. The man I visited there was on the air for 23 straight hours. This radio station turned out to be one of the few methods of communication that everybody could rely on in the immediate hours after the tragedy struck. Eight of the twenty-eight employees who work at that radio station lost their homes, including the man who was on the air for 23 straight hours. There has been severe dislocation that has occurred in Joplin, MO. Two thousand homes were wiped away, clean gone. Another 6,000 structures, including homes and businesses, were severely damaged and are uninhabitable. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people in Joplin, MO, who woke up that Monday morning--in fact, hadn't been to sleep the night before because they were busy huddling in rubble or were camped out at a relative's home because they had no place to go.

In the past few years alone, EDA has provided similar assistance in Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota after disasters hit communities in those States. EDA has already stepped up in Joplin and established a $3 million revolving fund to assist small businesses in the area, so that people have a place they can go back to, in terms of their work, after this kind of disaster.

We have a long history in this country of rolling up our sleeves and working together in difficult times. The Federal Government has always been a partner in those efforts, providing financial and technical support. The Economic Development Administration has been part of this support. It is my hope the EDA will continue to provide this invaluable service.

That is why this legislation is more important than words on a page. It could make the difference between someone being able to stay in the community, being able to go back to work, being able to put the pieces back together after a tragic loss. I hope my colleagues take this seriously and move quickly and promptly to support this legislation.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I too take the floor of the Senate to urge all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, to focus on the single biggest domestic threat to our country, our single greatest challenge in the eyes of every Louisianan and every American I know, and that is to stop this runaway spending and debt.

Americans all around the country, certainly Louisianans all around my State, understand this is a grave threat to our economic future. It is not some vague threat to generations two and three away from us. This is an immediate threat because the path of spending and debt we are on is completely unsustainable.

For example, we must come together in a bipartisan way. We must act. We must solve this real and pressing problem before it is an immediate crisis. We should clearly do that well before any need for an increase in the debt limit arises, well before this Congress reaches a crisis atmosphere over the need for an increase in the debt limit.

For all of these reasons, I have joined with many of my colleagues. I sent the majority leader a letter today. First, let me thank my colleagues who joined me on the letter: Senators Sessions, Rubio, DeMint, Paul, Lee, Toomey, and Ensign. The letter is very simple and straightforward. It says this is the greatest challenge we face. It says because of that, we need to face it. We need to debate and talk about it and act. We need to start doing that now, well before any significant deadline like when the debt limit may have to be increased.

The letter says: Mr. Leader, we are going to oppose moving to any other bill that doesn't directly address this crisis when we need to act on this grave threat.

Let me read relevant portions that go right to the point:

Dear Leader Reid:

Yesterday, the Senate voted on two proposals to fund the

government for the rest of the fiscal year. This debate gave

only a limited (three hours) opportunity to debate what many

Americans believe is the issue of our time--cutting

government spending and dramatically reducing our national

debt. Additionally, no member of the Senate was permitted to

offer amendments under the structured process, which in our

opinion prevents a full, open, and robust debate.

With our national debt poised to reach its $14.3 trillion

limit in the very near future, taxpayers expect Congress to

work together to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending and

be more vigilant about how we spend public funds. The

American people want Congress to deal with the tough issues

of cutting spending, and almost every member of the Senate

has agreed that we must address our fiscal situation

immediately.

While there are certainly many issues that warrant the

Senate's consideration, we feel that the Senate must not

debate and consider bills at this time that do not

affirmatively cut spending, directly address structural

budget reforms, reduce government's role in the economy so

businesses can create jobs, or directly address this current

financial crisis.

The American people resoundingly rejected the way the

Senate waited until Christmas Eve as a mechanism to force

hurried debate on President Obama's massive health care

legislation. Voting to proceed to another legislative measure

effectively runs away from the central issues of spending and

debt and repeats that flawed process.

We, therefore, are notifying you of our intention to object

to the consideration of any legislation that fails to

directly address this crisis in a meaningful way. Our

objections would be withheld if the Senate agrees to dedicate

significant floor time to debate this issue well in advance

of the federal government reaching our statutorily mandated

debt limit.

It is signed ``Sincerely'' from both myself and Senators Sessions, Rubio, DeMint, Paul, Lee, Toomey, and Ensign, to the majority leader.

The statement is clear. This is a crisis. We need to act before we reach the statutory debt limit. So what are we waiting for? Let's act now. Let's not move to other cats and dogs bills that may be positive legislation but can certainly wait. Let's move to the people's business. Let's move to the absolute top challenge we face domestically. Let's come together and debate, vote on, and hopefully begin to solve this problem of unsustainable spending and debt.

To do that we also need leadership, ideas, suggestions. I believe we have provided that on this side of the aisle, and we would welcome ideas, suggestions, and concrete proposals from all Members.

Let me list the more than two dozen pieces of legislation that go directly to this issue:

S. 14, by Senator Ensign, establishes a commission on congressional budgetary accountability and review of Federal agencies.

S. 81 is an Isakson bill to direct unused appropriations for Senate official personnel and office expenses to be deposited in the Treasury and actually used to reduce the Federal debt.

S. 102 is a McCain bill which requires OMB to transmit to Congress a message with specified information requesting any recession the President proposes under the procedures instituted under that act.

S. 162 is a Paul bill to cut $500 billion in Federal spending from fiscal year 2011.

S. 163, by Senator Toomey, is the Full Faith and Credit Act to prioritize principle and interest payments when and if the debt limit is reached.

S. 178, by Senator DeMint, reduces Federal spending by $2.5 trillion through fiscal year 2021.

S. 245 is a Corker bill, the CAP Act, to create a discretionary spending cap for Congress.

S. 259 is my bill to prioritize Social Security payments if and when the debt limit is reached.

S. 360, by Senator Inhofe, creates a point of order to exceed nonsecurity discretionary limits and to create spending limits for fiscal years 2017 to 2021.

S. 389, by Senator Kirk--and Senator Hatch has a similar bill-- establishes a commission to review cost control.

S. 391, by Senator Moran, rescinds all unobligated balances of President Obama's stimulus bill.

S.J. Res. 3, by Senator Hatch, is a balanced budget amendment.

S.J. Res. 4, by Senator Shelby, is on the same topic.

And S.J. Res. 5, by Senator Lee, is on the same topic.

This is a long list, but it is certainly not exhaustive. I have read a partial list to make the point. We are coming up with ideas, proposals, and solutions. We encourage every Senator of both parties to come up with ideas, proposals, and solutions. Let's actually talk about the greatest threat we face. Let's talk about it now. Let's debate it now. Let's exchange ideas in a positive atmosphere now, well before we reach any crisis atmosphere over the debt limit.

I respectfully urge the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, to heed our call to arms, to read our letter and react by creating an identified time on the Senate floor, well before we reach the statutory debt limit, to debate and pass solutions on this crucial topic.

I don't believe there is debate that this isn't the greatest challenge we face, that this isn't the greatest economic threat we face. Quite simply, what are we waiting for? We need time to bring forth these ideas and exchange them and debate them and act. We need time to do this well before the statutory debt limit is reached. We need to do the people's business in a reasonable way, in a sober atmosphere, not in an atmosphere of hysteria or threats when the debt limit would be reached in a matter of days.

I urge all colleagues to join us in this effort, to come to the floor with their ideas, their proposals. Let's do the people's business.

I ask unanimous consent that a partial list of Republican solutions and proposals be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to join many of my colleagues, as Senator DeMint has said, to endorse the balanced budget amendment that Republicans are offering. We have 47 Republicans in the Senate and there are 47 cosponsors and supporters of this approach to a balanced budget. Our approach addresses the fundamental problem in America and that is government spending. Big problems require bold action. Today's staggering national debt, $15 trillion, is crippling our economy. We must take action to stop it.

The 40-year average of total U.S. Federal Government spending is 20.8 percent of gross domestic product. For 2011, Federal spending was 24.1 percent of GDP. Looking forward, if we stay on the same course we are on, Federal spending is projected to be 40 percent of GDP in 2046, and by 2085 it will reach 75 percent of GDP. We are reading a lot of stories about European countries that are doing exactly what we are talking about how the future for America will look like if we do not curb spending right now.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think increasing taxes will reduce the deficit. However, the facts state otherwise. The trajectory of government spending, as I have outlined, could not be met with tax increases. There are not enough tax increases if you went to 100 percent rate of tax. There would not be enough to support that kind of government spending.

In addition to that, as we have been saying, increasing taxes is going to lower the capability of our small businesses to hire. That is what we are trying to spur right now, more employment. It is going to take systemic changes in government spending to get the debt and deficits down in this country. Lower spending is the only way we can have the systemic changes that are necessary to lower the government burden so the debt begins to get less and less.

My colleagues across the aisle have proposed their solution with a different approach to a balanced budget amendment. In our opinion, it is flawed because it fails to include a supermajority requirement to raise taxes and it separates Social Security from the Federal budget. That might seem like a good idea on its face, to assure that Social Security never goes under because there would not be a connection between Social Security and the Federal budget, but in fact as we speak today it is part of our Federal budget because the Social Security outlays exceed what is coming in revenue from Social Security. Excluding Social Security from our Federal budget would not solve our deficit spending or shore up Social Security's finances for current and future generations. Right now, Social Security is on a glidepath toward insolvency.

I firmly believe that entitlement reform is vital to any long-term solution to our Nation's financial problems. It is essential that we assure the markets that long-term financial challenges are being confronted, and that includes entitlement reform so that Social Security will be on a glidepath toward solvency rather than the other way around.

Earlier this year I proposed a modest Social Security reform that would gradually increase the retirement age so it more closely resembles today's actuarial tables and life expectancy. It would decrease the annual cost of living slightly by adjusting it if inflation exceeds 1 percent. If inflation exceeds 1 percent, then you would have a cost-of-living adjustment. Otherwise, you would not.

In addition to spending reduction and entitlement reform, we need long-term progrowth tax policies in place, not constant threats of tax increases. When we hear our small business people talking about why they are not hiring--because I think probably every one of us in this Senate as we travel around our States and in the country asks our small business people why aren't you hiring? Why aren't you adding to our economy?--they say two things. They say, No. 1, the regulations of this country are driving them down. It is like a blanket over their capability to produce, get more traction and hire people. So it is overregulation that we are seeing rampant in this administration.

The second thing is our President is always talking about tax increases. He talks about it every time I see an interview or a speech. Those people out there need to pay more taxes. You know what, if you are being constantly threatened with more taxes, you know you have to look at your budget and adjust, and that adjustment usually means you are not going to hire people if you know your expenses are going to go up through regulations and more taxes.

If we are going to make conditions in this country better for private sector job growth in this country, which certainly would lead to a stronger economy, we have to address spending and tax policy. Our balanced budget amendment moves forward on these fronts. We reduce spending responsibly, to put our country on a fiscally responsible path. We can shift the spending trajectory in this country by passing the balanced budget amendment and implementing a long-term plan that caps Federal spending. The Federal Government has grown exponentially in the last few years. We cannot sustain that. That is not a responsible position when we know unemployment is almost 9 percent. We have to have policies that will encourage employment. That is the way to grow revenue.

We can grow revenue, but not by taxing the people who are hiring. Rather, we can do it by giving them a regulatory playing field that is responsible

and not overbearing, and by making sure we have not only a tax policy that encourages hiring but one that is stable and predictable.

If taxes are going to change every year, that is not predictable and it is not stable. I hate it when I talk to an international company and I am talking to someone in that company--maybe the CEO, or chief financial officer--and I say, why are you moving that part of your company overseas? They will invariably say: Because there is a better regulatory environment.

That is shocking. It is shocking for an American CEO to say we can better predict what the conditions for regulations are in foreign countries than we can in America. That is not the foundation to revive our economy.

We have a balanced budget amendment that we believe addresses the issues of this economy. It will put caps on Federal spending. It will start bringing down the size of government to meet the gross domestic product of our country. Right now it is off balance and we need to put it right so we do start hiring in this country in the private sector. Hiring in the government sector is not a long-term growth strategy. We need jobs in the private sector for permanency and we will do that with a balanced budget amendment that puts caps on spending. Systemic change is what is necessary in this kind of environment. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will look at these amendments and realize we could help the jitters in the market get calmed by addressing this in a long-term way.

The balanced budget amendment we are offering--and we will vote on tomorrow--is the best approach. It is looked at by people in the real world, the business world, the hiring world. They are saying what they need is stable regulatory environment and taxes that are not confiscatory so they will have the ability to hire more Americans and create greater revenues through people who are working and producing-- people who are going to pay taxes, people who are going to export and keep our economy on a growth pattern rather than one that continues to sit there with a high unemployment rate that is stagnating our country.

I yield the floor.