Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to express my disapproval of the President's request of a debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion, which would place the total limit just below $16.4 trillion. The requested increase amounts to nearly $4,000 of additional debt for every American man, woman, and child; and the total debt limit being requested works out to over $50,000 per person. This would be a terrible burden to impose on our children. For many in Washington, including this President, this debt limit increase is just a matter-of-fact necessity. Watching the mainstream media, many Americans might be surprised to even know that it was set to happen. But this is no small matter. This is not an inconsequential increase in the limit on Federal spending. Federal spending is already out of control, and we all know it. Our total debt is already greater than the size of our entire economy. I will repeat that: Our total debt is greater than the size of our entire economy. The debt ceiling increase being requested amounts to nearly 8 percent of our entire gross domestic product, or GDP, and the total debt limit being requested amounts to over 108 percent of GDP. That would place us in worse shape than many of the eurozone countries currently confronting their devastating fiscal crisis. Given the recent experience in Europe, it is disconcerting to hear repeated calls by the grow-government-at-all-costs crowd to double down on failed government initiatives to stimulate the economy by borrowing even more. Rates are cheap, they say, so let's continue riding this debt bubble as far as we can. We should have learned from the housing bubble and the European sovereign debt bubble that bubbles pop rapidly and with great devastation. It was not long ago that the grow-government crowd was mocking concerns about indebtedness in the eurozone, taunting what they called ``bond vigilantes'' and saying that there was nothing there to see. Interest rates will not go up. Don't worry. Rates are low, so borrow and spend. We know how this story ends. It was not long ago that we saw the housing market participants, lured in by the promise of an ever-bigger ``McMansion,'' being told: Don't worry. Rates are low and housing prices never fall. The government backs your mortgage, so there is no risk. As outsized and highly speculative activity took place in the housing and financial sectors, Federal regulators ignored all warnings, failed to use their existing authority to promote safety and soundness and, frankly, failed to do their jobs. To date, it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a single name of a regulator who lost a job. In fact, many in the top slots got promotions. Meanwhile, everything bad that exists in the housing market and in mortgage finance is blamed on the evils of private business. That is a great way to deflect regulatory failure, but a terrible way to get private activity back into the housing arena. The fact is, the housing bubble was caused by too much borrowing and the folks who egged it on. The results were not pretty. Global investors struck against mortgage-backed securities issued in the United States, leading ultimately to a precipitous global strike on financial intermediation and massive government bailouts of financial institutions. The experience with the housing bubble caused by mortgage debt is being replicated with the explosion of sovereign debt. The bond vigilantes did strike against profligate eurozone countries, and they precipitously demanded higher and higher interest rates to protect lenders from risks of default. This effectively shut entire countries out of the debt market. Entire countries face an inability to borrow at rates they can sustain. Absent an ability to roll over debt, those countries have been forced quickly and violently into fiscal restructuring, immediate austerity, and sometimes even partial default. The President's most recent request to take on more debt follows the same bubble pattern that we know will lead to devastation and losses. I, for one, don't wish for us to continue flirting with catastrophe by encouraging bubbles with the fools' gold that because rates are cheap we should borrow more. We are on the edge of the cliff, and it is time to carefully but deliberately take a few steps back. Rates may be low today, but they can turn on a dime. When they do, the outsized Federal Government we currently have will suddenly be exposed as unaffordable. When that day comes, our creditors can go on strike as quickly as they have in Europe. Last summer we got a taste of what is to come when we received the first downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt in history from a major credit rating agency. Americans can never be allowed to forget that this downgrade occurred under, and because of, this administration's fiscal stewardship. We cannot risk what are likely to be further downgrades in the near future by raising the debt limit. It is time to resist the siren song of cheap credit and put our focus back on the job at hand, which is to allow the private sector to create jobs and to get rid of the $1 trillion-plus deficits of the Obama Presidency, to get rid of our mountain of debt that surpasses the size of our entire economy, and to bring the size of our Federal Government back to its historical norms. Federal outlays as a share of our entire economy averaged 18.6 percent over the past 40 years. Under the current administration, Federal outlays represent 25 percent of GDP in 2009, 23.8 percent in 2010, and were estimated to have been 25.3 percent in 2011. The current administration has engineered a Federal Government where outlays represent 25 percent--one-quarter--of our entire economy. The last time Federal spending represented such a large share of our economy was back in 1946 as the world began rebuilding after the ravages of World War II. I guess this is what one of my colleagues meant when he said the other day that America is in good shape. Economic and job growth remain weak, but Washington and the government jobs it funds is doing just fine. The administration likes to talk about economic fairness--about the haves and have-nots. But ultimately the people in the best shape in this economy are those who owe their livelihoods to the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers. When the 99 percent are being taxed to fund and fuel an ever-growing Washington bureaucracy, we have what the President might call economic justice. There is no end in sight. After Federal spending spiked in World War II as the entire Nation mobilized to defeat the axis powers, it quickly ratcheted down, with Federal spending averaging 16.5 percent of GDP in the 10 years that followed. Yet with President Obama, the ratchet only moved in one direction, up. Equally of interest is the behavior of Federal spending relative to the size of the economy in those Clinton years, which many look back on as the golden age of fiscal correctness. While Democrats focus solely on the existence of budgetary bliss despite higher tax rates under Clinton, they typically fail to mention how the budgetary bliss was generated. It is difficult to deny the facts, which include a reduction in Federal outlays relative to GDP from 21.4 percent in 1993 to 18.2 percent by 2001, a 3.2-percentage point reduction. During those years government receipts relative to GDP did rise from 17.5 percent to 19.5 percent, a 2.0-percentage point increase. But it is impossible to deny that the budget bliss was largely generated by reducing the share of the economy accounted for by Federal spending. Of course, my friends on other side of the aisle pledge allegiance to tax- and-spend economics. They wish to maintain a Federal Government where spending amounts to one-quarter of the size of the entire economy. To them, Federal spending and big government are not problems; they are virtues from which good things trickle down from government to preferred classes of people. They decry that a deep recession has caused government receipts as a share of GDP to fall below 15 percent and argue in panic that the decline is proof that taxes must be raised, while refusing to acknowledge that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that revenues as a share of GDP will rise with economic recovery. Federal revenues have averaged 18 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. They are projected by our Congressional Budget Office to reach nearly 19 percent of GDP in 2013, 21 percent in 2021, and 23 percent by 2035 under current law. That is what they say. Even under the CBO's so-called alternative fiscal scenario, CBO puts revenues as a share of GDP at around 18.4 percent, higher than the long-run average. Congress and the President should focus on the things they are capable of controlling. Mr. President, Federal revenues come from the economy, and as the economy recovers, CBO expects revenues to recover and rise above historical norms relative to the size of the economy. The President and his allies are putting the cart before the horse. They want to increase revenues by raising taxes. But the real way to increase revenues is to promote economic growth. Federal spending is something that Congress and the President have full control over, however. Every Federal dollar spent counts because Congress and the President decide to spend it. Our deficits and debt are on an unsustainable path because of unsustainable spending. Yet with this debt limit increase, the President and his allies are confirming they are comfortable with our government consuming an ever- increasing share of the economy. The President has made clear before that in the name of class warfare he is comfortable raising taxes regardless of whether those tax hikes generate revenues or decrease deficits and debt. With his latest proposal to tax the so-called rich, he has shown again he is willing to ignore the fact--the clear fact--we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. To tackle our spending problem, unsustainable government promises embedded in entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security must be reformed. There is no budget analyst on this planet who does not identify entitlement reform as key to getting the Federal budget back on track. Yet over the 3 years of the Obama Presidency, there has been no plan--no plan from the administration--to deal with entitlements. The entitlement can is simply being kicked down the road, and to deflect attention from our real fiscal challenges my friends on the other side of the aisle resort to the politics of division. Tax the evil banks and all will be equal, just, and fair, they suggest. Tax millionaires and billionaires no matter whether they are fat cats on yachts or small business owners and all will be equal, just, and fair, they suggest. The politics of division bears no fruit. It is an economic dead end. Yet it is elevated to the top of the President's agenda to divert attention from our bloated Federal Government. The taxes on the so- called rich or on evil financial institutions or evil energy producers or evil insurance providers have been promoted in the interest of fairness and equality. Reducing income and wealth inequality is a laudable goal. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle have not--and I repeat, have not--proposed new tax measures to generate greater income equality through the Tax Code. The numerous permanent surtaxes on the so-called rich or on energy producers or on financial institutions have not been offered with corresponding permanent reductions in taxes for others with lesser means. Rather, they have been offered to promote more government spending and a permanently larger government. They are permanent tax hikes used to pay for temporary stimulus or taxes on business to fuel more spending or bailouts or government jobs. Of course, no mention is made of what effect those taxes have on businesses or private sector job creation. No mention is made about the effect those taxes have on the returns on retirement portfolios of seniors, which contain stocks and bonds of the vilified banks and energy producers and insurance companies. The message to retired seniors in Sandy, UT, is clear: You have been suffering for years through near-zero returns on bonds because of Federal Reserve policy. But now you will just have to take it on the chin when the value of your pensions fall because the Federal Government needs to tax business to get more revenue for union construction jobs or stimulus or for bailouts of mortgages of speculative housing investors. Mr. President, my friends on the other side of the aisle say they want more equality and more jobs but do not offer tax proposals that would generate more equality through the Tax Code or a better environment for job creation. Instead, they want to tax the so-called rich to get money for things such as high-paid infrastructure contractors while fighting tooth and nail on behalf of their union constituencies to retain and even expand Davis-Bacon and Contract Service Act coverage, which we know costs taxpayers money and stifles job creation. These kinds of schemes have nothing to do with equality. They have nothing to do with promoting as much job creation as possible. They have everything to do with the politics of division and with cronyism. In the recent flurry of tax-the-rich surcharges offered by the other side, each corresponding spending idea has been clearly directed to appease Democratic constituencies--mostly unions, again--and to build up campaign season talking points that say the only thing standing in the way of Democrats' do-goodery is Republican refusal to tax some easily demonized group. This might make for good politics, but it is no way to formulate fiscal policy, and it is no way to run a country. At first, to pay for a massive new stimulus plan of the President, the Democrats wanted to limit deductions for people earning $200,000 or more, which in September of last year was evidently how Democrats defined who was rich. Next came a proposed surtax of 5.6 percent on people earning $1 million or more to pay for the President's stimulus scheme. I am guessing the earlier definition of ``rich'' at $200,000 did not sit too well--or poll too well--with Democrats in high-income jurisdictions, in places such as New York and California. Next came a surtax of 0.5 percent on those earners to give funds to States to help pay mostly union workers. Next came a surtax of 0.7 percent on those earners to help pay for a new Fannie-and-Freddie-like, government-sponsored enterprise called the infrastructure bank. Next came a permanent surtax of 3.25 percent on those earners for what was billed as a temporary payroll tax preference which, ironically, gives more to richer earners than it does to poorer earners and gives nothing at all to the unemployed. Next came a long-term surtax of 1.9 percent on richer earners, again for the allegedly temporary payroll tax preference. Mr. President, the pattern is clear. Democrats settle on their stimulus spending plan of the week, find out how much it will cost, and then find out what surtax to slap on high earners, including business income recipients. That is how we get tax proposals with rates of 5.6 percent, then 0.5 percent, then 0.7 percent, then 3.25 percent, then 1.9 percent, and who knows what is going to come next. Never mind that businesses across this country have been clear that massive uncertainty from the current administration's policies and proposals is holding back hiring, job creation, and the economy. Given the past few months of tax rate roulette being played by the Democrats, is it any wonder families and businesses lack the confidence to take risks, make significant purchases and grow the economy? And never mind that the Joint Committee on Taxation has told us approximately 34 percent of flow-through business income, which tends to be small business income, would be subject to Democratic surtax proposals. My friends on the other side of the aisle ask us not to mind the effect on job creators, even as the economy faces massive joblessness. If we abide by the recommendations of the editors of the New York Times, who are in lockstep with the Democratic Party, we should not care about more taxes on businesses. Indeed, in a December 9 editorial last year, those tax policy experts told us: For any savvy business owner, a surtax would have no bearing on hiring decisions. If new workers are profitable before tax, they will be profitable after tax, even if the employer has to pay slightly more of the profit in taxes. This view perfectly encapsulates the understanding of the economy held by those who have never created a private sector job or worked to turn a profit. By this view, these rich business owners would not even flinch if we increases taxes. After-tax profitability of hiring does not matter evidently, especially when we view business earners as those evil rich. Mr. President, I know in certain circles it is fashionable to vilify business and hold the profit motive as the root cause of mega-wealth. But the notion that business decisions, including hiring, will not be affected in the least by higher taxes is truly bizarre. The ongoing vilification of private businesses in America is shameful. Hard-working Americans who are by no definition rich, but who work in mortgage markets and real estate markets and securitization markets and energy production markets and in financial markets, have been hit with a blanket indictment from this administration that they are wrongdoers. Of course, if they do wrong they need to go to jail. But my experience with the American people is, by and large, they play by the rules, seek to offer useful products to their buyers, and look only for fair rewards for their efforts. They do not deserve to be vilified by the President and painted as purveyors of tricks and traps to abuse their neighbors in order to buy yachts. Again, anyone who breaks a law should go to jail. Any Federal regulator who fails to do their job should be fired. But the vast majority of Americans who operate and work hard and honestly in business should not be shamed for their work. It would be far more appropriate to shame lawmakers who set tricks and traps in the Tax Code in order to get more money for the Federal Government to spend while falsely selling their schemes as paths toward equality. While President Obama seeks to take attention away from his historically record-high deficits and Federal spending that accounts for 25 percent of the economy and his jobs deficit and his congressional relations deficit by identifying some sort of ``trust deficit'' he has with financial institutions, it is imperative that he and Democrats in Congress do not spend the rest of this year playing election-year politics. People need jobs, and the Nation cannot afford to wait for the President and Democrats to get past November. We need to stop the tsunami of job-crushing regulations and the runaway regulatory agencies which continually stretch their authority in order to intervene into the economy and crush job creation. We need to reduce the time needed for private sector projects to clear the forest of regulatory and permitting redtape. We need to proceed immediately with known shovel-ready, job-creating, and environmentally safe projects such as the Keystone Pipeline. Despite having cleared years of reviews and oversight and despite support from virtually all interests--including unions but excluding radical environmentalists--it is inconsistent for the President to say he cares about American jobs while he prevents them from being created by approving the pipeline. While the President needs to approve the Keystone Pipeline, I wish to again express my disapproval of the administration's Federal spending pipeline. For 3 years, the administration has lacked any serious and coherent budget plan. The administration has refused to deal seriously, if at all, with tackling unsustainable entitlement spending. It wishes to continue to practice the politics of division in order to permanently enshrine a European-sized Federal Government that absorbs over one- fourth of the entire size of our economy. Americans do not want this oversized government. Americans do not want or need job-stifling tax hikes. Americans do not need the Federal Government running their lives and making their choices. Allowing the debt limit to rise would only serve to promote things that Americans do not want and that Americans do not need. Therefore, I disapprove of the President's request for a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit which would place the total limit at nearly $16.4 trillion, and I urge my colleagues to similarly disapprove. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are here today to debate the President's desire to take on more debt. We are here to debate whether it is a good thing to put current and future generations on the hook for the spending policies of this administration. I believe that it is not a good thing. We should not enable this administration to spend more taxpayer dollars by increasing the debt ceiling. We should be forcing the administration to lead, and to make the reductions in government programs and spending that everyone knows must happen if we are to remain a free and prosperous Nation. Here is the bottom line, and it is not pretty. Our debt today is $4.6 trillion higher than when President Obama took office. In his 3 years in office, President Obama has run up the three largest deficits in American history. Three trillion-dollar deficits. This is an enormous burden that the President is placing on American taxpayers. He talks about fairness. Well, this debt is unfair to current taxpayers and future generations. Yet by this debt ceiling increase, he wants Congress to give him a green light to spend more, running our debt up to nearly $16.4 trillion. The debt per person has increased by $13,963 since President Obama took office. This is unacceptable. I will be voting for this resolution of disapproval. The debt ceiling should not be increased. The fiscal path that this Nation is on is a path to ruin. The President knows that. But instead of hitting the brakes and getting spending under control, he is slamming on the accelerator. This is no longer acceptable. Voting for this resolution, as the House did overwhelmingly, would make it clear that the way to address our spending problem is by reducing spending. This resolution is worthy of our support, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, on January 4, 2012, Special Agent Francom of the Ogden, Utah Police Department, serving on the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force, was fatally wounded while defending his fellow officers as they attempted to serve a search warrant on an Ogden resident. I wish to express my deepest sympathies and condolences to Special Agent Francom's family--especially his wife and his two daughters--and the many friends he had throughout the whole community. Serving as a police officer was a lifelong dream for Special Agent Francom, one that was realized in 2004 when he joined the Ogden City Police Department. He served with honor and distinction and was trusted and beloved by his fellow officers. He was a fine man, a good father, a good husband and a model citizen and public servant. On January 11, a crowd of 4,000 people--about half of them uniformed officers from all over Utah and elsewhere--attended his funeral. Five of Special Agent Francom's fellow officers on the strike force-- five of them--including Officers Michael Rounkles, Kasey Burrell, and Shawn Grogan of the Ogden Police Department; Sergeant Nate Hutchinson of the Weber County Sheriff's Office; and Officer Jason Vanderwarf of the Roy Police Department, were also wounded in the shooting. Officer Burrell remains hospitalized as he recovers from the serious injuries he sustained in the shooting. Along with everyone in Utah, I am deeply saddened by this turn of events. At the same time, we are humbled, as this tragedy reminds us all of the bravery and dedication of the women and men of law enforcement who risk their lives every day to keep our communities and their communities safe. As I have served the people of Utah over the years, I have had a chance to meet and get to know many members of our law enforcement community. Without question, they are among the most honorable and courageous people any of us could ever hope to meet. I am honored every time I have an opportunity just to be in their presence. Today, I was joined by Senator Lee in submitting this resolution recognizing the sacrifice of Special Agent Francom, extending the Senate's condolences to his family and friends, expressing our good wishes to his fellow officers, and hoping they will all have a full and speedy recovery, and, of course, recognizing the remarkable courage and honor displayed by the men and women of law enforcement. I wish to thank my colleagues for their support of this resolution, which I know will mean a lot to Officer Francom's family, his fellow officers, and their community. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 355, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete these remarks. It might take a few seconds beyond.

Mr. HATCH. How much time do I have?

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, in a short while, we will vote on two balanced budget amendments to the Constitution, at least one of which will be a true balanced budget amendment. One of those amendments, S.J. Res. 10, the amendment supported by every Senate Republican, addresses the fundamental crisis of our time; that is, the crisis of exploding debt caused by excessive spending. The other amendment does not address that crisis and, therefore, cannot put this country back on a sound fiscal footing. The votes we cast today will tell the American people whether we honestly acknowledge the fiscal crisis posed by our $15 trillion national debt and whether we are serious about prescribing an effective cure. Exploding budget deficits and skyrocketing national debt are symptoms of an addiction to overspending. A real solution must address the real cause of this crisis, not just its symptoms. Congress will not kick its overspending addiction alone but only if required to do so by the Constitution itself. One of the amendments before us today, S.J. Res. 24, simply cannot be a solution because it does not address the overspending that causes this crisis. This amendment, offered by my colleague from Colorado, Senator Udall, on behalf of the Democrats, purports to require balanced budgets but, for purely political reasons, explicitly exempts significant portions of the very government spending that will most aggressively drive our future debt. The Democratic alternative sets no overall limit on government spending, allowing Congress to continue spending with impunity. The Democratic alternative does nothing to restrict the propensity of Congress and the President to raise taxes on families and businesses as a way of compensating for their failure to reduce spending and in order to fuel more spending in the future. In fact, as my friend Senator Kyl pointed out yesterday, the Democratic alternative actually makes it harder to cut taxes. To top it off, the Democrats' amendment not only sets no limits on Congress raising taxes, but it appears to allow judges to raise taxes to balance the budget. In other words, the Democratic alternative allows Congress to continue doing exactly what has caused this crisis in the first place. It allows Members of Congress committed to a tax-and-spend philosophy to continue sending taxpayer dollars to special interests at the expense of the general fiscal health of this country. The so-called solution that continues to enable out-of-control spending is no solution at all. Maintenance of this tax-and-spend status quo is the priority of those who support the Democratic alternative. Just listen to their criticism of my amendment, S.J. Res. 10, the one supported by all Republican Senators--every one of us. The Democrats criticize my amendment's requirement that Congress balance its books as too stringent. They criticize it for not allowing more stimulus spending, my gosh, and they criticize it for not allowing easy tax increases. The people of Utah, and most Americans for that matter, would respond that these are the very restrictions Congress needs. They would say these restrictions are long overdue and would be positive additions to our Constitution. It is no wonder the advocates of the wornout philosophy of tax and spend view the provisions of S.J. Res. 10, our constitutional amendment, as a threat. They are a threat. Our amendment's provisions are a threat to those whose only plan is to sit on their hands while our debt continues to skyrocket. The strong balanced budget amendment offered by the Republicans directly addresses the real cause of our budget crisis and offers equally direct solutions. It requires supermajorities. That doesn't mean we can't do things. It just says we have to have supermajorities to raise taxes. It means it requires wide bipartisan agreement for deficit or excess spending, as well as for raising either taxes or the debt limit. I would note a supermajority to raise the debt limit was in the balanced budget amendment that passed the Senate back in 1982. I know because I was the one pushing it. It passed the Senate. Our amendment limits both spending and the tax increases that fuel more spending. This is more than a balanced budget amendment. It is a fiscal discipline amendment or a constitutional amendment for limited government. Much of the Western world now faces a debt crisis. The eurozone is nearly reaching the point of no return. The United States is closing in on that same point of no return with our total debt already equal to 100 percent of our entire economy--of our GDP. The national debt now amounts to about $48,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Interest payments alone on this debt are now greater than spending on most other Federal programs and would be even higher if interest rates were not at historic lows. Annual budget deficits are larger than the entire national debt when I introduced my first balanced budget amendment. Let me say that again. Annual budget deficits--just the deficit this year and last year, just standing alone; this year's budget deficit and the annual budget deficits of this President--are larger than the entire national debt when I introduced the first balanced budget amendment in 1979 and 10 times higher than when the Senate last voted on a balanced budget amendment in 1997. More than two centuries ago, America's Founders warned of the dangers of debt. Thomas Jefferson, the forbearer of the Democratic Party, said public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared. He would be aghast at what Democrats are trying to sell. Alexander Hamilton said there ought to be perpetual, anxious, and unceasing efforts to reduce debt as fast as possible. John Adams said the experience of other countries that accumulate debt should prevent us from doing so ourselves. He might as well have been speaking about Europe today. He would be appalled at what we are doing around here. Watching the failure of Congress and the President to get spending and debt under control, these Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves, and I believe we continue to reject their wisdom at our peril. Despite all the evidence, opponents continue to claim Congress will make the tough fiscal choices by itself; that Congress does not need any help. After so many years of failure, that amounts to fiddling while our fiscal house is burning to the ground. That is the argument they make. Closing their eyes, shutting their ears, and repeating the mantra that Congress does not need a constitutional amendment is exactly what got us to the edge of the cliff we are standing on today and which we are about to go over, if we don't put some restraints on around here. If spending were a drug, Congress would be a very pathetic addict. An addict ignores evidence and denies he has a problem. An addict claims over and over that he can stop his addictive behavior any time. But similar to a real addict, Congress cannot kick the habit on its own. Congress needs some help. The Constitution is the way to get that help, and the Founding Fathers would have loved this amendment. Think of S.J. Res. 10 as a constitutional intervention. It will require not only that the Federal budget be balanced but that it be balanced in the right way. When we vote on these amendments, Senators will demonstrate where they stand on the great crisis of our time. Voting against any balanced budget amendment simply endorses the status quo. It ignores the evidence and pretends everything is fine, even as we head for the cliff. This is the only amendment that deserves the title of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Voting for the Democrats' alternative--S.J. Res. 24--also endorses the status quo because it barely touches the symptom--budget deficits and debt--while ignoring the cause--government spending. Without covering all government spending and without setting real limits on spending and taxes, the Democrats' alternative does little more than put a bandaid on the problem. It isn't even a good bandaid that holds. The only proposal before us that effectively responds to our budget crisis is S.J. Res. 10. It is the only proposal that addresses the real cause of the unbalanced budgets that are dragging us into fiscal quicksand. This crisis threatens national security, economic prosperity, and maybe, most important of all, individual liberty. Congress will not solve this crisis by itself. S.J. Res. 10 is the only solution that addresses not only the symptoms of our fiscal crisis but the cause as well. These are the facts. These are simply the facts, and I encourage my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 10. I heard the distinguished majority whip talking earlier, and just for a minute I think he was asking: Why do this. You know you can't win. We don't know we can't win. But even if we can't, some fights are worth fighting, especially when our national security, economic prosperity, and individual liberty are at stake. That is what we are living with right now. The American people need to know where we stand, whether we will ever do anything real or do something real about our addiction to overspending. That is the bankruptcy of our country right now--the addiction to overspending. Our amendment ends that addiction. It provides 5 years to get there, so it is a reasonable provision. But it does force us to get there. The Democratic amendment doesn't even attack the real problem. It is there for political purposes. It is there so Democrats can say: We voted for a balanced budget amendment, even though it, basically, has little to do with balancing the budget. I was enamored with the talk of the Democrat budget chairman yesterday, Senator Conrad from North Dakota. He went through all the problems we have and how deep they are and how problematic they are and what an addiction it is and all of that. Then he said we can do it by just doing what is right under the Constitution and forcing ourselves to do what is right and just balance the budget without a balanced budget amendment. He couldn't have made a better case for the balanced budget amendment because I have been here for 35 years, and I can say there hasn't been a real effort except during the mid-1990s to do that. That was when the first Republican House of Representatives and Senate in over 40 years took place. It was when they did have a President, Bill Clinton, who recognized that the time had come to do something about spending. I have to give him credit for that in contrast to our current President who just demands more taxes and more spending all the time. There isn't anything or any person he wouldn't tax if he could get away with it except those unable to pay any taxes at all, and nobody wants to tax them. The fact is, I think the distinguished Budget Committee chairman made a tremendous case for our amendment. I can say we have been going on way too long. Back in 1997, we came within one vote of passing this amendment. That was twice now. Remember, in 1992 we actually passed an amendment, but Tip O'Neill and the Democrats killed it in the House at that time. But in 1997 we came within one vote. I actually had the votes as I walked to the floor, and then one of our weak-kneed Republicans who was threatened by the unions, who had been high up on the endorsement list, who wanted to be seen every time we had a press conference on this issue, buckled and voted the other way and we lost. Had we won that amendment in 1997, we wouldn't be in this colossal mess we are in today. Frankly, I, for one, hope we can get out of that mess, and the only way we are going to is through a constitutional amendment that does what this amendment we are presenting actually calls for. I just do not believe our friends on the other side are ever going to quit taxing and spending, and I have 35 years to prove it--except when the first Republican Congress in over 40 years came into being, and they had a President who worked with them, a Democratic President, by the way. I wish we had a Democratic President here who would work with us. He would go down in history as one of the most popular Presidents in history if he would do so. But, no, he wants to tax and he wants to spend. Frankly, I am fed up with it, and I think a lot of people are fed up with it. The people out in the hinterlands are all fed up with it, and they realize we need to put some restraints on Congress it has to live up to. That doesn't mean we can't get a supermajority to raise taxes or we can't get a supermajority to raise the debt limit or we can't get a supermajority to an undeclared war--to give a good reason why our friends on the other side might want to support this. But it does mean there will be restraints that will work and will keep this country secure and free. I reserve the remainder of our time. I ask that any time be divided equally, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to reserve the remainder of our time but to permit the distinguished Senator from Colorado to utilize his 5 minutes at this time.

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, critics suggest a vote for our balanced budget amendment is a waste of the Chamber's time. That is pure bunk. The same folks who say we should not be voting on the Republicans' balanced budget amendment have also offered up their own amendment to show their constituents that they too want to balance the budget. I can tell you now that it is the Democratic alternative that misses the point, for a number of reasons. One, it doesn't address the true crisis. We have a crisis of spending. We are $15 trillion in debt, and the Democratic alternative does nothing to address it. No. 2, it carves out massive portions of government spending from their definition of Federal outlays. No. 3, even its balance requirements, the most basic feature of any balanced budget amendment, are easily overridden. No. 4, there is no cap on Federal spending. And, No. 5, there is no supermajority requirement for tax increases. Put it all together and this is what you get with the Democratic balanced budget amendment. You get a constitutional amendment that is going to force Congress to raise taxes on families and businesses to pay for out-of-control government spending. The Democratic alternative should be rejected. It might look good from a distance but up close it does not even begin to address our Nation's fiscal crisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this is the last chance to vote for a constitutional amendment that will truly do something, that will tie the hands of Congress so they have to live within fiscal constraints. We are taxing and spending this country into bankruptcy. We have a $15 trillion-plus national debt, growing to $20 trillion to $30 trillion. We don't have any restraint around here. People say: If we just live up to the Constitution and restrain ourselves, we can do that. They have been saying that for 35 years. The only time we have come to a balanced budget around here is when we had the first Republican Congress in over 40 years and we had a President who was willing to support it. This is our chance to try to do something for our country that will stop the outrageous, out-of-control spending. We need to do it. This amendment is the only one that can do it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I care a great deal for my colleague from Colorado, and I appreciate his explanation of his amendment. Unfortunately, as I view his amendment, it might work as long as you accept the rachet up of spending and taxing. That is what we are trying to stop around here. His S.J. Res 24 would be a band-aid on the system. It does not address the cause of our unbalanced budgets. An amendment that does not limit spending and does not limit taxes will never solve this crisis. It is just that simple. And to work, they have to use budget gimmicks. I wish to begin by thanking my friend, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley. In his service on the committee, he has always been a champion of our limited government, and with his remarks today he has again proven himself a strong advocate of constitutional government. So, too, my good friend and collaborator on a balanced budget amendment, Senator Cornyn, deserves recognition, as well as my partner in the Senate, Mike Lee, and a whole raft of others--47, to be exact. Earlier today, Senator Cornyn highlighted admirably the threat our debt poses to the liberty and prosperity of all of America's citizens. And although he has not spoken yet, I know in advance that my friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Mike Lee, with whom I worked closely in drafting S.J. Res 10, will deliver powerful remarks later today in support of this amendment and about the importance of restoring meaningful limits on the power of the Federal Government. Today we are engaged in a historic debate. You might not know it from the amount of time dedicated to the subject, but I am confident that when the history of our country is written, today will be marked as a turning point. Today is the day that every Republican in the Senate stood up for a strong balanced budget amendment that will begin to restore this Nation's fiscal integrity. It is the day that conservatives stood up and supported a constitutional amendment that would reset the limit on the size and power of a federal government that has grown far too large. It is the day that the people of this country stood up for serious constitutional limits on Congress and the President, who have spent with impunity for far too long. We are having this debate for a simple reason: Our Nation is now $15 trillion--actually more than $15 trillion and going up every day--in debt. This chart shows just how much it was just a few minutes ago. It is important to put this number in perspective. The Nation achieved the ignominious landmark of a trillion-dollar deficit in President Obama's first year in office. We are now in our third straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. The Federal Government is now borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends. The burden of this debt is more than $48,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. The Congressional Budget Office projects that interest payments alone on all of this debt will total $4.5 trillion, crowding out many other national priorities. For 2010, spending on interest on the national debt is greater than the funding for most other Federal programs. Let's look at that. As you can see, in 1 year, spending on interest on the national debt is greater than funding for most programs--$656.7 billion for the Department of Defense; $414 billion for interest expense; $173 billion for the Department of Labor; $129 billion for the Department of Agriculture; $108 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs; and just one other I will mention, $92.9 billion for the Department of Education. Well, the impact of this quickly escalating debt burden could prove catastrophic for economic growth and for American families. In a letter to the then-ranking member of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, the Congressional Budget Office determined that ``beyond 2058, projected deficits in the alternative fiscal scenario become so large and unsustainable that CBO's model cannot calculate their effects.'' That ought to tell you something. In other words, the CBO model crashes when it even attempts to calculate the impact of all of this debt on economic growth. Yet all of these numbers might be understating the Nation's debt burden. What happens if interest rates rise? Right now they are at historic lows, but that will not always be the case, and we are figuring on historic lows right now as though they are going to continue. According to CBO's alternative fiscal scenario, which is our most realistic fiscal scenario, debt held by the public will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2021. Now, that is if they are right, and they have never been right yet over the long term; they are always low. Absent real fiscal reforms, it will reach 100 percent of GDP by 2035. But this does not tell the whole bleak story. The fact is, when you include the IOUs the government has issued to itself, intergovernmental holdings, our debt is already at 100 percent of GDP--larger than our entire economy. When are our friends on the other side going to start thinking about these things and start realizing that they are taking us right down into bankruptcy in this country? This debt burden we have is simply not sustainable. If interest rates go back to their average in the 1990s, our public debt will increase by 77 percent over even these grim estimates I have just mentioned. We are spending at historical highs and going higher, and with interest on the debt taking a larger and larger share of spending, we need to be very concerned as a nation that we are entering a debt spiral from which we will have a difficult time extricating ourselves. For these reasons, ADM Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded that our national debt is the ``biggest threat we have to our national security.'' For these reasons, Standard & Poor's issued its historic downgrade of U.S. Treasuries this past summer. The impact of this debt is more than academic; it will eventually lead to higher interest rates for all Americans, undermining the ability of people to purchase a home, buy a car, or even start a business. Most importantly, it will fundamentally alter the relationship of citizens to their government. It will further undermine personal liberty. It will lead to more government control of the economy. And it will jeopardize the livelihoods of American business owners and workers as ever-escalating debt and government spending embolden those who seek higher taxes to finance this leviation. The solution to this problem is S.J. Res. 10, the balanced budget amendment supported by every Senate Republican, all 47 of us. In the time I have been fortunate enough to serve the people of Utah, I have sponsored 5 balanced budget amendments and have been an original cosponsor of 18. These amendments have not been identical. Their provisions have been honed over time. I am confident this version strikes just the right balance. It is the right amendment for the right time. We face a crisis of spending and a government that has clearly exploded in size. This constitutional amendment is the only one that will be debated this week that will address that crisis and would reduce the size of this Leviathan government. The President has strongly opposed not only this balanced budget amendment but any balanced budget amendment. As he said: ``We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs.'' My goodness. That is what he said on July 15 of this year. I wish to spend a few moments considering the President's claim. The President claimed that a balanced budget amendment is not necessary because ``the Constitution already tells us to do our jobs--and to make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices.'' The President's spokesman, Jay Carney, elaborated in greater detail on why a balanced budget amendment is not necessary. According to him, balancing the budget is ``not complicated.'' All that is needed is that we put politics aside, quit ducking responsibility, and roll up our sleeves and get to work. Yet all I hear from the White House is that we have to have more taxes and more spending. This is the lament of the tough chooser, a term coined by the journalist Andrew Ferguson. The tough chooser talks a lot about making tough choices. But when it comes to actually making them, the tough chooser goes missing. Tough choosers, concerned about our deficits and debt, voted for ObamaCare, even though it increased spending by $2.6 trillion and taxes by over $1 trillion. Tough choosers reject a balanced budget amendment because all that is required, in their view, is some tough choosing by legislators. The problem with this theory is that the so-called tough choosers never step up. The past history of the balanced budget amendment is all the evidence we need that a constitutional amendment is required to force legislators and the White House to make these tough choices. But given President Obama's rejection of the balanced budget amendment, it is worth considering his own actions this year and his personal contributions to deficit reduction. That record is a weak one of denial and avoidance. Following the clear statement of the American people last November that Washington needed to address deficits and debt, the President had an opportunity to lead with his fiscal year 2012 budget. Yet this is how the Washington Post described the impact of that budget. After next year, ``the deficit will begin to fall, settling around $600 billion a year through 2018, when it would once again begin to climb as a growing number of retirees tapped into Social Security and Medicare.'' So the President, who today is telling us that he and Congress are willing to buckle down and make tough choices to balance the Nation's books, gave us a budget that did little to put this country on a path toward long-term fiscal sustainability. The President's budget landed with such a thud and was so unresponsive to the desire of the American people to tackle the debt, that he took a mulligan and attempted a budget do-over in the Spring. In an April 13 speech at George Washington University, President Obama offered a revised budget. True to form, he did not stick his neck out and actually offer anything that could be scored by the CBO. Yet Republicans did analyze the President's speech, and after stripping out the gimmicks and the rosy scenarios, they found that far from making any tough choices, his do-over actually added $2.2 trillion to the deficit. This avoidance of tough choosing by Washington's tough choosers is, unfortunately, the norm. We have heard the President's argument before. I have heard it now for 35 years, maybe not just from him but from others as well. We hear it every time a balanced budget amendment comes to the floor and is debated in the Senate. The opponents claim there is no need for a balanced budget amendment; all that is necessary is that we put politics aside and make the tough choices. So how is that working out for our country? When I introduced my first balanced budget amendment in 1979, the national debt was $827 billion. We thought that was astronomical. In 1982, when the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment that I cosponsored, the national debt had risen to $1.1 trillion. In 1986, when the Senate failed by one vote to pass a balanced budget amendment that I cosponsored, the national debt topped $2.1 trillion. By 1997, when this body voted on a balanced budget amendment that I introduced, the national debt had passed the $5 trillion mark. Today, it is three times that amount--over $15 trillion. The record is clear. Absent the constitutional restraint of a balanced budget amendment, Congress and the President do not make the tough choices. Instead, they take the path of least resistance. They gladly disperse Federal dollars today--to grateful special interests-- and then figure out a way to pay for it tomorrow, except they never figure out the way. This is not the political and economic philosophy of the Founders, who warned at the birth of our Republic against debt and overspending. That is the political philosophy of J. Wellington Wimpy, who would ``gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.'' A balanced budget amendment is not an abdication of Congress's responsibility. On the contrary, it would force Congress to live up to its responsibilities. It would force Congress and the President to make the choices about national spending priorities they have thus far been unwilling to make. I don't think there are many Americans who question whether our fiscal situation would be better today if we had enacted and the States had ratified a constitutional amendment when Ronald Reagan was President. This is where we are headed as a country if we don't get our fiscal house in order. We are headed off a cliff. I could have put up a map of Greece, but that might have understated our predicament. Yet to hear the opponents of a balanced budget amendment talk, one would think the problem we face as a country is the amendment, not the out-of-control spending that demands such an amendment. These misplaced priorities fundamentally understate how much government spending is accelerating in this country and the threat this spending poses for personal liberty, constitutionally limited government, and free enterprise. As I noted earlier, our true debt burden is already 100 percent of GDP. This is very dangerous territory. According to the economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, public debt burdens above 90 percent of GDP are associated with 1-percent lower economic growth. I ask unanimous consent that a short article outlining their thesis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while one might quibble with the particulars of Reinhart's and Rogoff's assessment, failure to take it seriously, given the recent struggles of the eurozone, amounts to whistling past the graveyard. To be clear, the long-term source of our fiscal problem is overspending, not a lack of revenue. Our friends at the Heritage Foundation have done an excellent job of putting all this spending into historical perspective. I will run through some charts highlighting just how unusual and unsustainable recent levels of Federal spending have become. Any way we cut it, spending is up. Federal spending per household is skyrocketing, even with the $2.1 trillion in deficit reduction achieved by this summer's Budget Control Act. In 1965, Federal spending per household was $11,431. In 2010, it was $29,401. It is projected to hit $35,773 in 2020. That is per household. Federal spending is growing faster than median income. Between 1970 and 2009, total Federal spending rose by 299 percent, while median household income has gone up 27 percent in the same time period. Federal spending that is far out of line with historical averages is the cause of our annual deficits and total debt--not the much reviled 2001 and 2003 tax relief extended by President Obama and a Democratic Congress. Historically, revenues have averaged around 18 percent of GDP. As the economy recovers, CBO projects revenues to return to that historical average. Yet spending is going higher and higher. The end result of all this spending is not pretty to look at. Our national debt is going to skyrocket. Up to 344 percent by 2050. The problem the Senate Republican balanced budget amendment is meant to address is reckless spending. We will hear many arguments against this amendment. We will hear it prevents tax increases. We will hear it prevents deficit spending in an economic downturn. We will hear it hamstrings the Nation in times of military emergency and that it prevents spending in excess of 18 percent of GDP. It does no such thing. What it does do is require a broad national consensus before Congress spends beyond its means. It makes certain that there is deep bipartisan agreement before raising taxes--a provision the Nation would have benefited from prior to the decision of the President and congressional Democrats to drive through $1 trillion in ObamaCare tax increases on nearly party-line votes, and it demands wide support for spending in excess of 18 percent of GDP. As my friends at Americans for Prosperity put it in their letter of support for the Republican proposal, the amendment ``strikes a balance between allowing flexibility for some deficit spending in times of national emergency, while requiring supermajorities in both Chambers to do so. This assures citizens that the Federal Government will only run a deficit when there is broad consensus that a genuine crisis demands it.'' That sounds like pretty good language to me. I ask unanimous consent that that letter from Americans for Prosperity be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened with a great deal of interest to my good friend and colleague, and I do care a great deal for him. He has been budget chairman for quite a while. Frankly, he has been a lone voice over on that side, trying to get all of us to live within our means. I have great respect for him for at least trying. But we call budgets line-by-line discussions of just exactly what are the inflows and outgoes as determined by the Budget Committees. He hasn't been able to pass a budget mainly because he can't get his side together to do it. It is a disgrace not for him but because our colleagues will not do it. Nobody wants to do that because if they truly had a budget, that would mean we would have to get spending under control. We can't just keep doing it by adding taxes. We have a low rate of income coming in right now mainly because spending is completely out of whack. I listened to my colleague very carefully. I have to say he made a tremendous case for the constitutional balanced budget amendment because he kept going on and on about all the problems we have. He didn't mention we have been spending 25 percent of the GDP. Usually, that is around 20 percent. So 25 percent is a whopping amount of money. Our former CBO Director said: I guess the new normal will be somewhere around 23 percent. We have been spending around 20 percent, while the revenues are around 18 percent. Now they are spending 25 percent of our GDP. If there was ever an argument as to why we need some restraint in the Congress of the United States, it is, No. 1, they can't get a budget over there. We have a darned tough enough time over here when we are in charge. No. 2, we are spending this country blind. I think the distinguished Senator made that case eloquently. I think it is both parties too. But there is certainly one party that is much more used to spending than the other--I have to say that--and it is not the Republican Party. Look, all I heard in this last dissertation was what a rough road to hoe our country has. This amendment allows for 5 years to gradually reach a point where we can live with a balanced budget constitutional amendment. What it does is send a message to everybody in this body and the other body, over in the House of Representatives, that the game is over. We better get it in shape in 5 years. Some people don't think we can do it in 5 years. I am not so sure we can, but we have to try. Let me tell you, this country is in real trouble. My distinguished colleague and friend, whom I admire greatly because he does tell it the way it is--though sometimes has his own interpretation as to the way it is--made a pretty darned good case that we are out of control. I have only been here 35 years, but I have to say I haven't seen many days where we have even come close to a balanced budget, and I have seen spending after spending after spending and demands for taxes so they can spend more. Both sides are at fault, in my opinion, but one side much more than the other. I just wanted to make these points, because, my gosh, he made a great case for the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Frankly, I don't see how anybody listening would say the current way we are doing things is the right way to do it. Yes, this amendment would put constraints on Congress, and they would be tough constraints, but don't buy this argument there is no way we can raise revenue or no way we can spend under certain circumstances. It is just that you have to have a supermajority vote to do it, and you are going to have to make a case for it for the first time, in my time here, I will tell you that. I don't think anybody in this country thinks Congress is doing what is right with regard to raising taxes and spending. I have to say that I have watched it for all these years I have been in the Congress, and it is not working because we don't have the constraints that make us have to make it work. That is what this balanced budget amendment is all about. What they offer as a balanced budget amendment wouldn't put constraints on anything. It is just there so they can have something to vote for so they can say they voted for a balanced budget amendment. It is anything but a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we will hear there is a reasonable alternative being offered. But we need to understand this for what it is. It doesn't put any spending limitations on Congress. It leaves wide the door for massive tax increases to pay for levels of spending that are far outside our constitutional traditions. Even the requirement for balance--that outlays not exceed revenues--lacks strength, if we read it carefully. The bottom line is that there is no substitute for the strong balanced budget amendment being offered by the Senate Republicans. A number of protaxpayer groups committed to liberty and constitutionalism have written in support of our balanced budget amendment--Let Freedom Ring, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, the 60 Plus Association, Americans for Limited Government, and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, just to mention a few. I ask unanimous consent that their letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am so pleased conservative leaders such as Ed Meese, Dick Thornburgh, and Ken Blackwell have stood in support of a strong balanced budget amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point the op-eds to which I just referred.

Mr. HATCH. While a number of liberal groups committed to more government spending have lined up against our proposal, there is hardly a groundswell of support for the Democratic alternative. In fact, the lack of support for that proposal demonstrates more than anything I can say that it is a proposal designed with politics in mind. It is designed to provide cover for Members who want to say they support a balanced budget amendment while opposing the only amendment that would actually reduce government spending. The bottom line is that not all balanced budget amendments are created equal. The Senate Republican amendment is one to restore liberty and constitutional government by reducing the size and power of Washington. By contrast, the Democrats' alternative promises more of the same. It does nothing to rein in spending or address the fiscal crisis this Nation faces. The differences between these proposals highlight clearly the distinctions between conservatives in Congress and the President and his supporters. Although I am ever hopeful, I am realistic about the chances the Senate will pass S.J. Res. 10 tomorrow. I suspect the vote for the Senate Republican amendment will be as low as any the Senate has taken on a balanced budget amendment. This, though, shows how stark the differences have become between the two parties. The Democratic Party is now openly the party of tax and spend, the party of bigger and bigger government. That is why today's debate and tomorrow's vote represents what Ronald Reagan called ``a time for choosing.'' As President Obama's speech in Kansas showed the other day, he is not backing away from his goal of fundamentally reordering American society in a way that transforms individuals and businesses into the arms of the State. The President, having completely abandoned the political middle and thrown in with the far left to secure his reelection, is now arguing that it is wrongheaded to believe one's success in life is owing to one's own hard work. Because the President seems to believe that individual success is ultimately not the result of personal effort but, instead, due to society, adherence to and respect for property rights, and the simple notion that one owns the fruit of one's labors becomes for him and his supporters a quaint artifact of an earlier era in American history. The candidate of hope and change has turned out to be the President of spreading the wealth around. To succeed, he has embraced the politics of envy and class warfare that is far outside the mainstream of our political heritage. The Republicans' balanced budget amendment offers nothing so grandiose. All we seek is the restoration of some limits on the power of the Federal Government and meaningful reductions in spending, and we give the time to get there too in our amendment. All we promote is a decent respect for the right to one's own wages and the freedom promised in our Declaration of Independence. The Senate Republican balanced budget amendment secures these blessings of liberty, and I urge every one of my colleagues to support it. The opponents of this amendment will say it is somehow improper to constitutionalize a requirement for a balanced budget. Hogwash. Many of those same individuals do not bat an eye when five unelected Justices on the Supreme Court rewrite the Constitution to fit their own preferred policy goals. Yet it is somehow inappropriate for the Senate to send a balanced budget amendment to the people in the States for ratification. What are they afraid of? The Constitution ultimately belongs to the sovereign American people. It is only law because of their sovereign actions of ratification and amendment. It seems odd the Democratic Party that claims Thomas Jefferson as its founder would oppose giving the American people a voice on this foundational constitutional issue. After all, if President Obama, the progressive Democrat, was so confident in the strength of his arguments, he could rest easy knowing the people would decline to ratify a balanced budget constitutional amendment. So what are they so afraid of? Why are they so afraid to send this amendment to the people for ratification? Thirteen States could defeat this amendment. All they need to do is get 13 States to go against this amendment. That is what it would take to defeat it. That is all it would take. But it would be the people who would decide, not just a bunch of people here. If that is all the opponents of this amendment need, why are they so worried about sending it to the States for ratification? Why the lack of confidence in their powers of persuasion? I can tell you why. The people of this country would ratify this amendment so quickly its opponents' heads would spin. Those who oppose sending this balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification know the people are eager to ratify it. That is certainly the case in Utah. Earlier this year, Utah passed S. Con. Res. 201 expressing support for S.J. Res. 10, the balanced budget amendment I introduced, along with my friend and colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and my friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Lee, as well as 44 other Senators, all of whom deserve credit for this amendment. I commend to my colleagues the Utah Senate's Concurrent Resolution 201 of the 2011 Second Special Session. Mr. President, I take the instruction from Utah's State representatives very seriously. The Utah Legislature made it clear it supported ratification of this amendment, and I am confident if the Members of this body listen to their own State legislatures--49 of which are required to balance their own budgets--similar instructions would follow. Here is the bottom line. Liberal special interests oppose the Senate Republicans' balanced budget amendment because they know the people would ratify it. And if the people ratified it, the government-funded gravy train would come to an end. I look forward to this debate today. It is an important one, and I am confident that eventually the American people will ratify a balanced budget amendment and restore the promise of America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution for future generations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over the last few weeks the Senate has been engaged in a familiar exercise. The Democratic majority, urged on by the President, offers up an increase in spending to be paid for by an increase in taxes. If anything, this familiar refrain should cement in the minds of the American people that President Obama and his congressional allies remain committed to a policy of tax and spend. Let's not mistake any of this for carefully designed stimulus spending or tax policy. No, the series of tax-and-spend proposals brought to the Senate floor during the past few months were designed for political reasons only. It remains unclear what any of this has to do with job creation. In fact, I suspect that much of this bread and circus routine is meant to distract the families and taxpayers from the President's mediocre record on job creation and economic growth. For months the Senate has been asked to consider higher taxes, including surtaxes on the so-called rich to pay for whatever the Democrats have settled on as their spending idea of the week. Most of those ideas were sold as stimulus even though they include things such as an infrastructure bank, which would be a brandnew GSE to gobble taxpayer resources--just like Fannie and Freddie--and which would take years just to get off the ground. Most of the ideas have been designed to appease Democratic constituencies--mostly unions--and to construct campaign-season talking points attacking Republicans for their failure to increase taxes on the evil rich in order to pay for the Democrats' spending sugar highs. The focus on politics has become such a priority for the President that he is now in the unusual position of making a raid on Social Security's trust funds his principal policy objective. At first, to pay for the very massive new stimulus plan of the President's, the Democrats wanted to limit deductions for people earning $200,000 or more, which in September was evidently how they defined the so-called rich. Next came a proposed surtax of 5.6 percent on people earning $1 million or more to pay for the President's stimulus scheme. We can't be sure, but I suspect this jump in the income threshold for the Democrats' tax increases came when high-income Democrats in high-income jurisdictions such as New York, California, and New Jersey made it clear that this is where they had to part company with the President. Next came a surtax of 0.5 percent on high- income earners to give funds to States to help pay mostly union workers. Then came a surtax of 0.7 percent on those earners to help pay for a new Fannie and Freddie called an infrastructure bank. This was followed by a surtax of 3.25 percent on those earners for a payroll tax expenditure. Finally came a surtax of 1.9 percent on those earners for the payroll tax expenditure. The pattern is clear: Democrats roll out their stimulus spending plan of the week, find out how much it will cost, and then find out what surtax to slap on high earners, including business income recipients. That is how we get tax proposals with rates of 5.6 percent, then 0.5 percent, then 0.7 percent, then 3.25 percent, and then 1.9 percent. Who knows what will come next. Never mind that businesses across this country have been clear that massive uncertainty about the current administration's policies, regulations, and tax increases is holding back their hiring, job creation, and the economy. People are uncertain about what their future health care costs will be, what their future energy costs will be, what their future regulatory environment will be, and what their future taxes will be. Given the past few months of tax rate roulette being played by the Democrats, is it any wonder that families and businesses are uncertain and pessimistic about the future? These tax rates have nothing to do with designing optimal tax policy and everything to do with scoring cheap political points and growing an already bloated Federal Government. These tax rates have nothing to do with engineering greater wealth or income equality through the Tax Code. These tax rates have nothing to do with creating a foundation for growth in jobs and the economy. They have everything to do with paying for politically favored, poll-tested stimulus spending. In the President's $800 billion-plus stimulus of 2009, we were told that the measures would be temporary and we would ``pivot'' later to fiscal austerity. But the promised pivot never comes. Still today we are told to spend more now and pivot later, but the promised pivots never come. Unfortunately, unless we pivot, we will run off a budgetary cliff and face the deficit and debt crisis plaguing Europe today. These tax rates recently proposed by Democrats have nothing to do with long-term economic growth and more to do with the President's vision of government as the benevolent allocator of people's hard- earned income. Not content with his average deficits being close to 25 percent of the entire size of our economy--which we have not seen since the years surrounding World War II--the President and my Democratic friends here in the Senate want to permanently enshrine a European- sized government in the American economy. They don't just want additional infrastructure spending, they want a brandnew government bureaucracy free of Congress to tax and spend. They want an all- powerful, unchecked government czar to control the provision and costs of consumer credit cards. They want an overzealous EPA to control reliable sources of energy no matter what the cost of their policies. They want an activist Labor Department to control how workers and companies can bargain to control where they can operate a business and to push people into their union voting base whether they support the union or not. The President's pursuits are not those of someone who thinks that in certain instances government is constitutionally authorized to act and can occasionally do some good. His record is that of someone who is confident that in most cases, government technocrats can do better things with Americans' hard-earned incomes than Americans can do for themselves. When we look at the variable menu of recent tax rates proposed by Democrats, we have to ask whether, once enshrined into law, the 5.6- percent rate or the 0.5-percent rate or whatever happens to be their flavor of the week is where my friends on the other side of the aisle would leave things. I have every reason to doubt they would stop at those rates and every reason to believe they will work as hard as they can to keep increasing those rates, demolishing businesses and jobs as they go. I have every reason to believe the current President will stick with his commitment to ``spread the wealth around'' and ask the so-called rich--and that could mean people who earn as little as $200,000, according to Democrats--to pay ``just a little bit more.'' So where will they stop? What is the optimal tax-the-rich rate of taxation? Economist Peter Diamond, who was nominated by the President to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, has proposed in recent writings that ``tax policy needs to be socially acceptable'' and then finds it acceptable to go on to say that the so-called optimal top tax rate could be as high as 73 percent. The current top marginal tax rate on earnings in the U.S. economy is around 42.5 percent when we combine income tax rates of 35 percent with the Medicare tax and average State taxes. The cutoff for the top percentile of tax filers is about $400,000, according to Diamond's analysis. When we consider the liberal conventional wisdom about how businesses operate, the American people, it seems to me, should be careful about where the Democrats' tax hike proposals might lead. The bottom line is that the sky is the limit. Consider the New York Times' December 9 editorial, tucked in between advertisements for jewelry, properties, and baubles that only the tremendously megarich could afford, where the liberal press offered the following guidance on tax policy: The latest Democratic bill to cut the payroll tax, blocked by Republicans on Thursday, called for a 1.9 percent surtax on income over $1 million. More important, for any savvy business owner, a surtax would have no bearing on hiring decisions. If new workers are profitable before tax, they will be profitable after tax, even if the employer has to pay slightly more of the profit in taxes. This perfectly encapsulates the understanding of the economy by folks who have never run a business or tried to turn a profit. The liberal notion is that business owners are immune to basic economics and that their hiring decisions are entirely unaffected by tax rates.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for just a few minutes more.

Mr. HATCH. With this view in mind, it is not hard to imagine proposals for taxes upward of 73 percent because those megarich business owners simply won't flinch. The Democrats' burning desire to raise taxes seems to confuse income and wealth. They abhor the outsized wealth accumulation of the megarich, even though they love the campaign contributions flowing from them. They seem to think that massive increases in income taxes will cure the growth in inequality observed over decades in the United States and in many foreign economies. Some of our Nation's wealthiest individuals, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, join this chorus and call for higher taxes on others, even though they channel large portions of their wealth to private foundations, revealing their preference for resources to be allocated in the private sector rather than by the government. Even our President calls for more taxes on himself, although he could write a check to the IRS at any moment. He calls for a Buffett rule, even though he paid a tax rate of 26.3 percent in 2010, which, according to a recent Congressional Research Service analysis, means the President violates his own idea of the Buffett rule by paying a lower tax rate than well over 10 million more moderate income taxpayers. The past few months have witnessed a variable menu of tax rates offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle. They claim these tax increases will secure equality, economic growth, job creation, and more. Those claims are false. The evidence is clear that the recent proposals from Democrats have been more of the same: tax and spend, move toward a permanently larger government, and design politically motivated bills they know will fail in the Congress in order to hone election year talking points. We need to be clear with the American people that these proposals might be good for government, but they will do little to cure the ills of our economy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I reached this conclusion after applying the same standard I use for all judicial nominations. The Senate owes some deference to the President regarding judicial nominees who are qualified by virtue of their legal experience and, more importantly, their judicial philosophy. I want to briefly mention a few of the reasons why this controversial nominee fails to meet this standard. One hallmark of an activist judicial philosophy is trying to use the courts to solve problems or address issues that properly belong in the legislative branch. Both as solicitor general of New York and in private practice, Ms. Halligan argued that gun manufacturers should be held liable for the illegal use of their products. She argued that illegally possessed handguns are a so-called public nuisance for which manufacturers should be held responsible. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this radical theory and properly concluded that such social problems should be addressed by the legislative or executive branches rather than the judicial branch. Undeterred, Ms. Halligan next went to Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Congress enacted that statute so that manufacturers would not be held liable for the illegal use of their products. That measure passed the House and the Senate by at least a 2-to-1 margin. In this body, 14 Democrats voted for the bill, including 10 who still serve today. As had the New York Court of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Ms. Halligan's position, upholding the statute and dismissing the litigation. Ms. Halligan has also taken extreme positions regarding the war on terrorism. I know that liberals do not even want to call it that today, but the reality is that we remain at war against foreign terrorists bent on murdering American civilians. Ms. Halligan would give captured terrorists, who are making war on the United States, access to civilian courts, a right never before recognized in American history. Ms. Halligan was a member of a New York City bar committee that issued a report on the indefinite detention of enemy combatants. This is particularly important because the DC Circuit, to which Ms. Halligan has been nominated, is the most important lower court for terrorism cases. She did not abstain from signing the report, as four other committee members did, and so its content and conclusions can be attributed to her. She argued in that report that the authorization for use of military force, or AUMF, does not authorize long-term detention of enemy combatants and that alien terrorists should be tried in civilian courts rather than in military commissions. The Supreme Court and the Obama administration have since rejected or abandoned such positions. After the Supreme Court held, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that the AUMF does authorize military detention of resident aliens, Ms. Halligan coauthored a brief arguing otherwise. Not until her Judiciary Committee hearing this year did Ms. Halligan even try to distance herself from these extreme positions, something that my friends on the other side of the aisle would call a confirmation conversion if she were a Republican. Unfortunately, this was not the only example of Ms. Halligan getting behind novel rights that have no grounding in our Constitution or legal traditions. Ms. Halligan filed a brief in Roper v. Simmons arguing that evolving standards of decency today forbid the execution of individuals who committed murder before the age of 18. This is judicial activism at its worst, giving judges complete control of the Constitution that they are supposed to follow. America's Founders insisted that the meaning of the Constitution does not change until the people change it and that even judges are bound to follow that meaning. Today, in contrast, the Supreme Court says that the meaning of the Constitution is evolving and that judges are in charge of that evolution. The fact that Ms. Halligan appears to be solidly in that judicial activist camp is bad enough and is alone grounds to oppose her nomination. Perhaps sensing that such activism is deeply unpopular among the American people and their elected representatives, she did an about-face at her confirmation hearing and said that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the people's original meaning rather than on judges' evolving understandings. So it is legitimate to ask which Ms. Halligan is the real Ms. Halligan--the Ms. Halligan who would create new rights, while ignoring the clear language of the Constitution that protects the right to bear arms, or the Ms. Halligan who at the last minute has become a convert to originalism? I think her record speaks for itself. Ms. Halligan also filed a brief in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women arguing that pro-life protesters should be prosecuted under the Federal racketeering statute because they somehow commit extortion. Her argument would require the courts literally to rewrite both the racketeering statute and the extortion statute and is another example of Ms. Halligan seeking to pursue her political agenda in the judicial rather than in the legislative branch. I believe instead that the political ends do not justify the judicial means and, thankfully, the Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 to reject her position. In addition to her troubling record, it is worth noting that the position to which Ms. Halligan has been nominated hardly fits the category of a judicial emergency. The Senate has this year already confirmed nearly 20 percent more judges than the annual average over the past couple of decades, with, I am sure, more to come. We have paid particular attention to filling long-term vacancies in jurisdictions with heavy caseloads. Yet, between 1993 and 2010, annual case filings in the DC Circuit decreased by twice the percentage that filings increased in other circuits. The DC Circuit's caseload per judge is literally one-fourth what it is for other circuits. It has ranked last for years among all circuits in the number of appeals filed per three- judge panel, even after one of its seats was transferred to the Ninth Circuit and even with multiple vacancies. The DC Circuit's caseload is lower today than when Democrats used this caseload argument to block the nomination to this court of Peter Keisler, who waited more than 900 days without a committee vote. As my colleagues know, I do not oppose judicial nominees often or lightly. While Ms. Halligan appears to be an experienced lawyer and I am sure is a fine person, those are insufficient qualifications for judicial service. The most important qualification is her judicial philosophy, or the kind of judge she would be. The record shows that she embraces the activist judicial approach that I believe is incompatible with the power and proper role of judges in our system of government under a written Constitution. For these and for additional reasons that my colleagues will discuss further, I cannot support her appointment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this past August I had the opportunity to visit Beaver County, Utah, where I met an educator who is working tirelessly to prepare our Nation's youth for success in our transformative economy. This rural area of southwest Utah is home to my State's major energy initiatives, including the largest wind farm in Utah. In 2001 a local shop teacher, Andy Swapp, observed that Milford, UT could capitalize on the powerful winds in the area. Inspiring his students to learn about renewable energy, the class applied to Utah's anemometer loan program to erect a 20 meter meteorological tower. As the students collected and analyzed the wind data, they attracted the attention of a wind prospector named Curtis Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker was impressed with the preliminary data but more so with the dedication, enthusiasm and accomplishments of eighth grade students. He sent a 50 meter tower to Milford High School for Mr. Swapp and students to construct in the wind-swept desert. Mr. Swapp used the real world project to teach students about wind turbines and power outputs, inspiring students to apply their classroom lessons to developing solutions for affordable, abundant energy. As the commercial wind farm developed, Mr. Swapp's classes were continually relied upon for data collection while receiving training in wind farm maintenance operations. Over the last decade, Mr. Swapp's students participated in all phases of completing Utah's largest commercial wind farm. Mr. Swapp's dedication to fostering student learning and success is not limited to wind power. His classes at Milford High School won a Rocky Mountain Power ``Bluesky'' grant to install a 10 kilowatt array of solar panels on a dual axis tracker on the front lawn of the school, and a roof top mounted solar array. The students were allowed to work with the contractor, helping install the $125,000 system. The students are now monitoring the energy production to compare the dual axis tracker with the standard technology. His classes also participate in national electric race car construction contests. To broaden the education of his students, Mr. Swapp organized the Milford Renewable Energy Fair. With support from South West Applied Technology College, the fair has grown to include secondary schools from all over the State and major vendors in the industry. Milford High School is also home to the Southwest Renewable Energy Center, which Mr. Swapp helped devise to promote the energy-rich area of Beaver County and Southwest Utah. It is a collaboration of secondary schools, technical colleges, 4-year universities, State-wide economic advancement districts, research and development partnerships and technology commercialization firms. This center connects students to jobs, internships, and scholarships. Mr. Swapp is an outstanding example of educators bringing learning to life and helping students envision a sustainable future. Mr. Swapp's students have enrolled in energy and engineering programs at Southern Utah University and Southwest Applied Technology College. They have secured high-skill, high paying jobs in their hometown. Their paths have been inspired by the curiosity, creativity and dedication of their teacher. Prior to becoming an educator, Mr. Swapp served our country as a career infantry Sergeant in the U.S. Army. Following his service, he returned to Utah to offer rural students the very best in education, to expand their horizons, and to foster a positive attitude for their future. Mr. Swapp has been an example to his students by completing an Associate of Science, AS, from Dixie State College, a Bachelor of Science from Southern Utah University, and a Master of Science from Utah State University. Mr. President, I was really impressed with what I experienced in meeting Andy. I wanted to highlight the important, innovative work of a successful educator engaged in leading our Nation into the future.