Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our Nation's challenges grow by the day. The citizens of Utah get this. The citizens in this country get this. A recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that 62 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Only 37 percent of Americans approve of the President's job of handling the economy. I would like to meet those people, because when I talk to Utahns, the numbers are much lower than that, and I understand why. Applications for unemployment have been above 400,000 for 7 straight weeks. Economic growth is stagnant. Job growth is pathetic. The real estate market remains in free-fall. Since 2007, housing values have dropped by more than during the Great Depression. Medicare is going bankrupt, and when it does, it will take down this country and tens of millions of seniors with it. Yet President Obama and his Democratic allies steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with Medicare. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked where the Democrats' reform plan was, responded: We have a plan. It's called Medicare. Meanwhile, the President's handpicked chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee gleefully demagogs Republicans' efforts to fix this dying program. There are legitimate fears that the Federal Reserve's loose money policy is creating yet another stock market bubble that could pop and destroy the retirement savings of millions of Americans. Most ominously, PIMCO, the world's largest bond fund manager, is looking to countries such as Australia, Canada, Brazil, and Mexico, countries without our massive fiscal problems, to invest. As I have said before, there is a genuine risk that the United States is in a debt bubble. Because of historically low interest rates, we may be totally underestimating how dangerously leveraged this country is. But the minute rates start going up, citizens are going to realize how much they are on the hook for. When the word on the street is that U.S. Treasurys are not worth investing in, higher interest rates are just around the corner. So we have a lot of work to do, but I wish to touch on three things we should be doing now, and I mean right now. The people are demanding action, and there are a few things Congress can do that would bring relief to struggling American families. First, the President needs to submit the Colombia, Panama, and South Korean Free Trade Agreements to Congress. They are long overdue. The failure to submit these agreements has stalled U.S. job growth at a time when it is desperately needed. There is only upside to these agreements. Consider that from Utah alone, South Korea imported more than $294 million of goods in 2009. The former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Holtz- Eakin, has it right. This is what he said earlier this week in a letter to the President: Opening Colombia, South Korea, and Panama to U.S. businesses is anticipated to increase total exports by $12 billion, and will add at least $14 billion to the United States gross domestic product, promoting increased investment and job creation at home. While the President is down in Florida yukking it up with rich liberals about how he wasted nearly $1 trillion on his stimulus boondoggle, he seems oblivious to the fact that he could just hit send, deliver these agreements to Congress, and have a trade-driven economic stimulus. If given a clean up-or-down vote, I am confident these agreements would pass. I have no doubt who would prevail if that debate were allowed to happen. But old habits die hard. The President's spend-first mentality is cluttering what should be a clean debate on the benefit of these free-trade agreements for the American economy. Rumors persist that the President may include a reauthorization of an expanded trade adjustment assistance bill into one or perhaps all the bills implementing our trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. This would be a grave mistake. That tactic raises serious procedural concerns which could jeopardize approval of these job-creating agreements. It also raises serious concerns about the President's commitment to gaining approval of our long-stalled trade agreements with these important allies. It would send a signal that further placating unions is more important than growing our economy, a position I simply cannot understand or support. If the President chooses this course of action, he needs to know I will vigorously oppose him and reserve the right to use all procedural options available to do so. If, as the President says, there is such strong bipartisan support for trade adjustment assistance, it should be considered on its own merits and not thrust upon an unwilling Congress through procedural shenanigans. These trade agreements are something Washington can do, and should do, to get our economy back on track. But we must also be vigilant in fighting against proposals that would undermine our economy and our sovereignty. Standard & Poor's recently downgraded Greece's debt rating to CCC, from a B. This is the world's lowest rating, and S&P concluded that a default on Greek debt was increasingly likely. So what was the President's response? Like the Siren's Call, a bailout beckoned. He seemed to go all in for an IMF bailout of Greece. Greece has already been bailed out once by the IMF, to the tune of $145 billion. We cannot let this happen again. That is why today I am cosponsoring the anti-IMF bailout amendment with my good friends, Senators DeMint, Vitter, and Cornyn. This amendment, which we filed to the Economic Development Revitalization Act, would rescind bailout funds provided in 2009 to the International Monetary Fund. Under the urging of the Obama administration, additional funding of up to $108 billion was given to the IMF which it can use to bail out heavily indebted European countries such as Greece. The amendment I am cosponsoring would roll that funding back. Now is not the time, when Americans are struggling to find work and have budget problems of their own, to tap innocent American taxpayers in order to bail out profligate European governments. Rather, it is time to stop our own runaway spending and our continued movement toward European levels of government. If we go down that route, the destination is an America very different than the one our Founders intended, and it is critical we hit the brakes now and save our limited constitutional government. The American people are tired of bailouts. When ordinary Americans are struggling to get by and when our country faces its own debt crisis, the last thing we need is a bailout of irresponsible Socialist governments and the irresponsible investors who bet on them, which brings me to my final point. Earlier this week, my colleague and friend from Florida, Senator Marco Rubio, gave his maiden speech in the Senate. He is certainly to be commended. I sat here and listened to him. It was a tour de force, and I recommend that all my colleagues, and, for that matter, all the citizens of this Nation read it. He made it clear that he is confident in this Nation and our ability to weather the current storm and emerge in rich and steady seas. America's best days are ahead of it. America has been and will always be a shining city on a hill. But for there to be another American century, a century of liberty and prosperity both here and abroad, we have our work cut out for us. America is over $14 trillion in debt. We face our third straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. We have entitlement programs that are going bankrupt. Under this Presidency, we have lifted the debt ceiling three times and the last one, if I recall correctly, was about $1.9 trillion and we have basically just given the administration an open checkbook. We have entitlement programs that are going bankrupt. Our total obligations, according to one account, are over $62 trillion. This is a debt burden that is simply unsustainable. We need to get our spending under control immediately; otherwise, American families and citizens will be crushed under the weight of all this debt. The other side keeps telling us the problem is a lack of revenue. They say all we need to do is raise taxes and eliminate tax loopholes. Never mind the fact that raising taxes threatens to kill the small businesses that will be the engines of our economic recovery, and never mind the fact that these so-called loopholes include the IRAs, 401(k)s, and charitable deductions of American taxpayers. Let's not make any bones about it. The left's proposal to gut tax expenditures would put a bull's-eye on the backs of working families who have mortgages and save for the future. In the spirit of bipartisanship, as an aside to some of my friends on my side of the aisle who seem to think all expenditures are wasteful spending, consider the following: The third largest tax expenditure is the current lower rates for capital gains and dividends. Be careful, my friends; otherwise, you might end up inadvertently finding yourselves sharing the stage with my friend, the junior Senator from Vermont, in effect, advocating for a sharp hike in the rates of capital gains and dividends. Even if liberal Democrats did all these things, raising taxes on middle Americans and further hindering economic growth, we still would come nowhere close to balancing the budget. This is the dirty secret of President Obama and Democratic leadership to engage in meaningful efforts to balance the budget. As my colleague from Alabama, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, notes, it has been more than 770 days since Democrats passed a budget. That is disgraceful. For over 2 years, congressional Democrats have simply abdicated their most basic constitutional responsibility, and here is why. They have refused to cut spending, and they know balancing the budget for new taxes alone would be perceived as a full-blown assault on personal liberty and limited government. So instead of offering up a bogus budget, as the President did, and get laughed out of town, or offering up a proposal for balance that satisfies their liberal base, raises the tax burden to historic levels, and inspires the vitriol of their constituents, Democrats decided to keep their mouths shut. Where does that leave us? The answer, to me, is clear. We need to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. This is where the entire Republican caucus stands in the Senate. The amendment I introduced, S.J. Res. 10, is supported by every single Senate Republican. I bet it is the first time all Republican Senators have supported it. It is a good amendment that benefited from the input of many Senators, and it is a necessary amendment. Some people--the sophisticated set--argue this is not a serious proposal. The American people beg to differ. They know Congress will not balance the budget and shrink the size of government without meaningful constitutional restraints. The actions of Democrats and President Obama over the last few months are all the evidence we need to support this hypothesis. Facing a full-blown debt crisis, they still prefer to kick the spending can down the road. I want to be clear that I am deadly serious about this proposal, and so are the people of Utah. I have been pleased to work side-by-side with my colleague from Utah, Senator Mike Lee, on the balanced budget amendment, and Senator Cornyn and all the other Republicans. Some people might say Mike Lee and I are an odd couple. I have a few years on him, and I don't tend to be as animated as he is. He is a great young man with a lot of energy. But we share at least one thing, an absolute commitment to passing a balanced budget constitutional amendment and sending it to the people in the States for ratification. The people are demanding that we act, and it is well past time that we recognize their constitutional sovereignty and allow them to exercise it through State ratifying conventions. I would like to commend Senator Lee for his tireless work on this amendment. He is not the only one who deserves thanks, however. My colleagues, Senators Cornyn, Kyl, Toomey, DeMint, Rubio, Paul, and many other Republicans were essential in the development of this amendment, but it is special for me to be working with my friend, Senator Lee, on this critical constitutional amendment. He is a legitimate constitutional scholar, a steadfast advocate of our constitutionally limited government, and a hero to many. I could not be more proud to stand with him and lead this fight for the people of Utah and the taxpayers of this country. If the American people said anything last fall, it is they want their representatives in Washington to listen to them. They know we will not get it right every time, but they know we should always do our best to represent their values and their interests. This Congress needs to listen to the people. It needs to get these trade agreements done without holding them hostage to unrelated spending. It needs to say no to more bailouts, and it needs to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. In this country, the people are sovereign. I would have to say, if we would pass that constitutional amendment through the Senate, I believe we would get it through the House, and then it is up to the States. We still have to get three-quarters of the States to ratify it. To the extent that Democrats hate the constitutional amendment and hate that kind of restraint on their spending practices, they can lead the battle in the States. The problem is, they know this constitutional amendment would be ratified so fast our heads would be spinning. We need 38 States to ratify a constitutional amendment, and that is not easy under anybody's view. In this country let's let the people decide that. They are sovereign. It is well past time that Congress and the President listen to them. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today is Flag Day and it is the perfect day to re-introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to protect the American flag from physical desecration. I am joined in doing so today by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. He was an original cosponsor of this amendment on 6 previous occasions when I have introduced it, including in the 109th Congress when this body came within one vote of approving it. The American flag is a unique symbol of our country, of its history, and of our shared values. There is, in fact, no more powerful unifying general symbol. At the same time, the flag no doubt means different specific things to different individuals; Congress cannot, and should not attempt to, dictate what Americans believe, think, or say about the flag and whatever it represents to individuals. That said, Congress should have authority to protect this unique symbol from at least physical desecration. The Supreme Court stripped even that authority from Congress in 1990 when it held that physical desecration is ``speech'' protected by the First Amendment. I believe the Court was wrong in that conclusion, but because the Court claimed to speak for the Constitution, the only way for Congress once again to have authority to protect the flag is by amending the Constitution. In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington said that the very basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the people, not to the Supreme Court. As a result, the American people must have the opportunity to decide whether their Constitution should allow Congress to protect the flag. The amendment we introduce today is as simple as it can be. It states: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' Unfortunately, simplicity does not prevent distortion, either by negligence or intention. Critics and some in the media have led many to believe that this amendment by itself bans flag desecration. It does not. In fact, should Congress propose and the states ratify this amendment, it might not result in any change in the law at all. That would be up to Congress and the people we represent to decide. The issue is that today Congress is today prohibited by the Supreme Court from passing laws that protect the flag even if 100 percent of the American people wanted those laws and the Congress was ready to enact them. The American people should be given the opportunity to decide whether they want their Constitution to allow their Congress to pass laws protecting the American flag. That is the way a representative democracy like ours should function. The Supreme Court distorted that process and this amendment will correct the Court's error. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as many of you have done in the past, to support this amendment and to give this decision back to the American people.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today is Flag Day and it is the perfect day to re-introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to protect the American flag from physical desecration. I am joined in doing so today by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. He was an original cosponsor of this amendment on 6 previous occasions when I have introduced it, including in the 109th Congress when this body came within one vote of approving it. The American flag is a unique symbol of our country, of its history, and of our shared values. There is, in fact, no more powerful unifying general symbol. At the same time, the flag no doubt means different specific things to different individuals; Congress cannot, and should not attempt to, dictate what Americans believe, think, or say about the flag and whatever it represents to individuals. That said, Congress should have authority to protect this unique symbol from at least physical desecration. The Supreme Court stripped even that authority from Congress in 1990 when it held that physical desecration is ``speech'' protected by the First Amendment. I believe the Court was wrong in that conclusion, but because the Court claimed to speak for the Constitution, the only way for Congress once again to have authority to protect the flag is by amending the Constitution. In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington said that the very basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the people, not to the Supreme Court. As a result, the American people must have the opportunity to decide whether their Constitution should allow Congress to protect the flag. The amendment we introduce today is as simple as it can be. It states: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' Unfortunately, simplicity does not prevent distortion, either by negligence or intention. Critics and some in the media have led many to believe that this amendment by itself bans flag desecration. It does not. In fact, should Congress propose and the states ratify this amendment, it might not result in any change in the law at all. That would be up to Congress and the people we represent to decide. The issue is that today Congress is today prohibited by the Supreme Court from passing laws that protect the flag even if 100 percent of the American people wanted those laws and the Congress was ready to enact them. The American people should be given the opportunity to decide whether they want their Constitution to allow their Congress to pass laws protecting the American flag. That is the way a representative democracy like ours should function. The Supreme Court distorted that process and this amendment will correct the Court's error. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as many of you have done in the past, to support this amendment and to give this decision back to the American people.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one negative aspect of Senator Coburn's amendment No. 436, as modified, to the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 is that it is a tax increase that is not offset by a tax cut of an equal or greater amount. It takes away a tax incentive and therefore increases taxes but fails to cut taxes in another area, such as by lowering tax rates. I do not favor taking away tax incentives without cutting taxes in other areas to reach a revenue-neutral result. Revenue-neutrality should be judged using a current-policy baseline and not the unrealistic current-law baseline that builds in trillions of dollars of tax increases. However, in this case, the policy considerations regarding ending the tax incentive for corn-based ethanol outweigh this general principle. I will note that this is not the case for the larger-dollar, and more significant, tax incentives such as the home mortgage interest deduction. With respect to these tax incentives, any changes that increase revenue must be offset with a tax cut in another area, such as by lowering tax rates. My vote in favor of the Coburn amendment should not be viewed as a precedent for increasing taxes. Taxes are already headed higher than they historically have been according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Americans are not undertaxed, Washington overspends, and we need to get that spending under control. In terms of energy policy for our Nation, I think the case is more clear in favor of this amendment. I do not believe it makes sense to provide a tax incentive for a product that is also mandated by the Federal Government, which is what we have with ethanol. Moreover, energy tax incentives should be a temporary boost, not a long-term strategy to support an energy source that cannot compete on its own. I believe the time has come for corn ethanol to stand on its own as a transportation fuel.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for enough time to give my remarks this morning and I ask for an equivalent amount of time for the other side.

Mr. HATCH. I hope I can stay within the time constraints, but I am not sure.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 23 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to TSgt Kristoffer M. Solesbee of Hill Air Force Base's 75th Civil Engineer Squadron. Technical Sergeant Solesbee was killed in action near the city of Shorabak, Afghanistan. Technical Sergeant Solesbee was a brave and courageous man. Not only did he volunteer to serve his country, returning to the field of battle three times, twice in Iraq and this final tour in Afghanistan, but he volunteered for one of the most dangerous assignments in the war on terrorism; he was an explosive ordnance disposal technician. This is not the first time a member of Hill's EOD flight had been killed while protecting his fellow servicemembers from improvised explosive devices. In early 2007, three other members of the 75th Civil Engineering Squadron were also killed. Yet, despite this tragedy, Technical Sergeant Solesbee always returned to duty. I believe one of Utah's largest newspapers, The Standard Examiner, paid him the highest tribute when it stated ``Kristoffer M. Solesbee died doing what he loved: saving lives.'' I cannot think of a better definition of a true hero. From those who knew him best, his family, friends and fellow servicemembers, described him as smart and highly energetic. Growing up he loved model rockets and radio controlled cars and airplanes. During his 11-year career in the service, his fellow airmen came to rely upon him and his professionalism. Indeed, there is broad consensus among Hill's EOD technicians that he was the benchmark by which others were judged. His distinguished service also did not go unrecognized. Technical Sergeant Solesbee was the recipient of the Bronze Star Medal with Valor device and second oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, Purple Heart Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, Air Force Achievement Medal with one oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force Combat Action Medal. I know God will be watching over the family of this admirable man. He gave his life so that others may live. TSgt Kristoffer M. Solesbee will never be forgotten. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to rise and offer, with my good friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut, a concurrent resolution which reaffirms our Nation's steadfast and unshakable commitment to the security of Israel, specifically through the establishment of secure, recognized, and defensible borders. It is unfortunate that I am compelled to offer such a resolution. For years, both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that Israel's boundaries of June 4, 1967 are indefensible and if reestablished will create a strategic military vulnerability for our staunch ally. That is why President Obama's recent comments were so dumbfounding. The President's prepared and thoroughly considered remarks called for the starting point of negotiations to be what we all know are the militarily indefensible 1967 lines. Remember, if Israel returns to the 1967 lines its territory will, in some locations, be only 9 miles wide. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu correctly stated in a friendly and appropriate correction to the President's remarks, the 1967 lines are not boundaries of peace. They are boundaries of repeated war. Israel would have to give up the Golan Heights, the strategic elevated location which dominates northern Israel. Does the President not remember during the 1973 War the Syrians launched a massive armored attack on the Golan Heights which almost succeeded? This raises the question of who President Obama was attempting to appease with his ill-advised statements, which unnecessarily drove a wedge between the United States and Israel? The fact is the national security interests of the United States and Israel are linked. The threats Israel faces are the threats the United States faces. Whether it is Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip or these groups' benefactor, Iran, we share a common foe. Unfortunately, that foe, Iran, appears to be growing stronger and more capable. Iran has repeatedly stated it wishes to wipe the United States and Israel off the map. Iran's obvious aim is to establish strategic dominance over the entire region. Their relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology is of grave concern. Much has been said about Iran's nuclear program, but much less has been articulated about its ballistic missile program. In order to achieve its strategic objectives, Iran has embarked on a significant ballistic missile program. Iranian officials have boasted they have the ability to produce a ballistic missile with a 1,250 mile range. In 2009, the Iranians were able to launch a multistage space launch vehicle that the Air Force concluded ``can serve as a test-bed for long-range ballistic missile technologies.'' Even more troubling the Iranians appear to be developing a new long- range multistage solid rocket motor missile. Why is that important? If the Iranians successfully field this type of technology, they will be able to launch, almost instantaneously, missiles which carry warheads over great distances. With these ominous developments emanating from Israel's and the United States common foe, do we really want to be seen as distancing ourselves from one of our staunchest allies--especially on such a pivotal issue as Israel's borders. This issue of these borders is only underscored by the constant attacks on Israel's borders by Iran's surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas. That is why I believe this Concurrent Resolution is so important. It reaffirms the long-held, bipartisan policy of the United States, that we will ``support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and our national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967.'' The United States has no greater friend than Israel and Israel has no greater friend than the United States. Israel too often finds herself alone in the world, unjustly singled out by the left as a nation uniquely without the moral authority to defend itself. From my perspective, Israel does not need to apologize to anyone for defending itself against those who would do her harm, and I will always stand by Israel as she seeks to protect her citizens against terrorists and their state sponsors. Having said that, I also believe many Iranians, especially the young people, know Iran is causing problems in the Middle East. We must support those people who are searchers for freedom. The security of both our nations is irrevocably linked. This bipartisan concurrent resolution removes any harmful ambiguity the President's remarks last week might have caused. The United States must stand by Israel. With his remarks last week, President Obama undermined her. Israel faces consistent unprovoked aggression by longtime supporters of terrorism. But Israel is not a victim. All she asks is the ability to defend herself and for free people to support her right to self- defense. This is no time for the United States to distance itself from Israel, and I will do everything I can to affirm Israel's territorial integrity and ability to protect her citizens against the unprovoked attacks of terrorist and state actors. Because Israel is a true friend, I am not surprised that this resolution has strong bipartisan support. My colleague, Senator Lieberman, and I will be joined by members of both parties who want to remind the world the United States is steadfastly committed to the security of Israel and especially our ally's ability to maintain secure, recognized and defensible borders.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, our economic situation grows more dire by the day. Our unemployment rate has gone back up to 9.1 percent. Last month, only 54,000 jobs were created. You have to create over 125,000 to stay even. Housing prices remain in free fall. Since 2007, home values declined by more than they did during the Great Depression. In large part due to QE2, Americans are facing higher gas prices and higher food prices that are cutting into their family budgets. Now there is increasing pressure for a QE3, which would only accelerate commodity inflation. Looming over all of this is our national debt. We have a national debt of nearly $14.5 trillion. That actually understates things. This is how USA Today calculated it earlier this week. This chart says it all. Let me read that: ``U.S. owes $62 trillion.'' Let me read that again so it sinks in: ``U.S. owes $62 trillion.'' Numbers such as this are frightening to the American people. They are numbers fit for a banana republic, not the great United States of America, and they are numbers that demand a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I do not say this lightly. Our Constitution has served us well, working over more than two centuries to guarantee and extend liberty and equal rights of American citizens. But from time to time it has become apparent that the Constitution needs to be amended. The Founders themselves contemplated this eventuality, giving to the people's representatives in Congress and the people in the various States the opportunity to amend the Constitution. It has become so clear that our spending situation is so grim, and the President and some members of his party are so unwilling to rectify it, that a constitutional amendment is in order. The bottom line is that Federal spending has become a threat to liberty. The inability to rein in Federal spending is effectively undermining the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution's preamble. Federal spending is a threat to this Nation's free men and women, slowly turning our fellow citizens into servants and stewards. To restore the promise of the Constitution and the classical liberty the Founders sought to secure, we must amend the Constitution and we must do it now. We must amend the Constitution by voting on S. J. Res. 10, passing it and sending it to the people of the States for ratification. The people I serve in Utah are demanding this action and I know the citizens across this country are demanding it as well. They see the problems looming before them. One of the first things I did at the beginning of this Congress was introduce S. J. Res. 3, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It received the support of 32 Members of the Senate at that time. We didn't have time to get to the rest of them. But what is remarkable is what happened a few weeks later. All 47 members of the Republican caucus unified behind a single balanced budget amendment, S. J. Res. 10. I was proud to work with my colleagues of varied political beliefs from across the country to draft this amendment that announced loudly and clearly where the Senate Republican caucus stands on this issue. When I introduced this amendment at the end of March, I was honored to stand beside Mitch McConnell and my colleague from Utah, Mike Lee, as well as my colleagues Senators Cornyn, Toomey, DeMint, Rubio, and many others who took a stand for putting Federal restraints on Federal spending and restoring the Constitution's original checks and balances. I was honored by the support this amendment received from groups committed to taxpayers and limited government. Here is a list of some of the groups supporting S. J. Res. 10: 60 Plus, Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Americans for Limited Government, the National Taxpayers Union, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the Pass the BBA Coalition, the National Taxpayer Limitation Committee, the American Council for Health Reform, Grassroot Voices, and Ending Spending. But most of all I was honored to be serving my constituents in Utah who told me this was a fight worth having. I am under no illusions that this is going to be an easy fight. The bottom line is that some Members of Congress and certainly President Obama cannot be trusted to control Federal spending in the long term. Consider the issue of entitlement spending. Medicare and Social Security are bankrupt. The failure to put forward a plan that would address their permanent spending shortfalls is quite simply a plan for the destruction of Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats' commitment to the entitlement status quo is the commitment to national bankruptcy. Don't take my word for it. Listen to what the Social Security and Medicare trustees had to say about those programs. In 2010, Social Security ran a $49 billion cash deficit. It is now permanently in the red, with the Federal Government forced to use general revenues to make up for these shortfalls. The trust fund will be completely exhausted in 2036, and we all know there is no real trust fund, just IOUs issued by the government. But even that will be exhausted in 2036. What about Medicare? Not to be outdone, Medicare's trust fund is now permanently in the red as well, and will be completely depleted in 2024, if not before; that date keeps moving up because of the profligacy of people here in the Congress and the lack of leadership in the White House. These numbers are jarring. They demand a serious and an adult response. But what is the reaction of our colleagues on the other side to these numbers, at least some of them? For too many, the strategy is one of deny and smear--deny there is a problem and smear those who attempt to fix this spending crisis. The President's budget was a joke. His do-over budget was nothing more than a speech with some vague details. Before Memorial Day the Senate's Democratic leadership busied itself attacking Chairman Paul Ryan's budget rather than offering up one of their own. Just before Memorial Day, that is what they did. At a time when leadership is called for, President Obama is missing in action and complicit in the demagoguery of his surrogates at the Democratic National Committee. There is a reason the Democrats are reluctant to offer any way forward out of this mess. It is quite simple--they refuse to cut spending and reform entitlements. But they also refuse to tell the truth about the tax increases that would be necessary to balance the budget their way. The entitlements, of course, are Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, to mention a few. The Democrats are content to be the tax collectors for the welfare state but they will not acknowledge what this entails--massive tax increases on America's families and on America's small businesses. In his original budget, President Obama proposed $1.6 trillion in tax increases on all segments of our economy. In spite of these tax increases, his budget got nowhere close to balance. Before Memorial Day, Democrats attacked Chairman Ryan's budget and offered up as an alternative roughly $21 billion in tax increases on oil companies. To borrow from John McEnroe: They cannot be serious; $21 billion in tax increases when we have $62 billion in unfunded obligations. The United States owes $62 trillion. What a joke. The experience of the last few decades and last few weeks demonstrates the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Our spending is simply out of control, and President Obama and many of his allies refuse to address this spending in a meaningful way. All they have in their bag of tricks are tax increases, but the tax increases that would be necessary to fill this deficit hole would crush the liberty and the livelihoods of the American people. Rather than doing serious work and making the tough decisions necessary to right our fiscal ship--rather than engaging in true leadership--the President seems content to focus on the next election and leave the hard decisions for a later day. That is the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that certain liberals are content to force a full-blown fiscal crisis--one that would make the economic collapse of 2008 and 2009 look like the minor leagues--and then hope all the pressure will be to institute a value-added tax that will be a permanently open spigot, filling the coffers of the bloated Federal Government. Neither of these scenarios is unacceptable. The fact is, we are running out of time. The country needs to act now. Fortunately, in the absence of Presidential leadership, the constitution provides an opportunity for Congress, along with the people of the States, to amend the Constitution and solve our country's systemic fiscal imbalance, even when the President refuses to do so. Getting a balanced budget amendment passed is going to be an uphill climb. We all know that. I know all too well the Democrats' calculated resistance to serious efforts to reduce Federal spending. In 1997, a balanced budget amendment I introduced and fought for fell short by just one vote in the Senate. We had 66 votes. We actually had 67 that morning, but one of our Senators was threatened by the unions and flipped and we lost by 1 vote. Fourteen years later, our national debt stands at $14 trillion, threatening our economic future, reducing our global competitiveness, and jeopardizing our national security. Can we imagine where we would be had we been successful in passing that amendment and had one more vote to do it back in 1997? We wouldn't be in the colossal mess we are in today. Yet the resistance to a balanced budget amendment is probably even stronger among Democrats now than it was in 1997. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that if the citizens and taxpayers of Utah are in any way representative of the people in the rest of the country--and I think they are--it is clear they have had enough. The people of this country are not going to stand by any longer and wait for Congress to fix this situation. They understand the Constitution must be amended in order to revive the Founders' original limits on the size of the Federal Government. Passing a balanced budget amendment is not just a constitutional imperative, it is essential to the long-term fiscal health of this country. In the coming weeks, the fight over the debt limit is going to come to a head. It is going to be a long, hot summer. But I, as will a lot of others who care for this country, will be itching for a fight, and I will go to bat for this balanced budget amendment. In this country, the people are sovereign, and it is well past the time we give them a balanced budget amendment to ratify. I urge my colleagues who have not done so already to support S.J. Res. 10. I look forward to debating and voting on this resolution--and passing it--later this summer. I believe the leadership on the other side should bring up the balanced budget amendment and have a full-scale debate before we lift the debt ceiling--if the debt ceiling is to be lifted--and I am not so sure it should be lifted without a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, the very least that has to happen is to bring up this balanced budget amendment before we actually get into the fight over the debt ceiling. It would be very good for this whole body to have to defend itself and to have to make arguments, pro and con, with regard to a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I believe when the American people see what terrible shape we are in--caused by terrible profligacy, caused by terrible spending by the Congress of the United States--when people start to understand this, they are going to get tremendously angry, and I think in every respect they are going to start saying we have had enough. We have had enough. It is time for you folks in the Congress to stand and pass a balanced budget amendment that we will have to live with in order to save this country and save it from the free fall we are in. I hope we can get our colleagues on both sides--we do have all 47 Republicans--I hope we can get our colleagues on the other side to think and look clearly toward a balanced budget constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 10. I look forward to debating and voting on this amendment and passing it later this summer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak until I finish my remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Right before Memorial Day, the Finance Committee held two trade hearings, the first on the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, the second on the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Earlier, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. These agreements have been thoroughly reviewed by our Finance Committee. In fact, given that the Colombia agreement was signed in 2006 and the Panama and South Korea agreements in 2007, these agreements have been more than thoroughly reviewed by U.S. elected officials and U.S. agencies over the past several years. For the sake of the U.S. economy and for the sake of our country's standing in the world, it is clearly time to take the next step. It is time for President Obama to submit implementing legislation for these agreements to the Congress. The U.S. trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are good agreements that will benefit the United States and American workers. According to the nonpartisan U.S. International Trade Commission, these trade agreements, once fully implemented, will likely increase U.S. exports by over $12 billion and grow the U.S. gross domestic product by over $14 billion. Put simply, our trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea will boost U.S. exports, expand the U.S. economy, and thus promote job growth in the United States. The President and members of his administration understand this. They have spoken on numerous occasions on the benefits of the U.S. trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea for our country. Please bear with me as I review some of their statements. Four months ago, President Obama, in his State of the Union Address-- 4 months ago--expressed his support for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which he stated will support at least 70,000 American jobs. He then asked Congress to pass the Korea agreement as soon as possible. Last December, President Obama noted that the South Korea agreement is expected to increase annual exports of American goods by up to $11 billion. In that same speech, he said: I look forward to working with Congress and leaders in both parties to approve this pact because if there is one thing Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on, it should be creating jobs and opportunities for our people. I couldn't agree more. Just 2 months ago, the President stated that he believes a recently announced labor action plan of Colombia serves as a basis for moving forward on a U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement and that this represents a potential $1 billion of exports--our exports--and could mean thousands of jobs for workers here in the United States. After meeting with President Martinelli of Panama, President Obama said he is confident now that a free-trade agreement would be good for our country, would create jobs here in the United States and open up new markets with potential for billions of dollars of cross-border trade. The President's principal trade adviser, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, just last month recognized that the U.S.-Korea trade agreement will support more than 70,000 American jobs, and he noted as well that it will result in over $10 billion in increased annual exports from the United States. In April, Ambassador Kirk said Colombia represents $1.1 billion in new export opportunities for the United States. Regarding Panama, he stated that the Panama agreement will provide access to one of the fastest growing markets in Latin America. In speaking of all three pending agreements only last month, Ambassador Kirk said that ``the pending agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia are at the forefront of our efforts to open new markets.'' In April, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke emphasized the need to pass the U.S.-Korea Trade Promotion Agreement through Congress as soon as possible. He also said that the administration feels similar urgency to get the pending Panama and Colombia trade deals done. He noted that all three pending trade agreements will move us even closer to President Obama's National Export Initiative goal of doubling American exports by 2015. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has spoken on behalf of the administration in favor of our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. On May 12, he stated that the paramount reason to implement these three pending trade agreements is jobs. He went on to note that these trade agreements will result in over $2 billion in additional sales of U.S. agricultural products. Secretary Vilsack has also stated that until we complete these three trade agreements, U.S. agriculture will not have a level playing field in Colombia, Panama, or South Korea. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken on the benefits of these three trade agreements for our country. When discussing the U.S.- Korea Free Trade Agreement in April, she stated not only that this agreement will increase U.S. exports by billions of dollars and thus support tens of thousands of American jobs but also that implementing the South Korea agreement is profoundly in our strategic interest. When speaking on the subject of trade and economic growth last month, Secretary Clinton said that ``one of our top goals is to complete free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama.'' As someone might say, there is a lot of upside to these agreements-- billions in new exports, billions in economic growth, and thousands of new jobs. What is not to like? So I have a question. What is the holdup? What on Earth is the administration waiting on? This country needs all the jobs and economic growth we can get. So why does the administration refuse to submit these agreements to Congress for consideration? Despite declaring the benefits of these agreements for the United States at every turn, the Obama administration is sitting on them, hurting our economy, and undermining our job growth. With respect to international trade, the administration has adopted a policy of delay and dither. I see few signs that the administration is working hard to move these agreements through Congress. I don't see administration officials walking the Halls of Congress in attempts to build support for the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea agreements. While the administration has said great things about these agreements, as I have mentioned, its efforts to build any type of momentum to advance them on Capitol Hill are tepid at best. On trade policy, the administration is all talk and no action, or, as my friends from Texas might put it, on these agreements, the President and his team are all hat and no cattle. This is definitely a strange economic strategy. While our economy remains shaky, unemployment remains high--the unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent--and while the rest of the world watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take over our export markets, the administration just sits there. It just sits there. Actually, let me correct myself. The administration doesn't just sit there; instead, the administration is actually going out of its way, finding new excuses for not moving forward with the implementation of these trade agreements. Despite countless speeches from the President and his administration about the importance of the three trade agreements to American exports, creating American jobs, and strengthening our alliances with key friends, his administration busies itself concocting more roadblocks, more delays, and more excuses. It is time to be blunt about this. This schizophrenic trade policy is doing nothing but hurting American workers, hurting jobs, and undermining our recovery. I believe each free-trade agreement, standing on its own merits and with the full backing of the White House and congressional leadership, will pass with significant bipartisan margins. But we are now told we will never have a chance to vote on any of these agreements unless the White House and Democratic Senators get what they want on trade adjustment assistance. Let's put this in perspective. Our economy teeters on the brink with a weak economic recovery. One in seven Americans happens to be on food stamps. Durable goods orders dropped 3.6 percent in April. Last month, the economy added only 54,000 private sector jobs, and unemployment went up to 9.1 percent. The real estate market remains in tatters with the average single family home price falling by 33 percent since 2007. We face an historic spending crisis that has generated warnings from Standard & Poors and Moody's that the Federal Government faces a downgrade in its debt rating--an action that would be devastating for this Nation and to America's families. To forestall this coming crisis, leaders in Congress and the administration are meeting on an almost daily basis to determine how best to get our Nation's deficits and debt under control. Every spending program and expenditure is being reviewed to find cuts to get our fiscal house in order. Everyone recognizes these three trade agreements will promote jobs and economic growth at a time when both are in short supply. Submitting and passing free trade agreements would be a quick and cost-free way of generating economic growth. Yet, in an environment where Congress is desperately attempting to encourage economic growth and rein in spending to avert a fiscal crisis, the White House and many Democrats are delaying the pro-growth trade agreements until we get more government spending through TAA, the trade adjustment assistance program. And for what? If an expanded TAA is so critical, where is the record of success to prove it? What evidence is there that giving some workers who have lost their jobs more benefits than others improves U.S. competitiveness or is a responsible way to spend taxpayer dollars? The mere fact that more people are in a program, and that more taxpayer money is being spent, is not evidence of success. Congress does not pick winners and losers in the movie rental business. When Blockbuster employees lost their jobs because of the rise of Netflix, nobody stood up and said we should create a new, big, spending government program to help displaced Blockbuster employees. President Reagan recognized the problems inherent in this program when he said: [t]he purpose [of TAA] is to help these workers find jobs in growing sectors of our economy. There's nothing wrong with that, but because these benefits are paid out on top of normal unemployment benefits, we wind up paying greater benefits to those who lose their jobs because of foreign competition than we do to their friends and neighbors who are laid off due to domestic competition. Anyone must agree that this is unfair. That is what President Reagan said. By tacking the expansion of TAA onto the stimulus bill, and refusing to allow Congress to vote on the extended TAA program on its own merits, it is unclear whether there is, in fact, bipartisan support for this expanded program. It is billions of dollars more. If the expanded TAA program can stand on its own merits, as each of the FTAs can, then it should be introduced and voted on separately from the free trade agreements. Demanding an expanded TAA as another excuse to delay voting on these important agreements is irresponsible and self-defeating. At the same time, by not submitting these agreements for approval by Congress, the administration is doing a disservice to the American economy and, at the same time, is letting down some of our strongest allies. Nothing good can come from this continued inaction. Make no mistake about it. Failure to submit these agreements is a failure in Presidential leadership. I am convinced the window for the administration to submit these agreements will soon pass. Given the upcoming election season, I am afraid if these agreements aren't submitted this summer, they never will be. The President needs to act. I appreciate the President's goal of doubling exports. Having goals is great. But we all know that if one doesn't do the work and take action, goals become little more than false hope. They never become reality. The President and his Cabinet admit these agreements are essential to their goal of doubling exports and creating jobs here at home. Yet, the action necessary to achieve that goal and create those jobs--submission of the agreements--remains in the distant future. Instead of benefiting from these agreements, we watch the days slip by, the explanations and excuses pile up, our export markets decline, and our economy suffers. I strongly urge the President to submit implementing bills for the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements to Congress this summer. There is no time like the present when it comes to encouraging economic growth and business creation. I understand they want to help their union employees throughout the country who are less than 7 percent of the private sector economy. What about the millions and millions of others who are losing their jobs not because of this but because we don't export and we don't have these free trade agreements with these three very important countries to us, both from a neighbor standpoint and from a strategic standpoint? I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague, and I thank Senator Toomey for his work. Early this year, along with every one of my Republican colleagues, I introduced a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The people of Utah want this amendment. The polls show that if Congress were to pass it and send it to the States for ratification, it would have significant support across the country. From my perspective, the debate we have been having over the fiscal year 2012 budget this week--if you can even call it a debate-- exemplifies yet again the need for a balanced budget amendment. It seems like a simple thing, but the balanced budget amendment would require the President to submit and Congress to pass a balanced budget. Given the budget process over the last few years, this simple requirement takes on added significance. The fact is it has been 756 days since Democrats passed any budget, the most basic of Congress's constitutional responsibilities. And the fact is that absent a balanced budget amendment, Congress will never adopt the spending restraint necessary to restore constitutional limits on the Federal Government and the Nation's fiscal integrity. The consequences of this ineptitude reached a new low on the Senate floor yesterday. To recap for those who missed it, Democrats took to the Senate floor and accused Republicans who are attempting to right our fiscal ship by reforming programs for the poor and elderly of seeking to harm women, children, and other vulnerable members of our society. This verbal assault was deliberate and premeditated. I actually thank my colleagues on the other side who declined to participate in those attacks. Those attacks might make for good politics, but they are terrible for this country. People here might wish to deny it, but the fiscal crisis we face is real. They might wish to say that Social Security's finances are just dandy, but the fact is the disability trust fund will be exhausted by 2018 and the overall trust fund will be exhausted in 2036, a year earlier than we previously thought. As bad as Social Security is, the situation with Medicare is even worse. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare will be insolvent in 2020. According to the Medicare trustees, Medicare's unfunded liability is $38.4 trillion. And what is the Democratic response to this? All is well. Nothing to see here. Please move along. This is what the Democratic candidate in New York's special election had to say about her opponent's claim that reforms to Medicare were necessary to restore the solvency of this program: That's simply a scare tactic to tell our seniors that there will be nothing for them. . . . That's not the truth. Republicans are trying to scare seniors? That is rich. A liberal surrogate for the Democrats is currently running an advertisement that shows House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. Talk about a new low. The head of the Democratic National Committee--fresh from lecturing conservatives about civility in politics--described the House budget as a tornado through nursing homes. Yesterday we were treated to claims on the Senate floor that stopped short of these attacks, but not that far short. Yet it is Republicans who are trying to scare seniors? Give me a break. Still, as bad as yesterday's display was, I ended my day positive about the future. Last night, I attended a dinner celebrating the centennial of President Ronald Reagan's birth and at that dinner I had the honor of introducing Lech Walesa, the former President of Poland, who helped to roll back the Iron Curtain and liberate a continent. When Ronald Reagan became President, the Soviets were on the march. It was not a foregone conclusion that Communists would wind up in the ash heap of history. When Lech Walesa mounted the fence at the Gdansk shipyards, the only thing he could be certain of was prosecution by Communist authorities. But Reagan and Walesa understood something. They understood that communism was a lie, played out on a world historical stage. And to borrow from Shakespeare, Reagan, and Walesa, that the truth will out. The fundamental truth we face today--one that cannot be denied--is that our Nation faces a spending crisis that no amount of additional taxes can fix. So let's talk about this budget process in a serious way. Unfortunately, doing so will not reflect well on this Chamber. Borrowing from another one of Shakespeare's plays, in Hamlet the character Marcellus observed that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. One might say the same about the Senate's action on the budget resolution. A budget is not law, but it is an important document that installs the guardrails for the operation of fiscal policy. Under the Congressional Budget Act, each body is to report a resolution by April 15 of each year. President Obama submitted his budget, and the House met the April 15 deadline. But Senate Democrats have no budget of their own. Here is the Senate Democratic budget resolution: Just one big laid goose egg. So here we are today talking about the House-passed budget. The simple truth is my colleagues on the other side don't want to vote on a Senate Democratic budget. Instead, they are determined to vote on a budget that everyone knows will not pass this body. Why is this? With all of their hard-edged partisan fury, and not even a thin reed of fiscal governance, like Marcellus, it is reasonable to conclude that something is rotten in the Senate. And if we follow the scent with our noses, we will find it comes down to numbers. The magic number is 50. There are 100 Members of this body and 53 of those Members caucus with the Democrats. So why aren't there 50 votes for a single Democratic budget? We have heard Senate Democrats won't support the President's budget. The stated reason is that the President's do-over budget was nothing more than a speech that was so vague that our friends on the other side refuse to treat it as a budget. I believe there is a bigger problem holding up the Democratic caucus. The heart and soul of the Democratic caucus is liberal, and I respect that. But a healthy number of my friends on the other side are not entirely in that camp. And many more realize a pure liberal fiscal position might not be politically palatable. After all, the voters sent a message last fall to get spending under control and not to hike taxes. So because Senate Democrats are jammed up, unable to get their act together, their leadership proposes no budget of their own. We are engaged in a Senate budget debate, but there is no substantive Senate Democratic budget before us, and we don't have one because at least 50 members of this body do not agree on one, even though they have 53 on their side. So how then do we define the majority's fiscal position? What budget would the majority of Senate Democrats support if they could? That budget is lurking in the background of this debate. It is the budget the party's liberals would enact if they could. It is the budget the President, in his heart of hearts, supports. It is certainly the budget the folks at MSNBC support. It is the House Progressive Caucus's budget--an intellectually honest presentation of the liberal fiscal policy position. For interested folks, take a look at pages H2362 through H2870 of the Congressional Record of April 15, 2011. There you will find the House Progressive Caucus budget's fine print and the debate over it. The Progressive Caucus budget is real and it is ambitious. It is also politically risky. Similar to the House budget developed by Chairman Ryan, it took political courage. It is a statement of policy principles and numbers. With a goose egg as the stated Senate Democratic budget, from my perspective, the best place to look for the Democrat's position is the budget of the House progressives. There is no doubt that is where the sentiments of a majority of the Senate Democrat caucus truly are. I also think the House progressive budget offers a valuable contrast to the House-passed budget. Last time I checked, there are two major parties in Congress, and both parties should be accountable for what they would do about our perilous fiscal situation. So let's hold them to account. The House progressives aim to balance the budget by 2021. They aim to reduce public debt as a percentage of GDP to 64.1 percent by 2021. They aim for both taxes and spending to grow significantly but to equal 22.3 percent of GDP by 2021. House progressives advocate a fulsome growth in the role of the Federal Government, with new domestic spending rising by $1.7 trillion--new domestic spending. How do they propose to pay for all this? While the Democrats play ``hide the ball'' on this issue, the House progressives are refreshingly frank. The short answer is, tax hikes and cuts in defense spending. They propose $4 trillion in new taxes. Let's take a look at these new taxes: raise marginal tax rates by 17 percent to 24 percent for single taxpayers. Look at that chart. There is an increase in the top marginal rates by 17 percent to 24 percent. There is a brandnew ``millionaire'' surtax, with rates reaching as high as 47 percent. There is a new record-high death tax rate of 65 percent. They treat capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. That means, in some cases, the marginal rate on capital gains and dividends would more than triple. They tax all overseas business income currently. That would mean, with respect to growing global markets, U.S. businesses would be subject to uniquely high levels of taxation. They create new taxes on banks and financial transactions. I will remind folks that the CBO told us last year this kind of tax would be passed through to bank customers and depositors. House progressives look to reform Social Security by raising the base of the payroll tax on both employers and employees. Look at this. My goodness. On health care, House progressives' transparency is breathtaking for its honesty.

Mr. HATCH. All right. I thank my colleague. Their budget anticipates taking ObamaCare to the next level with a government-run plan. Progressives would impose government negotiation of prescription drug payments. Where are the spending cuts? One word, ``defense.'' Defense will be cut by $2.3 trillion. This is the progressive budget. The hearts of the Democratic Party would love to proceed down this path: ever higher spending and ever higher taxes to pay for it. But the heads of the party realize that this would be politically disastrous. And so, like Hamlet, they are paralyzed when action is demanded. The failure of the Senate Democratic leadership to produce and vote on a budget of their own cannot be allowed to mask a simple fact. The Democrats might not like the solutions in the House budget, but their own failure to offer a proposal is a vote for the status quo. And a vote for the status quo is a vote for the destruction of Social Security and Medicare. And that is the true threat to America's elderly. Serious times deserve serious measures. For that reason, I will be voting for the motion to proceed on the House-passed budget, as well as the budgets proposed by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, and my colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul. We have entitlement programs with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions. And the Democrats' response? Don't reform those programs to make them sustainable. Instead let's scare up $21 billion by attacking tax breaks for oil companies. If my Democratic colleagues want to have a tax reform debate, I am open to that. But let's not pretend that increasing taxes on oil companies will make one iota's worth of difference in making the country's entitlement programs solvent. Let's not pretend that this is a remotely serious solution to the country's fiscal problems. Instead of offering a serious budget proposal and debating it, Democrats chose to engage in the basest of politics, smearing Republicans as hostile to women and the elderly. I wish it were not so, but Marcellus' observation is compelling today. Something is rotten in the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, and in spite of these antics, I am optimistic about the future. The truth will out, and the truth is that this country is racing toward a fiscal crisis. This fiscal crisis is still avoidable, if we take courageous actions. Chairman Ryan, in proposing his budget, and the House leadership for voting on it, have done just that. And fortune favors the bold. I thank my colleague for that little extra time. I intend to vote for three of these budgets today because the three of them make sense. They are not crazy, they are not phony, and each of the three would save Medicare and other matters in the Federal Government. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. That is a good question. The distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee has asked a fundamental question. The answer, to me, and I think everybody else, is as clear as a bell: The American people overwhelmingly expect the Senate to do the people's business. First, we have to get our fiscal house in order. The House has taken the first step. The folks in Utah have dealt with their family budgets, business budgets, and government budgets, and they rightly ask that the Senate do exactly the same.

Mr. HATCH. That is right. I think the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, wants to do it. But in their caucus they cannot get together because they all want to spend and tax more. They want to keep spending and taxing the way they have in the past. It is clear we cannot keep doing that.

Mr. HATCH. I sure do. They actually worsen the deficit by $2.2 trillion in relation to the CBO baseline. Until one sees the numbers in black and white, the budget is just talk. Democrats and Republicans have an obligation to produce fiscal blueprints in an intellectually honest, complete, and transparent fashion. The majority, the Democrats, have the responsibility to take the first step, and the Republicans have a responsibility to convey our fiscal blueprint through debate and amendments. That is the way this traditionally has always been done. As the distinguished ranking member indicated, our side is ready to engage in this important debate and process, but it is hard to do it when they would not even put up a budget. They have not done that in the last couple of years. Without a budget, we don't have anything to debate and analyze.

Mr. HATCH. There is no question about it. The chairman has the responsibility for holding hearings that lead up to a budget resolution, the structure of the budget resolution, in accordance with his party's belief, it seems to me, and then bringing it up in committee where both sides can argue about it and both sides have the right to amend and improve it. Then they can bring it to the Senate floor. But they don't do that. Then they wonder why we are in such fiscal difficulties. I know the distinguished Senator from Alabama understands this fully as the ranking member on the Budget Committee. Having also been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, frankly, I am concerned about it-- and I think everybody is concerned--because they don't want to come up with a budget, and there may be invalid reasons for that.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. There is nothing more important in our lives now than coming up with a budget that would put us on a downward trend for spending. We are spending around 69 percent of the GDP. Our national debt of $14.3 trillion is 90 percent of the GDP. We are headed toward 90 percent of GDP of spending. If we get there, this country will have difficulties that will be difficult to overcome. That is where we are headed, especially if we don't have a budget to debate on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. HATCH. That is a good question. I tell my friend from Alabama that it amazes me how much our friends on the other side are hard wired to increase taxes. As the ranking member knows, if current tax policy is left in place, including today's low rates, family tax relief and the alternative minimum tax patch, the Congressional Budget Office tells us revenues will trend to the historic average of 18 percent of GDP. The President moves revenues up to record highs as a percentage of GDP. Last year it was about 25.3 percent. The last time we had that was in 1945, at the end of the Second World War, at the height of it. Now, the tax increases contemplated by the President's budget will mean half of the small business flow-through income will be hit with a marginal tax rate of 17 to 24 percent on top of the regular tax rate. Democrats and Republicans agree the small business sector is the key to job creation. Seventy percent of the jobs are created by small businesses. The top marginal rate on capital gains income will rise to 59 percent in a little over 18 months under the President's budget. That will drive down aftertax rates of return on investments. Is that policy a path to recovery? I don't think so. I don't think anybody else who looks at it with any degree of intelligence thinks so. That is another reason we need to engage in the budget process in the committee, and I have to say that I am appreciative of my friend's leadership on that committee. He will have to lead our side, but it is hard to lead when you don't have anything to lead on.

Mr. HATCH. Of course.

Mr. HATCH. Our corporate rate is 35 percent. That is the highest in the world, other than Japan's. It is causing a lot of corporations to leave our country. In the 1970s, 39 of the top 50 multinational corporations in the world were based in the United States. Today there are only 16--that was the last figure I heard--which is low. The reason is we are taxing them to death, and we have a lot of other screwy tax aspects that don't work. We can solve all these problems if we just get a decent budget and work to bring spending under control and get on a downward trend with regard to spending. I have to say, we cannot do it without budget debates and balance. Our friends on the other side don't seem to be able to get their caucus together and allow the chairman to come up with a budget on time, in a way that will help us debate this matter and, hopefully, resolve it on the Senate floor.

Mr. HATCH. My friend from Alabama, as he always does, has arrived precisely at the critical point. We need a fiscal policy that is balanced. Its remedies must respond to the causes of our current fiscal calamity. In the most recent fiscal year, spending hit, as I said, over 25 percent of GDP. That figure is easily more than 20 percent above the historical average. It is unbelievable we are spending that much. Spending is fueling the deficits we are facing. The President's budget reaches into the American people's pocketbooks with taxes trending at or near historic highs in an anemic effort to close the gap. The other side of the ledger, spending, is not dented. It remains far above any reasonable historic average. Nobody can refute that fact. These are facts. I am concerned about it. I will tell my colleague that.