David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I move to vitiate the quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a true American hero. On August 5, 2011, our State and Nation lost a great patriot when Navy SEAL CPO Robert Reeves, aged 32, died in Afghanistan during combat operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Chief Reeves was raised in Louisiana by his loving parents Jo and James Reeves, and he graduated from Caddo Magnet High School in Shreveport, LA, where he played both soccer and lacrosse. After 1 year at LSU, Chief Reeves enlisted in the U.S. Navy and joined the SEALs in 1999. Since that time, he has been assigned to various SEAL teams where he made several combat deployments in support of the global war on terror, distinguishing himself in combat operations during 13 years of service in the U.S. Navy. A decorated soldier, he served as a member of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or SEAL Team Six as it is more commonly known, and was the recipient of four Bronze Stars--earned for his bravery and meritorious service. He carried out his duties with pride and without reservation and each of us owes him our gratitude for his selfless sacrifice. There is no doubt that this tragic loss will not only be felt within the Reeves family but also the Navy and the entire Nation. My deepest thoughts and prayers are with his family during this extraordinarily difficult time. Our Nation is safer and stronger because of brave heroes like Chief Reeves. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me as we honor the life of Navy SEAL CPO Robert Reeves and his legacy, as well as all the other brave men and women in our Armed Forces who have given the ultimate sacrifice in service to our great Nation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I am happy to be the first to take the distinguished majority leader up on his offer and be here on the Senate floor to talk about this very important matter. I plan on voting no on this proposal. It is a very important matter. It is in many ways the greatest challenge we face as a nation. So I don't come to this decision lightly, but I do come to it firmly for three primary reasons. First of all, this bill, this so-called solution, doesn't fundamentally change our spending and debt picture. It just plays around the margins. It doesn't make any big change whatsoever. To put it differently, I don't want to default under any circumstances, but I don't want a downgrade of our credit rating either. From everything the markets and the credit rating agencies-- Moody's and Standard & Poor's--have said for months, this would result in a downgrade. This would result in higher interest rates--first for the government and then for all of us--on our home mortgages, on our car payments, and everything else. Why? Because, again, it doesn't fundamentally change our spending and debt picture. It only cuts $7 billion in the first year and $3 billion in the second year, a total in the first 2 years of $10 billion. That is basically a minuscule rounding error in terms of the size of the Federal budget. Over the next 10 years, we continue to mount up $7 trillion worth of new debt. So we are at $14 trillion now; we are going to add on another $7 trillion of new debt under this plan, and we do nothing to stabilize our debt-to-GDP ratio, which is perhaps the most important metric that economists and others point to. We need to do better. We need to have some plan to balance the budget. This plan never balances. This plan has mountains of new debt still building. This plan never stabilizes our debt-to-GDP ratio. Again, I don't want to default. I will vote to avoid a default. But I do not want a downgrade either that costs every American in a meaningful way. Second, I have looked very hard at the enforcement provisions of this bill, and I am convinced that even the meager numbers in this bill, in terms of cuts, are going to be blown, are going to be waived, because there is no meaningful enforcement. The only thing it will take to bust the numbers in this bill is a new bill that passes by a simple majority in the House and by 60 votes in the Senate. We are constantly looking at those sorts of vehicles, particularly when we are probably going to have disaster appropriations and disaster bills coming to the Congress. There are no real teeth in this bill. There is not adequate enforcement. To their credit, several Members of this body and several Members of the House have spent months talking about how good, meaningful enforcement mechanisms could work. The Gang of 6 had real enforcement mechanisms that they spent a lot of time on. Senators here, such as Bob Corker, had meaningful enforcement mechanisms built into their proposed legislation. None of those are in this bill. Those could easily have been adopted. Those could easily have been put in the bill; they were not. Third, and finally, I am very concerned that the triggers in this bill that are supposed to be there to ensure a second round of savings and deficit reduction are not going to work. I do not see how they are going to incent, particularly the Democrats, particularly the left, to move to a new package of savings and deficit reduction. I think, rather, the triggers will be triggered, and we will have unsustainable defense cuts and also unsustainable cuts to doctors and hospitals in Medicare. That is perhaps another reason, going back to point No. 2, that even the numbers in this bill are not going to hold. They are going to be waived; they are going to be busted. I have to say I hope I am wrong on all three counts if this bill, in fact, passes. But I have looked at it carefully, soberly, and that is the clear conclusion to which I have come. I hope we can do better. I hope we do better because we must for the American people, because we need to start turning around our completely unsustainable spending and debt situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to ask support, bipartisan support, for the Vitter amendment which we will be voting on at 12 noon. This amendment is very simple. It is very straightforward. I think it is important and makes a central point. The amendment says these funds in this bill will not be spent unless and until we have a 2012 budget, unless we start with first things first and decide what the overall budget framework is and then move forward with spending, with appropriations bills consistent with that budget. That is all it says. It is simple, straightforward, but it is an important point. Folks around America, including in the market, are scratching their heads. They look at Washington and us and the Congress and the President and see almost complete dysfunction in the complete lack of a budget, even lack of an attempt to get a budget in place, which is a glaring, maybe the top example of that. This isn't just a good, commonsense idea, something every family does, something every small business does; this also happens to be required by Federal law. The Federal Budget Act mandates that we pass a budget by April 15 of every year. We have not done that. The House passed a budget. The Senate, quite frankly, has not even tried. The Senate Budget Committee has not even met to begin to do that in regular order, through the normal process. In fact, it is worse than that. The Senate didn't even try to do that last year under the same current leadership. So we are now over 800 days and counting, that the Senate, under this leadership, has not even tried to comply with Federal law and adopt a budget. Again, my amendment is very simple. It says first things first. We need a budget so any appropriations bill, any spending is only done consistent with and in the context of that budget. That is the right way to do it. That is the right way to run a railroad. That is what every Louisiana family does in setting its plans. That is what every Louisiana business does in setting its plans. That is what the American people and the markets want from us. In the last few weeks, there has been great discussion about Moody's and Standard & Poor's and the threats to downgrade U.S. Treasury notes. What they have been saying is loud and clear. It is not a pure focus on the debt ceiling; it is even a more important focus as well on the underlying issue of spending and debt. They have been saying what every economist also says: We are on a completely unsustainable path in terms of spending and debt. They want to see a real change in that--the start of a real change, adding up to at least $4 trillion of deficit reduction. We need to do that. Step one to doing that is to have a budget. We can't begin to do that without a budget plan, without an outline. Again, that goes to the core, the simple, fundamental, straightforward and important point of this Vitter amendment. I urge my colleagues to put first things first. I urge my colleagues to say we need to start doing our business, starting with a 2012 budget. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will read it. It is very short, and I will explain it. This amendment simply says: None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall exceed the level of the concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. That is the entire amendment. The point this amendment makes is a pretty simple but a basic and important one. We do not have a concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. We are in the process of passing an appropriations bill, spending money without a budget, without a game plan, without a framework. That is clearly putting the cart before the horse and clearly having things backward in a dysfunctional process. Every Louisiana family, every Louisiana small business, as families and businesses do in Minnesota, sits down and makes a budget, and then they spend money under that budget. That is the rational, straightforward way to do things. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing in Congress and in the Senate. This simple, straightforward process is not only rational, it is not only commonsensical, it is also required by law. Under Federal law, the Congress is mandated to pass a budget, to pass a concurrent budget resolution by April 15 of every year. We are months beyond April 15-- several months and counting--and not only do we not have this required budget, this game plan, this framework which we are supposed to be living by, but on the Senate side we have not even made a meaningful effort to get there. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has not made an effort in committee to come up with a Senate budget resolution. There has been no effort in committee, and so no Senate budget has been sent to the floor. In fact, the same thing happened in the previous fiscal year. So we are now not just several months past this year's April 15 deadline, but we are over 800 days since the last time we had a budget resolution as required by Federal law--800 days, over 800 days and counting. I am afraid this is exactly the sort of thing the American people shake their heads at. This is exactly the sort of thing they scratch their heads about, shake their heads at, and say: What is wrong in Washington? Every Louisiana family has a budget they have to live within. Every Louisiana small business has a budget and that is their framework and they operate within that. Yet Congress, apparently, does not get it, particularly the Senate does not get it under this majority leadership and is not even making an attempt to do what is not only a good, sound idea but is required by Federal law. Again, I just suggest we put first things first: We have a budget and then we only spend money, only pass appropriations bills pursuant to and consistent with that budget. That is why, again, my amendment is very simple: None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall exceed the level of the concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. I urge us all to do the right thing. We will have different ideas about a budget. We will have different priorities. We will have an important and healthy debate, but we need to follow the law. We need to follow common sense. We need to have a budget and then only pass spending and appropriations bills under that budget and consistent with it. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive reading of the admendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to make pending the Vitter amendment which is at the desk, and I will be happy to explain what it is about. If it is necessary, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and make the Vitter amendment pending.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a young man who is now one of our Nation's finest Olympians. Joel Murray of West Monroe, LA, was recently invited to represent the United States of America at the 2011 Special Olympics World Summer Games in Athens, Greece. Joel is an eight time Louisiana State golf champion and a two time national gold medalist, and this year was the first time in his 13 years competing in the Special Olympics that he was invited to compete in the World Summer Games. As a result of his dedication and commitment to the game he loves, Joel competed in Level V Stroke Play, the highest and most challenging level, and won a silver medal. Joel is also a 2011 Louisiana Special Olympics gold medalist, was recognized as the Louisiana Special Olympics male athlete of the year and was inducted into the Louisiana Special Olympics Hall of Fame. If his list of accolades wasn't long enough, in 2009, Joel set a 54- hole tournament record for the Special Olympics Golf National Invitational Tournament. And away from golf, Joel devotes his time to counseling young adults with disabilities at the Louisiana Youth Leadership Forum. Mr. President, I am proud to honor Joel Murray and applaud him on his remarkable accomplishments.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again to urge all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and put serious deficit reduction proposals on the floor for full debate, an open amendment process, a constructive debate and votes and action. That is the way we can move forward and resolve this greatest threat we face as a country, out-of- control Washington spending and debt. We are making a little bit of progress in that regard. After months and months of the distinguished majority leader putting every other issue under the Sun on the floor but spending and debt, we finally forced this central issue to come and be debated. Last week, many of us banded together, conservatives who were pushing for this debate, and said: Enough is enough. We should cancel the July 4 recess, we should block it so we stay and debate the central issue. That is what we did, and we successfully did that. Unfortunately, the majority leader then proposed that we stay here--yes, because we had blocked the recess--but did not put the central issue on the floor and moved yet another topic. We said: No; we are staying to get to this debate, this important issue, the greatest challenge we face right now as a country, and we successfully defeated his move to another topic. Finally, with this little bit of progress, we are on the floor at least talking about the right issue. But we don't yet have a strong, meaningful, underlying proposal to act on. We have a sense-of-the- Senate resolution. That is a good basis for debate, I suppose. But, of course, we need more than that. We need serious proposals to debate and amend and vote on and act on. That is the important next step. When I made these remarks yesterday, the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, was in the Chamber and suggested that Republicans, including myself, had not gotten behind a serious, credible proposal. Specifically, he said: Wait a minute. The Ryan budget, which you voted for, doesn't reduce the deficit at all. I said at the time that is incorrect, but I didn't have the numbers in front of me. In fact, I looked it up, and the Ryan budget does significantly reduce the deficit from $1.4 trillion this year to $391 billion at the end of 10 years. That is a major reduction. As I said to the Senator from New York at the time, my preference even ahead of that is the Toomey budget, which we produced on the Republican side in the Senate. That reduces the deficit from $1.4 trillion right now to zero over 10 years. It balances the budget over 10 years--obviously, major progress. Again, going back to the Ryan budget, which Senator Schumer brought up, it contains $6.2 trillion in spending reductions compared to spending in President Obama's budget. It adds total deficits that are $4.4 trillion lower than that in the President's budget. It brings total Federal spending to below 20 percent of the economy. The President's budget is always above 23 percent in that figure. So it puts us on a path to balance. Again, the Toomey budget, my first choice, actually achieves that balance within the 10-year budget window. In contrast to that, I have to say it is very unsettling that the distinguished majority leader and the majority in this Chamber have not even tried to meet our mandated budget responsibilities. Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is the Federal law that controls the budget process, says that by April 15 of every year, a budget resolution is supposed to be passed. We are 83 days and counting past that deadline and no serious attempt to even try to meet that legal mandate has been made by the majority or by the distinguished majority leader. We have had a few budget votes, three Republican budget proposals, and President Obama's budget. The Obama budget got zero votes on the Senate floor. The majority, the majority leader produced no budget proposal. The Finance Committee, led by the majority, produced no budget proposal, not even trying to meet our responsibility, an actual legal mandate under the law. Through the Chair, I would ask Senator Schumer: Where is your proposal? Where is your attempt? Yes, we have put forth specific proposals that dramatically cut the deficit. When is the majority going to even try? Again, 83 days and counting this year past that deadline. Of course, last year this body, under the same leadership, produced no budget. So we are 448 days and counting in total under the Budget Act. In that time, by the way, our debt has increased $3.2 trillion. That is why we need serious proposals on this Senate floor to debate, to amend if necessary, to vote on, to act on. At least we are to the topic, but we need serious proposals before us to act on. Again, I urge all of my colleagues to embrace a three-tier approach, cut and cap and balance: passing a budget resolution which we are mandated to do that includes immediate meaningful real cuts--that is cut; cap, structural budget reform to cap spending in every major category of the budget to ensure we stay on that path to a balanced budget; and balance, a requirement in the U.S. Constitution that we have a balanced Federal budget through the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I support that. All Republicans in this body have coauthored that. That is the third crucial tier of this three-tier approach: cut, cap, and balance. I hope we get to consideration of those and other important proposals. I hope we not only have a debate around a sense-of-the- Senate resolution, I hope we have real meaningful proposals on the floor, an open amendment process, an open debate and votes and action on this most critical issue. I have endorsed specific proposals. I mentioned two of them. They dramatically reduce the deficit. I have coauthored the balanced budget constitutional amendment that enforces discipline, the straitjacket we need. I support the cap concept for the medium term to get us on that path. But we need to act on that on the floor in a bipartisan way. I urge that as the next necessary step. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kirk and I speak in succession for up to 15 minutes and that the Democratic side then have two speakers.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. If I may respond, through the Chair.

Mr. VITTER. That is not true. It reduces the deficit. It doesn't balance the budget within the 10-year window, which is my strong preference--the Toomey budget does do that--but it gets us going in the right direction. It reduces the deficit, and it is a particularly dramatic improvement over anything proposed by this administration. I thank my colleague.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, first, I rise to celebrate that we are finally, after months and months of doing everything under the Sun but facing our gravest challenge, which is spending and debt, focused on that on the floor of the Senate. That is progress. We have a long way to go, but at least that is progress. For months, I have been urging us as a body, urging the majority leader, who controls the floor, please, let's focus on our gravest challenge, Federal spending and debt, and not wait until the eleventh hour, not wait for a crisis atmosphere. Let's put on the floor meaningful legislation about spending and debt. For months and months, unfortunately, we did everything but that on the floor of the Senate. The majority leader looked for every bill and every topic but that, and it was all sorts of cats and dogs--many of them, quite frankly, trivial, unnecessary legislation, particularly compared to this grave challenge of spending and debt. Finally, last week, a group of conservatives here said enough is enough. We should not go out on our planned July 4 recess, which was scheduled to be all of this week. We said we are going to block that. It takes unanimous consent for that to happen. We said we would block it and, sure enough, we did. We said, wait a minute, we are not blocking that just to be here. We are not blocking that to be here and continue to move on to every other issue under the Sun but spending and debt. We did that to finally focus on the floor of the Senate on the gravest of all of our current challenges--Federal spending and debt. We said we are going to vote against the motion to proceed to the Libya debate. Libya is an important matter. In fact, that debate is long overdue in Congress. Those votes are long overdue. But that challenge does not rise to the level of our greatest fundamental challenge right now as a nation, which is spending and debt. We said we are going to block that motion to proceed to yet another unrelated matter, and we did. We rounded up the votes in the last half week and got those necessary votes to block that motion to proceed. As a result, the distinguished majority leader pulled that vote, he vitiated that cloture vote yesterday. Finally, we have an instrument on the Senate floor--a motion--about this central challenge we face, spending and debt. So that is progress. I urge all of my colleagues to come down and join this most important debate. I continue to urge the majority leader to put meaningful, substantive legislation on the floor about this topic. We have motions on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. It focuses us on the proper topic, spending and debt. That is progress. But, of course, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not do anything or change anything. We still have further to go in terms of bringing meaningful legislation to the floor, our gravest challenge, Federal spending and debt. Why do I insist this is our top challenge at hand? The facts speak for themselves. Of every $1 the Federal Government spends--of every $1--over 40 cents is borrowed money--over 40 cents of every $1. Imagine if we ran our household that way. It wouldn't take long for one to hit a financial dead end and virtual bankruptcy--if out of every $1 our family was spending, 40 cents of it was borrowed money. What does that mean? It means we are collecting, as a nation--as a Federal Government--about $2.2 trillion a year. That is a lot of money, $2.2 trillion. The problem is we are spending $3.7 trillion--way, way, way more than we are collecting. The distinguished majority whip mentioned entitlement spending, and I agree with him that is a big part of the issue which we must face in a careful, substantive way because Medicare is one of those big entitlement programs. It, too, is on an unsustainable path. The average American pays about $110,000 into Medicare over his or her lifetime--a lot of money--but, on average, that average American receives in benefits over $430,000 under Medicare. There again, it is not tough to do the math. That is unsustainable, when the average American pays in $110,000 and receives in benefits over $300,000. Social Security is another huge entitlement program. This year, it is taking in less than it is spending on current retirees. That day of reckoning was going to be several years down the road, but it has been accelerated. It is here now--right now. Social Security is taking in, in tax revenue, less than it is paying out in benefits to retirees. What does this mean? This adds up and up and up. So we have more new debt under this administration--more new debt under President Obama-- than the debt compiled under all the previous Presidents combined, from the first George Bush to the latest George, George W. Bush. We have more new debt under this President than the debt accumulated from all those previous Presidents combined. We must do something, and we must do something about the real problem, spending and debt. Washington, in a bipartisan way, has a spending problem. The fundamental problem isn't that we are undertaxed. We all know that, no matter what station in life we come from. The fundamental problem is, Washington doesn't live within its means, such as we as families do as we sit around our kitchen tables and look at our budgets. Washington has a fundamental spending and debt problem, and we need real solutions--rigorous, disciplined solutions--to get that under control. How do we go about that? To me, it comes down to three important things: cut, cap, and balance--cut, cap, and balance. Cut: We need to cut the budget now. We need to cut the budget this year and next year. We need immediate meaningful cuts. That is why I support those immediate meaningful cuts in the Federal budget. We can't put off meaningful cuts for 1 year or 5 years or 10 years. We need them right now. A few weeks ago, we had some budget proposals on the floor. We had several Republican proposals and we had President Obama's proposed budget. The Obama budget didn't cut in a meaningful way. In fact, it doubled the debt in 5 years and tripled the debt in 10. On the Republican side, we had three different alternatives, all of which cut the budget in a meaningful way, and I voted for all three. We need to start now, today, with cuts. But that is not enough. That is short term. We need immediate cuts, we need medium-term caps, and we need balance. So let's discuss caps. What do I mean by a cap? I mean we need established spending caps in each major category of the budget that takes some sort of extraordinary supermajority in the Congress to supercede. We need a glidepath to actually get through those caps to a balanced budget in a reasonable period of time. There are several proposals in this body. There are several proposals in the House, mostly from the Republican, conservative side--virtually all of them--to establish those caps, to get us on that disciplined mandatory path so we reach that balanced budget. Third, and finally, balance: The goal needs to be a balanced budget, and it can't be a goal generations off. It can't be a goal decades off. It needs to be a goal within our sight. The only way, ultimately, I believe, we can absolutely ensure that is through a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am very proud to be a coauthor, along with all my Republican colleagues--every single one of us--of a strong, meaningful, substantive balanced budget constitutional amendment. This has been debated in this body and the House for some time. The last time it was voted on, on the floor of the Senate, it came within one vote of passing. We need to have this ultimate protection and straitjacket and enforced discipline to say we are getting to a balanced budget, we are going to stay there, and we are not going to get in this state again. Virtually every State in the country has such a balanced budget constitutional amendment under their State constitution, and that enforced discipline works. That straitjacket at the State level works. It works in my State of Louisiana. We have such a provision in our State constitution which says we can't have a State budget which is out of balance. That mandate, that requirement for a balanced budget works. Every year, the legislature, working with the Governor, produces a balanced budget. If they go out of session and 1 month later revenues fall and the budget goes out of balance, they have to come back in within a set period of time and they have to rebalance that budget. It is not fun. It is not easy. It has been particularly difficult in this horrible economy for the last several years, but because of that mandate, because of that constitutional provision, it gets done. That is what we need at the Federal level. We need a balanced budget constitutional amendment. So I repeat: cut, cap, and balance. It is an important formula. It is simple but substantive and it will get us where we need to be.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, will the Chair inform me when I have consumed 12 minutes?

Mr. VITTER. Well, first of all, I voted for that budget as well as the Toomey budget. The Toomey budget, which was my first choice and preference, balances the budget in 10 years. That would be my first choice. The Ryan budget gets us way down the path compared to anything else proposed on the Democratic side, such as the President's budget, which on the Senate floor actually got 0 votes out of 100. So while the Ryan budget is not my first choice, it is a dramatic improvement on the path we are currently on.

Mr. VITTER. I would be happy to.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair. I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and continue this debate and move it to the next level. As I said when I began, the first thing I wish to do is recognize and celebrate progress because, after months of resistance from the distinguished majority leader, we are finally on the Senate floor actually talking about our most pressing challenge, spending and debt. But it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is a procedural motion. Let's get to the real substance by having meaningful legislation-- cut, cap, and balance legislation--on the floor of the Senate, open to amendments and open to wide-ranging debate. That is the history and tradition of the Senate. Unfortunately, it hasn't been the practice of the Senate all that much in recent years, but we are trying to get back to that. So let's put that meaningful, substantive legislation about spending and debt on the floor of the Senate, have that debate, have amendments, and have a free flow of ideas. Cut, cap, and balance--we can get there. We can do the work of the American people. We can rein in this runaway Federal spending and debt, and we must. We must do it now. Because if we fail to meet this challenge this year--if we fail to meet this challenge this year--I believe there are going to be dire consequences for our economy and for all American families as a result. Having this topic on the floor of the Senate is a start, but it is only a start. Let's build on this, put substantive legislation on the floor about spending and debt, and act on that meaningful, substantive legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. VITTER. This is very little to ask this Congress to do--to agree, within 6 or 8 years, to do the hard work to balance our budget in return for giving the President more authority to borrow more money. We owe it to the American people to let them decide for themselves and let the States ratify it. This is a huge decision. All we are asking our Democratic colleagues to do is to let America decide if we should have a balanced budget. Let America decide if it is a radical, extreme idea that we live within our means and stop spending more than we are bringing in. I know how America is going to answer that question, and that is why I want to give them the chance to answer it. Mr. President, you have the money you need to meet our obligations, but once and for all we need to mean what we say and stop spending this country into bankruptcy. I thank the Chair. I yield.

Mr. VITTER. I thank Senator Johnson, and I am honored to join him and all our colleagues here to echo the same important message. Everyone knows--everyone paying attention across the country knows--our greatest challenge is out-of-control spending and debt. Everyone knows we face a mounting crisis and an important deadline in terms of the debt limit. So when are we going to face these crucial issues, the top challenges we face as a country? When are we going to face them squarely, directly, constructively on the floor of the Senate? It is just that simple. Let's get to the important matter at hand. Let's debate in a constructive way and let's vote on proposals to curb spending and debt. Yesterday, we stood together, under Senator Johnson's leadership, and said just that. We said we are going to block any effort to go into a recess or a pro forma session next week--the July 4 recess. We have done that. We have successfully blocked that recess, and we did that because we need to roll up our sleeves. We need to go to work, not go on vacation, and deal with this crucial challenge of spending and debt. Interestingly, President Obama, in many ways, said the same thing yesterday. He chastised Congress and said: You need to go to work, not go on vacation, and address this crucial issue. Well, great. We have succeeded in canceling that recess. That is a first important step. But why are we continuing to try to move to every other issue under the Sun except the biggest challenge our country faces? Why don't we face this issue, debate it in a constructive way? Senator Reid, why don't you put measures on the floor that directly address this issue? With that in mind, those of us who joined together yesterday to block our July 4 recess have written Senator Reid a letter today, and I think it summarizes our point and our position very clearly, so I will read it. It is not long. Dear Leader Reid: Yesterday we came together to make it clear that we believe the Senate should not go on vacation while our country goes bankrupt. We vowed to block any recess or pro forma session next week. We're glad you have accepted that reality. But let's not be in session just to try to fool the American people into thinking the Senate is working on the Nation's fiscal crisis. Let's actually begin a constructive debate on the biggest challenge our country faces--spending and debt. With that goal, we write to ask a few simple fundamental questions: When will you put serious bills on the floor to directly address spending and debt? The Budget Act of 1974 requires the Senate Budget Committee to mark up a budget by April 15th, and tomorrow will mark the 793rd day since the Democratic-led Senate has passed a budget and the 11th week since missing that deadline this year. When will the Budget Committee meet to mark up a budget proposal, and when will you put such a proposal on the floor? The American people want us to enact meaningful, effective spending caps. When will you put a spending cap bill on the floor? We clearly need the enforced discipline of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. This measure failed by a single vote last time it was debated on the floor of the Senate. When will you put a balanced budget amendment on the floor? We await your response and your leadership. So, again, Mr. President, to summarize, we banded together yesterday and said: As the country goes bankrupt, we shouldn't go on vacation. We are going to block any recess, any pro forma session next week. And we did. But we did it to turn to this challenge: to debate spending and debt in a constructive way, to have votes on that, not to continue to avoid the issue and turn to every other issue under the Sun. So through the Chair, I would again ask Senator Reid, why don't we turn to this most important challenge of our country. Please put serious bills on the Senate floor that directly address spending and debt. Let's get on with the people's work.