mccain, did an analysis of what would have happened in this economy absent the federa federl response. the tarp and the stimulus. their conclusion is, had we not had that federal response, we would be in a depression today. we would have 16% unemployment, we would have 8 million more people unemployed. this amendment would have prevented that response. what a mistake, what a profound mistake. further, this amendment uses social security funds to calculate balance and subjects the social security program to the same cuts as other federal spending. further, it shifts ultimate decisions on budgeting to unelected and unaccountable judges. and

-- and final, madam president, the state ratification for a balanced budget amendment could take years to complete. we don't have years. we need to act now. and we don't need an excuse for inaction by saying, oh, we passed a balanced budget amendment to the constitution that won't take effect for god knows how long. madam president, here's some additional problems that are specific to this proposal. the 18% of g.d.p. spending cap is draconian and unrealistic, particularly given the retirement of the baby-boom generation and rising health care costs. the restriction on legislation that raises revenue would effectively prevent any increase in revenue, even if it's part of a bipartisan, balanced debt-reduction plan. what a profound mistake that would be. madam president, again, i

repeat, revenue as a share of our national income is the lowest it's been in 60 years. spending as a share of our national income is the highest it's been in 60 years. so this proposal would absolutely handcuff us on the revenue side of the equation. locking in deficits for god knows how long. madam president, it just doesn't make sense. and making it more difficult to raise the debt limit, this proposal increases the likelihood of default. we saw the turmoil created by our near default this summer. why would we want to make an actual default far more likely to occur? we can also see that on counter course, by 2021, spending on social security, defense and other health care spending or non-health care spending and interest alone will reach more than 18% of g.d.p. what's missing?

medicare. so if we stay on our current course, under this balanced budget amendment, federal spending on medicare would have to be completely eliminated. let me repeat that, mr. president. on our current course by 2021, spending just on social securi security, defense, non-health care spending, and interest alone will reach more than 18% of g.d.p. what's missing? medicare. so medicare would have to be completely eliminated if we aren't to change what we're doing with social security, not to change what we're doing with defense and other health care spending. obviously we can't do anything about the interest expense. that's got to be paid. mr. president, it's notable that an 18% spending limit is so unrealistic that even the house republican budget would violate

this restriction in every single year. let me repeat that. this 18% restriction on spending is so unrealistic that even the house republican budget would violate this provision in each and every year of its life. mr. president, normon ornstein, from a washington think tank, described a balanced budget amendment as a really dumb idea. in a column in "roll call" earlier this year, he wrote -- quote -- "few ideas are more seductive on the surface and more destruct any of reality than a balanced budget amendment. here's why. nearly all of our states have balanced budget requirements. that means when the economy slows, states are forced to raise taxes or slash spending at just the wrong time, providing a fiscal drag when what is needed

is countercyclical policy to stimulate the economy. in fact, the fiscal drag from the states in 2009 and 2010 was barely countered by the federal stimulus plan. that meant the federal stimulus provided was nowhere near what was needed but far better than doing nothing. now imagine that scenario with a federal drag instead." mr. ornstein has it exactly right. a balanced budget amendment would have a devastating impact on our economy at the worst possible time. and mr. ornstein is not alone in that sentiment of the macroeconomic advisors, a leading economic forecasting firm, had this to say in a company blog posted in october -- and i quote -- "if actually enforced in fiscal year 2012, a balanced budget amendment would quickly destroy

millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval. the effect on the economy would be catastrophic." "the effect on the economy would be catastrophic. no model could capture the ensuing chaos and uncertainty which would make matters far worse." macroeconomic advisors went on to include that enforcing a balanced budget amendment in 2012 would result in 15 million fewer jobs. let me repeat that. 15 million fewer jobs. that is largely in line what the -- with the blinder and zandi analysis of what would have happened absent the federal response to the economic downturn. and here's what bruce bartlett, a former reagan administration economic advisor, wrote in a "new york times" on-line column

in november -- and i quote -- "the idea of mandating a balanced budget through the constitution is dreadful and the proposal that republican leaders plan to bring up is, frankly, nuts. the truth is that republicans don't care about actually balancing the budget. if they did, they would want to return to the policies that gave us balanced budget in the late 1990's. of course, no republican favors such policies today. they prefer to delude voters with pie-in-the-sky promise as that amending the constitution will painlessly solve all of our budget problems." mr. president, we must absolutely address the nation's deficit and debt. our friends on the other side have that exactly right. our economic future depends on our ability to put the budget back on a sound long-term path. that's why i believe what is

actually needed here is for us to put our energy and effort into writing a budget that actually balances. cutting the spending, raising the revenue, making the tough choices. that is the best way forward. a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is not the answer. and this balanced budget amendment is particularly troubling. it would restrict our ability to respond to economic downturns. it would impose a draconian and unrealistic spending cap, and it would effectively prevent any increase in revenue, even if it is part of a bipartisan balanced deficit-reduction plan. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. on a separate matter, mr. president, let me just say, when my colleague said we don't have a budget, we do have a budget. i sometimes think our colleagues

missed out on what happened on august 2. we passed the budget control a act. the budget control act provided a budget for this year and for next year. that is the budget that we are operating under that was passed in the budget control act on august 2. so when they put up these signs that say we don't have a budget for 958 days or 858 days, it's just not right. we do have a budget. we may not particularly like the budget. we certainly may not like the way it was done, because it wasn't done through the regular process. it wasn't done as a budget resolution. it was done as a law. budget resolutions are not signed by the president of the united states. they're purely a congressional document. the budget control act is actually a law. iit has imposed a budget for ths year and next year and ten years of spending caps.

those are the law of the united states. that is a budget. and for my colleagues to stand up and say we don't have a budget, it almost makes me wonder, did they miss out on the debate and the passage and the signing of the budget control act? i tell my colleagues, that's our budget. it's in law. it's not just a resolution, it's the law of the land. i thank the chair ask yield the floor. -- i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i've listened with a great deal of interest to my good friend and colleague and i do care a great deal for him. he's been budget chairman for quite awhile. and, frankly, he's been a lone voice over on that side trying to get all of us to live within our means. and i have great respect for him for at least trying.

but we call budgets line-by-line discussions of just exactly what is -- what are the inflows and outgoes, as determined by the budget committees. and he hasn't been able to pass a budget mainly because he can't get his side together to do it. it's a disgrace, not for him because our colleagues just won't do it. well, why don't they do that? because if you really had a budget, if it really means anything, you'd have to get spending under control. and you can't just keep doing it by adding taxes. yeah, we have a -- a low rate of income coming in right now, mainly because the spending is completely out of whack. i listened to my colleague very carefully and i have to say, he

made a tremendous case for the constitutional balanced budget amendment because he kept going on and on about all the problems we have. he didn't mention that we've been spending 25% of the g.d.p. usually that's around 20%. 25% is a whopping amount of money. and our former budget c.b.o. director said that i guess the new normal will be somewhere around 23%. well, we've been spending around 20% while the revenues are around 18%. now they're spending 25% of our g.d.p. if there's ever an argument to to why we need some restraint here in the congress of the united states, it is, number one, they can't get a budget over there. and we have a darn tough enough time over here when we're in charge. number two, we're spending this country blind.

i think the distinguished senator made that case i think eloquently. i think it's both parties, too, but there's certainly one party that is much more used to spending than the other. i got to say that. and that's not the republican party. but, look, all i heard in this last dissertation was what a rough road to hoe our country has. this amendment allows for five years to gradually reach a point where you can live with a balanced budget constitutional amendment. what it does, it sends a message to everybody in this body and the other body over there in the house of representatives that the game is over, you better get it in shape in five years. now, some people don't think we can do it in five years, and i -- i'm not so sure we can. we've got to try. and let me tell you, this

country's in real trouble. my distinguished colleague and friend, who i admire greatly because does tell it the way it is -- sometimes adds his own interpretation to the way it i is -- but he made a pretty darn good case that we're out of control here. and the only way -- i've only been here 35 years. and i've got to say that i haven't seen many days where we've even come close to a balanced budget, and i've seen spending after spending after spending and demands for taxes so they can spend more. both sides are at fault, in pie opinio --in my opinion, one sidh more than the others. well, i just wanted to make these points because, my gosh, he made a great case for the balanced budget constitutional amendment. and, frankly, i don't see how anybody listening would say that the current way we're doing

things is the right way to do it. yeah, this amendment would put constraints on congress. they'd be tough constraints. but don't tbhi buy this argument there are -- that there are -- that there is no way that you can raise revenue or no way that you can spend under certain circumstances. it's just you've got to have a supermajority vote to do it, and you're going to have to make a case for it for the first time -- first time -- in my time here, i'll tell you that. i don't think anybody in this country thinks that the congress is doing what's right with regard to raising taxes and spending. i've got to say i've watched it for all these years i have been in the congress, and it's not working because we don't have the constraints that make us

have to make it work, and that's what this balanced budget amendment is all about. what they offer as a balanced budget amendment wouldn't put constraints on anything, and it's just there as i wish so they could have something to vote for so they can say they voted for a balanced budget amendment. it's anything but a balanced budget amendment. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i see the distinguished majority whip on the floor. i would like to propound a u.c. and if he disagrees, please tell me. i'd like to be recognized for five minutes followed by senator shaheen from new hampshire for five minutes, followed by senator enzi for five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: i would just like to add my name at the end of the queue for at least five minutes. mr. isakson: no objection with me. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i appreciate the time.

i want to thank senator hatch of utah for 16 continuous years of work on the balanced budget amendment. it was his fight in 1995 that brought that amendment to the floor within one vote in the united states senate, and it's his fight today to bring it back for another vote. you know, i have listened to all of the speeches, not every one of them but a substantial number of them, but i come back to three points. you know, facts are stubborn things and there are three facts. we are spending too much. the second fact, we're promising too much to our people. the third fact, we're borrowing too much. you know, i ran a real estate company for 22 years. real estate is all about borrowing and leverage, but you learn a lesson in real estate, you learn it very painfully. there is such a thing as good leverage and there is such a thing as too much leverage. our country is at the breaking point on leverage. we have got a process problem in the united states senate, in the united states house. we can't deal with our financial fiscal affairs, our promises to our people or our borrowing, and it's time we change the paradigm.

i support a balanced budget amendment because if ratified by 3/4 of the states and becoming a part of the constitution it forces the congress to just say no on spending when we're spending too much, it forces the congress to look at entitlements and recognize we can only promise that which we can afford, and it forces us to look at debt and recognize we are at too much debt and we become overleveraged. you know, i want to put in a plug for something senator shaheen and i have been working on for a long, long time and it's a fundamental process change called a by annual budget where you -- a biannual budget where you appropriate an odd-numbered year for two years, not one. you spend that even year, the election year, overseeing the programs to find ways to save money, balance your budget. if we changed our process and forced us to do something like that, we wouldn't be facing the catastrophic consequences we are today. so i want to thank the senator from new hampshire for being on the floor and recognize her for her leadership on the issue. also as one from a state that

does biannual budgeting as do 20 of the 50 states of the united states of america. i will tell you an interesting little story about biannual budgeting. the nation of israel got into financial difficulty 40 years ago. they were borrowing too much, spending too much and going into debt too much. israel asked around the world what should we do to change our process? they changed to a biannual process. two years later, their g.d.p. was better, their deficit to ratio was down and g.d.p. had gone up by 7.5% in two years all because they got their fiscal house in order. while some will argue you can't do a balanced budget because it won't work, some will say 18%, some will say you can't do this or do that, there is just one thing we can't do anymore -- that's spend beyond our means, borrow against our children and grandchildren and promise those in poverty we can deliver more than we can deliver. if we face the day of reckoning

now and reprioritize our priorities and if we cut spending where we can, we will come up with a trifecta that will take this debate to ancient history and we will begin getting the united states of america back to fiscal soundness. that's where a balanced budget amendment starts and i hope the end of it is that process and a biannual budget as well. i yield to the senator from new hampshire. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i want to just thank my colleague from georgia for his very thoughtful comments. senator isakson has been working on a biannual budget for a very long time. i was pleased to join him in this session of congress. i agree with him. i think this is one of the ways that we can encourage more oversight of our spending and hopefully address some of the budget issues that we face, so i appreciate and share his beliefs that this is an important change that we should make.

i am actually on the floor, mr. president, not to speak on the balanced budget amendment, however, but to talk about what i believe is very important for us to do before the end of this year, and that is to address the extension of the payroll tax cut. in november, the private sector added 140,000 new jobs to our work force. in fact, businesses have now created 100,000 jobs in each of the last five months. this is a positive trend that we haven't seen in the past five years, and while this is encouraging, we still have a long way to go because more than 13 million americans remain unemployed and millions more are underemployed. these individuals and their families are struggling to make ends meet during this holiday season. at this time last year, congress passed bipartisan legislation to put more money into the pockets of working americans. we kept payroll taxes for workers, an effort that

increased take home pay for the average household by almost almost $1,000 in 2011. mrs. shah in new hampshire, the payroll tax cut has meant an extra $600 million in our communities. mrs. shaheen: there are some who want to allow this tax cut to expire at the end of the year, but let's be clear. if the tax cut expires, this would mean the average family will see their taxes increase by by $1,000 next year. this will mean taking $120 billion out of our nation's economy, money that will no longer be spent at our supermarkets, at our retailers and our gas stations. that just doesn't make sense. independent economists have predicted that allowing this tax cut to expire could cost our economy 400,000 jobs next year. some have even predicted the

united states could face another recession if we don't take action. members of this body have also suggested that this tax cut would starve social security of needed revenue and endanger this bedrock program's solvency. with americans relying so heavily on social security to meet basic needs, this is a serious charge and one we should take seriously. however, the program's chief actuary has written that this tax cut does not hurt social security's finances. instead, this proposal contains provisions to require that the social security trust fund be made whole. i repeatly supported senator casey's proposal to not only extend payroll tax cuts for employees but also to expand them to increase the average family's take-home pay by an additional $500 next year. this proposal would have cut employer payroll taxes, making it easier for small businesses to keep current workers and hire new ones.

that proposal was fully paid for with a 3% tax on people earning more than a million dollars in a year. because of the way it was paid for, the legislation was blocked. now, my friend from pennsylvania, senator casey, also introduced a compromise plan which i supported, but again unfortunately it was not passed. mr. president, i think particularly now at this time of the year at this critical stage for our economy, everyone should agree on preventing tax increases for working families. there are some competing ideas about the best way to accomplish this, and i welcome that debate, but congress simply cannot afford to saddle middle-class families with a thousand dollar tax increase in the midst of an uneven recovery. it isn't right for our small businesses, it isn't right for our communities, it isn't right

for our economy. time is running out to extend the payroll tax cut. i urge my colleagues to support this effort. thank you very much. mr. enzi: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the issue that i raised during my maiden speech on the senate floor in 1997, and that's the need to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. i'm disappoint thad we were unable to pass a balanced budget amendment in 1997. i commend senator hatch for his efforts then. we got within one vote. we had 66 votes. we needed 67. had we gotten that, we wouldn't be in this mess today. in 1997, our national debt was $5.4 trillion. today it's an astonishing

$15 trillion. and without immediate action, that number will continue to increase to a level that is even more unsustainable. time and time again, the federal government has proven that it's incapable of the fiscal discipline needed to spend within its means. time and time again, the federal government has spent more money than we bring in. it has led to the situation we currently face where we're borrowing more than 40 cents on every dollar we spend and where we are being threatened with further downgrades in our credit rating. in fiscal year 2010, the government brought in slightly more than $2.2 trillion in revenue. at the same time, we collected $2.2 trillion, we spent $3.5 trillion. in other words, we overspent by $1.3 trillion. that's 1,300 billion dollars. that's an astonishing amount of spending and it cannot be

encouraged. i -- cannot be sustained. i encourage you to write these out with all the zeros and see what i'm talking about. we have a spending addiction that must be controlled. for years, we have tried to hide it, disguise it or ignore. we have acted like it's okay to keep spending money that we don't have. we no longer have that option. the world today is different than the world of 1997. we have seen riots in other nations whose fiscal situations were out of control. if we don't act now, we could see similar events in this country, we can either balance our budget or go broke, even more broke than we already are. balancing the budget is not a revolutionary idea. responsible families balance the amount they spend with the amount they make or they go bankrupt. businesses balance the amount they spend with the amount they bring in or they go bankrupt. most states have amendments requiring them to balance the amount they spend with their

revenue. wyoming's constitution requires a balanced budget each and every year, and they do it. if people in washington understood budgeting like wyoming does, we would be in a much better place right now. if families, businesses and states can balance their budget, there is no reason the federal government cannot balance its budget. now, there are two options that the senate is considering today, and i'm pleased that there is consensus from both sides of the aisle that a balanced budget amendment would help us. although that's the case, there is no doubt in my mind that the version introduced by senator hatch is far superior to the option of the version introduced by senator udall. the republican balanced budget amendment gets to the heart of the problem, which is the need to rein in out-of-control spending. the republican bill requires that we get spending down to historical revenue levels and force us to make the tough choices about what programs will

no longer be necessary. it also prohibits congress from raising taxes until a supermajority of members support such a tax increase. this is an important provision because the default solution for our out-of-control spending should be cutting spending, not raising taxes. this bill also goes into effect five years after ratification, which gives us the ability to transition to a balanced budget. i have a pending -- penny solution bill out there, one-cent solution where we cut one cent for every dollar we spend for seven years. at the end of seven years, the budget would balance. so it's not something that's undoable. we can -- we can balance the budget. while i'm pleased that my democratic colleagues have a balanced budget amendment, the alternative they offer does not address this heart of the problem. it does not include a spending cap to ensure that we move spending to an acceptable level. it does not include a

requirement for a supermajority to raise taxes, which will allow proponents of tax increases to more easily work to balance the budget on the backs of the american taxpayers. and the american taxpayers are only 49% of the people working right now. the american people are not the ones who cannot get spending under control. they should not see tax increases simply because congress can't do its job. we need to pass the hatch amendment and pass it now because i must remind my colleagues that passage of a strong balanced budget amendment is a first step. if we pass a balanced budget amendment, it still must be ratified by the states. three-fourths of the states have to pass it for to become a part of the constitution. that will take time. and with a $15 trillion debt, we don't have a lot of time left. there's speculation that two years might be the outside. this isn't going to balance it for five.

two will create some substantial cuts and tax increases. passage of the balanced budget amendment by three-fourths of the states is a tough test because of the magnitude of what we are trying to do, it should be. however we need to give the states this opportunity to force the federal government to come to grips with its finances just as the state governments are required to do. why should we give the states the opportunity to ratify a balanced budget amendment? because i've found the best decisions are made closest to the people. state governments are closer to the people than the federal government. and they're generally better at addressing the needs of the people of their state. giving the states the opportunity to ratify the amendment will bring the budget closer to the people and would allow the american people to decide how they want washington to spend their hard-earned money. most of the american people get it, and they're asking us to get it, and do a balanced budget amendment. amending our constitution is an

extraordinary measure. it's not something that i take lightly. we're in an extraordinary time. we have a budget deficit that's out of control, and a national debt that's ballooning to levels that are unsustainable. we need a balanced budget amendment so that we can begin to get our nation's finances back in order. i commend senator hatch for his bill and appreciate him offering it. i hope that my colleagues will support it. it is essential for our country. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, there are very few things which members of congress agree on but one of the things that binds us and unites us is a common oath we take to uphold and defend this document. this document is not just another resolution, another law. it is the constitution of the united states. for more than 220 years, this document has guided our nation and inspired other nations

toward democracy. i think it is fitting that we swear an oath to uphold and defend it. but i think we also have to look at this document not just with respect but with humility. humility because we know that the words contained have managed to guide our nation so successfully for so many decades and centuries. and those who are bold enough to suggest that they would change the wording of this document really have to expect to have hard questions asked as to whether or not it is appropriate and whether what they are setting out to do is consistent with this great document and the needs of our nation. i can recall when senator hatch chaired the senate judiciary committee and i was a member. there was a day when they asked me as a member of the judiciary committee to give permission for three constitutional amendments to be considered in the same day. i objected which was my right and i said to chairman hatch at the time, you can call two

constitutional amendments on thursday, but call me old fashioned, i don't think we ought to amend the constitution more than twice a day. the point i was trying to make was, trying to suggest to my colleagues to at least have some humility and maybe even hesitancy to suggest that they can change for the better the wording of this great constitution. it has been changed, there's no question about it. from the moment it was written until two years later thomas jefferson penned the bill of rights and many say that that was essential for the ratification of the constitution and included some basic rights that we now revere in this country. so the first package of amendments, the bill of rights, have become an integral part of the original document because they were adopted so quickly. added so quickly. but in the 220 years since 1791 when the bill of rights was added, in the 220 years we have only amended this document 17 times and only for the most serious of matters.

consider what our amendments have done. they have ended the practice of slavery. they have established the principle of equal protection. they have assured the right of women in america to vote, among other things. they have provided for succession in case of presidential disability and they've addressed some of the most fundamental issues facing our nation. but now some members of congress believe that we should enshrine in our constitution their views of what the federal budget should look like. they want to radically reshape our constitutional framework in order to relieve congress of its political and moral responsibility to make tough choices about taxing and spending. they want to tie the hands of congress on budget decisions and pass important decisions on to another branch of government, our federal judiciary. that's not what the founding fathers intended. the constitution gives the power

of the purse expressly to congress. fulfilling this constitutional duty carries some political risk, but we all signed up for that job. members of congress should not try to change the constitution to avoid their duty to make tough and important decisions. these days, some in congress would rather take a red pen to the constitution than to reconsider an antitax pledge they have made to a washington lobbyist named grover norquist. 41 of the 43 republican senators, all of whom are cosponsors of this amendment, have taken a pledge, a public oath to grover norquist when it comes to the issue of taxes. i believe my colleagues who are indentured politically to grover norquist need to get their priorities right. our oath to support and defend the constitution is much more important than any allegiance to

any washington lobbyist. now, congress has balanced a budget, not just in my lifetime, in my term of service. we ran a budget surplus in the years 1998 through 2001. there is nothing stopping us now from getting our fiscal house in order except a lack of political will. we simply don't need to go to the extreme of amending the constitution to get this job done. it's also clear a balanced budget amendment proposal has many unanswered questions and concerns, and it's our responsibility to ask those questions. i held a hearing as chairman of the constitution subcommittee of the judiciary, well attended by members on both sides of the aisle with witnesses telling us the pros and cons of a balanced budget amendment. that's the way the process should work. now we come to the floor to consider two versions of the balanced budget amendment. it's interesting when the balanced budget amendment came before the house of representatives, opposition to it was bipartisan. even the republican chairman of the house rules committee and

the house budget committee voted against the republican version of the balanced budget amendment brought up in the house. a few weeks ago when we held this hearing, witnesses told us why we should take -- have pause if not reject this notion of a balanced budget amendment. first it would cause harm to the economy. i can't say it any better than senator conrad did just moments ago. our budget in washington is designed to not only serve the needs of the nation, but to help our economy get on track and stay on track. in fact, when things go bad in our economy, as they have over the last several years, our budget steps in with countercyclical measures such as unemployment compensation to put our economy back on track. the balanced budget amendment -- excuse me -- before us today is going to make that more difficult to do.

excuse me. the forecasting firm of macroeconomic advisors told us what would have happened with this balanced budget amendment if it had been in place today. they said such an amendment would double the unemployment rate in america, cause the gross domestic product to shrink by 17%, and destroy millions of jobs. that's something that my republican colleagues will not acknowledge, and they should. if we cannot spend in times of recession, even when receipts are low, we fail to turn the recession around and of course we leave many unemployed americans with no help when they desperately need it. there's also a provision in the hatch-mcconnell balanced budget amendment that would increase the risk of default on our national debt by requiring a three-fifths vote in each house to raise the debt limit. i might tell my colleagues who

follow this, only three of the last 11 debt ceiling increases passed both chambers by a three-fifths vote. three out of the last 11. if you enjoyed the debt limit stand-off of a few months ago and the threat of not only closing down our government but closing down our economy, you would enshrine it in the constitution with the republican balanced budget amendment. it only strikes me as odd if not hypocritical that members come to the floor and give speeches about how much they support a war effort or spending for a given issue, and then when it comes time to raise the debt limit which is part of the bargain, they're nowhere to be found. they want to be there for the press release saying i'm for the war but when the debt limit needs to be increased to pay for the war, then all of a sudden they've become fiscal conservatives. i think there's some political hypocrisy involved in that. another key concern that no one has answered that i commend to my colleagues was exemplified by

the testimony of alan morrison of george washington university law school. he asked the question who is going to enforce this amendment? if in fact the congress does something in violation of the amendment, who can sue and which court would consider it? it's a valid question. because ultimately this will end up in the courts, and the courts will have to make some rather unique decisions. what are the outlays and receipts of the united states? what was the growth -- gross domestic product? issues which many in the court may find challenging if not impossible to deal with in a timely basis and the longer it takes to resolve that issue, the more uncertainty there will be about our nation's economy and its economic future. do we really want to put the courts in charge of budget decisions? former solicitor general judge robert bork said the result would likely be hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and

providing inconsistent results. those who support the amendment are looking for stability and certainty. my guarantee is turning this matter over to the federal courts will give you neither. the nonpartisan congressional research service looked at the issue of balanced budget amendment enforcement on august 3 and said the experience of state government indicates that concern over judicial involvement is realistic. in some states, the judiciary has become involved with the operation of various aspects of budgeting to impose budget balancing remedies like tax increases, limiting expenditures generally or preventing implementation of specific spending laws. the possibility the federal courts could invoke such remedies prompts concern about the potential such actions would have for causing a significant shift in the balance of power among the branches of the federal government. even former c.b.o. director douglas holtz ekin who was brought in in support of the balanced budget amendment con

he'ded, i quote him, the question of enforcement remains a challenge that should be thoughtfully considered, end of quote and i might add parenthetically, no kidding. enforcement of this is critical. how can the senate consider passing a balanced budget amendment without without answering first the question of enforcement? it would create tremendous uncertainty. i would say, mr. president, the balanced budget amendment that's been sponsored by all the senate republicans raises particular concerns. under this proposal, spending would be capped at 18% of groat domestic product each year, a level far below the draconian budget suggested by congressman paul ryan that we remember would end medicare as we know it. and the senate republican proposal enshrines the republican philosophy in requiring a two-thirds vote in each house on any bill that increases taxes or revenue without any ability to waive that two-thirds requirement, even in time of war.

the effect of these reforms would devastate programs like medicare and social security, while giving constitutional protection, constitutional protection to tax expenditures currently enjoyed by corporations and the wealthy. this proposal is not sensible, it's not fair. it wouldn't serve our country well. in short, our hearing made it clear that there has not been a balanced budget amendment proposed that would actually be enforceable and would not cause great collateral damage to the economy. i've served on several efforts and continue to in an effort to reduce spending, to find new revenue, and to balance our budget. i will tell you that it takes political will. this kind of approach, this idea that somehow we can just pass a constitutional amendment and be done with our responsibility is not only shortsighted, i think it's counterproductive. i think it will make our situation worse instead of better. i thank senator mark udall for his offering on his balanced budget amendment. it is a better approach.

and while i don't support any balanced budget amendment, it would be the udall amendment, but i don't believe that amending the constitution at this moment in time is the right way to approach this. i don't believe either amendment achieves it without creating terrific uncertainty in our future about enforcement. i urge my colleagues to oppose their efforts to end -- pardon me, to amend our constitution. i urge them instead to show political courage and work hard right now in a bipartisan way to address our fiscal challenges. that's what the american people expect of us. mr. president, i yield the floor. copy mr. president stph-p. the presiding officer: the senator from -- mr. kyl: i want to thank senators for leadership on the issue. as americans well know, washington has a spending problem. the federal government's fiscal position is unsustainable. it now borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends.

indeed, our debt has climbed to over $15 trillion and will continue to grow and threaten our economy and our jobs and our way of life unless we do something about it. opponents say congress should do its job. sure it should, but it hasn't. events during the last 30 years have shown that congress can't be counted ton make the tough -- counted on to make the tough choices necessary to control spending and balance the budget. here's a little history. when the senate passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982, the debt was $1.1 trillion. in 1986 the national debt topped $2.1 trillion. by 1997, when the senate again failed by one vote the national debt was over $5 trillion. today the debt is over $15 trillion. so there's no evidence that congress has been willing to or able to reduce the debt without the constitution requiring it.

the republican balanced budget amendment simply requires congress to do its job. it includes real reforms that would help the government live within its means including having the president submit a balanced budget to congress every year. the balanced budget amendment does not etch rules into stone. any of its requirements can be waived by a supermajority of the congress. that is if there is a real national consensus to do so. let's remember we're in a crisis today because of deficit spending, raising taxes and getting deeper in debt have been far too easy for congress. the republican balanced budget amendment contains two key enforcement mechanisms that congress would have to abide by. first, congress would have to limit spending to 18% of the gross domestic product from the preceding calendar year. the balanced budget amendment would prohibit spending from exceeding total revenues in a given year. why 18%? if the goal is to balance the budget, the only way to succeed is to limit federal spending to

the level of revenue that the economy is willing to bear. and according to the congressional budget office's august budget and economic outlook, from 1991 to 2010, the most recent period of time, revenues averaged 18% of gross domestic product. so that's why that number is selected. it is notable that the democratic alternative does not contain a spending cap. it also contains lower threshold of votes for waiving the balanced budget amendment which of course would make deficit spending much easier. the second mechanism in the republican balanced budget amendment is a prohibition on any bill that increases taxes from becoming law unless approved by two-thirds roll call vote of members of each chamber. when congress can't get its hands on enough revenue for its spending priorities, the temptation is always to look for more revenue. raise taxes. well, it should be more difficult to take more money from the american people and to increase the size of the federal government. moreover, raising taxes is not a

productive solution to budget deficits. not only does projected revenue usually fail to materialize, higher taxes discourage work, production, savings and investment, all resulting in lower revenues for future years. you can't balance the budget by raising taxes. on the issue of tax increase restrictions, the democratic alternative again falls short. it does not contain a mechanism to make it more difficult for congress to raise taxes. in fact, it does the oppose. it actually contains a provision that makes it more difficult to lower taxes collected from american job creators. some of our friends on the other side will patent a doomsday scenario that they say will result from the republican balanced budget amendment, one that will make tkra cone i don't know cuts -- draconian cuts. couldn't can't amend the constitution, as we know. we can only propose an amendment for the states we consider in a ratification process that takes a long time.

if it passed, the balanced budget amendment would not become effective until five years after ratification by three-fourths of the states. so it's not like we've got some immediate concern here that next year's budget is going to suffer if the balanced budget amendment were to pass. let's not punt again on getting our spending under control. let's not keep kicking the can down the road. let's put real constraints so congress can do its job. i urge my republican friends to vote in favor of the republican-offered balanced budget amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i rise to join senator kyl in supporting a balanced budget amendment that senators lee and hatch crafted. i want to thank senator hatch

for his effort. in the mid-1990's he almost got us to a balanced budget. this time i hope he showing leadership again will be successful. mr. president, washington's runaway spending and crippling debt burden underscore the need for us to have a balanced budget in this country. if washington doesn't stop spending more than it takes in, i fear that there will be an economic collapse and perhaps more profoundly, threaten the very foundation of our nation. the freedom of individuals to thrive and to prosper. and there's plenty of evidence that the huge debt burden we already have is crippling the economy. there's a recent study done by respected economists carmen reinhart and kenneth rogoff show 90% of the economy will reduce a country's economic growth by one or two percentage points. our gross debt right now is 100% of our economy. 1% to 2% is significant growth this year is likely to be closer to 2% total.

pretty weak growth. 1% to 2% growth would be 100% more growth in this country. if we didn't have these debts building up to a record debt of over $15 trillion. it's unacceptable that we have the economic growth we do because it's keeping people from achieving the opportunities that they seek at a time when there are 22 million americans who are unemployed or underemployed we need to do everything we can to get give -- give the economy a shot in the arm. we should not be condemning people to chronic unemployment through inaction here in washington. when lawmakers want to do the right political thing it seems the budget rules creates a bias for spending and deficits. when i left the post as director of the office of management and budget in the last presidential administration -- that was in 2007 -- the budget deficit was

$161 billion, about 12% of today's budget deficit. and i thought that was way too high. in fact, that year i proposed on behalf of the president a budget that actually balanced over a five-year period, because we were so concerned about at that time growing deficits and debts. again, that was only 12% of today's deficit. in that time, as o.m.b. director, i became absolutely convinced that we need to have a discipline in washington to balance the budget. because we need to have some incentive to prioritize. and washington, again, seems to have this bias towards spending and deficits that i think can only be resolved through what 49 states have, which, again, is this power to be able to tell elected representatives you've got to figure out how to prioritize. you've got to figure out how at the end of the day to do what every family in america does, every business in america does, which is how not to spend in more than you take in. study and experience led the

founders to create the best form of government, the republic with enumerated powers. similarly, study and experience should lead us today to an active balanced budget amendment. the times demand it. reneed to reverse the system's bias in favor of deficits and debts. we need a balanced budget amendment in order to preserve the vision of a limited government and enumerated powers. but the fact is congress has not been able to get its spending under control through any other means. some have called for a far higher tax rate. in other words, instead of dealing with the spending that's increasing dramatically -- and by the way, spending has gone up about 24% just in the last few years. but instead of dealing with that, people say why don't you just raise taxes to catch up with the spending. that way we would have a balanced budget through higher and higher revenues. i guess what i would say is congress has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. the growth in the entitlement programs, of course, is a

long-term driver of the spending problem. the cost of these entitlements along with interest on the debt is projected to squeeze out the cost of every other federal program within the next couple of decades, leaving little to nothing for other government priorities. people say, well, the revenues as a percent of our economy are relatively low now, and that's true. coming out of the recession we've not had the growth we had hoped for, and that has resulted in lower tax revenues coming in. historically tax revenues have been about 18% of our economy. today they're lower than that, closer to 14 pay 5% to -- 14.5% to 15%. spending has been at about 20% of our economy historically. this is since world war ii. today that spending is over 24% of our economy. what happens over the next several years based on congressional budget office analysis is that the revenues begin to increase as a percent of the economy, even if the 2001 and 2003 tax relief is not

continued. and in that case, the revenues increase even more dramatically, up to 21% or 22% of the economy. so the fact is that the spending is on a trajectory to go up from historic 20% to 24% now to 30% to 40% to 50% over the decades. we cannot catch that spending with enough taxes. it simply can't be done and have a viable economy. so we have to deal with the spending side of the ledger. even if we do raise taxes to chase this trajectory, we will upset that balance between the federal government and a free, robust private sector that encourages innovation and gets people back to work. if the federal government ends up taxing every dollar of earnings, we will have taken away the space for americans to pursue and enjoy the rewards of hard work, risk taking and innovation. the founders might have used another phrase to describe what a free economy promotes: life,

liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but today we're talking about how do we ensure that we have economic growth so that we can bring back the jobs. and that won't happen through the level of taxation that would be required to catch up to those record levels of spending. to address washington's natural inclination towards taxing and spending a successful balanced budget amendment needs to do more than requiring outlays be less or equal to receipts. again, it should include a spending cap because of the problems i've talked about with regard to the projections of the nonpartisan congressional budget office over the coming years and decades. it should also demand supermajorities should congress seek to enact antigrowth tax hikes. i think this balanced budget amendment crafted by senators hatch and lee, by doing that strikes a good balance. it also addresses the concern about a balanced budget amendment limiting the federal government's ability to spend at a time of war. if there's a declaration of war against a nation-state, a majority vote in both houses would allow for deficit spending. if the armed forces are engaged in a military conflict that has

not been given a full declaration of war a three-fifths vote of both houses would allow for deficit spending. this is in keeping with the intention of the founders. in federalist 34, alexander hamilton drew a distinction between monarchies and republic. he said the chief source of expense in every government was defense spending. but republics should not use this to live beyond their means. he wrote there should be as great a disproportion between the profusion and extravagance of a wealthy kingdom and domestic location which became the modern simplicity of republican government. washington has spent and overspent. this has led us away from that frugality that was the intention of our founders. a balanced budget is the only way to get back to that frugality to that modest simplicity of republican government. that is republican with a small "r." if we don't reap strain spending through a balanced budget

amendment, we'll inhibit and undermine the liberty of americans. we'll threaten the american dream, the hope that each generation is able to pass on to the next generation a better life so that they're able to flourish and to meet, again, their achievements, their objectives in life through opportunity that can be created through a growing economy. mr. president, it's time for congress to prioritize. it's time for congress to make tough decisions. we should do it without the discipline of a balanced budget, but time has shown us that there is a need for a requirement to make those decisions. my home state of ohio has that discipline. in fact, over the past year ohio has had to make some tough decisions to close a budget gap of about $8 billion. here in washington, we have a budget gap that is far higher. this year the government will bring in about $2.2 trillion and spend about $3.7 trillion.

this gap is huge and growing. and just as 49 states do, we need to discipline here in washington to force congress to make these tough decisions to prioritize on behalf of the american people so that we don't have this crippling effect on economic growth, so that we can begin to see the kind of robust recovery we all hope for coming out of the recession. for all these reasons, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to join me in support of the hatch-lee balanced budget amendment. thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to introduce a bipartisan resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of the national cancer act of 1971, supported by 33 democrats and 11 republicans. a special thank you to massachusetts senator john kerry and kansas senator jerry moran for their leadership on this issue. it's unfortunate but likely true that we each know someone who's been affected by cancer. we know a survivor, we remember a victim, we know that cancer affects not just the patient but the parents, the family, the friends, the loved ones. this year more than 1.5 million americans are expected to be

diagnosed with cancer. one of every three women, one of every two men will develop some form of cancer in their lifetimes. more than half a million americans die from cancer year after year after year, and in any one year more than one person every minute, nearly one of every four deaths is from cancer. we also know that behind the statistics, there are thousands of people representing thousands of friends and families and loved ones with ribbons and donations and races for the cure. these are the stories that motivate us to fight harder and to fight with one voice. there's also a story of a nation's commitment to cancer research. there is interest in dealing with environmental causes. there is great from i interest n dealing with cures and prevention and that you will we should as a nation and usually do know what to do. 40 years ago, ted kennedy --

senator ted kennedy, as chairman of the health committee, forged annvestment in cancer research. he worked with those who understood the need for bipartisanship for such an urgent national need. his work, along with jacob javitz, a republican from new york, led to the framework of the national cancer act. and when it was clear that president nixon would only sign the act into law if kennedy's name were not on it, kennedy backed off. the goal was to put cancer research into a new era of discovery, and that's what the cancer act did. it established the national cancer program, which expanded the authority and responsibility of the national cancer institute and its parent, the national institutes of health. the national cance national cans by far the biggest of the two dozen or so national institutes of health. today 12 million cancer survivors are alive because of the advances in the way we

prevent, we detect, we diagnose, and we treat cancer. because of the investments by the n.c.i. -- the cancer institute -- and the national institutes of health, critical cancer research is being conducted in hospitals and foundations and communities and in all kinds of centers everywhere, in our universities. i'd like to insert in the record a list of more than 100 cancer research institutions, physicians, and researchers who have endorsed this resolution, if i could have unanimous consent for that, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. it includes scientists and physicians working together on cancer research everywhere from the jaymes in columbus, cincinnati children's research, small businesses and other research institutions that help bring cutting-edge research to cities and small towns alike.

for the last 40 years our nation's commitment to cancer research has seen a tremendous return on investment in the millions of lives and the billions of dollars saved. we've increased survival rates. we've advanced understanding of the diseases and the tools needed to cure them. we've better understood the connection between environmental factors and public health and diseases. we've realized the importance of prevention. we also know challenges remain from finding more treatments to learning more and caring out prevention better than we have -- and carrying out prevention better than we have, and reducing costs for patients, to reducing disease burdens for different population growths. -- population groups. today's bipartisan cancer resolution on the 40th anniversary of the national cancer act reaffirms a commitment to address this national priority, to make sure that cancer is a thing of the pasted. -- a thing of the past. senator kennedy said, there are

few better investments in our future thank the investment we make -- than the investment we make i in better research. i would liberia to place at a different place in the record -- you would like to place hat a different place in the record a statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise to honor a longtime friend and hero, frank ander sornings a longtime leader of paralyzed vents in ohio who passed away last week from complications of an infection. avenues friend and a trusted advocate. he always spoke eloquently about issues facing veterans and people living with disabilities. confined to a wheelchair as a paraplegic for the overwhelming majority of his adult life, frapping was soft-spoken yet larger than life with a commanding presence. as a leader of the buckeye chapter of the paralyzed veterans association, he drove himself to veterans' events across ohio. he spoke out against inequality

and disablgh disability pay ande barriers that face veterans from transit and economic disability. he fought to ensure housing was aforteddable and accessible for all men's. he testified in front of congress on issues facing vrntses in rural areas and would return that night to cleveland. he would always do so the right way cloosh prepared in facts and figures, armed with an neck do h anecdotes and stories. born in 1953, frank anderson graduated from east tec high in 1971. 1976 he left bowling green state university to enlist in the ohio army national guard. in 19 81, he was paralyzed after

an 18-wheeler crashed into an ohio national guard convoy. he recovered in rehab at what is now the luce stokes center, meeting other veterans, learning from them, all becoming advocates charged with helping veterans. while taking away his ability to walk, the experience strengthened his experience to live his life. he remained active, playing tennis, throwing a discus and a javelin. he became an all-time leader for americans with disabilities. he embraced life's challenges, made the worltd better for all of you even dressing up as santa for children at the cleveland clinic's children's hospital. he traveled the world, cooked his favorite seafood. he listened to his favorite old rhythm and blues music. i would like to insert in the record frank's owe b obituary fe

clevelan"cleveland plain dealera letter from the president of the paralyzed veterans of america. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, thank you. frank served as director of government relations for the paralyzed veterans sings a's buckeye chapter of my state. he belonged to the goarches council on people with disabilities, the a.d.a. ohio network, the maximum accessible housing of ohio, and the greater cleveland r.t.a. -- the transit system citizens' advisory board. he was a trustee on the soldiers and sailors memorial in downtown cleveland. i will miss frank. i will miss his friendship, his wit, and his humor. but his state and nation will miss him more, his strong will and dedication to public service and the lives he helped to improve. frank was an inspiration to anyone in or out of a

wheelchair, a tireless advocate whomever loved and respected. on thursday, december 15, a couple of days from now, at mt. sinai baptist church in cleveland, frank's family and friends will gather for his funeral, his going home. i wish i could be there -- i will be here, but i wish i could be twhr to say goodbye to join his wife and children and seven grandchildren and frank's sister and two brothers. for them i offer my condolences, but also i reaffirm a commitment to serving frank's cause on behalf of all disabled americans, especially those who were disabled and paralyzed in service to our country. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, congress cannot be a solve itself of the responsibility to balance the budget by passing a constitutional amendment. congress has an existing constitutional duty to control the purse, and if congress has the will to balance the budget, it can do so. if it doesn't have that will, no constitutional amendment can be a substitute. we knew that in 1996, which i believe was the last time the senate seriously evaluate add balanced budget. while we didn't pass the balanced budget amendment, we did adopt budgets and policies

that created the first surpluses in decades, enabling the united states to begin to reduce its debt load. unfortunately, that fiscal sensibility was washed away by irresponsible, unfunded bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and two unfunded wars. so once again we find ourselves in a deep fiscal hole. we can and must dig ourselves out of it, just as we did in the 1990's, by taking a balanced approach, restoring revenues, and making sensible spending cuts. but that is not a constitutional question. that's a political one. can we, as a congress, pass the tough measures needed to restore fiscal discipline? i proposed a seven-point plan. bipartisan commissions have proposed plans and realistic folks from all parts of the political spectrum agree that congress needs to address

revenues as well as spending, if we achieve real deficit reduction. congress needs to make tough choices and is failing to do so. one more procedural promise, this in the meantime the form of a constitutional amendment -- this time in the form of a constitutional amendment, isn't going to get the job done. while the details of the two measures before us differ in many respects, there is questions as to how either can be enforced. udall amendment says "the congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts." what would happen if congress failed to adopt implementing legislation that lives up to the terms of the amendment? if it doesn't have the will to make cuts and raise revenues now, what makes people think that congress will be able to agree on implementing legislation? the amendments raise far more questions than they answer. for example, would a court be willing to hear a case alleging a failure by the congress to fulfill its duties? or would a court treat such a

challenge as a political question that is beyond its reach? who would even be able to bring a case alleging a violation? who would the case be brought against and what would the remedies be? could a judge nullify a budget on the basis that it somehow violated the limit? which one pushed us over the limit? how would the cuts be identified and set? would the judge be tasked reviewing the entire federal budget and then making cuts? would the judge be able to compel congress to enact cuts? what would happen if congress failed to comply with such an order? does the judge make changes and substitute his or her priorities for those of congress? now, these same questions could be asked about revenue increases as well. a judge cannot mandate revenue increases under the mcconnell amendment. the resolution apparently would allow judges to make spending

cuts, however, but that dangerous shift of power to the judiciary arises only by implication in the mcconnell resolution. what is explicit under mcconnell is that taxes and revenues can only be raised by a two-thirds vote. so even closing loopholes to end tax dodges and raise revenue would require supermajorities. that is the opposite of a balanced budget amendment provision. that makes it more difficult to balance the budget. the american people don't need new processes or hollow promises. they don't need a constitutional amendment that raises more questions than it answers. they need congress and the president to do our jobs. a balanced budget amendment won't force congress and the president to do anything because it is, as a practical matter, unenforceable. and when it doesn't work, public cynicism would only deepen. it already is plenty deep.

there's only one way to balance the budget and that is with the willpower to make the hard choices. those of us elected to public office have that obligation now, and if we fail, we as individuals will be judged by our own electorates. and i yield the floor. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i stand today to urge my colleagues to support one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this body in decades. senate joint resolution 10, the

hatch-lee balanced budget amendment proposal. the reason why i insist this is so important is because of a crisis that we're facing today. we've accumulated about $15 trillion in sovereign debt on behalf of the united states. $15 trillion. it works out to about $50,000 for every man, woman and child in america. this is an amount of money that could represent an expensive car. it could represent a college education. it could represent all kinds of things but it represents ultimately debt that congress has incurred that congress can't afford to continue to incur at this same rate chvment we're doing every -- same rate. which we're doing every day. we're adding to that debt at an unsustainable rate of about $1.5 trillion every single year. here's why that's so distressing to me. as the white house itself has acknowledged just a few months ago, we're now within about a decade, perhaps much less, of

owing about a trillion dollars a year just in interest on our national debt. currently we're paying a little over $200 billion a year in interest. by the end of this decade, that number is likely to rise to an astounding $1 trillion a year. we could reach that number much sooner than that. it could happen perhaps in half that amount of time if interest rates suddenly start to climb, as they easily could do, particularly given the fact that we're about 350 basis points below the historical average for yield rates on u.s. treasury instruments, the means by which our governmental debt is financed. we have to get this problem under control now, because if we wait until then, until we have to pay a trillion dollars a year just in interest on our martial debt, it will be too late to do anything. by waiting, by postponing the day of our accountability, we will have made a choice, a

devastating choice that will prove the signal, the downfall of the greatest economy the world has ever known. we can't allow that to happen. not now, not on our watch, not when the stakes are this high. if we have to make up that difference, the difference between the $200 billion a year that we're paying now and the trillion dollars a yoa year that we'll have to be paying in interest on our national debt just a few years ago, that money has to -- few years from now, that money has to come from somewhere. that money isn't something we can expect simply to obtain through an increase in taxation. over the long haul, we've learned that our tax system is capable of generating a revenue stream equaling a little over 18% of all the revenue that moves through the american economy every single year. a little over 18% of our gross domestic product. as this chart shows, that percentage remains relatively

constant. it's remained that way for many decades, going back to at least 1960. it averages out a little over 18% of gross domestic product. now, that remains true even when we go back 30 years or so, when our top marginal income tax rates were approaching 90%. the economy finds a way to produce no more than a little over 18.5% -- a little over 18% of g.d.p. so we can't just raise taxes at that point in order to generate more revenue because our income tax system, no matter how we tweak it, no matter how high we raise top marginal rates, isn't capable of generating that much revenue. what we do when we simply ratchet up those tax rates, if anything, is we shrink the size of our economy, we chill economic growth to the point where we're actually generating less revenue, not more. so we can't just tax our way out of that problem nor can we at

that point simply borrow our way out of that problem. in other words, we can't just borrow an additional $800 billion a year on top of the present day $1.5 trillion a year that we're borrowing. because if we did that, our interest rates would go up that much more. that would make our decision that much more crippling on our economy. there are a lot of reasons why this matters. my colleague from ohio, mr. portman, acknowledged just a few minutes ago that this chills job growth when we have this much debt. it's also true that this chills, this impairs our ability to fund every conceivable government program, from defense to entitlements, such that if we wait in order to make the necessary changes to the way we spend money in washington, we will wait at our own peril, we will wait at the peril of those who have become dependent on those very government programs that will have to have their budgets slashed immediately,

abruptly, severely. we can't afford to do that. those who have become dependent on social security, on medicare, on medicaid, on other entitlement programs, on supplemental nutritional assistance, would be devastated if all of a sudden we cut off funding for those programs or we had to slash those budgets by 30%, 40%, 50% overnight. it's these abrupt changes that prove more difficult for our economy to absorb. i've often said that it's something that we can analogize to being on top of a large building. let's say our $15 trillion debt can be compared to a 15-story building. if you need to get down off of that building, you need to get to the ground floor, if you want to do it really quickly, you could decide to jump. if you decide to jump, it's not the fall that will kill you, it's the abrupt halt at the end of that fall. so you need to do something to cushion the fall, to slow it

down a little bit so that it can be accomplished gradually, so that nobody gets hurt. that's where the balanced budget amendment comes in. the hatch-lee balanced budget amendment, senate joint resolution 10, would bring about severe, significant systemic changes but it would do so gradually so that the cuts, while significant over the long haul, are not abrupt, so that the impact isn't severe other than avoiding the severeness of the impact that would otherwise occur. we have to get down from that 15-story building, from that $15 trillion debt. we do that through a balanced budget amendment, one like senate joint resolution 10, which contains a five-year delayed implementation clause. that would give us time to work out a phased-in glide path toward balancing our budget. that's what we need to do in order to protect and preserve our economic stability, our jobs market, and our ability within the federal government to fund everything from defense to

entitlements. those who ignore the need for this amendment ignore the fact that our spending continues to escalate. i want to talk about how much we've spent as a country as a percentage of our overall economy, as a percentage of our gross domestic product. between the early 1790's and the early 1930's, the federal government spent on average between 2% and 4% of gross domestic product every single year with only two notable exceptions -- once during the civil war and a second time during and in the immediate aftermath of world war i. with those two exceptions, congress's spending was modest, between 2% and 4% of g.d.p. that all started to change in the early 1930's when we reached the double digits during peacetime for the first time in our history. we've, unfortunately, never

really retreated from that cycle. federal spending today as a percentage of g.d.p. stands close to 25%, meaning that for every dollar that moves through the american economy, a quarter of that goes to washington, is sucked in by the federal government and can't move on to help continue to stimulate the economy. that pattern of increased federal spending as a percentage of g.d.p. is expected to increase in the next few years. it's expected, based on data provided by the congressional budget office, to reach 26.4% of g.d.p. within the next ten years, by 2021. some say that that figure is too optimistic and that it could actually be much higher than that, it could, in fact, be significantly higher than 30%. at a minimum, we know that it will be 26.4% or more unless we take pretty significant steps to control our spending.

and so i find it interesting that many are saying that we don't need to make changes, that we can somehow just have congress just do its job, that congress just needs to follow the constitution and do its job and just balance its budget. well, let me tell you the problem with that. first of all, there's nothing current until the constitution that restricts congress's power to borrow money. clause 2 of article 1 of the constitution gives us the power to do that. and we've done it. we've done it again and again and again. we've done it so many times in recent years that we've almost lost track. now, congress first placed a statutory limit on the acquisition of new federal debt in 1917, which was the second liberty bond act. since 1962, congress has altered the debt limit through 74 separate measures and has raised it ten times just since 2001, just in the last ten years.

since 1990, the debt limit has been raised by a total of $10.1 trillion. nearly half of that increase has occurred just in the last four years, since late 2007. so this is not a situation in which we're just seeing the normal growth of government spending, either in normal numbers, in numbers adjusted for inflation, in numbers measured as a percentage of g.d.p. by any metric, the amount of federal spending and the amount of debt acquisition has grown exponentially, giving us this hockey stick-like curve in the acquisition of federal debt. we can't continue this practice. we especially can't continue it given the fact that we know that the natural limit on our ability to receive revenue through the income tax system is a little over 18% of g.d.p.

so we have to have something in place that keeps us from spending more than we take in. that can't possibly be accomplished, in my opinion, without something that ups the ante, something that make it structurally more difficult on a permanent basis for congress to engage in deficit spending. and to spend more than 18% of g.d.p. that's why there are a few critical features in the hatch-lee balanced budget amendment proposal that i think any viable balanced budget amendment proposal ought to have. first, it needs to apply to all spending. second, it needs to cap spending at 18% of g.d.p. it also needs to require a supermajority vote in order to exceed that percentage of g.d.p. spending limit, in order to raise taxes or in order to raise the debt limit. without these kinds of provisions, this kind of redundant protection against the inexorable growth of federal

spending generally and the in inexrabble growth of deficit spending in particular. our debt will crush the very programs that we purport to be protecting, those who have fought against this say well, we can't limit spending to 18% of g.d.p. or else we will hurt program x., y. or z. while they are making this argument, they are making it in reckless disregard of the fact that those same programs will be jeopardized if we continue to borrow recklessly without any structural spending restraint or reform on the horizon. others have argued that we don't need this because somehow it's unenforceable. i'm not quite sure what they mean. perhaps they don't know what a court would do with it, but they are forgetting the fact that we have other provisions in the constitution that raise the vote threshold, which is essentially what the hatch-lee balanced budget amendment does. in other words, we have other provisions in the constitution,

provisions that are followed routinely, without the need for litigation, just based on members of congress taking an oath to uphold the constitution, as all of us are hired to do pursuant to article 6. those are complied with every day. for instance, we all know and none of us really will dispute the fact that it takes a two-thirds supermajority vote in both houses of congress to override a presidential veto. it takes a two-thirds supermajority vote in both houses of congress to propose a constitutional amendment. it takes a two-thirds supermajority vote in the united states senate to ratify a treaty. we don't dispute the fact that these vote thresholds exist. we don't have to wait for the courts to intervene or for them to enforce them within congress. we just follow them. that's what this would do. this says that because congress has the ability to destroy itself, to destroy the economy, to destroy the very government that we have created through

reckless, indefinite, perpetual deficit spending, we must protect congress from itself. perhaps better said, we must protect people from congress by requiring that congress approve any amount of money spent in excess of what congress brings in or in excess of 18% of g.d.p. or in excess of the debt limit by a supermajority vote. we have to have that. it will be followed and it's absolutely necessary. now, it's interesting. few, if any, of my colleagues will dispute the fact that congress should balance its budget. there is perhaps a difference of opinion, maybe even widespread difference of opinion, as to how best we should try to close this gap, as to how best we should close the gap between the money that congress brings in each year through the tax system and the money that it spends. there is widespread dispute

about where cuts need to be made, but i think all of us agree that we do need to balance our budget. that begs the question if we all agree, as i think we all do, then why can't we agree that we need to adopt a permanent structural mechanism that will be embodied in the constitution that will ensure that that actually happens. this proposal remains agnostic as to where cuts will be made. all it says is that if you're going to spend more than you take in or spend more than 18% of g.d.p. or raise taxes or raise the debt limit, you're going to do it by a supermajority vote. that's something that the american people support. in fact, 75% of the american people support these basic principles that congress should not, for example, spend more than it takes in each and every year. that brings me to the question of why it is that we should

support senate joint resolution 10, the hatch-lee balanced budget amendment and not another proposal. for example, senate joint resolution 24. senate joint resolution 24, which i might refer to alternatively as the trojan horse balanced budget amendment or as the do-nothing amendment proposal, purports to be a solution when, in fact, it is not, for one simple reason -- it gives congress unfettered discretion to exempt itself out of the budget balancing requirement that it contains. this would in effect, i am certain, render this amendment were it to take effect virtually dead letter provision. we have seen what congress does when it has the option of simply exempting itself out of statutory spending caps.

in the paygo rules, in the graham-rudman-hollings deficit control act and in other statutory provisions like this. congress giveth and congress taketh away. congress has become a walking, breathing waiver unto itself, and when congress is given the option of saying i know we're supposed to balance our budget but we don't feel like it today, it ends up not doing that. all congress would have to do under senate joint resolution 24, under the do-nothing amendment proposal, is simply acknowledge that the united states is involved in a military conflict, and by simple majority vote it can exempt itself out of these provisions entirely. by contrast, the hatch-lee balanced budget amendment proposal acknowledges that in time of war or armed military conflict, it may be necessary to spend more than we take in. but in the case of an armed military conflict not amounting to a war, it requires a 3/5

supermajority vote, and in either a war or another armed military conflict, it specifically provides that in that war or conflict any overage, any amount spend above and beyond what congress brings in has to be limited to that required to prosecute that war or that military conflict effort. that's a huge difference. you can't simply give congress the option of complying with the balanced budget amendment's provisions only when congress feels like it. this is a little bit like telling an alcoholic you have got to give up drinking while leaving an open container of whiskey on the table and requiring that person to walk past that bottle or even carry it around with him every single day. it doesn't work. you have got to take it out of the house. you have certainly got to take it out of the possession of the recovering alcoholic. this is the challenge of our time, to figure out how to

prevent congress' chronic abuse of its own borrowing authority from collapsing under its own weight and from bringing about the economic collapse of the united states of america. we have to have these structural spending reform mechanisms because our government is run by imperfect people. benjamin franklin has often been quoted for the line that says he will cheat without scruple who can without fear. i think when looking at congress today, he might say congress will spend more money than it has whenever it possibly can, whenever it has the option of spending more. as madison said, if men were angels, no government would be necessary, and if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. we are, as human beings, not angels, and our government isn't run by angels either. this is why we need these

structural, permanent spending reform mechanisms. we cannot afford to accept a substitute here, a cheap imitation, a trojan horse balanced budget amendment like senate joint resolution 24, because if we adopt something like that, we will create the illusion to the american people that we are actually undertaking efforts to control our out-of-control deficit spending problem when, in fact, we're doing nothing because it's always the case that we're involved in a military conflict somewhere. congress will always be able to muster a simple majority, saying we can't be expected to balance our budget right now because of that. we've got to draw that line in the sand. we've got to stand for those who support everything from defense to entitlements. we have got to stand up for our children and our grandchildren and those who will come after them, those who are not yet old enough to vote, those who have not yet been born, those whose

parents have yet to meet. those people aren't here to vote against us as we spend their money. this is a particularly pernicious form of taxation without representation. we fought a war over two centuries ago over that pernicious practice and we won that war, and we shouldn't subject our children and their children and grandchildren after them to that same practice. this is contrary to liberty, it's contrary to economic prosperity, and we can't stand for it to occur anymore. so we really have two choices. one choice involves supporting, passing and submitting to the states for ratification the hatch-lee balanced budget amendment proposal, putting some permanent restraint at long last on congress' self-destructive borrowing capacity. the other option can take many forms. it can take the option of supporting senate joint resolution 24 which doesn't solve the underlying problem or

it can take the form of doing nothing at all. you see, if we do nothing at all, we still made a choice, we have made a devastating choice, a choice that will inure to the detriment of the american people and of the federal programs that we all rely on, the federal programs that people rely on to keep them safe, to protect them from the ravages of nature, to protect them from the conditions of poverty that we -- we seek to avoid in this country. it is, after all, the objective of all of us to seek for a better, more prosperous, more safe country, but we jeopardize all of those interests the longer we allow this practice of perpetual deficit spending to continue. at the end of the day, we have to face our own constituents, those who choose not to vote for the watch-lee balanced budget

amendment will have to face their constituents and tell them why they were unwilling to stand for a proposition so basic as we should balance our budget. there is no excuse based on the fact that we can't do this oversight because this has a delayed implementation clause. it won't take effect until five years after it's been ratified by the states. in the meantime, we will be able to set in motion a sequence of events, a series of implementing bills that will allow us to put ourselves on a smooth glide path toward balancing our budget. we'll be able to do that. those who vote against the hatch-lee balanced budget amendment can't look their constituents in the eye and tell them they did everything they could do to get our out-of- control spending habits, our out-of-control deficit spending habits under control. i urge each and every one of my colleagues to do this, to do this for themselves, for the programs that they want to save, to do this for their children and grandchildren.

our prosperity, our success as americans, our survival as a nation and the success of our government require nothing less. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kirk: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: mr. president, i'd like to rise too talk about the balanced budget amendment. it's obvious that america's government is spending, taxing, and borrowing too much. that's why congress should approve the balanced budget amendment to the constitution. it was a good idea when thomas jefferson supported it, and it's an even better idea today. america is a great experiment in

self-government. self-government requires self-control and early thinkers about america's democracy worried about the capacity of the government to borrow in a way that would cripple our freedom. now, children cannot vote, but the congress of their parents can put our kids into debt. we should fight fiscal child abuse by ending such borrowing that hurts our kids' long-term economic future. in recent days, we witnessed clear warning signs that the days of big borrowing are ending, not because congress has changed its free-spending ways but because lenders are increasingly worried that they will ever be repaid. this summer, america lost its triple-a credit rating. according to standard and poor's. this loss of confidence mirrors a crisis in europe reflecting a

collective judgment that greece and ireland and portugal and spain, even italy may not be able to repay the amount of money that they've borrowed. as prime minister thatcher reportedly said, "eventually, governments run out of other people's money." in this environment, it's important to show how we are different from europe. if we approve the balanced budget amendment and cut spending, we will restore confidence in the federal debt. in america's economy, but most importantly in the ideal of self-government. america owes $15 trillion or about $40,000 for each new american born. for their sake, we need to restrict the ability of the current generation to obligate young americans to pay their debts. should this amendment fail, we will wound the long-term credit

of the united states. more deeply, we will hurt the ideal of self-government and self-control that's the foundation of our freedom. i would like to take this moment to talk about another issue, and that is as americans we support freedom and democracy and the rights of all peoples. but as gaza taught us in 20006, free elections by themselves do not make up a democracy. there are times when people are offered a chance to elect party leaders that offer them only one election to affirm a dictatorship. we can also learn from the year 1938 that the dangers of ignoring developments abroad are huge. now in the wake of the arab spring, we turn away from that

region at our own peril. now, on november 28, the first stage of the egyptian elections began, which will inaugurate a new electoral system forming a bicameral legislature. this first stage determines about 30% of 498 seats for the government's lower chamber called the people's assembly. before egyptians arrived at the polls, protesters filled at th t rear square and over 40 egyptians were killed. many are objecting to the government's interference in the process and forcing of elections well before secular parties had a chance to build. this will likely hand an electoral victory to the muslim brotherhood and more radical elements within society. although elections will last

until march of 2012, the prediction of a muslim brotherhood victory is already becoming a reality. early data shows an alarming trend of islamist domination of the egyptian parliament. on december 5, the high electoral commission announced that leaders of the freedom and justice party -- that's the political arm of the muslim brotherhood -- had received a plurality of 36% of the vote while the i secular egyptian blk had gained less than 12%. when we include the runoff elections which took place last week, it appears that the muse lick brotherhood has -- that the muslim brotherhood has one 37 out of 153 seats out 49% of the currently contested outcomes. this is the same party that led a preelection rally of 5,000

chanting -- quote -- "one day we shall kill all the jews" and another quote -- "teltelltel avv judgment day is coming." while many expected the brotherhood to do well, there were other surprises. sulafas parties made up of anti-western hard-liners who follow a particularly radical version of islam, are also faring particularly well, passing predictions, they received 24% of the vote in the first round. importantly, these elections also included so-called liberal districts of cairo and the mediterranean port city of alexandria. the weakness of liberal parties, namely, their inability to reach out to voters effectively with a serious agenda, is now fully exposed. islamists are taking full advantage of deeply rooted

networks that extend from the mosques into egypt's poor districts, and their grip on the traditionally conservative areas of alexandria prove particularly tight. these areas are also home to a majority of the cop particular christian community. it's particular that if islamist parties and candidates continue their currently won gains in other elections, they will capture 60% of the national vote in egypt. this will situate the new egyptian parliament around deep ideological differences between salah physical and the muslim brotherhood making the brotherhood the powerbrokers between egyptian left and right. now, what does this all mean? by january, the united states could face an egypt defined by a hatred of israel and many of the freedoms we hold dear.

the freedom of expression, of women's rights, the right to practice any religion. this egypt counts iran as a friend and poses a threat to the camp david peace accords, which have served as the cornerstone for egypt's strategic position for 30 years. do we expect that an islamist-led egypt will prevent weapons from arriving in the hands of a hamas? will an islamist-led egypt help precarve free south sudan? will an islamist-led egypt act to protect coptic christians who make up about 10% of egypt? or will we see continued violences, like we saw on october 9 in a city which killed 27 civilians and injured hundreds. will an islamist-led egypt do what we expect with more than $1 billion of u.s. foreign assistance? will they continue to share

intelligence and to work against terrorism? these are all questions that may become critical issues for the national security of the united states very shortly. all of this instability prevents foreign investment and tourism that would help the egyptian economy. the i.m.f. has forecasted a little over 1% growth for the egyptian economy next year. they said inflation will top 11% while almost 12% of egyptians will be out of work. recently the egyptian pound traded at its lowest level against the dollar in seven years. this time last year, the region was on the threshold of exciting change, but today egypt sits instead on the threshold of a very dangerous path. the united states and especially our state department in particular should do what it can to keep egypt attached to peace

and good relations with the west. the united states is now on the verge of an historic defeat and reversal of american interests in egypt. currently, if there is an obama administration plan for handling a new islamist egypt that rejects peace with israel and allies with iran, i don't know it. and i don't know if anyone does. we must keep our finger on the pulse of this process. liberal voices in egypt must work to preserve democratic goals of the january revolution. recently, i had the privilege of meeting some of egypt's best and brightest young liberal leaders. they'd like to build a free egypt that respects women's rights and religious minorities and the rule of law. i was encouraged in meeting with them but only hope that the coming election is not like a 1930's election in germany where

people in egypt are given one choice: to affirm a dictato dictatorship, and then that is the end. for radical islamist government rises in e1kwreu7 egypt, one tho longer acts as stable strategic partner in the middle east, then we will look back on the recent election in egypt and its successors in december and january as the turning point for an historic reversal of the united states. my hope is that the state department watches this very carefully. my hope is that we have a plan to make sure that critical country stays within the u.s. orbit. but my fear is, given the recent elections in egypt, we have already lost quite a bit of ground. and if current trends continue, then by the middle of next year we will have a muslim brotherhood government in command of the suez canal, in

charge of could i roarks the second center of learning in -- of sigh row, the second center of learning in the arab world, along the border, friendly to hamas, friendly to iran, and hostile to europe and the united states. my hope is over the holidays we work very hard and diligently with our allies and especially liberal forces in egypt to make sure that that reversal doesn't happen. with that, mr. president, i yield back. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the bill just passed by house republicans tonight is a pointless, partisan exercise. the bill is dead on arrival. it was dead before it got to the senate. the senate will not pass it. and the sooner we demonstrate that, the sooner we can begin serious discussions how to keep taxes from going up for middle-class americans. democrats were ready to vote tonight to prove that the bill was d.o.a., dead on arrival, but i spoke to the minority leader mcconnell this evening and he told me he needs more time. he will not be able to make a decision until tomorrow morning on when to vote on the house-passed bill. i can't set the vote without his approval at this time. this is a 180-degree change in his position from just a few hours ago. just this morning, senator mcconnell said we should -- quote -- "take up the house bill, pass it right here in the

senate and send it to the president for signature without theatrics and without delay." that's a direct quote. i repeat, he said -- "we should vote on this bill without delay." he is correct, and can i only wonder what happened in the last eight hours to change his position so dramatically, so radically. as i said, we already know this bill is dead. we need to begin real negotiations on how to prevent a a 1,000-dollar tax hike on american families. the sooner we get this vote, the sooner those negotiations can begin in earnest. i'll speak with senator mcconnell again tomorrow to determine how soon we can hold this vote, an exercise in futility. work continues toward finalizing an omnibus to fund government for the rest of the year. in the meantime, we should not hold up this middle-class tax cut. on january 1, every american worker will have less money. in fact, mr. president, 160 million american workers will have less money to spend on

groceries and gas and rent unless congress acts on their behalf. t.s. elliott said it about as good as i can figure a way to say it when he said -- "hurry up, please. it's time." mr. reid: for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the senate proceed to h.r. 2845. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2845, an act to

amend title 49, united states code, to provide enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline transportation, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: sck i ask unanimous consent the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2867. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2867, an act to reauthorize the international religious freedom act of 1998 and for other purposes.. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: thanks, mr. president.

i ask unanimous consent that a durbin amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment is agreed to and the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: h.r. 2867, an ack to reauthorize -- act to reauthorize the international religious freedom act of 1998 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there any further debate on the measure? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the measure as amended is passed. mr. reid: thank you a lot. i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the lack of the receipt of the papers from the house with respect to h.r. 3630, it be in order for the bill to be considered read for the first timeplaced on the legislative calendar urn the heading "bills and joint resolutions read the first time." the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, december 14. that -- that's 2011. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of

morning business for an hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and republicans controlling the final half. following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s.j. res. 10 and s.j. res. 24. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be two roll call votes at approximately 10:45 tomorrow morning on the balanced budget amendment resolutions. i also hope to consider the d.o.d. authorization conference report as well as the house republican payroll tax bill, as outlined earlier this evening. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

the house passed a payroll tax cut extension bill today. 234 to 193. before the measure passed, the white house threatened to veto the bill. terse spokesman jay karni from earlier him. amol conversations

>> hi everybody. i do not have an announcement of the top. sorry to disappoint. >> the omnibus bill looks like it's on its way towards passage and negotiation, and we now know the president and senate democratic leadership are working to hold that up until the payroll tax gets done and of course that has in peril of the omnibus doesn't get done and we have the government shut down. is the president willing to take that risk? >> with the president is not willing to do is leave town or allow congress to leave town without ensuring that 160 million americans do not see their taxes go up next year on

average a thousand dollars. there is ample time for congress to finish its business and to finish america's business. they should pay the payroll tax cut extension, extension of unemployment insurance, and they can finish the spending bill all before leaving on their vacation. there's no reason this can't be done. i will make another point which is there are still issues to be done with the spending bill despite some of what you've heard. there has been no bill feingold and no shared but we know they're there are issues that concern us in putting outstanding issues with funding levels to ensure that the wall street reform and consumer protection act can be implemented successfully. the president feels very strongly that congress should do nothing to impede the effective

implementation of that very important legislation. so there are issues to resolve with the spending bill. they can be resolved. it is essential that congress act to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. all of this can be done and still allow congress to go on vacation. >> you talk about the consequences of the payroll taxes and the spending but there are also enormous consequences to get to the brink of a shutdown is it responsible to even bring that into the conversation? >> we are not bringing that into the conversation. there's ample time to get it done and there has been substantial progress made even though there are still issues to be resolved on the spending issue. if there is the need, the end of the week for congress to pass another short term as it has done seven times this year, then they should do that to avoid a

shutdown. we don't need to get to that point but if we do it is certainly not an exceptional action congress would have to take to get the work done that it needs to get done. with the congress can't do is make promises, republicans to make promises about a big payroll tax cut and then finish the business of hats to get done and leave town and leave the american middle class holding the bag. we are just not going to let that happen. it's not fair to the 160 million americans the would see their taxes go up on average $1,000 next year as we are emerging still from the worst recession since the great depression. >> the lawmakers have taken some steps to amend the defense bill to address concerns the president has about the terrorism suspects. is that an effort this assuage

the president's concern? >> it's true they have made some changes and they were released last night. and we are looking at that language. the statement of administration principle that any bill that challenges or constrains the president's political authority to collect intelligence incapacitates dangerous terrorists and the nation with prompt seniors advisers to recommend a veto. we are in process of reviewing the changes made to the legislation and to see if those changes address the concern that we have. >> about the prospects to the payroll tax cut. is he ready to get his hands dirty and start dealing with the republicans directly? >> it has always been committed to working with congress, members of both parties, leaders of both parties to get the essentials work that congress needs to get done and that is in its case include the payroll tax

cut extension. what we have seen from republicans in congress is the promulgation of this idea that the tax cut for middle class americans is somehow a favor they would be doing for the president of the united states. most of my adult life the republican theology has been tax cuts for every one or the highest priority but suddenly now because the president is pushing to extend the tax cut for middle class americans they are looking to load up their bill but would do that with extraneous issues or they want to read litigate all political battles through this legislation to extract some political victory in exchange for doing the people's business for doing middle class tax cut. we don't find that acceptable. i think it is worth pointing out that on the keys to an issue

which they have attached as one of this extraneous theological issues to the payroll tax cut extension the state department which is conducting the review has made clear it would be absolutely counterproductive to the stated goal of those who insist on having the provision in the bill because they would not simply the state department the time it needs to properly review alternative routes. therefore they would have to say no. so if that is their objective is a strange way of going about. the process needs to be done responsibly. the deily in the review will be brought about including the republican governor to search for an alternative route that is now happening but it's the amount that needs to be done in the way that it has always been done which takes time and the

requires careful consideration of the criteria the president has made clear and important to this decision and to insert a provision like this it would speed up the process would only result in the state department based on what my reading of the state department having to say given over the course of and to say no. >> we obviously disagree with that. >> this reluctance to bring up the spending bills come hell is that any different from the brinksmanship the president and the white house the president wants an objective and is holding back another piece of legislation in order to achieve his objective. >> what's at stake here is

potentially $1,000 on average tax hike for every american family, 160 million americans -- >> similar things for different tax cuts about to expire. >> republicans uniform we have supported tax cuts. republicans now say they are for the payroll tax cut extension. all they have to do pass the payroll tax cut extension and then move on to the spending bill and they could move it all. they could leave a day early, have a month and a day vacation. there's ample time to do that but we simply cannot allow the republicans to take care of the spending bill and leave town because of the absolute effect of that will be a tax hike for middle class americans. that's just not acceptable and if they were to do that they would test the proposition that congress's job approval rating cannot go below 9% because i

think my expectation is that it would go lower if congress walked out of town refusing to extend this payroll tax cut from of a class americans. >> down to immediate friends and family now. the question is is it not the same kind of point republicans and democrats stand for something not spoken have said this was actually like a really bipartisan achievement, there was a handshake from the senate democratic chiefs of staff and republican chiefs of staff and this was a bipartisan accomplishment and now the president is standing in its way because he wants something else and it's the same kind of brinksmanship i'm not sure if the time or not but there was a lot of fault and holding things hostage republicans were holding the legislation hostage. i guess you were here. and i'm wondering is that not exactly the same thing that you are doing? >> i could spend a lot of time on what you're talking about is the distinct say from the way

that some members of one party held the country hostage and threatened to allow the full faith and credit of the united states casting. that is a significant difference. and we are not -- >> to go back to the spending bill, it is absolutely the case that there has been good progress made, and that they are getting closer to a resolution. but it is also absolutely the fact does not even been a bill sought. the language of the so-called agreement that you referenced hasn't been shared, so to say that work is done is not accurate, and we know for a fact that there are very important issues that remain to be resolved. we are confident they can be resolved. they will be resolved, and we are also confident that congress will not leave town without extending the payroll tax cut

for 160 million americans because the president is going to insist to stay on till they get it done. some of the house this evening went on to pass the republican plan to extend the payroll tax cut with a 234 to 193 vote, largely along party lines. here's how "the new york times" is writing about it defining the veto threat from president obama the house passed a bill extending the cut in social security payroll taxes for 160 million americans for another year. the democratic majority in the senate bowed to reject the measure because of objections to other provisions including one distinct construction of an oil pipeline from canada to the gulf coast. "the new york times" goes on to write the set the stage for negotiation between the house and the senate is likely to continue into the weekend. >> today i am proud to welcome the prime minister maliki, but he elected leader of a sovereign

self-reliant in a space iraq. we are here to mark the end of the war to mark the sacrifices of all of those who've made this day possible and to turn the page to begin the new chapter in the history between the countries. the normal relationship between the sovereign nations and equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. >> as american troops prepare to leave iraq this month, look back at the key people and events of the nearly nine year war online at the c-span video library. archived and searchable. it's washington your way. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that is our question in this year's studentcam competition open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that is important to you and why. before sure to include more than

one point of view of and video. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there's $50,000 in total prize and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details go to studentcam board. the head of the chicago exchange suggested today that the former ceo john courts sign

an estimated $1.2 billion in customer funds is missing from the financial firm in a global that's filed for bankruptcy in october. the former ceo of the company john, along with the current company executives testified. we will also hear from cme that audited and that goal. mr. clauson is the former governor of new jersey and also served in the u.s. senate.

let me introduce our witnesses first. our first witness is mr. john corzine, the former chairman and ceo of mf global holdings before becoming the ceo, mr. corzine was the governor of new jersey from 2006 to 2010. prior to serving as governor, he served as a senator from new jersey. from 1975 to 1999 he worked for goldman sachs as the bond trader becoming chairman and ceo. next we have mr. bradley ablo president and chief operating officer routt mf global prior to hiring is a founding partner before coming to the new world chief of staff next we have mr. henry camp chief financial officer for mf global.

he spent eight years with price water coopers including four years and there york office as a part of the transaction services group where he managed a variety of capital transactions for the multinational companies. he's also a chartered accountant we would ask that you would rise so i can administer the oath and ask that you raise your right hand. do you swear that testimony you are not to present is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you very much. >> welcome, mr. corzine. scaap members of the committee,

the statements of the previous panel will fully confirmed the harsh fact of mf global bankruptcy as devastated people's life of this and undermine confidence in the markets. i recognize my concerns about their english and loss of confidence doesn't provide solace for those losses were hard ships and that is true whether those who our customers and employees or investors. as the chief exhibit officer of some of the global and i say this i truly apologize to all those affected. as you know i've written and provide a written statement for the committee and i testified for the house committee on agriculture last week and i here to answer your questions as well. before i do, i wish to make a few additional points in light of my earlier testimony. several of the questions last

week concerned whether i was aware of any money that belonged to customers being used improperly. i tried to answer those questions to the best of my ability but i want to be misused customer funds i never intend anyone at mf global to miss use customer funds. i also want to address the missing money. again, as i said, i was stunned to learn hundreds of millions of dollars and funds were unreconciled on sunday evening october 30th and while people work during card into monday morning to reconcile the accounts ultimately their efforts were not successful. i note that in the response to questions about the whereabouts of the missing funds both to the cftc commissioner summers and the trust he explained the trace missing funds that would be necessary to analyze and reconcile multiple hundreds of pages of daily transactions, multiple bank statements for

many countries many customers. in the ordinary course of business while at ms cool i haven't seen those records and i have no access to them now. what i do know is that over the last days at mf global is focusing on selling the company and liquidating assets so that there would be adequate cash and resources to handle what ultimately became a run on the bank. for example on thursday i directed the sale of approximately 1.3 billion in commercial paper in order to meet anticipated customer demands. i also directed the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of mf global proprietary assets. fri i direct sales of other assets including approximately $4.5 billion of government agency bonds and attempted to sell their securities. as i sit here today, i don't -- i do not know whether all of these and many other

transactions were properly recorded and it situated or whether the banks and other counterparties involved in such transactions properly credited the right accounts for the sales or were holding money that is rightfully due to either mf global or its customers. nor do i know whether the back-office professionals at the firm or other institutions made errors and miscalculations under the extraordinary stress. questions have also been raised about the compliance and risk systems that mf will and the controls on the segregated funds. during my tenure we employed including many new hires dozens and dozens of highly regarded training professionals and areas of risk, finance, compliance, legal, internal audit and back-office operations. we also retained prominent outside auditors, consultants and lawyers to make sure mf global operated lawfully. indeed until sunday night before the bankruptcy, i believed that

the people and the systems at mf global were properly protecting the client funds. for example on the friday before the bankruptcy, jpmorgan chase contacted me and others said the firm about search and overdraft and whether the funds have been transformed with the cftc rules and i've known personal what about the issues so why ask people, senior people in the back office in chicago and legal department to become directly involved in these issues. so even in the next of the last days of business i had confidence in our people and systems. so before i respond to your questions, i want to say again i apologize to the customers, the farmers and ranchers, the gentleman that we saw here today and the people they represent in the real world, our employees and investors. my pain, my embarrassment doesn't blind me to the fact that they bear the brunt of the impact of the firm's bankruptcy.

i will respond to the committee's questions. >> thank you very much. >> madame chairwoman, ranking member roberts, members of the committee, thank you for having me here today. the bankruptcy amendment of mf global was a tragedy for the customers, employees and shareholders. for many of our customers including many of your constituents who have still been unable to receive funds that are rightfully theirs, it is imposed extreme financial hardship. more than 2500 employees have either already lost or have assumed to lose their jobs through no fault of their own. ..