Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, in introducing legislation today that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.

The idea of requiring a balanced Federal budget seems like common sense to most American families, who have to balance their own checkbooks. And in these hard times, they wonder why the Federal Government doesn't have to do the same. In fact, the United States has only balanced its budget 5 times in the last 50 years. We heard the Senator from Alabama point out the Federal budget balanced only twice in our history.

The budgets of nations are not the same as family budgets. Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we have known that national emergencies sometimes require deficit spending. But we are fast approaching a tipping point where our debt threatens this economic orthodoxy. We are approaching a tipping point where an unprecedented level of debt--and our institutional failure to address it--risks our national security. We need to take action now to turn around our fiscal situation.

By restoring responsible spending through a reasonable balanced budget amendment, we can begin climbing out of our economic hole, and, perhaps just as important, this amendment would send a strong signal to the financial markets, U.S. businesses, and the American people that we are serious about stabilizing our economy for the long term. That is a signal I believe we need to send now.

Before going further, I want to recognize the obvious--that there is a wide range of strong opinions about the wisdom of adding a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Tinkering with the Constitution is not something any of us takes lightly, and this amendment is certainly no exception.

I myself have had doubts in the past about similar legislation. During the Clinton years, our government ran a surplus, and there was no pressing need for such a requirement. When we started running deficits again, part of me hoped we could use other tools at our disposal to get our Nation back on a financially sound path.

Additionally, Members of my party raised--and continue to raise--credible arguments about why a balanced budget amendment could actually hurt our economy in some circumstances. Some of them believe it is nothing more than a rhetorical tool designed only to make a political statement and move us inevitably toward smaller government.

The recent history of the balanced budget amendment is a partisan one. Of the five proposals that were introduced last Congress, none had a Democratic cosponsor--largely because of, in my opinion, extraneous provisions that manipulated the budget in one way or another to protect favored tax breaks or certain spending.

However, if you take a longer view into the past, it was actually progressive Democratic Senator Paul Simon--along with Senator Hatch of Utah--who led the balanced budget amendment effort that came closest to passage in 1995. They knew that if we balanced our Federal budget, we would be better able to make more intelligent choices about spending, rather than spending billions on debt service, and we would actually see family incomes rise.

Today, the dilemma we face as a result of our debt is even more extreme. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation.

Our government debt, as Senator Shelby pointed out, is now over $14 trillion. That is $45,300 for every person in this country. If we don't put limits on how we spend money, the question we face isn't whether we can make intelligent choices; it is whether we will be able to afford any of the programs that we value at all--programs we need to help propel the middle class and small business over the longer term.

What is at stake isn't just family income; it is our Nation's ability to continue to lead in the global economic race. The cochairman of President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the debt called our debt a ``cancer'' that is eating away at our economic health. That is a point I wish President Obama had made in his State of the Union Address last week when he spoke about some of the investments America needs to make to spur innovation and economic growth--education, clean energy, and infrastructure, to name a few.

He is right that without targeted investments to help hard-working Americans and businesses, the United States will be relegated to second-class status. We won't be able to compete with countries around the world or to grow jobs in America. We won't be able to unleash our innovative spirit and give our children and grandchildren their shot at the American dream.

I have also come to the conclusion that unless we put constraints on spending, Congress simply lacks the political will to make the extremely difficult decisions that will lead us out of the dire fiscal situation in which we find our Nation.

I have been fighting for many years for smart budgeting tools--the Presiding Officer has as well--including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a line-item veto, and a ban on earmarks, which would help reduce waste and rein in Federal spending. I am also working with a group of bipartisan Senators trying to make sure the recommendations by the President's fiscal commission can get an up-or-down vote in Congress. A balanced budget amendment is one more important tool we need.

Let me say a few words about the legislation itself. Senator Shelby, to his credit, first introduced this legislation--I think I can say that it was when he was a Democrat, some 25 years ago, and he continues to reintroduce it every Congress since he became a Republican. I thank him and acknowledge his leadership.

The Shelby-Udall balanced budget amendment would create a requirement that Federal spending cannot exceed revenue and that total expenditures of the government cannot exceed 20 percent of the previous year's gross domestic product.

As Senator Shelby pointed out, this requirement wouldn't apply when the United States is at war, and it can be suspended by a supermajority, or three-fifths, vote of each House of Congress in the event certain spending is necessary to address a national emergency.

To my friends who worry that this balanced budget amendment puts our economy into an inflexible straitjacket, I say it is not true. It allows commonsense safety valves to be used for exceptional circumstances--to give the flexibility that is sometimes needed in situations that can't be predicted or planned for.

All in all, I am confident our proposed amendment provides a responsible approach to putting us on a path toward a balanced budget.

We talked a lot last week during and after the State of the Union Address about the need to work together to address our biggest challenges, not just sitting together. Today, I hope I am putting my money where my mouth is by joining my good friend from Alabama. I hope our partnership will send a signal that collaboration can help us address our most pressing national issues. The American people are demanding that of us. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us. It is time for us to catch up.

I ask my colleagues of both parties in both Chambers to work with Senator Shelby and me on this idea. We may not have it perfect. Nothing is ever perfect. But it is a good start. Let's at least have an honest and spirited dialog about this legislation and ways to dig ourselves out of our economic hole. Our children's future depends on it.

Source