[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S424-S425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. 
        Udall of Colorado):
  S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of 
war and subject to suspension by Congress) that the total amount of 
money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed 
the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such 
fiscal year and not to exceed 20 per cent of the gross national product 
of the United States during the previous calendar year; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a piece of legislation 
that I have introduced in every Congress since 1987--a proposed 
constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance our Nation's 
budget. This bill has bipartisan support and will allow us to finally 
begin to get our fiscal house in order.
  A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I believe, is the 
only certain mechanism that will break the cycle of deficit spending.
  I believe we must ensure that the government does not continue to 
saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's 
debts. Essentially, this amendment that I propose requires the United 
States not spend more money than it receives in revenue, except in 
times of war, or when suspended by a vote of three-fifths of both 
Houses of Congress.
  This bill that we propose will provide financial stability to our 
Nation. Bailouts, stimulus programs, government takeovers of private 
industry, and costly new programs have consumed and overwhelmed the 
Federal budget.
  Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the 
Federal Government has incurred massive debt--nearly $14 trillion and 
rising quickly.
  For a moment, let me share this chart with you. It says, ``The Case 
for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.'' If we go back to 
1980--just 30 years ago--we owed, as a nation, $909 billion--not yet a 
trillion dollars. That was after nearly 200 years of government, 
including the First World War debt, the Depression, the Second World 
War, the Korean war, and the Vietnamese war, and many deficits. But 
from 1980 to 1990, this jumped to $3 trillion. From 1990 to 2000--a 10-
year span--it jumped from $3 trillion to $5.6 trillion. That was pretty 
bad. But from the year 2000 to 2010, which ended a few weeks ago, it 
went from $5 trillion to $13 trillion--in 10 years. It is slated now, 
in the next 11 years, to go to $25 trillion. That is unsustainable.
  In fact, for the record, the United States has only had 2 years in 
its entire history where it has been debt free. Look back a while. It 
was 1834 and 1835. I repeat, only 2 years free from debt. It seems to 
me that the most powerful Nation in the world has had its weaknesses 
exposed. Foreign markets cannot stand on our wobbly financial legs. The 
reverberations of our fiscal ineptitude have not only cost American 
jobs, which we badly need, but have weakened how other nations perceive 
us. Something must be done.
  Unfortunately, we don't have to look back far in history to see an 
example of a once great empire sitting on the curb with its hand held 
out. Greece's excessive public spending, coupled with a massive 
borrowing campaign, has put its fiscal insolvency woes on the entire 
European Union. Greece's bond rating was downgraded to ``junk'' by 
Standard and Poor's in April. Bondholders were warned they could 
recover as little as 30 percent of their initial investment. The euro 
weakened and the European stock markets plunged. The question is, will 
the dollar soon be seen as ``junk'' to the rest of the world? I hope 
not.
  American taxpayers are rightly infuriated by the Federal Government's 
disregard for the same economic principles that govern every household 
and business budget. Unfortunately, until the Federal Government is 
required to spend only the amount of money it takes in, I fear we will 
continue to write checks the Treasury cannot cash.
  In fiscal year 2010, the total interest alone on the Treasury debt 
securities was $413 billion. I believe this money could be better spent 
on improving education, supporting our law enforcement or, even better, 
by returning it to the people who earned it, the taxpayers.
  We hear on a daily basis the rhetoric about tough choices, sacrifice, 
and austerity. What we need to hear more about is basic mathematics 
when we are talking about the budget. A balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution is the solution, I believe, to a perpetual problem 
that we do not have the political will to fix. It will finally put our 
Nation on a path to paying off our national debt. The adoption of an 
amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every 
American already has to do--balance its checkbook--is what this country 
needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this 
feat.
  A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American 
people that the government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars 
responsibly. Some opponents of a balanced budget amendment state that 
it is a drastic measure not necessary at this time. They are also 
correct that it is bold. But I believe it is also necessary.
  I have introduced this legislation, as I said, in every Congress 
since 1987. If not now, when?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  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

[[Page S425]]

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.

                          ____________________