[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S3275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        BUDGET RESOLUTION VOTES

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Today I wish to discuss a series of votes we took 
yesterday on five different budget resolutions offered by my 
colleagues.
  I ultimately voted against the budget resolutions offered by my 
colleagues because they were simply not in line with what I believe our 
priorities for this country should be.
  Like my colleagues, I am very concerned about our long-term fiscal 
situation. That is why last year I helped pass the Budget Control Act 
of 2011. This legislation caps spending levels for 2012 and will reduce 
our deficit by at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years.
  In many ways, the Budget Control Act is even more extensive than a 
traditional congressional budget resolution. Unlike a budget resolution 
that is not signed by the President, the Budget Control Act has the 
force of law. It also set discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of 
the 1 year normally set in a budget resolution.
  Believing we should go further, I also voted for a constitutional 
balanced budget amendment offered by Senator Udall of Colorado and 
cosponsored bipartisan legislation to give the President line-item veto 
authority to go after wasteful spending.
  The key difference between the Budget Control Act and the budget 
resolutions that were offered yesterday is that the Budget Control Act 
did not achieve its savings on the backs of the middle class while at 
the same time giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.
  In 2010, I worked with 14 Senators to block a statutory increase of 
our national debt limit until the Senate agreed to set up the 
bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility. While I do not 
agree with every single recommendation included in the final report, I 
have made clear through my support for the bipartisan efforts in the 
Senate to advance this framework and I believe it provides a good 
starting point for the work we must do to reduce our debt.
  This framework would put in place a long-term plan to responsibly 
reduce the deficit by achieving at least $4 trillion in debt reduction 
through a balance of revenue and spending cuts. This is the balanced 
approach I hear Minnesotans asking for every day, and it is the 
approach I will continue to insist we take.

                          ____________________