[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Page 20102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in about 30 minutes, we will have a rare 
chance on the floor of the Senate--it does not happen often. We will 
have consideration of two efforts to amend the Constitution of the 
United States. We all take this seriously. Each one of us, before we 
could exercise our responsibility as Senators, swore to uphold and 
defend that Constitution. Now we are being asked to amend it.
  How often have we amended the Constitution? In the past 220 years 
since we passed the Bill of Rights, we have amended it 17 times: to 
abolish slavery, to give women the right to vote, significant historic 
decisions. What comes before us today are two amendments which, 
frankly, do not stand the test of whether they meet constitutional 
standards.
  I am going to vote against both. I thank my colleague, Senator Udall 
of Colorado, for offering a version. Senator McConnell, Senator Hatch 
have offered their own. I do not believe either one of them is right 
for America. Here is what it comes down to. If we pass either of these 
constitutional amendments, we will be forced to cut government spending 
at exactly the wrong moment in time when it comes to our economy. When 
our economy is in trouble, revenues are down, we step in with 
stabilizers to try to make sure that we keep families afloat during 
difficult times and restore our economy to growth. Those stabilizers 
are threatened and endangered by these balanced budget amendments.
  Secondly, the enforcement of these balanced budget amendments will be 
by our Federal courts. Can you imagine? Can you imagine that the day 
after we pass a budget, lawsuits spring up across America in the 
Federal courts challenging whether we have exceeded the constitutional 
requirement that no more than, say, 18 percent of the gross domestic 
product be spent, arguments that there has been a miscalculation? How 
long will that take to resolve in court and what happens to America in 
the meantime?
  Then what remedies do the courts have? The Republicans have made it 
clear, because of their view, one of the remedies cannot be extending 
taxes on the wealthiest in America. They never want that to happen. Now 
they want to enshrine that theory in the Constitution. Turning to our 
courts for enforcement of spending is, in my mind, a direct violation 
of the spirit and letter of the law in the Constitution which gives to 
Congress exclusively the power of the purse. It is a bad idea. It is 
certainly not one we should support.
  I also want to say that this approach is unnecessary. There comes a 
time--and we have reached it--when we need to have the political will, 
in a bipartisan fashion, to deal with our country's problems, whether 
it is the tax cut, extending the government's life into the next fiscal 
year, or dealing with our long-term deficit. It takes political will, 
maybe even political courage. It does not take a constitutional 
amendment.
  Let's defeat both of these amendments. Let's show our respect for 
this Constitution that we have sworn to uphold and defend and not pass 
something that has not been thought through that may, in fact, harm 
America rather than help it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________