Balanced Budget Amendment

Floor Speech

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source