On the recordDecember 14, 2011
Madam President, I oppose the two balanced budget amendments before us. Senator Hatch's proposal would cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product, forcing deep cuts to Social Security and other critical programs. Senator Udall's alternative, while less extreme, is still not a proposal I can support. I have consistently opposed balanced budget amendment proposals because Congress doesn't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We have done it before. In the 1990s, during President Clinton's term, we not only balanced the budget, but we created surpluses and 23 million new jobs. We cut wasteful spending, made smart investments, and ensured that everyone, including the wealthiest, paid their fair share. In 1993, we passed a budget plan without a single Republican vote. By 1998, the budget had come into balance, and as President Clinton was leaving office in 2001, budget analysts were predicting surpluses as far as the eye could see. Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts and two wars put on a credit card created huge deficits. To get our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility, we don't need a balanced budget amendment. That is why the Senate has voted down balanced budget amendments many times--most recently in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Instead, we need the political will to come together and make responsible choices for our country's future.…





