Orrin Hatch: “we have before us an amendment that contains three separate changes to the balanced budget amendment. I do not believe…”

“we have before us an amendment that contains three separate changes to the balanced budget amendment. I do not believe that any of these three changes would be appropriate. I don't think they are wise or necessary, and so I have to oppose Senator Torricelli's amendment. Let me add that all of these things, at least in concept, have already been rejected by the Senate. There is no reason to adopt them now. The first change in the amendment would allow for a waiver of the balanced budget rule by a majority vote in any year where the United States is in a period of economic recession or significant economic hardship. Mr. President, this portion of the Torricelli amendment is similar to the Durbin amendment that the Senate defeated by an overwhelming 64 to 35 vote just 2 weeks ago. The reasons it was rejected apply to the Torricelli amendment as well. In fact, they may apply with greater force, as this language is more permissive and less clear than was the Durbin amendment. The terms used in this amendment are undefined. The determination of 'an economic recession,' or 'significant economic hardship,' could easily be manipulated by a spendthrift Congress as a way to avoid the discipline of the balanced budget amendment. Nearly anything could be seen as a significant economic hardship if considered from a certain point of view. It is important to note that even during times of national economic prosperity, some regions may experience localized downturns.”