Empowering States to Innovate Act

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2011. The Justice for All Act, passed in 2004, was unprecedented, bipartisan criminal justice legislation. It was Congress's most significant step forward in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country and to improve public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system.

After several hearings and much work, with this legislation we continue the process of building on that foundation to go still further in making sure our criminal justice system works fairly and effectively for all Americans. Senator Klobuchar, Senator Franken, and Senator Harkin join me today as original cosponsors of this important bill, and I thank them for their ongoing support.

I also appreciate the involvement of Senators on the other side of the political aisle, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have participated in the development of this bill and provided valuable input. I am confident that this bill will pass with bipartisan support, as the original Justice for All Act did, and I look forward to working with Senators from both parties to reach that goal.

In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which aimed to improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong.

The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act. The act also included vital provisions to ensure that crime victims have the rights and protections they need and deserve and that States and communities take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and ensure prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform.

The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them.

In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested rape kits have been found, many of which have not even made their way to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live in fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing problem.

The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause.

Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States for the testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each year.

As I have researched this problem of untested rape kits, there is one thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the Justice Department, States including my home State of Vermont, law enforcement, and victims' advocates that Debbie Smith grants have led to significant and meaningful backlog reduction, and to justice for victims, in jurisdictions across the country.

Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the significant Federal funding for backlog reduction, we have seen alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A study in 2008 found 12,500 untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone, and while Los Angeles has since made progress in addressing the problem, other cities have now reported backlogs almost as severe. In 2009, the Justice Department released a report finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases, evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab.

That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to crime labs for testing, if samples that could help make cases instead sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, that money will do no good. Police officers must understand the importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions rape kits taken from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these samples--rape kits that could help law enforcement to get criminals off the street--are sitting untested.

The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical assistance to State and local governments to implement those protocols. The bill authorizes funding to States and communities to reduce their rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers, improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the labs to be tested.

The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by calling for the development of a standardized definition of ``backlog'' covering both the law enforcement and lab stages and by implementing public reporting requirements to help us to identify where the backlogs are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA samples in the best order so that those samples which can help secure justice for rape victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into place new accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith Act money is being spent effectively and appropriately.

The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I thank him for his help.

In the years since the Justice for All Act passed, we have also seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility that the unthinkable may have happened: the State of Texas may have executed an innocent man. We must act to ensure that our criminal justice system works as it should so that relevant evidence is tested and considered and all defendants receive quality representation.

The Justice for All Reauthorization Act takes important new steps to ensure that defendants in serious cases receive adequate representation and, where appropriate, testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women of law enforcement, and I know that the vast majority of the time our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know though that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel, and when all relevant evidence is retained and tested.

Sadly, we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence exonerates them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, the guilty person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, which makes all of us less safe.

This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the constitution.

This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the importance of quality defense counsel. It was persuasive to me when Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified before the Judiciary Committee that it helps her do her job as a prosecutor when there are competent defense attorneys. I have also learned through this process that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money.

This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence.

This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and the Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more States to participate.

The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions' longstanding support for this important program.

Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these provisions.

In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term.

I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve. Numerous organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National District Attorneys' Association have expressed strong support for this bill.

Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge

they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, like my colleague, I appreciate the work he has done on this issue. We have been talking about this for a number of weeks. Our staffs have been hammering out the details.

I will be candid. As I left my office, some members of my staff said: OK, good luck walking that plank. We will see how it works out for you. Because this is politically risky, what the Senator and I are trying to do. As I was riding over here on the tram to make this speech, I got a text message from one of my kids. All of a sudden it became clear to me what this is like. This is like saying no when you are a parent. It is so easy to say yes to your kids. When they want something, when they want to do something we think is risky, the easiest thing in the world to do is to say yes.

When they want money, when they want to have a new car, when they want to borrow your car, when they want to go spend the night at a friend's you do not know very well, when they want to stay out later, when they want this, that, when they want to go to the mall, it is so easy to say yes. It does not take a lot of time. It makes them happy. You feel good. But there is always that voice in your head that says: If I am going to be a good parent, sometimes it is more important to say no.

Well, we have a bunch of people in Congress who have made a lifetime career of saying yes. I understand it. We run for office around here. We want everyone to be happy with us. We want everyone to love us. We do not want to disappoint anyone. We do not want there to be controversy about the decisions we make. So how do we avoid the controversy? We say yes. We say yes. And we have said yes and yes and yes until we find ourselves at this point in our history where our unwillingness to say no, our unwillingness to embrace controversy and political risk, has led us to an economic brink, a place where if we do not do something that is going to make some people angry, that is going to cause some negative ads to be run against us, then we are not doing our job as stewards. That is all we are here. We are passing through. We are not entitled to these jobs. We borrowed these jobs. They belong to the American people, and we have a responsibility as stewards to say no now, to say no.

I remember when I used to tell my kids: It is so much easier for me to tell you yes. And they would say: Well, it is easier for you. It was easier for me. I would say: The right thing to do is for me to say no. And they would say: Well, that is not easier for us.

That is beginning to be what is happening around here. I have noticed some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: We are going to cut, cut, cut, cut. Now it is all bubbling up, with all the people saying: No, you can't cut our subsidy; No, you can't cut the oil company subsidy; you can't cut a farm program; you can't cut this; you can't cut that. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to protect the spending that is embraced by our bad habit of saying yes.

So that is why this bill is necessary. This is like telling Congress: You have to be better parents, and if you cannot muster the courage to say no, these cuts are going to happen anyway. It is like a discipline for us. And I do not go here lightly. I do not go here without understanding the political risks involved. But I go here because I deeply believe it is necessary for our country. We cannot get control of the deficit if we do not control spending.

Let me talk for a minute about debt and deficit because as I go out and talk to people, there are a lot of people who use those two terms interchangeably. They do not understand. There is a big difference between the debt and the deficit. The deficit is like your monthly budget and not having enough money to come in to meet your monthly expenses. We talk about the deficit on an annual basis: How much money is the government bringing in and how much money is going out. When more is going out than coming in, we have a deficit.

What happens to that deficit every year? It goes on our debt. It is like a family's mortgage. But instead of us paying down the mortgage every year, we keep adding to the mortgage every year. That is why we now have a $1.4, $1.5 trillion deficit this year. We are going to spend that much more than we take in this year. We have $14 trillion in debt. That is the long-term mortgage our country has right now that we owe someone that we have to pay. So we have to get hold of this debt.

I want to compliment the President of the United States because the short-term spending stuff is important. And I want to compliment Senator Sessions. He and I have worked on short-term spending caps for over a year. But now it is time for us to look at long-term discipline and what we can do to get our country on a glide path where we no longer are precariously on the edge of not being the strongest economic power in the world.

Our deficits are unsustainable and our debt is out of control. This bill takes a very measured approach, gives us time to figure things out. It is not like the ridiculous proposal over in the House where we are going to cut $2.5 trillion this year. Anybody who thinks that is going to happen, I have a tutu you need to wear down the hall tomorrow. That is a ridiculous proposal. That is impossible to do. But this bill is possible and responsible. This puts us on a glide path to say to the American people that our spending is going to be capped at a certain percentage of our economic activity in this country. That is possible, and it is responsible, and we should do it.

Who is to blame? Let's be honest about how we got here. The biggest factor in our deficits the last 2 years is our poor economy. I know, I know; you would think it is the stimulus. You would think it is TARP. It is not. Political cheap shots but not true. The biggest fiscal hole we are facing is because of the poor economy.

The biggest increase in spending in the last 2 years? You would think it was the auto bailouts or you would think it was the bank bailout or you would think it was the stimulus. It was not. Do you know what the biggest increase in spending was over the last 2 years? Unemployment benefits because of our bad economy. That was the biggest increase in spending over the last 2 years. Our fiscal hole has grown primarily because of a bad economy over the last 2 years.

But there also have been bad decisions by both parties over the last decade. When Clinton left office, our debt--he may have been running a surplus in terms of the deficit, but our debt was $5.7 trillion. When Bush left office, he had doubled it from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion. And today it is $14 trillion.

Over the past decade, we have had two wars we did not bother to pay for, a brandnew Medicare entitlement--brand spanking new--that was not means tested. We are buying Warren Buffett's prescription drugs. Go figure. Like we are busted and we are buying multihundred-million- dollar billionaires prescription drugs, and we did not bother to pay for it. We have had increases in discretionary spending by both parties that increased our deficit and exceeded inflation.

I want to talk a minute about the boogie man of the TARP and the stimulus. I am so sick of that being blamed. It is so wrong and factually incorrect. We have tax cuts that go on forever that have contributed to this. We have wars that we are fighting that have contributed to this. We have entitlement programs that are not paid for. But the stimulus was a one-time expenditure. It is not something that goes on. It has no tail.

Anyone who understands economics and understands the balance sheet of the U.S. Government knows this problem was not the stimulus. One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. The last time I looked, unpaid-for tax cuts were the way of the world. One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. Another third of it, almost, was unemployment benefits. That is not the problem. And TARP? Let's be honest. It was a genius decision in many ways because it stabilized our financial sector, and it has cost us a mere fraction of the money that was used on a temporary basis to make sure our economy did not twist down the drain, as it was likely to do had President Bush not intervened with his economic team to ask us on a bipartisan basis to do something that was in the best interest of our Nation.

We can move on as to who is to blame because now we have to talk about tomorrow's problems. I am proud the President is dealing with short-term spending by his freeze. I am proud he is working on earmarks and all of the other things that are a symptom of the disease around here. But our challenge is long-term spending. In the long term, spending is going to drive the debt up even higher. Medicare and Medicaid cuts are going to double by 2021. Social Security is going to increase by 70 percent by 2021.

We have to look at those issues and make sure on a bipartisan basis we do what is responsible. We have to make sure these programs-- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--are stable and secure for my children and their children. If we cannot agree even on the modest measures such as the 3-year discretionary spending cap Senator Sessions and I have been pushing for over a year, I question whether we have the discipline to do the hard work. Getting control of spending is very hard, but we have to do it, and we have to do it now.

First and foremost, we need to focus on eliminating the waste and mismanagement. That is what drives Americans crazy. It drives people crazy that we are spending money on duplicative programs and we are not even checking to see if they work. It drives them crazy when the Federal Government runs huge deficits and we are paying out $55 billion in improper payments at Health and Human Services and $12 billion of improper payments by Treasury to people who do not even qualify.

It drives Americans crazy when we do not make the reforms our auditors recommend. The Defense Department has 1,200 suggestions that have been made by our government auditors about how it can manage its money and its programs better, and they have not acted on almost 1,200 of them. It drives people crazy we are running deficits when we have Departments such as the Agriculture Department and Homeland Security that get failing management grades for 8 straight years. And it drives people crazy when we are running deficits and we are passing appropriations bills with $15 billion worth of earmarks.

I have been working hard to try to clean up all this waste. We have been working on contract management. I have never requested an earmark. I voted against every omnibus appropriations bill that has come to the floor since I have been a Senator, and I have worked hard for the last year with Senator Sessions to cap spending. Now I look forward to working hard with Senator Corker and many of my friends in the Republican Party to work on the Corker-McCaskill bill to put a cap long term on spending in the Federal Government.

As I say, this is a bold step. It has risks. And if this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat. I will say that again. If this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat. But it is a price I am willing to pay. It is a price I am willing to pay for my country and, more importantly, it is a price I am willing to pay for my grandchildren.

Mr. President, today, on the first day of Black History Month, I am proud to reintroduce The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act. I am joined by Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, and Ms. Gillibrand as original co-sponsors.

The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland and given the name Araminta, Minty, Ross. She spent nearly 30 years of her life in slavery on Maryland's Eastern Shore. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 she married John Tubman.

Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that, to this day, comprise the Maryland Eastern Shore landscape. She did so alone, demonstrating courage, strength and fortitude that became her hallmarks. Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led away many family members and other slaves to freedom in the Northeastern United States. Tubman became known as ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists. She is the most famous and most important conductor of the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad.

During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a scout and

a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida and South Carolina. She is credited with leading slaves from those slave states to freedom during those years.

Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established one of the first incorporated African-American homes for aged. In 1903 she bequeathed the home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried there in the Fort Hill Cemetery.

Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life still stand. The landscapes of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that Tubman lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape, which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands. In particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross, her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where she worked as a slave, and others are within the master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are today protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to their freedom.

In New York, on the other hand, many of the buildings associated with Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery are all extant.

In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special Resource Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit of the National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman. The Study has taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in part because of the lack of remaining structures on Maryland's Eastern Shore. There has never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, however, has been exceedingly difficult. Eventually, the National Park Service determined that designating a Historical Park that would include two geographically separate units would be an appropriate tribute to the life of this extraordinary American. The New York unit would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in the town of Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. The Special Resource Study, completed by the National Park Service in the Fall of 2008, confirmed these findings and on July 15, 2009, the National Park Service endorsed S. 227 as introduced in the 111th Congress during a legislative hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

During the process of preparing S. 227 for markup in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Bingaman, drafted a substitute amendment of the bill. The contents of the Bingaman substitute are the result of his work to accommodate concerns that the Ranking Member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee had with S. 227 as introduced. An agreement was reached on the contents of the substitute amendment. An opportunity to mark up S. 227, consider the Bingaman substitute, and hold a vote in Committee never happened in the final months of the 111th Congress.

The legislation I am introducing today incorporates the proposed changes from the Bingaman substitute to S. 227. The bill establishes two parks.

The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park is comprised of important historical structures in Auburn, NY. They include Tubman's home, the Home for the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal AME Zion Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery where she is buried.

The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline and Talbot counties, Maryland, that are evocative of the life of Harriet Tubman.

In Dorchester County, the parcels would not be contiguous, but would include about 2,775 acres. All of these parcels are located within the established master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge but are not currently owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The four parcels located within the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Boundary, are sites significant to the life of Harriet Tubman. These parcels include the Anthony Thompson plantation parcel where Harriet Tubman likely was born, The Brodess Plantation parcel where Tubman worked as a young girl, the Cook Plantation parcel where as a teenager Harriet Tubman worked as a seamstress, and the Jacob Jackson parcel which is believed to be the location of one of the first safe houses along the Underground Railroad. The Park would be established upon the fee simple acquisition, by the National Park Service, of any of these parcels located within the current boundary of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

Additional areas that would comprise the Harriet Tubman historic area include about 2,200 acres in Caroline County that comprise the Poplar Neck plantation that Tubman escaped from in 1849. The 725 acres of viewshed across the Choptank River in Talbot County would also be included in the Park. These parcels are authorized to come under protection through conservation easements held by the private property owners.

The bill authorizes such sums as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the bill. Funds can be used for the construction of the Harriet Tubman Park Visitors Center, through a cost sharing requirement, for easements, or acquisition of the designated parcels eligible for fee simple acquisition.

Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles and shared that freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has earned a nation's respect and honor.

Harriet Tubman is one of many great Americans that we honor and celebrate every February during Black History Month. In schools across the country, American History curriculums teach our children about Tubman's courage, conviction, her fight for freedom and her contributions to the greatness of our nation during a contentious time in U.S. history. Now it is time to add to Tubman's legacy by preserving, protecting and commemorating the places evocative of Harriet Tubman's extraordinary life.

I am so proud to introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. I look forward to working with my colleagues to establish this important and fitting tribute to Harriet Tubman, a life worthy of recognition.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, in introducing legislation today that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.

The idea of requiring a balanced Federal budget seems like common sense to most American families, who have to balance their own checkbooks. And in these hard times, they wonder why the Federal Government doesn't have to do the same. In fact, the United States has only balanced its budget 5 times in the last 50 years. We heard the Senator from Alabama point out the Federal budget balanced only twice in our history.

The budgets of nations are not the same as family budgets. Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we have known that national emergencies sometimes require deficit spending. But we are fast approaching a tipping point where our debt threatens this economic orthodoxy. We are approaching a tipping point where an unprecedented level of debt--and our institutional failure to address it--risks our national security. We need to take action now to turn around our fiscal situation.

By restoring responsible spending through a reasonable balanced budget amendment, we can begin climbing out of our economic hole, and, perhaps just as important, this amendment would send a strong signal to the financial markets, U.S. businesses, and the American people that we are serious about stabilizing our economy for the long term. That is a signal I believe we need to send now.

Before going further, I want to recognize the obvious--that there is a wide range of strong opinions about the wisdom of adding a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Tinkering with the Constitution is not something any of us takes lightly, and this amendment is certainly no exception.

I myself have had doubts in the past about similar legislation. During the

Clinton years, our government ran a surplus, and there was no pressing need for such a requirement. When we started running deficits again, part of me hoped we could use other tools at our disposal to get our Nation back on a financially sound path.

Additionally, Members of my party raised--and continue to raise-- credible arguments about why a balanced budget amendment could actually hurt our economy in some circumstances. Some of them believe it is nothing more than a rhetorical tool designed only to make a political statement and move us inevitably toward smaller government.

The recent history of the balanced budget amendment is a partisan one. Of the five proposals that were introduced last Congress, none had a Democratic cosponsor--largely because of, in my opinion, extraneous provisions that manipulated the budget in one way or another to protect favored tax breaks or certain spending.

However, if you take a longer view into the past, it was actually progressive Democratic Senator Paul Simon--along with Senator Hatch of Utah--who led the balanced budget amendment effort that came closest to passage in 1995. They knew that if we balanced our Federal budget, we would be better able to make more intelligent choices about spending, rather than spending billions on debt service, and we would actually see family incomes rise.

Today, the dilemma we face as a result of our debt is even more extreme. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation.

Our government debt, as Senator Shelby pointed out, is now over $14 trillion. That is $45,300 for every person in this country. If we don't put limits on how we spend money, the question we face isn't whether we can make intelligent choices; it is whether we will be able to afford any of the programs that we value at all--programs we need to help propel the middle class and small business over the longer term.

What is at stake isn't just family income; it is our Nation's ability to continue to lead in the global economic race. The cochairman of President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the debt called our debt a ``cancer'' that is eating away at our economic health. That is a point I wish President Obama had made in his State of the Union Address last week when he spoke about some of the investments America needs to make to spur innovation and economic growth--education, clean energy, and infrastructure, to name a few.

He is right that without targeted investments to help hard-working Americans and businesses, the United States will be relegated to second-class status. We won't be able to compete with countries around the world or to grow jobs in America. We won't be able to unleash our innovative spirit and give our children and grandchildren their shot at the American dream.

I have also come to the conclusion that unless we put constraints on spending, Congress simply lacks the political will to make the extremely difficult decisions that will lead us out of the dire fiscal situation in which we find our Nation.

I have been fighting for many years for smart budgeting tools--the Presiding Officer has as well--including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a line-item veto, and a ban on earmarks, which would help reduce waste and rein in Federal spending. I am also working with a group of bipartisan Senators trying to make sure the recommendations by the President's fiscal commission can get an up-or-down vote in Congress. A balanced budget amendment is one more important tool we need.

Let me say a few words about the legislation itself. Senator Shelby, to his credit, first introduced this legislation--I think I can say that it was when he was a Democrat, some 25 years ago, and he continues to reintroduce it every Congress since he became a Republican. I thank him and acknowledge his leadership.

The Shelby-Udall balanced budget amendment would create a requirement that Federal spending cannot exceed revenue and that total expenditures of the government cannot exceed 20 percent of the previous year's gross domestic product.

As Senator Shelby pointed out, this requirement wouldn't apply when the United States is at war, and it can be suspended by a supermajority, or three-fifths, vote of each House of Congress in the event certain spending is necessary to address a national emergency.

To my friends who worry that this balanced budget amendment puts our economy into an inflexible straitjacket, I say it is not true. It allows commonsense safety valves to be used for exceptional circumstances--to give the flexibility that is sometimes needed in situations that can't be predicted or planned for.

All in all, I am confident our proposed amendment provides a responsible approach to putting us on a path toward a balanced budget.

We talked a lot last week during and after the State of the Union Address about the need to work together to address our biggest challenges, not just sitting together. Today, I hope I am putting my money where my mouth is by joining my good friend from Alabama. I hope our partnership will send a signal that collaboration can help us address our most pressing national issues. The American people are demanding that of us. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us. It is time for us to catch up.

I ask my colleagues of both parties in both Chambers to work with Senator Shelby and me on this idea. We may not have it perfect. Nothing is ever perfect. But it is a good start. Let's at least have an honest and spirited dialog about this legislation and ways to dig ourselves out of our economic hole. Our children's future depends on it.

Mr. President, I am glad to be here today with the Senator from Missouri, my friend Claire McCaskill. We are introducing a bill called the Commitment to American Prosperity Act, the CAP Act. It is a 10-page bill designed to limit spending in Washington and set our country back on a sustainable fiscal path.

We have cosponsors in Senators Alexander, Burr, McCain, Isakson, Chambliss, Inhofe, and Kirk. I thank them for joining us in this effort. I hope many more will do the same.

I spent a lifetime in business, and I came to the Senate not to score political points, not to be involved in messaging, but to solve our country's problems. Everyone in this body understands we have tremendous fiscal and financial issues with which to deal. This morning I was happy to see 33 Senators meet over at the visitor center from both sides of the aisle to listen to people involved in the financial industry talking about the path we are on and what that is going to lead to as far as the ruination of our fiscal situation and our ability to borrow money at low rates as we are today. All of us know what that will mean to our citizens.

There is no one who doesn't understand how problematic our financial situation is. I know the Congressional Budget Office just said that this year alone we will have a $1.5 trillion budget deficit. I think everyone in this body is very aware that we cannot continue on that path. For that reason, Senator McCaskill and I have crafted a 10-page bill, a very simple bill. It does a lot, but there are not a lot of whereases. One of its purposes is to cap spending relative to economy.

Most people understand that when we look at economies in other countries of the world, people look at the amount of spending their government does relative to their economic output. Senator McCaskill's husband is a businessman. When he looks at the amount of debt he has in his company, he looks at that in relation to revenues and the amount of income he has and his ability to pay the debt. That is the way the world looks at the health of countries.

For the last 4 years--this is the post-entitlement period--our country has been spending 20.6 percent of our GDP or economic output at the Federal level. Everybody knows that right now we are way above that number, at over 24 percent. So again, not to try to create some messaging tool but to solve this problem, Senator McCaskill and I have joined to say we need to get back to the norm over a 10-year period, on a glide path that takes us back to fiscal health and to that 20.6 percent of our economy being spent at the Federal level.

The legislation calls for multiyear averaging so we can make sure that economic differentials don't create volatility, so we know exactly what those targets are in advance, so we can go about our work in appropriations in a methodical and thoughtful way. In addition, it creates something called sequestration. That means if Congress does not have the courage, which we recently have not shown, to do the things it needs to do to make those cuts to live within this glide path we have laid out, then sequestration will take place. The Office of Management and Budget, 45 days after the end of the year, if we have not done those things

we need to do to make sure we are on this glide path, will, on a pro rata basis, take money out of the accounts of both mandatory and nonmandatory spending. In addition, if there is an emergency that comes up, it would take a two-thirds vote by both Houses of Congress to overcome those spending limits.

To my knowledge, this is the first time in the entitlement era that we have ever tried to put in place a total spending limit on government. Many of us talk about discretionary spending. All of us know that discretionary spending is less than a third of all Federal spending. All of us know that if we don't redesign the entitlement programs that are about two-thirds of our spending at the Federal level, then there is no way for us to deal appropriately with this issue. So for this reason, this bill would kick in, if it is implemented, in 2013, giving us time to redesign the entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Social Security, so that we know they are here for future generations, so we know that seniors have the benefits they need.

This is the first time we would be putting everything on the table in a comprehensive way as we look at the Federal budget. Simply, this bill will cause us to live within our means.

The problem we find ourselves in today is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. Both parties have contributed to the situation. What this bill would require us to do is to set priorities. It would mean that we would have to ensure that programs are being run as effectively and efficiently as possible. I know our main cosponsor, Senator McCaskill, has spent a lot of time looking at waste and abuse within the Federal Government. One of the best things about this bill is, if we want to limit spending relative to the country's economic output, it is obviously easier to do so if the economy is growing. So what that would mean is that both parties would be joined at the hip to put in place policies that promote economic growth.

I thank Senator McCaskill for her courage in stepping forth with me and others on this bill. It is my hope that we will have people from both sides of the aisle who will join us in this effort. Again, this is being put forth as a serious bill. It is a bill that has no ideology base, simply a bill to solve a problem. We are going to a 40-year average of spending relative to our country's gross domestic product. We are not trying to do things differently than in the past. Both of us know we have not had the courage in recent times to live within our means, to set priorities as they need to be set. This bill is something that will take us toward that end.

We have a very monumental vote that will be taking place a little bit later in the year regarding the debt ceiling. All of us know it would be irresponsible not to be responsible prior to that debt ceiling vote. We offer this bill as a responsible way to put us on a glide path toward a place that is reasonable for this country, giving us time to redesign the programs that need to be redesigned. It is my hope this bill or something of its nature will pass prior to the debt ceiling vote. It is also my hope that we will go ahead and vote on actual cuts to the Federal budget prior to that time so we can show markets around the world and the American people that we have the ability to work together to solve what I think is our most pressing domestic issue and that is getting our fiscal house in order.

I again thank Senator McCaskill. She has been a leader on fiscal issues since she has been here.