[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2597-S2607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.


                           Amendment No. 240

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank my 
colleagues for working with me to get a time agreement, which I hope 
will enable all of our colleagues who have various views on the 
amendment I shall offer an opportunity to express them today before we 
have a vote.
  Mr. President, my amendment, which has been coauthored by Senator 
Leahy of Vermont, will enable the Congress to respond to a federally 
declared disaster should the balanced budget amendment become part of 
the Constitution.
  I am proud that we have a number of cosponsors. They include Senator 
Feinstein, my colleague from California; Senator Bumpers from Arkansas; 
Senators Inouye and Akaka from Hawaii; Senator Murray from Washington, 
and there are others.
  Mr. President, balancing the Federal budget is a goal we should 
attain. You know, I saw this national debt go from $1 trillion to $4 
trillion in the decade of the eighties and there was a very clear 
reason why this happened--huge increases in the military, huge tax cuts 
to the wealthy. And I will tell you, it does not add up to a balanced 
budget. It led to a terrible situation which finally, under President 
Clinton, we were able to get our arms around when, unfortunately on 
straight party lines, we did have a vote to reduce that deficit, and 
the deficit is now about half of where it would have been. So we are 
making progress.
  There are those who believe we must have this amendment in the 
Constitution in order to continue progress. I think the facts belie 
that. I just want to make sure that if we do have this amendment, it is 
in fact a flexible one. We should be able to act to meet the needs of 
our people. Why else are we here if we cannot do so?
  The only exception in this amendment that would enable Congress to 
take the budget out of balance with a simple majority vote rather than 
a supermajority vote is a declaration of war. Of course, that makes 
sense. But there are other times that it should take a simple majority.
  For every other emergency right now in this amendment to the 
Constitution, we would have to have 60 votes in the Senate out of 100 
Senators and 261 out of 435 votes in the House of Representatives to 
respond.
  In other words, Mr. President, we would need a supermajority to take 
the budget out of balance for the particular year in which a disaster 
struck. We are not just talking about a small problem here. We are 
talking about a federally declared disaster. We would take a 
supermajority to take us out of balance to fund that disaster 
emergency.
  Now, Mr. President, I believe that creates a dangerous situation that 
flies in the face of reason. It flies in the face of reason. It is 
dangerous. I believe it is reckless, because I believe responding to 
disasters and emergencies is one of the most honorable and dutiful 
obligations of this U.S. Senate.
  Many Members have felt the pain of seeing our States damaged very 
badly. Our people dislocated, families mourning the dead and the 
injured because of a natural disaster. Floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, 
earthquakes, severe storms, volcanoes.
  Many have gone to the shelters. I think the most haunting memories of 
all those trips that I have made, unfortunately, on too many occasions 
in my State in the north and the south and everywhere, the most 
haunting memories to me are the faces of the elderly and the children 
who were so disoriented when something like this happens. They are 
rooted out of their homes and they are afraid. We need to respond in 
those kinds of desperate circumstances.
  Now, I think a reasonable question to ask me is, Senator, how big a 
problem is this in the Nation? Are you just talking about your State of 
California? Some might say we could understand why you would feel this 
way, but what about the rest of the United States?
  I think the chart I have up here will explain that there truly is not 
a State that is immune from the possibility of disaster, and as a 
matter of fact, the likelihood. Before I point out what this chart 
means, I want to say that today there is not a State in the Union that 
is not vulnerable to flooding.
  This report from the National Research Council states, ``Floods occur 
more frequently in the United States than any other natural hazard. All 
50 states have communities at risk from flooding which occurs primarily 
as flash floods caused by thunderstorms, rapid melting of ice and snow 
and storm surges.'' It talks about the great Midwest floods.
  The point I am making is that this chart does not even show the 
flooding possibilities, because basically the chart would be covered, 
because every single State has the possibility of disastrous floods.
  Looking at the chart, here are the earthquakes in this teal color. 
The light teal color shows the low risk of earthquake, and we see it is 
all over the country. If we point to the various teal colors here, all 
through the country. We are not talking about merely in California. 
Now, the medium risk, we can see where that lies, pretty much through 
the country. There is actually a high risk here in the Midwest for 
earthquakes.
  Now, looking at tornadoes we see the whole midsection of the country 
over to the east and the extreme risk of tornado here in the midsection 
of the country.
  The blue and yellow shows the hurricane, some risk for hurricane, and 
the dark blue is extreme risk for hurricane, which we see on the 
coastal areas and of course over in Hawaii.
  There is also volcano risk, which many can never forget Mount St. 
Helens, that is in the West. And tsunami risk, the entire west coast of 
the Nation, including the islands as well.
  As we look on this chart we can see that this country is magnificent. 
It is also quite vulnerable to disasters if we look at this risk 
profile.
  While many of my colleagues here truly believe that responding to the 
needs of his or her people is not a requirement to ensuring domestic 
tranquility. I always go back to the preamble of the Constitution. We 
read it 
 [[Page S2598]] as kids in school, but it is very meaningful, or it 
should be quite meaningful to everyone.
  When we say we are to ensure domestic tranquility, I can say when a 
person is forced out of their home because of an earthquake, a flood, a 
drought--many things by the way, not even on this chart; droughts we do 
not even show--but you are forced out because you cannot get water or 
farm your land, let me assure you, you do not have a situation of 
domestic tranquility when so many of your people are dislocated. It is 
pretty basic.
  Now, I asked my colleagues, who would ever want to be a Senator in 
Japan after the Kobe disaster? Many have seen the elected officials and 
the people in the government going to various town hall meetings and 
gatherings throughout Kobe, and looking at the memorial there and 
saying ``I am sorry. We are powerless to act. We do not have a plan in 
place. We cannot act.''
  I assure Members that without the Boxer-Leahy amendment, we are in 
effect, I think, unilaterally surrendering this body's commitment to 
disaster relief. I will prove it. I will prove it. If we need a 
supermajority to act we are simply not going to be able to act.
  Our amendment provides a critical safety valve. It says that in any 
fiscal year in which spending occurs as a result of an emergency 
declaration by the President and the Congress has also said, ``Yes, it 
is an emergency,'' the provisions of the balanced budget amendment may 
be waived by a majority vote of those present and voting in each House.
  I want to make a point here. We purposefully constructed it such that 
it is not a 51 vote, but those present and voting. When we have a 
disaster we need to act fast. Suppose there happened to be a couple of 
seats vacant in the Senate, or people are ill and not here in the U.S. 
Senate. We should be able to move with the majority. Majority vote is a 
very important concept.
  This amendment does violence to--not my amendment, but the balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution---does violence to that notion of 
fairness of majority rule. When we require a supermajority to act, 
whether it is a recession period, a depression situation, a natural 
disaster, if we require a supermajority we are giving a huge amount of 
power to the minority. When we do that we can tie this body in knots. 
We have seen it happen here many, many times.
  By the way, I know what I am talking about. I voted to end the 
filibuster, although I am now in a minority in this body. I think 
inaction is inexcusable. We should not put ourselves in a situation 
where we cannot act. Full debate, absolutely. But at some point we 
decide we have had the debate, and we move on.
  As I said at the outset of this debate on the balanced budget 
amendment, our States are not colonies of the Federal Government. 
Neither are they separate fiefdoms. When disaster strikes, we should 
be, as the words above the beautiful Capitol dome, e pluribus unum, 
from the many, one. What a beautiful thought that is. From the many, 
one. E pluribus unum. We help each other. That is the way it should be. 
One nation, under God, indivisible. That is what I believe in. From the 
many, one. We pull together, in times of crisis, in times of disaster. 
And we do not allow one State--whether it is in the middle of the 
country or at either end or anywhere in between--to stand alone in that 
circumstance.
  We talk a lot about family values here and caring and compassion. My 
goodness, when we are in the midst of one of these disasters, that is 
the time to pull together. And we should not create hurdles in this 
balanced budget amendment which will make it impossible or very 
difficult for Members to move to resolve and to move quickly.
  I believe that without the Boxer-Leahy provision, we will not be from 
the many, one. We will be divided. We will be stressed. We will be 
incapable of acting, because getting 60 votes to fully respond to a 
disaster will be extremely difficult. If we cannot get that, we will 
need to get offsetting moneys to fund the disaster. Budget cuts right 
on the spot, turning sensible budgeting out the window.
  We will throw sensible budgeting out the window because of a 
disaster. If we cannot get 60 votes, we will have to cut the budget 
elsewhere. We will have to cut into the bone of education, 
transportation, health research, defense, things we need to do in this 
country to respond to a disaster.
  Let me tell you, Mr. President, we have had those votes, and every 
time it has failed. Every time we have tried to get offsets to pay for 
an emergency, we never got the votes. It did not work. Why? Common 
sense tells you, an emergency is unexpected. It happens to us in our 
families. We should have a rainy day fund--of course we should--and we 
try to give FEMA a rainy day fund. But sometimes the rains keep on 
coming. And I can tell you they are coming right now again in Los 
Angeles today, and we hope we will not experience the kind of problems 
we did last month.
  So you plan for a rainy day, but you do not know when it is going to 
happen and to what extent it is going to happen. That is not something 
to be upset about. It is something to be ready for. It is life, and 
life does throw us some curves sometimes in our personal lives and here 
sitting in the U.S. Senate.
  Why do I say that it will be very difficult to get 60 votes or a 
supermajority to respond to a disaster? The Republican leadership in 
the House of Representatives has given us a preview in a letter dated 
February 7, signed by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, House Majority 
Leader Richard Armey, House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, and 
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston.
  Mr. President, let me talk a little bit about this letter. Their 
letter threatens no action on disaster relief. Right now, forget about 
waiting for a balanced budget, they are right out here. They are 
already on the record.
  The President has asked for funding for an emergency supplemental to 
meet the needs of several disasters. He has asked for emergency funding 
in the supplemental to deal with the Midwest floods and the Northridge 
earthquake. He also asked for emergency funds to deal with unexpected 
military obligations and the House leadership is not objecting to that. 
They have found some offsets, as I understand it, in the military. But 
when it comes to the emergency supplemental which, in the main, has 
this money for California and the Midwest--and by the way, 40 States, 
as I understand it, still need to be paid for emergencies--what do they 
tell us? I am quoting from the letter:

       We will not act on the balance of requests until you have 
     identified offsets and deductions to make up for the funding. 
     Whether these activities are emergencies or not, it will be 
     our policy to pay for them rather than add them to the 
     deficit.

  Now, here it is, here it is. So this is not any guessing game we have 
here. The House leadership says it is their policy, and you know they 
seem to be able to control the votes over there. I think they had about 
seven or eight people who went off the party line on one vote, and they 
got called to the woodshed. This is discipline, my friends. They are 
not interested in going out of balance to meet these needs, and I can 
assure you, this emergency supplemental is going to be in trouble. So 
if we do not act and we get this balanced budget amendment into the 
Constitution requiring 60 votes, we are in deep trouble.
  I am going to repeat what they said:

       Whether these activities are emergencies or not, it will be 
     our policy to pay for them rather than add them to the 
     deficit.

  Mr. President, since a large proportion of FEMA's funding for 
disasters supports repair and recovery of public buildings, more 
reliable estimates of the actual dollars that would be necessary for 
the Northridge recovery were not available when the revised 
supplemental was transmitted to Congress last year. Here is the point: 
A lot of these supplemental requests come before we know the extent of 
the damage. You do not want to go out there with estimates, you want to 
go out there with real numbers.
  So many times there is a time lag. We had in California 120,000 
schools, hospitals, city buildings, and other businesses and residences 
with damage from the quake. It takes time. You cannot judge the extent 
of the damage to a structure by looking at the exterior. You need to go 
in there, and then you can find out what the damage is. It takes time.
   [[Page S2599]] Look what happens after it takes time. After the rush 
of sympathy is over, what do they tell us?

       Whether these activities are emergencies or not, it will be 
     our policy to pay for them rather than add them to the 
     deficit.

  Meaning they are going to seek offsets, and I will tell you, Mr. 
President, it is going to be hard to find those offsets when we already 
are in tight budgetary times.
  An example of this late discovery of damage is California State 
University at Northridge. The library appeared only to have minor 
damage, but once the inspectors got behind the drywall, they found all 
86 steel beams were sheared in half.
  I am talking about California clearly because I know it the best. But 
it is not the only State that would lose if this attitude and this 
balanced budget amendment passes without the Boxer-Leahy language.
  The disaster supplemental, again, requested by the President includes 
funds, as I said, for 40 States and territories. James Lee Witt, the 
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has warned us that 
without these supplemental appropriations, the agency will not be able 
to meet any disaster requirements by May 1 and no further spending on 
current relief programs after July.
  I will tell you, Mr. President, get down on your hands and knees 
tonight because if you have a disaster in your State and you see those 
looks on people's faces when they are living in shelters and they 
cannot go home and they are afraid to enter their home because of fear 
of flood or earthquake, you stand up there and say, ``Gee, I didn't 
realize it when I voted against Boxer-Leahy.''
  I ask you this: Will disasters go away because we want them to, 
because we are in a tough time right now? Will they go away because of 
this balanced budget amendment?
  Let us look at my second chart called ``Probable Costs of Future 
Natural Disasters.'' I want to make this point to my friends because, 
again, those people who say, ``Well, sure, Senator Boxer is up here 
speaking about disasters. It is her State,'' let us take a look at the 
east coast and take a look at the largest disasters that we are looking 
at across the country.
  Let us take a look at this. We are talking here about the predictable 
future. I want to make a side point that a lot of this work that was 
done, so that we know what our future holds in our country, was done by 
the U.S. Geological Survey. I think it is important to point that out 
because in the Republican Contract With America, they want to do away 
with the funding for the U.S. Geological Survey, which is where we get 
our information as to where the high risks are so we can share this 
information with others, but I will not get into that debate today 
because there will be other times to raise that question.
  But let us take a look across the country. If you look at the 
Northeast, a $45 billion class 4 hurricane, and that is really the 
whole Northeast. Then a $52 billion class 4 hurricane out of New York 
which would impact that region. Out of Hampton, VA, a $33.5 billion 
class 5 hurricane is predicted.
 In Miami, a $53 billion class 5 hurricane is predicted; in New 
Orleans, a $25.6 billion class 5 hurricane. And I wanted to note that 
  Senator Johnston is also a cosponsor of this amendment.In the 
Midwest, the real big earthquake. It is very interesting, my friends. 
It is not predicted for California. We do have a couple of huge ones 
here and also in Seattle, but the real big one is predicted in the 
midsection of our Nation, a $69.7 billion loss, an 8.6 earthquake 
predicted on this fault.
  Here, moving to Galveston, TX, a $42.5 billion class 5 hurricane. In 
past disasters, we have had some very conservative Members of the 
Senate on this floor demanding that we act fast not to get offsets but 
to take care of their people. Why? Because they looked at their faces. 
It is real easy to say, well, we will vote against Boxer-Leahy, but 
wait until it comes to your State and you cannot act. And that is what 
I am trying to get colleagues to think of on both sides of the aisle. 
This is one that comes back to haunt you, not maybe but probably. 
Remember, the whole country is subjected to floods, serious floods. We 
do not even show that.
  Now we get over here to Honolulu, a $30 billion class 4 hurricane. 
How we can ever forget the last one that hit there? Los Angeles, a 7.0 
earthquake, $57 billion; San Francisco, $84 billion, 8.2; and up in 
Seattle, where a lot of people do not think of it that much, a 7.5 
earthquake costing $33 billion.
  (Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. So let us not kid the American people; disasters are not 
going to go away. And I have to tell you again no disaster supplemental 
appropriation has ever been passed with offsetting spending required. 
It just has not. It is on the books. We have the votes to show you. It 
does not happen. And why? Because these are emergencies, and we do not 
want to destroy everything else we need to do for this country when one 
of our States is in trouble. So we come together, e pluribus unum, come 
together from the many as one, and we help and we do not destroy the 
rest of the budget. And then the next year we look back and we say, 
yes, we had some of these disasters; we are going to be even tougher on 
our budgeting, but we do not force 60 votes because it is not going to 
happen. Disasters are beyond our planning.
  Mr. President, I am not a constitutional scholar, but I do know a 
little bit about the origins of our Government. I know that the 
Constitution was not the first fundamental law governing this Nation; 
the Articles of Confederation preceded the Constitution. But that 
document regulating the relations among the States proved weak and 
inefficient. The articles provided for a supermajority vote before the 
National Government could request revenue from the States. And do you 
know what James Madison called that? A ``radical infirmity''--a radical 
infirmity to require a supermajority. Without careful change to ensure 
flexibility, this balanced budget amendment is a radical infirmity of 
the 1990's. It is an infirmity. It is a condition. And it is radical 
because it takes away the rule of the majority.
  Now, I know a lot of people said this election was about a 
revolution. Maybe it was. But I hope we respect the Founding Fathers 
here and realize that there is a reason we have majority rule in most 
cases in this body. We should not shackle the ability of the Congress 
to respond to emergencies by requiring a supermajority vote.
  Now, a measured attack on the budget deficit is a priority of the 
Congress. I am on the Budget Committee. I have been on the Budget 
Committee over on the House side, now on the Senate side. I am proud to 
be here. And I was proud to vote for the largest deficit reduction 
package in history that has worked. We are on the path. We should 
restrain spending for the benefit of generations to come, but we must 
not allow this constitutional amendment to turn the back of the Senate 
on decent Americans. And listen to this one. If you think about who is 
impacted by disasters, they are decent Americans who usually, if you 
look at all these areas, pay their fair share in taxes, who probably 
have never asked the Federal Government for anything else in their 
life.
  I have seen it. I have seen people who said, ``I never asked the 
Federal Government for anything. All I want now is a chance to get back 
on my feet,'' because they were hit with a flood, a hurricane, an 
earthquake, frost, drought, and they are knocked off their feet. And 
they are saying, yes, I have some insurance, but I need to have my 
Government be a partner in helping me continue to be productive.
  It seems to me that is reasonable. That is why we are one nation, to 
act as one when there are serious emergencies, and that is what we do 
with our amendment, the Boxer-Leahy amendment.
  From fiscal year 1988 to fiscal year 1993, Congress has passed six 
major disaster relief supplemental appropriations bills. I wish to 
explain this. They totaled $17 billion in budget authority--since 1988, 
$17 billion in budget authority. In 1994, Congress passed a 
supplemental that included $8.4 billion for disasters. That is a lot. 
But compare it to the military budget that is about $280 billion every 
year. You can see we spend a great deal defending this Nation, as we 
should. We have to defend our Nation when we are struck with 
 [[Page S2600]] the hurricanes, the floods, the devastation of 
earthquakes, tsunamis, whatever are predicted to happen--$17 billion 
since 1988.
  Now I am going to show you some photographs from some of these 
disasters because I think again we have to put a human face on what we 
are talking about here. This is what happens to America in these times. 
And the funding that I show here basically is a small proportion of the 
funds that went for FEMA programs because these were put together by 
the Federal emergency people. There are other dollars that are added, 
and I will go into that.
  But here is South Carolina, Hurricane Hugo, 304,369 victims. You can 
see the child, the mother, the ruination, the shock. I have been to too 
many of these.
  Here is the Cypress Freeway in Oakland. I am really familiar with 
this because my husband takes his car over this freeway, or did, every 
day for 20 years plus. An hour before it went down, he was on that 
freeway. This is not something that is far away from my heart.
  This happened on the night of the World Series between two California 
teams, and everyone was sitting in their seats waiting for them to play 
ball. We did not have a baseball strike. That is a local other issue. 
But they never did play ball that night because the earthquake struck. 
People died. There were 896,245 victims--meaning not deaths, victims--
people touched by this. And I want you to know something. It took us a 
while to get the plans to rebuild the Cypress structure because, guess 
what, we did not want to build it the same way it was built originally 
because it would have fallen down again. So we had to go back and get 
the engineering done and do it in a way that would not hurt the 
community. So it took a while.
  There was a move on this Senate floor to deny the funds to rebuild 
this freeway. I remember it because I had to fight it. And I won that 
vote by a vote of--I think we had 53 votes, not 60, friends. If this 
supermajority requirement had been in place, forget it; we would be 
looking at disaster. Now, tell me something, is that what we want to 
see in our communities?
  Here is Hurricane Andrew. This is extraordinary. There were 219,825 
victims, in other words people hurt directly by this disaster. The 
homes are literally gone.
  Do we want 60 votes to be able to make these people have a chance at 
life again? I hope not. We would be like they are in Kobe, Japan, going 
to community meetings saying, ``Gee, we're sorry, we cannot act. Move 
to another place, move to another town.''
  I can imagine the American people's reaction. Forget it. We are not 
reserved here. Anybody who has had community meetings, you stand up and 
you are sent to protect the people of your States and help them--if you 
stand up at a community meeting and say, ``Sorry, I could not get 60 
votes''--it is not even a viable thought.
  Here is Hurricane Iniki. This literally looks as if a bomb dropped on 
this house; the magnificent blue sky and a complete, total wreck of a 
home. That is what it looks like. This is what we are talking about. I 
am not up here because this is an unimportant issue. I want to show you 
some more pictures.
  Missouri floods, 168,340 victims. Their dreams, their hopes, their 
memories, their wedding book pictures--destroyed.
  Northridge earthquake, Los Angeles area. I will never forget the 
first thing I heard about was a policeman rushing out to help people 
and he could not see that the freeway was gone. He was one of the first 
deaths. I have to go get 60 votes if this amendment passes without the 
Boxer-Leahy language.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will help me with 
this one. Let us not do another party line vote here. My God, I do not 
ask people if they are Republicans or Democrats when they are faced 
with this. I do not care. We are Americans when these things happen. We 
help each other. Let us not put something in the Constitution that ties 
our hands, whether Republicans or Democrats, that ties our hands and 
says you cannot act in a disaster except if you have a supermajority.
  After this election, half the people said, ``What's going to happen 
in the Senate?''
  I said, ``You know what is going to happen? We are not going to be 
partisan here. It is not like the House that tends to be very partisan. 
We are going to see reasonable people here come together.''
  I am waiting. This is a good one. Reasonable people should say that 
we should not require a supermajority to act in times of disaster.
  Here is one that was unbelievable, the volcano eruption in Washington 
State. That does look like a bomb went off. 1,891 victims.
  Then let us look at Houston, TX--horrible floods, 34,000-plus 
victims. This looks literally like something dropped on this house. You 
say a flood? This is a picture of what happens when the water is so 
high.
  I have to tell you, I visited northern California in the last flood 
that we had. I was driving down the road and I looked out the window 
and I said there is the Russian River. Somebody said the Russian River 
has never been there, it is on the other side of the bank. In other 
words it had made a second river.
  These things happen. Does it mean we should not require that people 
who live in a floodplain have insurance? Of course, and we do. We 
should have insurance programs in place. I am on a task force looking 
at how better to meet these needs. But the bottom line is with 
insurance, with savings, with all the things we do, once in a while we 
are going to have a disaster that is beyond our ability to plan for. Do 
we then turn our backs because we need a supermajority? Or do we in 
fact make it possible for us to respond in a reasonable fashion, a 
majority of those present and voting? I hope that makes common sense to 
my colleagues.
  I want to give my friends a picture of the number of times we have 
had to respond to disasters, and I will show the chart of the predicted 
disasters. We are here talking about the whole Nation, not just 
California. Between 1977 and 1993, the Federal Government responded to 
578 disasters or emergencies, totaling $120 billion in inflation-
adjusted dollars. The reason I say that is you need to know that we are 
just talking about very large numbers here, of people across the Nation 
and not just in California.
  I want to make a point. With all these disasters that we have had in 
the past, this is what will probably happen in the future. When Senator 
Leahy gets here--and I expect that he is on his way and will be here 
shortly to talk about it from his perspective on the east coast. It is 
going to be hard to believe this, but experts have told us that with 
all the horror stories and all the photos I showed, in many ways they 
say we have been lucky. How can they say we have been lucky? Because if 
Hurricane Andrew in Florida had struck just 25 miles further north into 
the heart of Miami, there would not have been 350,000 homeless but 1.6 
million homeless. So, 25 miles made a difference between 350,000 
homeless, which is horrendous, and 1.6 million homeless. The damages 
would not have been $20 billion but what have been $62 billion, 
according to the study by the Miami Herald.
  The Northridge Earthquake severed eight major roads right here 
leading to downtown Los Angeles. Gas and water lines ruptured. I flew 
over that area hours after the disaster happened, and it was the most 
extraordinary thing you ever did see. For miles it was pitch black, no 
electricity, people not able to function. Again, the elderly and the 
children are the most vulnerable. We always talk about them here--the 
elderly and the children, the most vulnerable, the most dislocated. And 
many of the children still have what they call the post-traumatic 
symptoms: After the trauma.
  We talked about gas and water lines ruptured, fires, power failures. 
I talked about water service disruption. More than 50,000 homes and 
apartments were damaged, nearly 170 schools were damaged. And as bad as 
this disaster was--and it was horrible, hard to imagine--I have to tell 
you that disaster struck at 4:31 a.m. on a holiday. Had it struck on a 
school day, you can just imagine what could have happened: 700,000 
school children, 6 million commuters. So when these things happen we 
wonder why, we ask ourselves why, and then we say, ``My God, the 
experts say it could have even been worse.''
   [[Page S2601]] Looking at the future, we do not know where the worst 
could occur. It could happen anywhere--east, west, north, south. I am 
saying to my friends here, please--this has been my decade to see the 
disasters. Somebody started calling me Calamity Jane because I am 
coming down here and telling these stories about what happens to my 
people. But the next decade it could be someone else's decade. I do not 
wish that on any of my friends here or the people that they represent.
  I wish it were possible to say this is not true. They say there is 
nothing certain except death and taxes. I think we can say death, 
taxes, and natural disasters are going to happen. The question before 
this body with the Boxer-Leahy amendment is: Do we want to put 
ourselves in a circumstance where it is so difficult to respond that 
people suffer while we try to get 60 votes or find offsets in an 
already tight budget?
  I see my friend, the coauthor of this amendment, has arrived. So I am 
going to wind down and finish my remarks for this time in the next few 
minutes while he gets ready to address the Senate.
  I mentioned before, I say to my friend from Vermont, that all 50 
States are at risk of flooding and tornadoes and about 40 are at risk 
for earthquakes. There are 65 active or potentially active volcanoes in 
the United States. Most of the Pacific Northwest, Alaska and Hawaii, 
and the entire west coast is subjected to tsunami risk--which are these 
incredible waves that are caused from an earthquake which is out at 
sea. A study by the University of Southern California on the probable 
cost of future natural disasters estimates that an earthquake at 7.0 in 
the Richter scale in LA, West Los Angeles, would cost $57 billion. You 
see that reflected on this chart.
  I think it is important to note that James Lee Witt, Director of 
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, noted recently another 
earthquake along the New Madrid fault in America's heartland has a 50-
50 chance of occurring in the next 5 years. If such an 8.6 earthquake 
struck at Memphis, the cost would be $69.7 billion. I say to my friend 
from Vermont, it is extraordinary, everyone thinks of earthquakes as 
being a California phenomenon. The next large earthquake predicted to 
hit, the largest one, would be in the middle of our country.
  So the Boxer-Leahy amendment is not about California and it is not 
about any one State. It is about America. I have to tell you that in 
this very sobering information a 7.0 earthquake along this fault, that 
is along the New Madrid, that is even smaller than the 8.6 they expect, 
could kill 14,000 and cause 240,000 homeless. That is unbelievable. 
These are not fantasy figures. Earthquakes estimated at greater than 
8.0 struck the Mississippi Valley in late 1811 and early 1812. In 1990, 
a 4.7 earthquake struck the new Madrid region.
  So I show these charts, and my colleagues will do so as well, not to 
frighten anybody but to say that we need to be prepared for this. It is 
very immature to close your eyes to problems.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to add one thing to what the 
distinguished Senator from California said. She reminded us that this 
is not a California amendment; it is not only for earthquakes in 
California. In fact, one of my colleagues asked me walking through the 
halls this morning, ``Why is this a Boxer-Leahy amendment? You don't 
have earthquakes in Vermont.'' For a practical matter we do have very 
mild ones. But I said this is not a Vermont amendment. This is not a 
California amendment.
  There are a lot of areas, whether it is the flooding in the Midwest 
that we saw last year, that this amendment addresses. I remember, Mr. 
President--and the distinguished Senator from California and I have 
discussed this--the time when I first became chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee. We were in a massive drought, unprecedented 
drought throughout the Midwest. There were Time magazine cover stories. 
Networks were doing special segments on it. I took the Senate 
Agriculture Committee staff else in an airplane and we went around for 
3 days to view what was going on and see the extent of the disaster.
  I recall one place in North Dakota where they were digging a well 
down through the soil to where they first found moisture. They found 
moisture about 2\1/2\ feet down in this particular place, and the crop 
has a root system of only 2 or 3 inches.
  We came back here and with bipartisan support we wrote a disaster 
bill, a very significant disaster bill. But had we not been able to 
move quickly through the House and the Senate, we would have seen not 
only thousands of farms go out of business but the ripple effect of 
thousands of other businesses, everything from the tractor dealers to 
the clothing stores to the shipping companies to those who export to 
other parts of the world. It would have affected our balance of 
payments, especially in a country like ours where we have had now for a 
number of years balance of payment deficits except in agriculture and 
some of the intellectual property areas. That was a disaster.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I am about to yield to him as much 
time as he wishes on this subject. He is such a respected Member of 
this Senate. I am so proud that we are working together. I wanted to 
conclude my portion right here at this time--or course, we have time 
reserved until approximately 3:30--to say that according to the report 
by the National Research Council for the World Conference on Natural 
Disaster Reduction, and I am quoting:

       There are more people and investments at risk, natural 
     disasters today, than ever before. More than half of the U.S. 
     population live in coastal zones or along fault lines.

  Therefore, I say to my friend, my colleague, a coauthor of this 
amendment, that this is not the time for the Federal Government to bind 
itself from responding to disasters. And without the Boxer-Leahy 
amendment to this balanced budget provision I think we are doing just 
that.
  I yield as much time as he may consume to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from California send the 
amendment to the desk?


                           Amendment No. 240

 (Purpose: To provide Federal assistance to supplement State and local 
 efforts to alleviate the damage, loss, hardship, and suffering caused 
 by disasters or emergencies by exempting spending that is designated 
     emergency requirements by both the President and the Congress)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka, 
     and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 240.

       At the end of Section 5, add the following: ``The 
     provisions of this article may be waived by a majority vote 
     in each House of those present and voting for any fiscal year 
     in which outlays occur as a result of a declaration made by 
     the President (and a designation by the Congress) that a 
     major disaster or emergency exists.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a 
sufficient second.
  The Senator from California has yielded time to the Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for up 
to 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask again for the yeas and nays on the 
pending Boxer-Leahy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is my understanding correct that the 
Senator from California has yielded to me such time as I may require?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining under the 
control of the Senator from California?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 114 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
   [[Page S2602]] Mr. President, I might ask one more question of the 
Chair, I was not here when the unanimous consent was entered into. What 
time was the Senate to recess for the party caucuses?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate, under the previous order, will 
recess at 12:30.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Boxer-Leahy amendment 
to House Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional balanced budget 
amendment.
  In fact, I think those of us who are concerned about such issues as 
natural disasters and our country's response to them have to commend 
the distinguished Senator from California for her leadership. She has 
been the spearhead in this area. I also thank Senator Bumpers and 
others who have come with their support.
  Senator Boxer has stated more passionately and eloquently than I ever 
could the reason why this amendment would give Congress the authority 
to waive the balanced budget amendment if we need Federal relief for 
major disasters and emergencies, but only if they have been declared so 
by the President of the United States. And even then, if it had been 
declared so by the President, Congress would still--while it would have 
the flexibility that it needs--require a majority vote of those present 
and voting in each House of Congress for Federal relief.
  I would like to think that we would never have such an emergency. The 
fact of the matter is that we all know from even recent history that 
the Federal Government has been called on to give critical aid to 
supplement State and local efforts to protect the public health and 
safety in response to major disasters and emergencies. Much of this aid 
has been paid for by supplemental appropriations not only because of 
the unexpected nature of the disasters but also because of the size of 
the disasters.
  Flooding in the Midwest a year ago was of a size and severity that 
nobody had predicted. Certainly the terrible scenes of the earthquake 
in Los Angeles are such that even as we watched them, most of us--
certainly here in the East--could hardly believe what we were seeing, 
and I expect the same could be said of the inhabitants of Los Angeles. 
To just show you what happened, the chart I have here displays 
supplemental appropriations from fiscal years 1989 through 1994. In 
those years, Congress had to appropriate supplemental major disaster 
and emergency relief in every year but one. Look what we have.
  In 1989, the administration requested $200 million. We ended up with 
a supplemental of $1,108,000,000. In 1990, $1,150,000,000 went for 
disaster relief. These were, incidentally, votes cast overwhelmingly by 
Republicans and Democrats alike, realizing that the Nation faced, in 
parts of the country, such disasters that we could address them only as 
a Nation, and that no one State or region could address it. The Nation 
had to come together to do it.
  In 1991, we were fortunate. There were no supplemental 
appropriations. But in 1992, the supplemental was $4,136,000,000. 
Again, Mr. President, I ask, is there any part of the country, any one 
State that could, in facing a disaster, come up with $4 billion by 
itself? Not even the 10 most populated States could do that. Certainly 
in areas like my own--a State of under 600,000 people--we could not 
begin to respond like that. In 1993, it was $2 billion. And last year, 
$4,709,000,000 in supplemental. That is a pretty significant 
supplemental, especially when it came up to total outlays of 
$5,001,000,000.
  To give you some idea of where this went, in 1992, over $4 billion in 
supplemental appropriations went to a number of areas: the Los Angeles 
riots; Chicago floods; Hurricane Andrew. In 1993, it was $2 billion. 
That went to help victims of the Midwest floods. In 1994, as we have 
already said, it was $4 billion to help victims of the Northridge 
earthquake in Los Angeles.
  In each one of these years, certainly it was my feeling that --and 
also from the calls and letters that came to my office and the reaction 
from around the country--people realized that as a Nation we had to 
come together. We had to spread the pain and the efforts to take care 
of these disasters.
  I know firsthand the devastation of a major disaster and the benefits 
of swift Federal relief. Let me speak of one not the size of California 
or the Midwest, but I use as example my home town of Montpelier, VT, 
the capital of our State. It is a beautiful capital, I might say, Mr. 
President. But it is a city of only 8,500 people. If it is not the 
smallest in population of any capital, it is certainly among the 
smallest.
  I was born and raised in a home right on State Street, almost 
diagonally across the street from our State capitol, a lovely marble 
building--a little like a miniature version of this Capitol. It is 
nestled in the hills of Vermont, with a beautiful river running along 
it. But that river becomes the rub, because in 1992 we were hit by 
enormous amounts of rain, ice jams, and a flood--the worst flood in my 
lifetime in Vermont. In fact, it was the single greatest catastrophe to 
hit Montpelier since the floods of 1927.
  I mention that because one of our country's largest newspapers 
reported after those floods that Vermont would never be heard from 
again, that this natural calamity was such that it could wipe out the 
State of Vermont. We had been hit with a number of problems during the 
Civil War. We had one of the highest mortality rates of any State, on a 
per capita basis. Many of our soldiers that joined the Union during 
World War I--again, a case where Vermonters had answered the call so 
strongly--never came back. And now this devastating flood. At that 
time, the President of the United States went to Vermont and declared 
help and we had it.
  In this case, in the downtown part of Montpelier, VT, virtually 
everything is on the same level. The town is surrounded by hills. The 
State House and everything are on the same level. All the stores along 
the streets downtown, on which I had walked back and forth to school, 
where I delivered newspapers, were badly damaged and some were 
destroyed. The printing shop that my father and mother had in downtown 
Montpelier, where we had been raised, was in that damaged area.
  Again, there are 8,500 people, and unless you live there, that may 
not seem like an enormous amount or anything in the grand scheme of 
things. It obviously was to those of us from Montpelier, those of us 
who lived there. I use the example of Montpelier not out of some 
parochial interest but because it showed what can go right in this 
country when there is a disaster.
  I talked with the President about the floods. He was not a President 
of my own party. It was President Bush, who I want to say responded 
immediately and showed great concern and talked with me about it. He 
sent Federal officials up to Montpelier. The President declared 
Montpelier and five surrounding counties a major disaster. He took a 
personal interest in it. I want to commend President Bush for that.
  The Federal Government swiftly provided disaster relief at a critical 
time in the local cleanup effort. Major figures within the Bush 
administration that were involved in disaster relief went to 
Montpelier, and when the cleanup effort was finally completed, the 
Federal Government had provided $4 million. That may not be much 
compared to disasters in other parts of this country, but it was $4 
million that the people of Vermont and the State of Vermont could not 
have provided. And to the people of Vermont in Montpelier and other 
areas, that relief came at the darkest moment. Today, Montpelier is 
back as the beautiful capital it once was and will always be, and it 
enjoys a thriving downtown.
  Now the current version of the balanced budget amendment would make 
it much harder for future Congresses to help victims of major disasters 
and emergencies like the Montpelier floods. Instead of a simple 
majority, the balanced budget amendment would require a supermajority 
of both Houses of Congress to help major disaster and emergency victims 
through supplemental appropriations that might throw the budget out of 
balance.
  In fact, a small minority of both bodies could hold critical disaster 
and emergency relief hostage, making it impossible for the majority to 
speak on such things.
  And I might say, Mr. President, if your State is hit by a major 
disaster or emergency, do you want, as a Member of this body, to have 
critical Federal assistance hang on the whims of 41 Senators? I will 
fight for the 51, but I 
 [[Page S2603]] would hate to have to have a supermajority.
  I think relief for major disasters and emergencies has to be 
flexible, especially as it is often the aid that comes immediately that 
is most valuable and most needed, as compared to the aid that might 
come a year or 2 or 3 years later. Disaster and emergency relief by 
constitutional mandate is a prescription for gridlock, not for swift 
action, not for the help people need.
  The Founding Fathers of this country rejected requirements of 
supermajorities, and I think we ought to ask why. I mean, this was the 
time that allowed this country to become the most powerful, most 
respected democracy in history. We have to look at their sound reasons 
for rejecting supermajority requirements before we impose on our 
citizens a three-fifths supermajority vote to provide Federal relief 
for major disasters and emergencies.
  Go back to the Federalist papers, I believe it was No, 22, where 
Alexander Hamilton painted an alarming picture of the consequences of 
the ``poison'' of supermajority requirements. Mr. Hamilton said that 
supermajority requirements served ``to destroy the energy of the 
government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an 
insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto to the regular deliberations 
and decisions of a respectable majority.''
  I could not say it better myself, Mr. President; would not even 
pretend that I could come close.
  But Alexander Hamilton said it very well in speaking of the 
supermajority requirements as a recipe for increased gridlock and not 
more efficient action.
  Let me read again from Hamilton. He said: ``Hence, tedious delays; 
continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the 
public good.''
  In fact, I would go somewhat further, I say to my friend from 
California, even further than what Mr. Hamilton said. I would say that 
the supermajority requirements reflect not only a basic distrust just 
of Congress, but of the electorate itself. I reject that notion. I 
reject the notion that somehow the majority of the people in this 
country cannot be expected to do what is right.
  I fear that if you require a supermajority requirement, in effect, 
saying we do not trust democracy, we do not trust a democracy and the 
rules of democracy that made us the greatest, most respected power on 
Earth, then you are going to lead Congress to play politics with 
critical relief from disasters and emergencies; you will have them 
playing politics with those very things that bind us together as a 
nation.
  It is a question of a person in Vermont helping to respond to a 
disaster in Colorado or Idaho or California, or vice versa. These are 
the things that remind us why we have come together as a Union and why, 
as a democracy, even with the individual identities of our 50 great and 
different States, those 50 great and different States come together to 
help each other when needed.
  Even today, where we have a simple majority requirement for 
supplemental appropriations for disaster and emergency relief, we have 
seen the potential for partisan politics. And even with a simple 
majority, if you have a chance at partisan politics, imagine what it 
would be with a supermajority.
  In fact, last Friday's Wall Street Journal reported that:

       A multibillion-dollar disaster-aid package for California 
     is caught in the budget wars between President Clinton and 
     House Republicans.

  The Journal article reported that the House Republican leadership was 
delaying action on a request from the President for $6.7 billion in 
supplemental appropriations for emergency relief for victims of the 
California floods and Los Angeles earthquake.
  Now, Senator Boxer, our distinguished colleague from California, well 
documented this gamesmanship. Earlier today, she read from the House 
Republican leadership's letter. That, plus the Wall Street Journal 
article, shows exactly what can happen with the politics of a simple 
majority. Can you imagine what it would be like if you are talking 
about a supermajority? If you would have to clear that supermajority 
hurdle to pass disaster emergency relief, what we have seen in that 
letter and what we have seen in the Wall Street Journal article would 
look like child's play.
  I am no fan of the balanced budget amendment. As I have said before, 
I worry why we should even have to start amending the Constitution for 
everything. I worry that some of the strongest supporters of the 
balanced budget amendment are the same people that voted for the 
enormous deficits of the Reagan era, and now say we need a 
constitutional amendment so in the year 2002 somebody will pay off the 
bills we ran up in the eighties, and of those who speak of a deficit 
today without realizing those deficits are basically just paying 
interest on the debt they voted for in the last decade. But I digress.
  Even as bad an idea as the balanced budget amendment is, this 
amendment would improve what is a flawed balanced budget amendment. I 
think we should tear down as a requirement the supermajority barrier. 
Otherwise, you are telling future Congresses they are not going to be 
able to provide the critical disaster and emergency relief that would 
be needed by those in other parts of our country.
  So, Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California. I thank her 
for yielding me this time. I strongly support the Boxer-Leahy 
amendment. I am pleased and proud to have had my name joined on her 
amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I just want to make 
sure we reserved the remainder of the time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time of the 
Senator from California to her or to her control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, at this time, I will only speak briefly to 
the Boxer amendment. But I think it is important that the record of the 
Congress, as it relates to dealing with emergencies in our country and 
disasters in our country so declared by our President, be very clear 
for the record.
  The Senator from California and the Senator from Vermont are 
absolutely correct. There has not been a time in the Congress of the 
United States, when we were faced with a natural disaster that had 
badly damaged a State or region of the country and put our citizens in 
peril, that we did not respond.
  And so, when I was looking at crafting a balanced budget amendment, 
along with a lot of other Senators and Representatives, one of the 
things we needed to recognize was the very thing the Senator from 
California is speaking about; that the amendment itself and the 
requirement, because we wanted to put it in the Constitution, could not 
be so rigid as not to respond to the needs of the public. And so we 
provided the supermajority to be the escape valve, if you will. But 
only under a critical situation could it be applied, not under the 
simple majority, not even the constitutional majority that I am 
surprised the Senator did not require in her amendment.
  Be that as it may, here is what the record of the U.S. Congress has 
been like for the last decade in responding to natural disasters. In 
1989, for Hugo, pictures 1 and 2 so demonstrated on that display by the 
Senator from California, the Senate voted 97 to 1, almost 37 votes 
beyond the supermajority required by our amendment, to fund Hugo.
  There was no question in the mind of any Senator that this was not 
something that we ought to respond to.
  The House voted 321 to 99, clearly beyond the supermajority target 
that we have spoken about and that is embodied within the Constitution.
  It causes us all to think. It causes us all to be tremendously 
dedicated to looking at the details of the proposal as presented by the 
Budget Committee or by the President for us to consider an emergency, 
and that we should do. It ought not be the snap of a finger and a 
simple majority here, not even a constitutional majority, to do so. But 
clearly, we fell under the purviews of the amendment as it is proposed, 
not the Boxer amendment, but Senate Joint Resolution 1, the true 
constitutional amendment.
  Again, in 1990, the Hugo supplemental, the Senate voice voted it. It 
was so easy to get through the Senate, 
 [[Page S2604]] so understanding that there was a crisis down there 
that had to be adhered to that we voice voted it. The House, 362 to 59, 
an even larger vote than the initial supplemental appropriation for the 
Hugo disaster.
  In 1992, Andrew, Senate, 84 to 10; House, 297 to 124, once again, 
well beyond the supermajority that is required under the Constitution.
  The Midwest floods, in 1993, the House voted 400 to 27; the Senate 
voice voted it. We recognized the magnitude of that disaster, and we 
responded to it.
  In essence, what I am saying is, in every case I cited, what the 
Senator from California is proposing simply was not necessary and, at 
the same time, under the amendment as I and others have drafted it, we 
allowed this kind of flexibility and the standard was met, though it 
could have been waived. But what our amendment would do would cause the 
Senate and the House to seriously consider and work with the States to 
make sure that the money was being well spent, that the States could 
not handle their particular disaster and that, in the end, if it was 
absolutely necessary, the general public of this country, the general 
taxpayer, would respond through the General Treasury of our Federal 
budget.
  The 1994 L.A. earthquake, the very kind that the Senator from 
California is talking about that has brought her to the floor with her 
concern--and I do not question that concern in any sense--what was the 
vote in the Senate? 85 to 10, well beyond the 60 that would be required 
under the constitutional amendment. The House voted 337 to 74.
  From 1978 down through 1994, time and time again, and as I look at 
the voting record I find in only one situation in the Senate where, 
under the supplementals as they were proposed, the supermajority would 
not have been acquired. And in most instances, where the House had a 
recorded vote, the Senate voice voted it. What does that voice vote 
express? That without question, this was something that the Senate 
jointly, in a majority, in fact with a unanimous vote, agreed to.
  Having said that and looking at the details of the amendment as 
proposed by the Senator from California, what we find here is a waiving 
by a simple majority for an entire year of any moneys that might be 
necessary. I believe that is an opening up of this amendment that 
cannot be accepted.
  I also believe that the premise, not the emotion, not the concern and 
not the dedication by which the Senator from California has offered 
this amendment, but under the premise of what she has offered the 
amendment, that the supermajority could not be acquired, simply does 
not exist on the record. The record clearly shows that this Senate time 
and time again, by a supermajority vote in the seventies and eighties 
and nineties and unanimously, has voted out the supplemental moneys to 
fund the emergencies that she talks about because she, like I, 
understands that what can happen to California might some day happen to 
the State of Idaho or it might happen to the State of Vermont, as the 
Senator from Vermont spoke.
  Where we may differ is on different funding programs. On these 
national disasters where the lives and the properties of our citizens 
are truly in peril, we have always stood united. It is on the extra 
where it is really questionable whether the money can be wisely spent 
do you find the House or the Senate backing away.
  In fact, in the instances of California, it has been the Governor of 
California over the last several years that has been saying to the 
Federal Government, ``Get out of my way, back away from your 
regulations and your obstacles and your controls, we can do it for less 
money. Your Feds and your regulators have created environments that are 
much more costly in responding to the needs of the citizenry.''
  As it happened in the California earthquake, it has happened in the 
California floods recently where the Governor has had to say to the 
Federal Government, ``Back away, let us do it quickly and let us do it 
right and we can save hundreds of millions of dollars.''
  While that is not directed at this amendment or the amendment that 
the Senator is amending, my point is, with restraint and with the 
current understanding of the Congress of the United States, these 
problems can be handled through the current amendment as it was 
crafted. Both the House Judiciary and Senate Judiciary Committees 
understood these problems, and it is my premise, my firm belief that it 
is dealt with in the amendment and the amendment by the Senator from 
California simply is not necessary to deal with her concerns or the 
concerns that I have as it deals with national disaster.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  The Senator from Idaho is a wonderful debater and he fights hard for 
his State and he makes his points well. I have to say to the Senator, 
he is incorrect in some of the things he has just stated, and I would 
like to particularly point out that when the Senator from Idaho says 
that the Governor of California says to the Federal Government, ``Back 
away,'' when it comes to disasters, you have the wrong Governor.
  Pete Wilson is here after every disaster or calling, as well he 
should, Members of the Senate, Members of the Congress on a bipartisan 
basis saying, ``Help us in this disaster.''
  So where the Senator from Idaho gets the idea that former Senator 
Wilson, currently Governor Wilson, does not want the Federal 
Government's help in a disaster, I do not know because I have never 
seen that happen. As a matter of fact, I would say to my friend----
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me finish and then I will be happy to yield to you. I 
say to my friend, not only does he want help 90 percent of the way, he 
asked us to waive the law so we can pay for California 100 percent of 
the way. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I was not referencing the money, and that is exactly what 
the Senator from California was talking about. What I was referencing 
are the rules and regulations, the web of regulations that causes the 
rebuilding of freeways at twice the expense it ought to cost or the 
replacing of a bridge in Monterey, CA, that costs twice as much because 
you have to do environmental impact statements and all of those kinds 
of things.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me just take--do you want to take it on your own 
time? Would the Senator like to take it on his own time?
  Mr. CRAIG. My point is, the Governor from California asked those 
rules be waived.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry. Who has the time at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor. The 
Senator may yield if she wishes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am not going to yield on my time. If the Senator would 
like to yield on his time.
  Mr. CRAIG. If I can complete my statement on my time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
  Mr. CRAIG. You and I do not have any disagreement. I was referencing 
Federal rules and regulations that the Governor of California did ask 
that the Feds back away from so they can complete the freeway 
rebuilding way ahead of schedule. That is exactly what happened. I was 
not referencing money. You are absolutely right, the Governor of 
California was here and by a supermajority of the U.S. Senate, 
completely within the compliance of the amendment we have proposed, the 
Governor of California got the money he asked for.
  Thank you. I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, perhaps my friend does not 
remember this, the Governor from California almost did not get the 
money because to rebuild this Cypress structure, let me tell you what 
the vote was. The vote was 43 to 52. We only got 52 votes to rebuild 
this structure.
  I want to make the point, when I started my rebuttal to my friend, 
that the facts are not what they are alleged to be by my friend from 
Idaho. He makes a great debating point. He says we always vote a 
supermajority. Wrong, we do not.
   [[Page S2605]] The vote to rebuild this structure, a direct result 
of the Loma Prieta earthquake, was not a supermajority. And I say to my 
friends who are going to vote against this amendment, beware, because 
you may not get the 60 votes.
  Now, the Senator from Idaho makes the point that he corrects the 
record. He said, oh, yes, Governor Wilson did not back away from the 
money; he wanted you to back off on regulations. Let me again say for 
the record the cooperation between the Clinton administration's Federal 
Emergency Management Agency and the State disaster team headed by Dick 
Andrews is superlative. They worked together, as they should, and they 
were able to be flexible enough to rebuild freeways in record time. But 
to say that the Governor of the State of California was up here telling 
us to back away does not make any sense whatsoever in this regard 
because what this is about is getting the funding. Of course, that is 
what this is about. This Boxer-Leahy amendment is about getting the 
funding.
  I see that my friend from Maine is in the Chamber. I have had the 
privilege of working with her for many years over in the House. And, 
believe it or not, we do work together on some things, and I hope 
sometime in the Senate soon we will be able to do that again.
  I call to her attention the facts about Maine, that between the years 
of 1989 and 1994, Maine received disaster funds nine times for 
flooding, ice jam, severe storms, Hurricane Bob, coastal storms, heavy 
rains, ice jams--these are all the different incidents--snow, severe 
blizzard conditions, the Yellow Mine fire.
  I am sure she knows of all of these things very, very well. It is 
important to point out to her and all my colleagues here because I 
think when we talk about disasters and we look at this chart again, we 
see they have been all over the country. I would say to my friend from 
Maine, I hope she is never in a position that I was in where I almost 
was unable to get the funding from this Senate to complete this 
horrible problem where the Cypress structure fell down. Also, it is an 
economic issue if people cannot get to work.
  Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be glad to yield on her time.
  Ms. SNOWE. I would like to make a point.
  How much time does the majority have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 20 minutes 15 seconds. The 
Senator from California controls 87 minutes 39 seconds.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I will do it on my time.
  I just want to respond to the Senator from California because the 
Senator is correct in suggesting that the State of Maine has benefited 
from emergency supplemental assistance in times of disaster, as have 
many States throughout the country, including her State of California.
  I think the point is that Congress has risen to that occasion, has 
demonstrated its compassion when it has been necessary to respond to 
emergencies and disasters as they have occurred in this country over 
the past years. And unfortunately and regrettably, California has had 
more than its share. I think the point is that we do not want to 
obviate the need for a balanced budget amendment, because I think what 
the Senator's amendment is doing is essentially, by requiring just a 
majority vote in each house, definitely eliminating the requirements of 
the three-fifths majority to raise the debt ceiling. So a simple 
majority could remove the requirements for a balanced budget amendment 
in making the decisions on supplemental appropriations. So really it is 
circumventing the entire intent of the constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget.
  As the Senator from Idaho indicated with his examples, time and time 
again the House and the Senate, far beyond a three-fifths requirement, 
have in fact approved many of the emergency supplementals to respond to 
the disasters that have occurred in California, Maine, and elsewhere. 
So we have demonstrated that on many occasions.
  I think the concern that I and many of us have about the amendment of 
the Senator is that basically it is going to undermine the 
effectiveness of the balanced budget amendment because it only requires 
a simple majority in the dead of night to remove the three-fifths 
requirement of the balanced budget amendment. That would really preempt 
the effectiveness of a balanced budget amendment, not to mention the 
amount of money that we might indebt ourselves because it would only be 
a simple majority.
  So I would like to respond to the Senator from California in that 
regard. We certainly understand what she is trying to do. But I think 
the point is here that the balanced budget amendment will take care of 
that with a three-fifths majority. In many cases that is exactly what 
has happened in the House and Senate without a balanced budget 
amendment. We have done that and will do that in the future. And a 
balanced budget amendment will not preclude our compassion in instances 
of disasters and when we recognize a justifiable need.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will make a couple of remarks and I 
will yield to my friend, or let him take as much time as he wishes.
  I wish to say to my friend from Maine I never ever have questioned 
her compassion. I do not worry about her vote in an emergency. But we 
are putting an amendment into the Constitution here, and when the 
Senator from Maine talks about an exception for a disaster ``just a 
majority vote in the dead of night,'' I am stunned with that phrase. 
Just a majority vote. I would assure the Senator if she won by just a 
majority vote, which she did, and fairly so, and a nice majority--I do 
not think it was 60 percent. I might be wrong. Was it 60 percent? She 
did.
  Well, this Senator won by a margin of 6 percentage points, a little 
bit under, but I do not think that the Senator from Maine would 
question the fact that a majority vote is a hallmark of democracy. So 
to talk about ``just a majority vote in the dead of night'' is 
astounding to me.
  As a matter of fact, I say to my colleague from Vermont, it makes me 
feel so much stronger about this amendment than I did before because if 
that is the attitude of the other side of the aisle, ``a majority vote 
in the dead of night,'' that is a statement against majority rule and 
against democracy and for tyranny of the minority, and it gives me 
great trouble in my heart and soul to hear that kind of language on the 
Senate floor--``just a majority vote in the dead of night.''
  I say to my friend, we did not get a supermajority to rebuild the 
Cypress structure.
  Show me the next chart here. Let me show you what else did not get 
``a majority vote in the dead of night'' or middle of the day--this, 
the Midwest flood, an amendment by Senator Durenberger to offset the 
money, not to leave these people without help--a majority vote, just a 
majority vote. Fortunately, it did not prevail. If we have a balanced 
budget amendment, it is not a majority vote. It is a supermajority 
vote. I have shown you two occasions where that did not happen. And had 
the balanced budget amendment been in place, we could not have rebuilt 
the Cypress structure and we could not have helped the people in the 
Midwest floods because there was a requirement for an offset.
  I am going to yield to my friend from Vermont and then my friend from 
Washington before we have the break for the various conferences, but I 
want to again let my colleague know, maybe she is unaware, that the 
House Speaker signed on to a letter--I wonder whether the Senator's 
State is even affected by this--talking about the emergency 
supplemental that is coming up which deals with natural disasters.

       Whether these activities are emergencies or not, it will be 
     our policy to pay for them rather than add to the deficit.

  Which means in plain, simple language they are going to have to cut 
other programs, and I assure you, we may have a lot of trouble getting 
funding for those States. As I understand it, 40 States are involved in 
that.
  So I yield to my friend from Vermont as much time as he needs; saving 
some time for my colleague from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
   [[Page S2606]] Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will be very brief. I 
have suggested over and over again on this floor as one who reveres the 
Constitution, I worry very much when we add anything to the 
Constitution at all, but I especially worry when we add 
supermajorities.
  This is not a case, when we have matters involving great disasters, 
where somehow we slip in here in the dead of night and pass them. One 
of the things I cherish about the House and Senate is that they are 
open to the public and the press at every hour when we are in session. 
People can see, especially with television, exactly what we vote on and 
how we vote on it. That is, of course, as it should be.
  But my concern on supermajorities again is what Alexander Hamilton 
said when he spoke: ``Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiations and 
intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.''
  Madam President, I have managed more bills on the floor of the 
Senate, I believe, than anybody who is presently on the floor. I have 
managed a number of major bills, including disaster bills. I know by 
the time we come to the floor, there have been all kinds of 
negotiations or other steps before the bill even gets here on the 
floor. Sometimes it has been joked that more legislation gets passed in 
the Cloakrooms or the elevators than on the floor.
  But the fact of the matter is on a major bill you have Senators of 
both parties and members of the administration going back and forth 
negotiating what might be done. Those negotiations would be seen in an 
entirely different light if anybody involved in them knows whatever you 
have to do requires a supermajority.
  I have won close elections and I have won landslide elections. I have 
been fortunate that every single time I have run for office in my 
native State I have gotten more votes than I did the time before. I 
appreciate that kind of trust that the people of Vermont have shown.
  I also remember the statement of my father, God rest his soul, that 
it is better to win by one vote than lose by a landslide. But what he 
was doing was referencing that under our system of democracy one vote 
makes you a majority.
  In a country that has seen the benefits of adhering to democratic 
principles of majority votes, we should be always very, very hesitant 
when we do anything to change the requirement of just a majority vote 
and especially hesitant to write it into that sacred covenant, our 
Constitution.
  So I hope we will think back to what Alexander Hamilton said. As we 
stand here almost in indecent haste, wanting to amend our Constitution, 
think of a little bit of history. Think of a little bit of history.
  We have only amended the Constitution 17 times since the Bill of 
Rights. Already in this session alone there have been about 75 
proposals to amend it. Somehow this country, this great, wonderful, 
powerful democracy, the model democracy for the world, has been able to 
survive for 200 years with only 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights. 
Somehow since the elections of November the country has gone to such 
hell in a hand basket because we now need 75 new proposals to amend the 
Constitution.
  Madam President, I do not believe that is happening. My State was not 
one of the Thirteen Original--it was the 14th State. But I know people 
in my own State feel we should go slowly in making changes.
  I yield to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield so much time as she may consume 
to the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from California for sponsoring this 
amendment, and I am honored to be here today as a strong cosponsor of 
this amendment, to add my voice of support to those of my distinguished 
colleagues, Senator Boxer and Senator Leahy.
  One's decision on this amendment can be made very easily. If any of 
my colleagues can foresee their state's future forever free of 
disasters and emergencies, then their opposition to this amendment will 
be understood. Lacking the powers of Nostradamus, though, all of us 
must realize the unfortunate certainty of natural disasters and 
unpredictable emergencies.
  A balanced budget, we all agree is a goal we must work towards 
rapidly. I am concerned however, that House Joint Resolution 1 would 
block the ability of the Federal Government to respond immediately in 
the event of a national disaster. The current proposal's only exception 
from the requirement of a three-fifths vote to approve spending above a 
balanced budget is upon a declaration of war.
  This flexibility is needed, however not only to defend our national 
security, it is just as needed to defend our security against natural 
disasters and unforeseen emergencies that would require an immediate 
response by Congress and the President.
  I have come to know the tragedy of natural disasters through the 
heavy and devastating tolls they have placed upon the residents of 
Washington State. From the unusual volcanic eruption of Mount St. 
Helens to seasonal fires and floods, Washingtonians have responded to 
these increasing emergencies through the support of our Federal 
Government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is the only body 
prepared to handle disasters of this magnitude. Their ability to 
quickly respond is the key to emergency management.
  FEMA's mission is to provide national leadership and support to 
reduce the loss of life and property. This endeavor serves not only 
those impacted by the disaster but begins the economic steps of 
rebuilding the community.
  I am sure many of my colleagues have toured disaster sites 
immediately following an emergency. These are the memories we should 
recall when deciding whether a balanced budget overrides the concerns 
of our constituents in need. I had the unfortunate opportunity to visit 
the fire-ravaged lands of my State last summer. Hearing the stories of 
those left homeless, of firefighters burned while saving others, puts a 
very real face on the numbers we hear in the news. A few moments ago my 
colleague from California, Senator Boxer, put up a chart by Air, Risk 
Engineering, Inc., that predicted that a Seattle earthquake may occur 
in the very near future of 7.5 magnitude, costing as much as $33-plus 
billion.
  I cannot imagine going back to my State in those times of pain and 
suffering and explaining to my neighbors that a balanced budget 
amendment prevents them from receiving assistance. Just as we mandate 
that hospitals can not turn away those in need of medical attention, 
the Government of the people cannot turn its back on those ravaged by 
unforeseen natural disasters.
  Sadly, none of us are immune from nature's wrath. Fires in my State 
are no different from hurricanes on the gulf, flooding in the Midwest, 
ice storms in the East, or earthquakes in California. In 1994 alone, 
FEMA responded to 36 major disasters totaling over $3.6 billion. 
Remember that 90 percent of all disasters are funded through 
supplemental appropriations. No budget can prepare for the destruction, 
the death, or the injury caused by these unforgiving tragedies.
  All of our hearts are extended to the citizens of Kobe, Japan who 
have experienced one of the greatest disasters of recent history. If 
any lesson can be unearthed from that devastation, it is a sign of our 
feeble attempt to control nature. Technology and preparedness can not 
combat the unrelenting will of the Earth.
  At best, in an emergency we can respond and cope. Our ability to aid 
disaster victims and rebuild fallen communities must not be held 
hostage by political amendments. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Boxer-Leahy amendment and remember their constituents who may well be 
the victims of their State's next natural disaster.
  I thank my colleague from California and I yield her back the time.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I want to respond to a couple of points 
of the Senator from California. I will be very brief.
  The point is she makes reference to one project with respect to the 
fact they did not receive a supermajority 
 [[Page S2607]] vote. Yet, time and again, as I mentioned earlier in my 
remarks, the House and the Senate voted on emergency disaster funds 
with overwhelming votes. The fact is that out of 14 occasions since 
1978, all but 2 were passed by voice vote here in the U.S. Senate. They 
were passed by overwhelming votes in the House every time there was a 
recorded vote taken. And I have before me a resolution that passed on 
October 26, 1989, a joint resolution, by a vote of 97 to 1 here in the 
Senate. It provides specifically for funding for reconstruction of 
highways which were damaged as a result of Hurricane Hugo in September 
1989 and the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. In fact, that 
section refers to the fact that the $100 million limitation contained 
in that section shall not apply to the expenditures with reference to 
the reconstruction of those highways in either one of those disasters.
  The point is that time and time again the House and the Senate have 
demonstrated their compassion and their acknowledgment of the serious 
damage that has been done by the events beyond one's control. I think 
it is important to reference that.
  I know the Senator was making reference to my comments about a simple 
majority the other night. I should remind the Senator that often I was 
reminded in my campaign about the midnight pay raise that occurred here 
in the U.S. Senate a few years ago. But it did occur in the dead of 
night. And it may have been off the budget. But no one was informed of 
the fact that vote was going to be taken. The point in all of this is 
that we have been on record in recognizing disasters and that we were 
willing to take the action necessary.
  The Senator's amendment would really bypass and I think really render 
the balanced budget amendment ineffective by only requiring a simple 
majority--a simple majority--to waive the requirement of the balanced 
budget amendment. That is the issue here. We well know that this could 
easily circumvent the intent and the purpose of the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I know that sometimes in debate both 
sides might use overstatement. But I have to respond to this one. To 
say that this exception for disaster--by the way, there is already an 
exception in the balanced budget amendment. Let us not get away with 
not recognizing that--declaration of war. I assume that my friend fully 
supports that exception. I am sure she does because she supports the 
amendment as it is. There is an exception because, yes, in the dead of 
night we might declare war, and we do not want to see that a minority 
could stop us from funding that national emergency.
  So let us not make it seem that the Boxer-Leahy amendment is opening 
up an exception in and of itself because it is not. What we are saying 
is in time of war, says the amendment, there is an exception to the 
three-fifths vote, the 60 votes. We agree. What the Boxer-Leahy et al., 
Senator Feinstein, Senator Johnston, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, and 
others are saying, sometimes our people are in deep trouble. Let us 
take a look at this.
  This is deep trouble. There is deep water. They are trying to survive 
a hurricane. Guess what? That is a disaster too. People are killed, I 
say to my friend from Maine, in disasters as sure as people are killed 
in national emergencies that see us bringing home coffins from far away 
places. What we are saying is it is time to make sure that we do not 
take the Constitution that has worked so well and go back to the days 
of the Federalist papers, when the Articles of Confederation did not 
work so well--they were called radical--when we said we have to get a 
supermajority vote to act. We are saying no. We are not opening up an 
exceptions clause here. There already is an exceptions clause. This 
looks like a war, I say to my friend. This looks like war. So does 
this. So does this. So does this. It is a war on our people which comes 
from a natural disaster. We are saying let us not require a 
supermajority.
  What I find amazing is that the argument is made over and over that 
it is easy to get these supermajorities. The fact is my colleagues are 
ignoring specific votes that just took place in which we failed to get 
a supermajority to help the people in the flood and we failed to get a 
supermajority to rebuild this freeway. So I am not making up some doom 
and gloom scenario. And my friends are ignoring a letter from the 
Republican leadership in the House saying--my friends, it is in black 
and white; it is in the Record; read it--they are not going to act on 
that emergency supplemental until they can figure out what they are 
going to cut in Maine, in Texas, in California, wherever they decide 
they are going to cut.
  So my friend from Maine is engaging in a wishful thought when she 
says we will always respond, that it is easy to get 60 votes. I show 
her the Record. I show her in the Record. As a matter of fact, one of 
those was led by Senator Dole. I think it is going to be very 
interesting when he comes to northern California. I am going to take 
him to see the Cypress Freeway. He led the fight not to fund it. I had 
to fight against Senator Dole. That was hard. We won, though. We were 
able to make our case, despite his eloquence, that in fact this was a 
disaster and it needed to be funded. But I could not get 60 votes on 
that vote. What did I get? Fifty-two. So it was a bare two-vote 
majority. We could fix this freeway.
  I see my friend from Hawaii has come on to the floor, a major sponsor 
of this amendment. I have a picture here to share with him from 
Hurricane Iniki in Hawaii. If this does not look like a war zone, what 
does?
  I thank my friend from sponsoring the amendment. I would like to 
yield to him at this time.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment by the Senator from 
California is deserving of most serious consideration because nature's 
work and God's work are unpredictable, for one thing. In the case of 
Hurricane Iniki, if that hurricane had proceeded just one-quarter of a 
degree to the west, it would have devastated the city of Honolulu. And 
the cost of that would have been astronomical. It would not have been 
$1 billion, $2 billion, or even $3 billion. It would have exceeded $50 
billion. To suggest that this is not an unusual cost item would seem 
rather strange.
  Thank you very much.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to again thank the Senator from 
Hawaii. He is a leader in this U.S. Senate making sure that our country 
is prepared for defending itself. He is the ranking member on the 
Defense Appropriations Committee. And to have his support, his active 
support, is very meaningful to me as well as Senator Akaka. Let me tell 
you why. They have seen the faces of the children and the old people 
and the young people and the families who get into these situations.
  Madam President, it is my understanding that we are going to stop 
this debate momentarily and then come back after the conferences for 
lunch.
  I ask at this time that I retain the balance of my time.
  How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 56 minutes and 
21 seconds, the majority side has 15 minutes and 13 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President. I look forward to 
resuming this debate when we return from the caucus lunches.

                          ____________________