[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2607-S2617]
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.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
   [[Page S2608]] Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is certainly my honor, 
under the previous order, to continue debating an amendment that I have 
offered on behalf of myself, Senator Leahy, and several other Senators, 
which essentially would say that should the balanced budget amendment 
become part of the Constitution, in addition to a waiver for a 
declaration of war, where you would no longer have to have 60 votes to 
go out of balance but a majority vote, that you would add to that 
exception a federally declared, Presidentially declared, 
congressionally declared, natural disaster--an emergency.
  I think it is very important because if you really look around the 
country, you can see that we really live in a country where we are at 
risk. If you look here on the chart, here are the earthquake risks. We 
can see them not just in the West, by the way, but here and all the way 
across. The tornado risks are centered here, some of these quite 
extreme in the smaller circle. The hurricane risks are here; some are 
noted over here and, of course, closer to the coast is a tremendous 
risk of hurricanes. On the entire west coast here, as well as the 
islands, the risk of tsunami, which is a terrible, overpowering wave 
that occurs because of an earthquake in the ocean floor.
  So as we look at our Nation--the most beautiful Nation on Earth, the 
most prosperous Nation on Earth, the most wonderful Nation on Earth--we 
do have times when we have disasters, and if ever there was a time to 
pull together as one, it certainly would be during those times.
  In the course of the debate this morning, there were those who said: 
Senator Boxer, you are totally right, we do have these problems, but 
there has not really been any time when the Nation has not responded 
and the Senate has not responded overwhelmingly, as well as the House. 
The truth is that there have been occasions where we have not received 
60 votes to move ahead when there was earthquake rebuilding or, 
frankly, recovery from flood. I have documented that on at least two 
occasions in the Senate where we did not get 60 votes. We got 52 on one 
occasion and 54 on another occasion. Today I read into the Record 
excerpts of something from House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the 
leadership of the House which says very clearly that they are not 
interested in funding these emergencies off budget. In fact, they will 
not even consider funding them until they are offset.
  What does this mean? It means that if there is a horrible disaster 
anywhere in our Nation--and it could occur anywhere--and if the view of 
the new Republican Speaker of the House prevails --and he seems to have 
the votes over there on everything he has done--there would have to be 
offsets, and you could not, in fact, take care of an emergency the way 
we have done it in the past.
  I want to make it clear that in the past, under every single Budget 
Act we have had, we have always exempted emergencies. I think this is a 
very important point to make at this time in the debate.
  The Republican-controlled Office of Management and Budget in 1990 
said, in the budget summit agreement of 1990, that ``for a 
Presidentially declared emergency request for supplementals or regular 
appropriations bills, the across-the-board offset would not apply to 
the extent the fund requested by the President * * *.''
  In other words, that is bureaucratic language to say that when a 
supplemental appropriation does come down to the Senate floor because 
we have run out of money for an emergency, it will not have to be 
offset, as everything else would have to be. In other words, if, in the 
middle of the budget year, a Senator comes down to the floor with a 
great new idea on how to teach our children and has a great grant 
program that he or she wants to put forward, that would have to be 
offset with spending cuts.
  But, under the bipartisan agreement of that 1990 Budget Act and, as I 
stated before, agreed to by the Office of Management and Budget, which 
was a Republican Office of Management and Budget, emergencies would not 
have to have offsets.
  Additionally, under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which amended the Budget 
Act, the same thing was true. There was an exception from ordinary 
budget rules and ordinary budget caps for disaster emergencies.
  So, basically, the Boxer-Leahy amendment, which would give this 
constitutional amendment more flexibility, is actually in line with all 
the other budget laws.
  One of my colleagues said today, in opposition, ``Well, Senator, your 
amendment would do violence to the balanced budget amendment.'' And I 
am quoting her, I think, directly. She said ``In the dead of night, you 
could come in here and, with a mere majority, take this budget out of 
balance.''
  The fact of the matter is, in a bipartisan way, ever since the 
1980's, we have been working with the assumption that when an emergency 
strikes, we would meet that emergency and not wait until we identified 
other parts of the budget to cut. Under the balanced budget amendment 
as it is before us, without the Boxer-Leahy amendment added, we would 
need 60 votes, my friends, to act in an emergency.
  I want to go over these charts one more time. One of my colleagues 
will be arriving shortly, at which time I am going to yield him the 
floor.
  This is a chart that shows the probable costs of future natural 
disasters, because many times we look back and we learn from history. 
And that is very important. What we learn from history now is we do not 
always get 60 votes to respond to a disaster. That is why I find this 
Boxer-Leahy amendment so important, because we would have been in big 
trouble if that 60-vote requirement had been before us.
  But let me show you what is predicted here by the experts. Starting 
on the east coast, we are looking at class 4 hurricanes here in the 
Northeast. This looks like one is out of New Jersey and one is out of 
New York. These would impact on all these States here, up and down the 
Northeast, $45 billion here--that is the loss that would be incurred--
$52 billion, a class 4 hurricane here in New Jersey; in Virginia, a 
class 5 hurricane, costs $33 billion. Remember, just because it starts 
here does not mean it does not impact the whole coast. It impacts the 
whole coast and I would say inland areas, as well.
  In Miami, looking at another huge class 5 hurricane, $53 billion in 
losses; in New Orleans, a class 5 hurricane, $25 billion; in Texas, a 
class 5 hurricane at $42 billion.
  Centered in Memphis--it is interesting because people think about 
earthquakes being a California phenomena--one of the largest predicted 
earthquakes in the future, 8.6 on the Richter scale, $69.7 billion, is 
centered in Memphis, again affecting all these midsection States.
  And in Seattle, a 7.5 earthquake--something else that is not really 
thought about, the Northwest, an earthquake here; a predicted 
earthquake in San Francisco, in Los Angeles; in Honolulu, a class 4 
hurricane.
  So we see, these are just the biggest, most expensive disasters.
  I want to point out to my friends that in fact, every single State in 
the Union, according to a report that I read into the Record, is 
subjected to floods--floods that could be very, very damaging.
  So I say that the Boxer-Leahy amendment, which has many cosponsors at 
this point and gaining all the time, speaks to an issue that is of 
great import to the entire Nation. Again, there is a change in 
atmosphere now. That is why this amendment is so important.
  We have the Speaker of the House, the new Republican Speaker, proudly 
sends a letter, saying to the President, ``Do not bother sending up an 
emergency supplemental''--by the way covering 40 States, 40 States that 
need this money in the emergency supplemental--``unless you cut 
spending elsewhere.''
  Now, all of us want to be fiscally responsible. I cast one of the 
toughest votes of my life when I voted for the deficit reduction bill. 
The fact of the matter is it passed by one vote and, as a result, we 
have cut the deficit in half from where it was supposed to be. That was 
a tough vote.
  The balanced budget amendment vote, that is an easy vote. That is an 
easy vote. You are not voting to cut anything. You are just going to go 
home and tell your constituencies that you are a fiscal conservative.
   [[Page S2609]] Well, I think the question Americans have to ask, and 
I think they need to ask, their Senator and their Congressperson is 
this: ``Do you vote for an amendment to the Constitution that is going 
to take effect in 2002 if the States ratify it?'' Or, ``Do you have the 
guts and the courage to vote to cut spending now?'' And, ``Are you 
going to vote for an amendment that ties the hands of the Federal 
Government to respond to ensure domestic tranquility?'' Which is so 
important it is in the preamble to the Constitution.
  And do you have domestic tranquility when you have situations like 
this?
  Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina. You can see the faces of these 
victims. The Cypress Freeway in Oakland, which, by the way, we could 
not get 60 votes to fix. So unless Boxer-Leahy passes, the Cypress 
Freeway could have remained this way.
  Look at this, Hurricane Andrew in Florida. It looks like any war zone 
you could imagine.
  And the beautiful blue sky of Hawaii, look at what was once a 
beautiful home after Hurricane Iniki.
  These are times when you want to help people, whether you are from 
Indiana or California or anywhere else.
  I will show you some more photos. The flooding in the Midwest. They 
cannot even take their eyes off it, because they cannot believe here 
right in front of their house they are knee deep in water. The 
Northridge earthquake, where a police officer, rushing to help people, 
did not realize the freeway was down and lost his life, one of the 
first lives lost there.
  Mount St. Helens in Washington; and the Houston, TX, floods. It 
almost looks like--it actually looks like a bomb dropped on this House. 
We need to be able to respond to that.
  So, Mr. President I see that my friend, my adviser, my colleague from 
West Virginia is here. I know he wishes to speak on this amendment. I 
would ask him if he is prepared at this time to begin.
  Mr. BYRD. I am.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am prepared to yield to him as much time as he might 
consume, just assuring that we do save 5 minutes. If he does intend to 
take that much time, that is fine with me. I just want to make sure 5 
minutes are reserved to close.
  At this time, I am very honored to yield to my colleague, Senator 
Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California yields all her 
remaining time, with the exception of 5 minutes, to the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my friend from 
California, Senator Boxer, for yielding to me at this time.
  Mr. President, mankind has always been plagued with floods, famines, 
droughts, plagues, and other pestilences of one kind or another, which 
we refer to ordinarily as acts of God or natural disasters.
  The first flood for which there is any record was that which is 
chronicled in the Book of Genesis, when God caused it to rain 40 days 
and 40 nights upon the Earth.
  The hills and mountains were covered, and all flesh died that moved 
upon the Earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast and of every 
creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth and every man. All in whose 
nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 
Only Noah remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark; 
namely, his wife and his three sons--Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and his 
sons' wives.
  The first fire that I found recorded was the fire that was rained 
upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. God destroyed those cities with 
fire out of Heaven, and he destroyed all the plain and all the 
inhabitants of the cities and that which grew upon the ground. Only 
Lot, his wife, and two daughters were spared destruction in the fire, 
and Lot's wife later was turned into a pillar of salt because she 
disobeyed God's warning.
  The first famine of which I can find any record occurred in Egypt, 
and it was 7 years of duration. Joseph opened all the storehouses. The 
famine was sore in all lands.
  Most of us are familiar with the plagues of Egypt during the sojourn 
of the Israelites in that country. The Israelites came into Egypt 
somewhere between 1,700 and 2,100 years before Christ, and their 
sojourn lasted 430 years. We have long been familiar with the plagues 
in Egypt which were chronicled by Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, 
the first five books of the Bible--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 
and Deuteronomy. The waters were turned to blood, and all fish in the 
river died. There were subsequent plagues of frogs, lice, flies, a 
plague on all cattle, the plague of boils on human beings, and the 
plagues of hail, locusts, and darkness, followed by the deaths of the 
first born.
  The first tidal wave of which I can find any record was the tidal 
wave in the midst of the Red Sea which covered the chariots and the 
horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea in their 
attempt to overcome and subdue the Israelites who were being led by 
Moses, and there remained not so much as one of them.
  As to earthquakes, I turned again to that history of all histories, 
the Bible. There was the earthquake which occurred when Elijah fled 
from Jezebel, and while Elijah stood upon a mountain, the Lord passed 
by and a great and strong wind rent the mountains and broke in pieces 
the rocks, and then the earthquake occurred. In the Book of Amos and 
also in the Book of Zechariah, we read of the earthquake which occurred 
in the 27th year of Uzziah, King of Judah. Josephus says that this 
earthquake was so violent as to divide a mountain in half, which lay to 
the west of Jerusalem.
  Subsequent such disasters have occurred in our own times. There was 
the great Galveston, Texas, tidal wave in 1900. Charleston, South 
Carolina, suffered an earthquake in 1886, when most of the city was 
destroyed, and we have heard of the great San Francisco earthquake of 
1906, about which songs have been written.
  History tells us of the Black Death of the Middle Ages, a very, very 
virulent form of plague that ravaged Asia and Europe in the 14th 
century. It raged in England during the years 1348-1349, and again in 
1361-1362, and again in 1368-1369 causing a mortality in some places 
probably as high as two-thirds of the population.
  There was the Great Flood of 1927--that was the year in which 
Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic in the Spirit of St. Louis. He flew 
3,600 miles in 33\1/2\ hours. He carried five sandwiches with him and 
ate 1\1/2\ of them. Sometimes he was 10 feet above the water, and 
sometimes he was 10,000 feet above the water. And as he took off and 
flew over Cape Breton, those with powerful glasses, according to the 
New York Times, could see the number 211 on that little plane which 
carried a load of 5,500 pounds.
  Nineteen hundred and twenty-seven was also the year in which I first 
saw a radio. I was living in a coal mining community in southern West 
Virginia, a community named Stotesbury, and my foster father, a coal 
miner, had promised me that on that occasion we would listen to the 
second Dempsey-Tunney prize fight and we would listen to it on the 
radio. So, we walked about a mile from where I lived in the upper end 
of the coal mining community, down the road, to what we referred to as 
the community grill, where one could buy a bottle of Coca-Cola, if he 
had a nickel. And there, upon that occasion, upon that night--I can see 
it as though it were last evening--there was Julius Sleboda, the 
operator of the community facility, and there were a group of men and 
boys--I do not recall any ladies being there--they were gathered around 
waiting to hear the fight.
  Jack Dempsey was my idol when I was a boy. I was 10 years old at that 
time. I am still a boy, but I am 77 years old now. So, I stood there 
with open eyes and open ears and open mouth waiting to hear Jack 
Dempsey put Gene Tunney out of the ropes and into the floor with the 
crowd. But it did not happen. I went away that night a disappointed 
lad. I was disappointed because Jack Dempsey did not win the fight and 
I did not hear the radio. There was only one set of earphones. And so 
Julius Sleboda listened to the fight. He wore the earphones. The rest 
of us could not hear it. Finally, the general manager of the operation 
came into the grill, and he was Mr. C.R. Stahl. He took the earphones 
from Julius and put them on, and he gave to us 
 [[Page S2610]] a blow-by-blow description of one of the greatest 
fights of all times.
  So that was 1927, and in that year there was a great flood that 
overflowed the Mississippi from Cairo, IL, to the Gulf of Mexico.
  Then came 1937. That was the year in which I married my high school 
sweetheart. We were still in the throes of the Great Depression. And 
speaking of my high school sweetheart, there was a boy in my class by 
the name of Julius Takach. His father had a grocery store down at Ury, 
commonly called Cook Town in Raleigh County.
  Every day when Julius came to school, he would fill his pockets with 
candy and chewing gum from his father's grocery store. He would hand 
out the candy and chewing gum, and I made it a point, Mr. President, to 
be the first always to greet Julius when he arrived at the schoolhouse 
door. He would give me some candy and chewing gum, and I did not chew 
the gum or eat the candy, may I say to my colleague, Senator Hatch. I 
always waited until the class had changed and gave the chewing gum and 
candy to my sweetheart, Erma James.
  If I may advise some of these youngsters around here, that is the way 
you court your girl--with another boy's bubble gum! And it stuck, as 
you see. I am still married to that same girl now 57 years later. And 
the Good Lord willing, if we can live another 3 months from the 29th of 
this month, then we will have been married 58 years.
  Well, in 1937, the Ohio and the Mississippi Valleys were overrun by 
the rivers; 400 people died, 1 million were left homeless, and $500 
million worth of property destroyed. That was $500 million in 1937. So 
one might imagine what it would be now.
  In the Book of Matthew, we were told by Jesus that ``Ye shall hear of 
wars and rumors of wars * * * there shall be famines and pestilences 
and earthquakes in divers places.''
  He knew what he was talking about. We have had them 2,000 years 
later, throughout the 20 centuries, and we will continue to have them.
  In just the last few years the Congress has appropriated billions of 
dollars for disasters caused by fires, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, 
and drought right here in our own country.
  Mr. President, no one except the Almighty has any control over the 
timing, the frequency, or the magnitude of such natural disasters. They 
sometimes seem to come just in batches. Who is to say we will not have 
more frequent and more costly natural disasters in the coming years? No 
one can say. What will the next earthquake cost in terms of damages and 
lives, the destruction of buildings and towns and cities, highways, 
railways? When will it occur? Where will it occur? No one can say. They 
cannot be anticipated by the Office of Management and Budget. OMB 
cannot tell us when there will be an earthquake, a flood, a drought, a 
fire, a hurricane, a tornado, a cyclone. They cannot be predicted by 
any Senate committee. Their cost cannot be forecast in any State of the 
Union Address prior to their happening. They cannot be budgeted for in 
advance with any accuracy. That is why it is so important we provide a 
means to quickly pay for the costs of natural disasters. We have to 
protect the victims and the area economies from the devastation.
  Now, this chart to my left sets out a number of natural disasters 
that have occurred in the United States during the last 15 years.
  The Mount St. Helen's volcano eruption, which occurred in May 1980, 
required appropriations totalling $1,015,337,000. Hurricane Hugo 
occurred in September 1989 and the budget authority and loan authority 
amounted to $2,826,522,000. It wreaked havoc along the Atlantic Coast. 
And who paid the bill? The Federal taxpayers, as I say, were called on 
to provide more than $2.8 billion for needed assistance to the victims 
who had lost their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods.
  Also, in 1989, we had the Loma Prieta earthquake, for whose victims 
Congress appropriated $3,027,155,000. Then we were spared further major 
disasters until the summer of 1992 when we suffered the destruction 
from both Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki and Typhoon Omar which required 
appropriations of $10,449,513,000. That is a lot of money--
$10,449,513,000. In 1993, we had the terrible floods of the 
Mississippi, for which $6,886,433,000 has been appropriated. And 
finally in January 1994, we had the Northridge earthquake which 
required $10,127,583,000 in Federal appropriations.
  Mr. President, our Nation has responded immediately to each of these 
natural disasters with the enactment of emergency appropriations bills 
to help their victims and to restore the devastated communities which 
resulted from each of these freaks of nature. We had to act quickly.
  I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee at the time we 
appropriated the moneys for Hurricane Hugo, at the time we appropriated 
the moneys for the Loma Prieta earthquake, at the time Congress 
appropriated moneys for Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki and Typhoon Omar, 
and, of course, I was chairman and brought the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bills to the floor to deal with the Mississippi flood in 
1993 and the Northridge earthquake in 1994. We responded quickly, and 
my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatfield, who was the ranking 
member at that time, who is now the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, and his colleagues on the Republican side, responded 
quickly, and we worked together and brought these bills to the floor to 
give help.
  We could not afford to wait until we could have a long debate about 
which areas of the budget to cut in order to fully offset these 
unanticipated costs. Can you imagine the outcry if the Senate became 
mired in debate for weeks or even months about how to offset the costs 
of a natural disaster, while victims were left to twist in the wind and 
drown in the swirling waters while local economies perished? That is 
exactly what could happen if the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution ever becomes part of the national charter.
  It was precisely to avoid such delay and such misery that emergency 
funding was exempted by statute from any requirement for funding 
offsets. We made that decision at the budget summit in 1990 during the 
Bush administration, that such disasters would be provided for by 
emergency funds that would be exempted from any requirement for funding 
offsets. But this is no loophole for frivolous spending. To qualify for 
this exemption, appropriations for emergencies must meet certain 
requirements; namely, such funding must be:
  A necessary expenditure--An essential or vital expenditure, not one 
that is merely useful or beneficial;
  Two, such funding must be for an emergency that has occurred 
suddenly--quickly coming into being, not building up over time;
  Also, it must be urgent--pressing and compelling need requiring 
immediate action.
  We are talking about what qualifies for the designation 
``emergency.''
  It must have been unforeseen--not predictable or seen beforehand as a 
coming need (an emergency that is part of an aggregate level of 
anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated in 
advance, would not be ``unforeseen''). So it has to be unforeseen.
  And it must not be permanent--the need is temporary, it is urgent, it 
is necessary, unforeseen, and it is not permanent in nature.
  In addition, as I have previously stated, to qualify as emergencies, 
appropriations must be so designated by the President and by Congress. 
They must agree on designating the appropriation as an emergency. So it 
has to be designated in law, passed by Congress.
  To further emphasize the utter confusion we will face if the balanced 
budget amendment is enacted, let us examine more closely the funding 
requirements for such unforeseen emergencies and natural disasters.
  Specifically, section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Budget Enforcement Act 
reads as follows:

       Emergency Appropriations.--(i) If, for any fiscal year, 
     appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that 
     the President designates as emergency requirements and that 
     the Congress so designates in statute, the adjustment shall 
     be the total of such appropriations in discretionary accounts 
     designated as emergency requirements and the outlays flowing 
     in all years from such appropriations.

  This very important provision of law allows us to quickly respond to 
natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, 
and forest fires. It enables the President and Congress 
 [[Page S2611]] to provide emergency funding for the victims of such 
disasters expeditiously, without having to find funding offsets from 
other programs.
  We do not have time to tarry around. We do not have time to wait and 
to quibble. The people who have been hit with these sudden terrible 
disasters need help.
  It enables the President and Congress to provide emergency funding 
for the victims of such disasters expeditiously, without having to find 
offsets from other programs.
  Mr. President, as Senators are aware, the constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget now before the Senate does not include any such 
exemption for emergencies and natural disasters.
  That is what the very distinguished and eloquent Senator from 
California, Senator Boxer, is concerned about. She is trying to correct 
that by offering the amendment which is at the desk.
  But we are told by the proponents not to worry. ``Don't worry, be 
happy,'' they say. They claim that surely we will be able to muster the 
60 votes necessary to waive the balanced budget requirements of this 
amendment for such important things as earthquakes and fires and 
hurricanes and droughts, tidal waves, and floods. Indeed, one such 
proponent has even stated that he has researched the past votes of the 
House and Senate on funding for natural disasters and found that those 
emergency appropriation bills passed by larger margins than the 60-
percent supermajorities required under the balanced budget amendment. 
Are we, therefore, to conclude that, indeed, Congress would follow that 
pattern in every case in the future and thereby we could expect to 
continue to be able to exempt funding for natural disasters from the 
balanced budget amendment requirements?
  I wish that I could share that kind of optimism. However, I have, I 
believe, good reason to question his conclusions.
  As my colleagues are aware, last Monday Congress received President 
Clinton's budget request for fiscal year 1996.
  There is a part of the President's budget upon which Congress has 
been asked to act immediately. That part of the budget is the 
President's request for 1995 supplemental funds for emergencies for 
defense totaling $2,557,000,000 and for FEMA disaster relief totaling 
$6,700,000,000. The FEMA request, Mr. President, is to enable the 
President to continue to meet the continued funding needs of some 40 
States in connection with disasters which have already occurred.
  For the Northridge earthquake, which occurred on January 17, 1994, 
and devastated southern California, affecting over 700,000 people and 
120,000 structures, including schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, 
and private residences, the President is requesting an additional 
$4,865,603,000. Remember now, this is 1 year later and the costs are 
still coming in.
  The balance of the request is to fund and complete projected 
requirements from previously declared disasters in at least 40 States; 
and ensure that adequate funds are available to address future disaster 
assistance requirements during the current fiscal year that already 
well exceed FEMA's 1995 disaster relief fund appropriation of $320 
million.
  I ask unanimous consent that this statement which deals with the FEMA 
disaster relief fund and indicating the States and territories 
affected, and the additional requirements for each State and territory, 
be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF FUND        
                         [Dollars in thousands]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of     Additional  
                                                States     requirements 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State/territory                                          
                                                                        
Alabama.....................................  .........           $2,683
Alaska......................................  .........              947
Arizona.....................................  .........           54,978
Arkansas....................................  .........            2,019
California..................................  .........        5,286,240
Florida.....................................  .........            7,576
Georgia.....................................  .........           10,479
Hawaii......................................  .........           40,575
Illinois....................................  .........           47,491
Indiana.....................................  .........            1,155
Iowa........................................  .........           34,663
Kansas......................................  .........            5,518
Kentucky....................................  .........              201
Louisiana...................................  .........              948
Maine.......................................  .........              720
Maryland....................................  .........              788
Massachusetts...............................  .........            4,598
Michigan....................................  .........              449
Minnesota...................................  .........           13,570
Mississippi.................................  .........            1,647
Missouri....................................  .........           15,384
Montana.....................................  .........              902
Nebraska....................................  .........           16,285
New Hampshire...............................  .........              368
New Jersey..................................  .........           18,757
New Mexico..................................  .........              804
New York....................................  .........           60,338
North Carolina..............................  .........            1,050
North Dakota................................  .........            5,526
Oklahoma....................................  .........              856
Oregon......................................  .........           10,394
Pennsylvania................................  .........            2,336
Rhode Island................................  .........              665
South Carolina..............................  .........            3,301
South Dakota................................  .........            8,911
Tennessee...................................  .........            3,074
Texas.......................................  .........          111,794
Utah........................................  .........               50
Virginia....................................  .........              435
Washington..................................  .........           14,049
                                             ---------------------------
    Subtotal, States........................         41        5,791,924
                                             ===========================
District of Columbia........................          1              196
                                             ===========================
                 Territories                                            
                                                                        
Guam........................................  .........            2,760
Micronesia..................................  .........           11,309
North Mariana Islands.......................  .........              299
Puerto Rico.................................  .........           14,537
Samoa.......................................  .........           19,716
Virgin Islands..............................  .........           21,254
                                             ---------------------------
    Subtotal, territories...................          6           69,875
                                             ---------------------------
    Total, States and territories...........         48        5,861,995
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in past years, we have been able, on a 
bipartisan basis, to quickly enact emergency appropriations for such 
important disaster relief efforts. We do this in order to get needed 
relief to the victims of such natural disasters as quickly as we can, 
even though we fully recognize that we will often have to add more 
funding later, once the full extent of the damage caused by each 
earthquake, flood, hurricane, and so on is known. That is the purpose 
of the President's latest $6.7 billion emergency FEMA request.
  I am sorry to say, Mr. President, that the new leadership of the 
House of Representatives has now taken a position that these 
emergencies should no longer be exempt from funding offsets. I have 
here a letter to the President, dated February 7, 1995, on the 
stationery of the Speaker of the House, which I will read into the 
Record.
  Here to my left is a replica of the letter addressed to the President 
on February 7, 1995, by Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, Richard 
Armey, the majority leader of the House, John Kasich, chairman of the 
House Committee on the Budget, Robert Livingston, chairman of the House 
Committee on Appropriations, and the letter reads as follows. It is 
written by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as all who view 
the charts can see. So I will read the letter:

       Dear Mr. President: The Fiscal Year 1996 budget which you 
     transmitted to Congress contains an additional $10.4 billion 
     in supplemental budget requests for Fiscal Year 1995. Your 
     budget submission further reflects only $2.4 billion in 
     rescissions and savings for FY 1995. Most of these requests 
     are for emergencies.
       The House Appropriations Committee will proceed to review 
     and act on these requests. But highest priority will be given 
     to replenishing the accounts in the Department of Defense 
     badly depleted by contingencies in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, 
     Rwanda, Haiti and other activities. The committee in the 
     House in turn will act only after offsets for these 
     activities have been identified.
       However, we will not act on the balance of the request 
     until you have identified offsets and deductions to make up 
     the balance of the funding. Whether these activities are 
     emergencies or not it will be our policy to pay for them 
     rather than to add to our already immense deficit problems.
       We, therefore, ask you--

  Meaning you, Mr. President, the President of the United States--

     to identify additional rescissions as soon as possible so we 
     can move expeditiously on your supplemental request.

  Mr. President, unless I misunderstand the intent of this letter, it 
lays down a marker that its authors do not intend to even consider 
funding the $6.7 billion in emergency FEMA disaster relief funding 
until the President recommends offsets.
  Could this mindset with the likely impact of a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget and I believe what emerges is a nation 
which may be totally unable to help its people at a time of national 
disaster.
  Imagine that! Another California earthquake occurs, a flood in Iowa, 
a hurricane in Georgia or South Carolina, thousands of homeless 
children injured, death, devastation, sadness, whole communities wiped 
out and the response of the Nation is, tough luck! Never mind the 
misery. Never mind the sadness. First things first, And first things 
first means we will have to find 
 [[Page S2612]] a way to pay for every dollar, offset every dollar, 
before we lift a finger to help the victims.
  Where is the Christian brotherhood in that approach?
  Oops, sorry Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. The hurricane in Florida will 
actually cost us $10 billion instead of $5 billion so we are out of 
budget balance and you owe us some more money for last year's tax bill. 
Or do we just say, tough it out Florida? We cannot afford the hurricane 
bill. Maybe you could petition Japan for a little disaster assistance.
  Because of its ill-crafted, rigid inflexibility, I believe that this 
budget amendment will have us careen from budget crisis to budget 
crisis.
  Think of what the Desert Storm conflict could have done to our
   budget situation. We began the military deployment in August 1990, I 
believe. It was never a declared war. We do not declare wars any 
longer. But, it was certainly a hotly debated issue here in the Senate. 
We were out trying to rustle up dollars from our allies in order to 
help pay for that action, and we did not know until the conflict was 
nearly over to what extent our costs would actually be reimbursed by 
contributions from our friends and allies. Even though we were 
reimbursed, it was necessary for the United States to pay for 
substantial costs at the outset of the deployment.

  The full cost of Desert Storm was unknown for months, for the very 
good reason that it was impossible to predict how difficult the 
conflict would be and how long it would last, how easy it would be for 
us to prevail, what our casualties would be, how well the coalition 
would work together, and other variables which are always uncertainties 
in any armed conflict. Can we be sure that future important 
international involvements, undeclared wars, but important military 
actions, can be declared a threat to national security by a joint 
resolution adopted by the whole number of each House?
 That is talking about a majority of the whole number of each House.

  How in the world are we ever going to know what conflicts we are 
going to be able to afford in the future? First, we will have to be 
sure that we can waive the provisions of this amendment by having a 
serious threat to national security declared by a joint resolution and 
adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes 
law. How will the Department of Defense ever be able to adequately 
plan? Will our allies ever again rest easy knowing that we may have to 
hedge on our commitments to them because of uncertainty about our 
financial ability to fully engage our forces in their behalf? How will 
we ever be sure that we can come up with the money should the fiscal 
year have ended in the middle of a conflict, and the costs had thrown 
the budget badly out of balance?
  Suppose the conflict became unpopular after it had begun and support 
for paying to complete U.S. responsibilities had ebbed. Talk about a 
bouncing ball of fiscal uncertainty. We could become unable to be 
certain of our ability to handle any emergency either abroad or at 
home.
  In a perfect world, there are no uncertainties. In a perfect world, 
storms do not rage, famine and drought never occur, and all 
inconvenient problems abroad end before the close of the fiscal year 
with money left over to pay the bills.
  But we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a dangerous, 
crisis-ridden, unpredictable world, and we will rue the day that we 
handcuff our fiscal policy to the fallacies and flaws of this most 
imperfect and thoroughly misguided balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President 
from the House Republican leadership be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 1995.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The Fiscal Year 1996 Budget which you 
     transmitted to Congress contains an additional $10.4 billion 
     in supplemental budget requests for Fiscal Year 1995. Your 
     budget submission further reflects only $2.4 billion in 
     rescissions and savings for FY 95. Most of these requests are 
     for emergencies.
       The House Appropriations Committee will proceed to review 
     and act on these requests. But highest priority will be given 
     to replenishing the accounts in the Department of Defense 
     badly depleted by contingencies in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, 
     Rwanda, Haiti and other activities. The Committee and the 
     House in turn will act only after offsets for these 
     activities have been identified.
       However, we will not act on the balance of the requests 
     until you have identified offsets and deductions to make up 
     the balance of the funding. Whether these activities are 
     emergencies or not it will be our policy to pay for them, 
     rather than to add to our already immense deficit problems.
       We therefore ask you to identify additional rescissions as 
     soon as possible so we can move expeditiously on your 
     supplemental requests.
           Sincerely,
     Newt Gingrich,
                                             Speaker of the House.
     John Kasich,
       Chairman, House Committee on the Budget.
     Richard Armey,
                                     Majority Leader of the House.
     Robert L. Livingston,
       Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished Senator 
from California, Senator Boxer, for offering this amendment. I support 
her amendment, and I hope if there is a motion to table the amendment, 
that motion will be rejected.
  I return any time I may have remaining to Senator Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from California has 
9 minutes and there are 15 minutes remaining on the other side.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend, does he have anything to contribute? I 
would like to, first, if it is all right, yield 4 minutes to my friend 
from Arkansas at this time and I will retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is 
recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from California for yielding me 4 
minutes. Let me preface my remarks by saying I will never forget this. 
I had been Governor of my State I guess about 3 months. Arkansas is 
part of what we call ``tornado alley.'' We have a terrible tornado in 
Brinkley, AR, and my staff said, ``You have to go over there.'' I said, 
``They would think I was trying to politicize their plight.'' They 
said, ``You do not understand it; they are desperate and they want to 
see authority figures. They want to know somebody is going to help 
them.'' They finally talked me into going, even though I thought it was 
a political thing to do. I never failed to go immediately to every 
flood and tornado after that, because when those people saw me, they 
crowded around me and wanted me to hear their stories, wanted me to 
assure them that everything was going to be all right. It was one of 
the most gratifying things I ever did in my life.
  Senator Boxer's amendment is the exemplification of simplification. 
It just simply says that if we have a big disaster in this country, by 
a majority vote--and who could quarrel with that? By a simple majority 
vote, we can spend the money to alleviate the terrible plight of people 
in California, southern California or northern California, who had been 
hit by a terrible earthquake; or we can cover 10 States in the Midwest, 
whose homes, farms, cities had been wiped out. Can you not just see us 
sitting here and people dying, water washing their homes away and 
saying: Well, we tried. We got 59 votes but we just could not quite cut 
the mustard. You people just do the best you can.
  How silly can you get? That is not what this country is made of. I 
admit that a flood in Arkansas gets my attention more than a flood in 
West Virginia or California. You know, some day, if you look at this 
map, you will see that the New Madrid fault in Northeast Arkansas is 
one of the most dangerous areas in the United States. The maximum risk 
of earthquake is along the New Madrid fault. The Presiding Officer 
knows where it is because Tennessee is part of it, too. To sit here and 
say that, in the interest of killing every single amendment, we are 
going to kill this one, too, and we are not 
 [[Page S2613]] going to allow a simple majority vote in the Senate to 
determine whether we are going to help American citizens who through no 
fault of their own have been decimated, it would be the height of 
irresponsibility to vote to table an amendment as well conceived and 
sensitive as this one is.
  So, Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from California for offering 
the amendment. I am very pleased to cosponsor it, to vote for it, and I 
hope the people who walk in this Chamber in about 15 minutes will not 
just vote that knee-jerk vote we have been watching ever since we 
started this amendment, but stop and reflect. If you cannot go home and 
tell the people of your State that you voted for this because you want 
to take care of them in case of emergency, you do not deserve to be 
here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] 
is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I wanted to make a couple of comments about some of the 
arguments that have been made today with respect to this amendment. I 
think it is a good amendment in the sense that it brings the very 
important issue to light of how we will deal with natural disasters 
under the strictures of the balanced budget amendment.
  I will first state that we have 7 years before we have to get to a 
balanced budget. And during the first 6 years, there are no strictures 
at all placed on either body, other than the ones now in place with 
respect to the Budget Act, to passing supplemental emergency 
appropriations bills. For the first 6 years, we are pretty much under 
the same rules we have been, which I see as an opportunity, as Senator 
Simon suggested, with respect to the overall budget, but I think even 
more particular with respect to emergency appropriations, for us to be 
able to build up reserve funds over the next 6 years, specifically 
targeted for this kind of emergency. We know emergencies will occur. We 
have had votes on emergency supplementals just since my election in 
1990 to the House. We have had 16 such votes in the House and Senate. 
Under the 1990 Budget Act, which put in a high hurdle to get an 
emergency supplemental appropriation passed, we have done that. I think 
what we should do is understand that emergencies will occur and we 
should set aside some funds to be available for that purpose. We have 6 
years between now and the year 2002 when we have to get to the balanced 
budget to accumulate money in that account.
  So I suggest that that might be an effort that the Senator from 
California and others from other States who are subject to more natural 
disasters than other States would work on and hopefully implement.
  The other point I wanted to make is with respect to the margin with 
which all of these supplemental appropriations since the 1990 Budget 
Act have passed. We have had 16 such votes in the U.S. Senate. All 16 
passed with greater than a 60-vote margin. Every single one of them 
would have passed under the constitutional amendment that we are now 
considering, which requires a 60-vote margin here in the Senate, 
requires three-fifths.
  All of those would have passed here and we would have, in a sense, 
waived the constitutional requirements for a balanced budget here in 
the Senate. All but two would have passed in the House of 
Representatives. The only two that would not have passed is one having 
to do with the Los Angeles riots; and it was a very controversial aid 
package because of some of the measures that were put in it, 
controversial measures that were put in for the city of Los Angeles. I 
do not think anyone had any problem with providing financial assistance 
to the riot-torn areas of Los Angeles, but there were some measures 
that were included that caused some controversy; but that was a close 
vote, relatively close. The other had to do with extension of 
unemployment benefits in 1993, which was a relatively close vote in the 
House.
  Both of which, I think you can make the argument with respect to some 
of the pork that was in the Los Angeles riot bill and the need in 1993 
when in the middle of the President's debate on passing his deficit 
reduction package that we were going to throw more money to 
unemployment benefits without paying for it, both had legitimate 
reasons for objections in the House.
  But I think it just goes to show you that when this country, when 
this body and the other body is faced with a natural disaster, such as 
the earthquake that Senator Boxer has been referring to, we stepped to 
the floor and in overwhelming numbers passed the disaster assistance.
  I will refer to the Northridge, CA, earthquake last year, the 
disaster in 1994, 337 to 74 in the House and 85 to 10 in the Senate. 
The Midwest flood, a flood in the Mississippi River and other rivers in 
the Midwest, 400 to 27 in the House, and it was voice voted in the 
Senate, which shows fairly unanimous support here in the Senate.
  When the disasters are serious, when people are in need, we 
understand we have an obligation to respond to that and we do in 
overwhelming numbers. We do not need an amendment to this 
constitutional amendment to solve this problem. We will solve it on our 
own and we have met and will continue to meet the expectations of the 
public when such disasters occur to this country.
  So, while I support the intention of the amendment of the Senator 
from California, I think it is unnecessary. And I believe if it truly 
is a disaster the House will go ahead--they do not have a supermajority 
provision right now; they can pass bills over there with a simple 
majority. Here in the Senate, we, in a sense, have a supermajority 
requirement already. We have filibusters here and we have cloture 
votes. Most legislation around here, if it is somewhat controversial, 
has to get that 60-vote requirement to pass. And so we already have 
what the constitutional amendment would require of us here in the 
Senate.
  Really, all this constitutional amendment does is put a little higher 
burden on the House. And I do not think that is a bad idea. I think, in 
fact, it may screen out some ``emergencies,'' like some of the ones I 
described here, make those bills that respond to those emergencies be 
cleaner and directly targeted to the aid, as opposed to Christmas 
treeing it with a whole bunch of other projects that Members of the 
Senate and House may want to attach.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes and forty-five seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I really appreciate the comments of my 
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. He spoke great truth here. 
He has made it very clear why this amendment needs to be defeated.
  Naturally, I am opposed to this amendment, because it is one more 
proposed loophole to the balanced budget amendment.
  As the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania said, and Senator 
Craig and Senator Snowe demonstrated this morning when they reviewed 
congressional votes in recent years approving various disaster relief 
measures, Congress has never been reluctant to approve, by overwhelming 
margins, emergency relief for Americans suffering the effects of 
natural disasters--never. The balanced budget amendment is not going to 
stop Congress from continuing to do that, and so there is no need for 
this amendment.
  But the amendment that the distinguished Senator from California 
sincerely is putting forth here actually would open a loophole as wide 
as a barn for any kind of spending program to go through.
  House Joint Resolution 1 would not deprive the Congress of the 
ability to continue to respond to such emergencies, since it already 
contains a mechanism for dealing with fiscal emergencies.
  First, when the balanced budget amendment goes into effect, 
implementing legislation can address the prospect of unexpected 
developments. It can set aside a contingency fund, available for use in 
such emergencies, as part of a balanced Federal budget.
  Second, in drafting the balanced budget amendment, the authors have 
anticipated the possibility of sudden and unexpected emergencies, such 
as 
 [[Page S2614]] natural disasters, requiring prompt action by the 
Congress and the Federal Government to provide needed relief to 
disaster victims or people who suffer from disasters.
  For that reason, the amendment already includes mechanisms which give 
Congress the flexibility necessary to respond in emergencies by 
providing relief to disaster victims:
  Under section 1 of the amendment, three-fifths of both Houses can 
vote a specific excess of outlays over receipts.
  Under section 2 of the amendment, the Congress, by three-fifths vote 
of each House, would have the power to increase the debt limit where 
necessary in order to provide emergency relief and assistance in the 
wake of any natural disaster.
  The amendment proposed by our friend from California, however, does 
not simply create a mechanism by which Congress, reacting to a sudden 
and unexpected emergency, may waive the debt limitation provision of 
the balanced budget amendment in order to provide emergency relief to 
disaster victims.
  Let us be very clear about this. What is being proposed in this 
amendment is not a waiver for emergency disaster relief only. Read the 
fine print. Senator Boxer's amendment provides that in any money, even 
$1, is spent ``as a result of a declaration made by the President--and 
a designation by the Congress--that a major disaster or emergency 
exists ``the Congress, by the smallest of margins, a simple majority 
not of the whole congress but only of those present and voting at a 
particular moment, may completely waive the balanced budget amendment 
for that entire fiscal year.
  Under the language of the Boxer amendment, there is no link 
whatsoever between the amount of emergency disaster relief and the 
increase in the debt ceiling. This goes way beyond being a loophole 
through which Congress could slip a few billion dollars in new debt 
whenever it chooses. Once a so-called disaster relief waiver is passed 
by a simple majority of those present and voting, there would no longer 
by any limitation on increasing the national debt in that fiscal year. 
Actually, none. What a loophole. The door is open; the roadblocks are 
removed; the Federal pork-barrel, deficit-spending express is back on 
track, cleared once again to run full speed ahead, carrying the 
American people to economic ruin.
  This amendment would not only permit future Presidents and Congresses 
to evade what would otherwise be a constitutional mandate that the 
Federal Government finally live within its means, it would be an open 
invitation to such evasion, precisely because it would make such 
evasion so very easy.
  The fact is that in every fiscal year after the balanced budget 
amendment goes into effect, there will be sufficient pretext for a 
spending-minded President and simple majority of Congress to invoke the 
disaster relief waiver and thereby eliminate the prohibition on new 
debt if they so choose. And that is exactly what they will choose--we 
have 25 straight years of deficit spending since 1969, with 5 more 
years and another trillion dollars of debt to come according to 
President Clinton's 1996 budget proposal, as proof of that contention.
  Talk about disasters; if this amendment passes, the balanced budget 
amendment dam will be broken, releasing a further flood of red ink 
which will drown the American people in an ever-rising sea of debt.
  Congress does not need the debt limitation waiver mechanism proposed 
by this amendment in order retain its ability to respond, as it always 
has, to the needs of disaster victims. The American people, however, 
cannot afford to have dangling before future Presidents and Congresses 
what would almost certainly prove to be an irresistible temptation to 
circumvent the necessary discipline of a balanced budget amendment. 
This amendment is not only unnecessary, but potentially fatal to our 
economic future. I urge that it be defeated.
  If you read the language of this amendment, the language is just 
unbelievably broad.

       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.

  Once the President declares an emergency or disaster, Congress could 
spend any amounts it wants--on any programs--during that whole fiscal 
year, according to the way this is written.
  I have to say that there was another amendment filed on this subject 
that at least did not go that far. It was more narrowly tailored than 
this one. But this one goes so far that it would allow any big-spending 
President and any big-spending Congress to deficit-spend whenever they 
want to do it, and without any consideration whatsoever to the 
taxpayers of America.
  So this amendment deserves to be defeated, and we are going to move 
to table as soon as the distinguished Senator from California finishes 
her concluding remarks.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the rewriting of history that goes on 
around here is really incredible. The Senator from Utah gets so worked 
up about the idea that a majority of the Members of this body could 
vote to say that an emergency that kills people, that is happening in 
our country, could say to this Senate, ``Yes, we are going to pay for 
that and we are going to do it now.''
  Do you know that every year since the Republicans had control of the 
Senate, Mr. President, that has been the rule. Where has the Senator 
from Utah been? I never heard him complain about it before, when 
Republican Presidents said, ``Yes, a disaster should be an exception by 
a majority vote, and we should not have to find offsets.'' It happened 
in a Republican Senate.
  So my amendment is the conservative one. Without this amendment, we 
are being radicalized by this U.S. Senate into a position that we 
cannot respond. I was happy to hear the comments of my friend from 
Pennsylvania, and I agree with him. We will have some time to work on 
this problem, and we are. I am appointed to a task force, and I hope 
the Senator can join us.
  Senators should know we do have rainy day funds now that are in the 
budget. The problem is some years it rains more than the rainy day 
fund. And that is the definition of a disaster emergency. You do not 
know where it will hit and how much it will hit.
  I ask if we could have a final chart on the newspaper story. By the 
way, I want to say to my friend from Pennsylvania, in his own case in 
Pennsylvania in 1993, $24 million for severe snowfall winter storms; in 
1994, severe winter storms, snow and rain, $72 million the Senator's 
State received. I hope and pray you do not have this experience again, 
but I also hope and pray if you do, you do not have to count on 60 
votes, because unlike what was said by the Senator from Pennsylvania 
and others today, twice on this very floor we failed to get 60 votes 
for emergency spending for disaster relief. We fell short. We got 52 
votes. But guess what, this is America, majority rules. But not if you 
vote for this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. You are 
giving the power of the American people to a minority in this U.S. 
Senate.
  Let me show you this headline. L.A. Times, February 5: ``FEMA 
Chief''--that is the Federal Emergency Management Agency--``Warns of a 
Kobe-Like Quake in the United States. Visiting disaster area, James Lee 
Witt says chances of temblor in Midwest are growing. He declines to 
criticize Japan's emergency response,'' which is a very interesting 
story in and of itself. This is what he said:

       If a quake the size of the Kobe temblor struck along the 
     New Madrid, the eastern part of the United States could be 
     deprived of much of its petroleum supplies, Witt says.
       * * * ``And if [an earthquake] hits in the wintertime, 
     we're in big-time trouble,'' Witt said.
       Witt said his agency has been trying to persuade operators 
     of pipelines to install safety shutoff valves.
       The percentages gets higher and higher every year for a 
     major earthquake on the ``New Madrid. By the year 2000, it's 
     more than a 50-50 chance that you could have a major 
     earthquake,'' he said.

  I want to get to Kobe. I want my colleagues here, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, to think about what it would be like to stand in front 
of a group of constituents in your hometown and tell them, ``Sorry, I 
couldn't 
 [[Page S2615]] get 60 votes, move to another city.'' And to my 
colleagues who get up here and say this is a terrible amendment, this 
is going to ruin America, let me tell them that more people died in two 
earthquakes in California than died in Desert Storm. We are talking 
about terrible, terrible outcomes here. We have an exception for war, 
and we should. I did not write that exception. The Republican Congress 
wrote that exception. I am saying we ought to add an exception for an 
emergency like this because dead is dead is dead.
  Now I want to tell you:

       About 250,000 refugees are still living in parks or 
     government-managed evacuation centers in unheated gymnasiums.

  This happened in Kobe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I further say people died in those shelters because they 
did not have enough doctors to take care of them. At this point, I 
yield the floor. I understand there is going to be a motion to table. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield, I have a question for the 
Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer]. She keeps referring to a 52 vote 
on something. I am looking at all these disasters since 1987. I do not 
see anything here that says 52 votes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am very glad that the Senator asked me that. I already 
placed it in the Record. I will give you exact dates. On February 10, 
1994, last year, by a vote of 43 to 52, the Senate defeated the Dole 
amendment to strike funding to repair the Cypress freeway which was 
destroyed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake--we have a picture of it--
and to find offset budget cuts. That failed and also another vote 
failed----
  Mr. SANTORUM. Can I reclaim my time?
  Mrs. BOXER. On the floods as well.
  Mr. SANTORUM. That was the 1984 earthquake supplemental which passed 
85 to 10 which would have met the scrutiny. What you are referring to 
is an amendment that failed. That, obviously, would not require a 
three-fifths vote. An amendment to a supplemental appropriations would 
not be violative of the balanced budget amendment. What finally 
happened----
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is incorrect on that.
  Mr. SANTORUM. What happened is 85 to 10 on final passage of that 
bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is incorrect. Had that amendment been before 
this body under the rules of the balanced budget, we could not have 
rebuilt this freeway on which people died, period, end of quote. We 
would have needed 60 votes. I could only get 52 votes. Thank the Lord, 
we were able to rebuild this freeway. The same thing happened with the 
Midwest floods.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If I can reclaim my time. The fact of the matter is 
that bill passed 85 to 10, which is well in excess of two-thirds. An 
amendment is not under the strictures of a three-fifths majority. I 
believe the Senator from California is aware of that. I will be happy 
to yield back the time.
  Mr. HATCH. We yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by by my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, which 
would allow Congress to respond quickly and responsibly to 
Presidentially declared emergencies.
  Mr. President, on September 11, 1992, Hurricane Iniki struck the 
island of Kauai and the Waianae shore of Oahu with the force of a 
sledgehammer. Sustained winds of 140 miles per hour, with gusts of up 
to 226 mph, were recorded. In a few nightmare hours, the lives of 
Kauai's 51,000 permanent residents and thousands of tourists had been 
radically transformed for the worse. On Kauai alone, 7 people died and 
over 100 were injured, and $2 billion in damage was recorded in private 
and public property loss.
  More than 14,000 residences were destroyed or damaged, leaving 
thousands homeless or poorly sheltered from the elements. Five thousand 
utility poles were knocked down, leaving residents without electricity 
or the ability to communicate with themselves or the outside world. The 
loss of power also meant that no water could be pumped to faucets. Tons 
of debris blocked roads, shutting down transportation island-wide. 
Harbors, schools, offices, and other government infrastructure 
sustained heavy damage. And the local airport, the island's major link 
with the rest of the State, was knocked out of commission, preventing 
immediate relief and evacuation.
  Today, 2\1/2\ years later, thanks to the quick reaction of Federal, 
State, and local officials, the energy and enthusiasm of volunteer 
agencies, and to the courage and fortitude of the people of Kauai, 
Kauai is slowly recovering. Unemployment is still unacceptably high, 
and the rebuilding is not complete by any stretch of the imagination, 
but a semblance of normalcy has returned. Roads are open, the phones 
are working, and tourists are returning to newly refurbished hotels and 
beaches.
  Yet, Mr. President, little of this would have been possible without 
the $1.2 billion in Federal disaster assistance that Congress 
appropriated in the months following Hurricane Iniki. That funding 
ensured that a tiny island like Kauai, and a small State like Hawaii, 
which on its own would never have been able to raise the necessary 
funds to avert massive homelessness and unemployment, would in time 
recover.
  And this is what the Boxer amendment is all about, Mr. President. It 
is about helping your neighbor when he is in need. It is about 
extending a helping hand to those who, through no fault of their own, 
are struck down by disaster, natural or otherwise. It is about pulling 
together as a country when the chips are down. It is about Californians 
helping Missourians cope with floods; it is about Missourians helping 
South Carolinians rebuild after a hurricane; and, it is about South 
Carolinians aiding Californians when the Earth shakes.
  Mr. President, I have previously articulated my opposition to a 
constitutional balanced budget amendment. But if we must adopt the 
measure, we must ensure that Congress has the necessary flexibility to 
respond quickly and responsibly to emergencies that are well beyond the 
means of localities and States to address. We must avoid the risk of 
undermining the very reason for the Union itself. Our national motto is 
and remains United We Stand, not United We Stand, Unless We Run a 
Fiscal Deficit.
  So, for the sake of unity and compassion, for the sake of shared 
responsibility, I urge my colleagues to support this important, 
prudent, and altogether necessary amendment. Let us not sacrifice our 
sense of common purpose on the altar of fiscal expediency.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment which will 
waive the provisions of the bill before us when the President of the 
United States declares a Federal disaster.
  Over the last few years the United States has experienced more 
disasters than at any other time--the Loma Prieta earthquake in 
California; Hurricane Hugo which struck the Carolinas; Typhoon Omar 
which struck Guam; Hurricanes Andrew, Bob, and Iniki; the floods that 
covered much of the Midwest; the more recent floods that devastated 
Texas; the wildfires which struck southern California; the Northridge 
earthquake in southern California just over 1 year ago; and the floods 
that are still plaguing California.
  In California, earthquake activity has dramatically increased. 
Leading seismologists have predicted that there is an 86-percent chance 
of a 7.0 quake in southern California in the next 30 years.
  California can do more and will do more to prepare for future 
disasters, but as we saw in Kobe, Japan, even what is considered good 
planning can be ripped apart.
  But much more than California is at risk. It is inevitable that 
Florida and the eastern seaboard will see another hurricane. Hawaii 
will see another hurricane or a volcano. A tornado, floor, or deep 
freeze will hit the Midwest, and on down the list. Currently, there are 
outstanding requests for disaster assistance in 40 States. Every State 
in the Union is at risk from Mother Nature.
  [[Page S2616]] This exemption is not frivolous. More times than not, 
FEMA has had the capability to cover the costs of a federally declared 
disaster. FEMA has provided assistance in cases of heavy snow, 
tornadoes, floods, and many other situations, and has not required 
additional funding from Congress. People should not be under the 
impression that FEMA marches up to Capitol Hill after every disaster 
and request more money.
  We need this exemption for those infrequent instances when the size 
and scale and destructive force of a disaster is simply too 
overwhelming for the affected local and State officials to handle.
  Twelve times since 1974 the administration has requested a 
supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the costs of disasters. 
Seven of those twelve times, the supplemental request has been less 
than $1 billion. In no instance has Congress required these bills to be 
offset by cuts in other funding, which would be the required course of 
action if this amendment fails.
  Congress passed the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act to outline in what ways the Federal Government should 
supplement State and local efforts in times of disaster.
  Through the Stafford Act, the Federal Government has recognized that 
it has a vital role in responding to disasters. We must maintain that 
commitment, and this amendment will ensure that we do so.
  Oftentimes we in the Senate do not move quickly to pass bills. 
Thankfully, we have moved quickly to pass bills to help restore the 
lives of disaster victims. In such cases of catastrophic disasters, 
when local officials cannot meet the needs of the victims, we must not 
let budget debates and haggling over how to achieve 60 votes slow our 
effort to meet our commitment.
  Some may argue that the Federal Government is too intrusive in our 
lives--but when disaster strikes, trust me, even the greatest 
government cynic is glad to see someone wearing a FEMA jacket.
  In response to the Northridge earthquake in my State of California, 
Congress passed a bill that included $8.6 billion in Federal emergency 
assistance. This money has been absolutely vital in getting Los Angeles 
back on its feet. Federal disaster relief funds have played a critical 
role in Hawaii, and Florida, and the Midwest as well.
  Some will argue that if these billions of dollars are so small in 
comparison to our Federal budget, why should they be so difficult to 
offset? Let me address that question. Last week the House 
Appropriations Committee approved a measure to offset the supplemental 
spending bill that was requested by the President to bay for military 
operations in Haiti and elsewhere. This $3.2 billion bill was offset 
with $1.8 billion in cuts in defense spending, and $1.4 billion in 
nondefense spending. The $1.4 billion in cuts in nondefense cuts, had 
little if any hearing and were cut at the expense of programs totally 
unrelated to the purposes for which they were going to be sacrificed.
  Will we use bills to help victims of disasters as a vehicle to 
wantonly cut unrelated programs with little or no thought? If this 
becomes the case, when these disaster bills finally wind their way to 
the floor, as victims wait for our assistance, the programs that have 
been cut in committee will be the subject of debate, and the victims of 
the disaster will sit and wait. The debate on disaster bills should be 
about the victims, not about the budget.
  There is another point I would like to make with respect to the 
Budget Act of 1990. Under the provisions of balanced budget amendment, 
60 votes in the Senate would be necessary to waive the requirement of 
balancing the budget. The Budget Act of 1990 specifically gave the 
Congress the authority to consider bills deemed to be emergency 
spending by both Congress and the President, without subjecting the 
bill to a point of order. Once a bill is the subject of a point of 
order, it takes 60 votes to waive the provisions of the budget act. By 
subjecting emergency bills to the balanced budget amendment, we would 
be requiring 60 votes the amendment, the same requirement that 
emergency bills were specifically exempted from in 1990.
  Additionally, there has been criticism in the past that these bills 
have been loaded up with pork unrelated to disasters. I have 
cosponsored a bill with Senators McCain and Feingold to eliminate 
amendments to these bills that are unrelated to the disasters so 
emergency funding bills are only for emergencies. I hope that bill will 
see swift passage.
  Disasters are unexpected, and can cause, in some cases, tremendous 
amounts of damage. We cannot plan for them, and funds for assistance 
must not be delayed because of our fear of throwing the budget out of 
balance, but the speed with which we pass these bills can be vital to 
an effective recover effort.
  As an aside, I would like to make a suggestion to my colleagues with 
respect to helping to prevent the need for emergency disaster bills in 
the future. FEMA will have approximately $320 million this year for its 
disaster relief fund, a figure based on an old average of yearly needs, 
when in fact the average outlays from the disaster relief fund from 
fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1996 projected--is $1.527 billion. 
I would suggest to my colleagues that we use this figure as a new 
baseline instead of the $320 million. These funds if not expended, can 
build up, so we would be better prepared financially for future 
disasters. I recognize that we would need to find an additional $1.2 
billion annually to cover the difference, but perhaps that would be 
easier than finding the much bigger sums that we have to produce all in 
1 year in the face of huge disasters such as Northridge.
  To close, I would like to say, disaster bills will not break the 
budget, but will help put the lives of the thousands of disaster 
victims back together.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the debate we have had. I 
listened to part of it in my office. It seems to me this amendment 
would create a gaping loophole in the balanced budget amendment. 
According to the language of the amendment, if the President declares 
that a major disaster emergency exists ``a simple majority vote in both 
Houses of Congress would waive the balanced budget requirement for that 
year.''
  The balanced budget amendment already contains a safety valve. If 
there is a major disaster emergency, a three-fifths supermajority vote 
could raise the debt limit to cover the potential cost of disaster 
relief.
  I think, as everybody pointed out on the floor, I think I voted for 
every disaster we had in America, whether it was California, Florida, 
or the Midwest. It is not difficult to achieve the three-fifths vote. 
After all, we are going to be responsive wherever the disaster may be. 
I think that will be true in both Houses of Congress.
  So it seems to me we want to move on with this effort. We would like 
to pass the balanced budget amendment this week and get it out to the 
38 States. I think you will see the States quickly ratify the 
amendment. They understand the importance of it. I hope we can speed up 
the process. Therefore, I move to table the amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from California.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
and the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici 
      [[Page S2617]] PExon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--28

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Moynihan
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 240) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 241

   (Purpose: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative to 
    contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections for 
                   Federal, State, and local office)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for 
     himself, and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 241.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 1, beginning on line 3, strike ``That the'' and all 
     that follows through line 9, and insert the following: ``that 
     the following articles are proposed as amendments to the 
     Constitution, all or any of which articles, when ratified by 
     three-fourths of the legislatures, shall be valid, to all 
     intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution:''.
       On page 3, immediately after line 11, insert the following:


                              ``article--

       ``Section. 1. Congress shall have power to set reasonable 
     limits on expenditures made in support of or in opposition to 
     the nomination or election of any person to Federal office.
       ``Section. 2. Each State shall have power to set reasonable 
     limits on expenditures made in support of or in opposition to 
     the nomination or election of any person to State office.
       ``Section. 3. Each local government of general jurisdiction 
     shall have power to set reasonable limits on expenditures 
     made in support of or in opposition to the nomination or 
     election of any person to office in that government. No State 
     shall have power to limit the power established by this 
     section.
       ``Section. 4. Congress shall have power to implement and 
     enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 
400 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________