[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2920-S2952]
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator without 
losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from West 
Virginia, and I appreciate his courtesy at all times.
  This has been a very interesting and energetic debate. We used up 
almost all the time. There have been very few 
[[Page S2921]] quorum calls. I want to compliment people on both sides 
of the aisle and both sides of the issue. It has been a hard-fought 
debate. But it has been fought fairly. I believe that those on the 
other side of this issue feel very deeply just like those of us who 
want this balanced budget amendment feel very deeply ourselves. So I 
appreciate it.
  We have had an extensive debate. I think it has been fair. It has 
been many, many days. We are now in our 15th day of actual debating, 3 
solid weeks of time on the floor, and actually more if you talk about 
the normal running of the Senate. We have debated a whole raft of 
issues. In the next few days, the final days of this debate leading up 
to next Tuesday when we finally vote on this matter, we will have a 
number of amendments and give every Senator an opportunity to speak 
again or to bring up his or her amendments.
  There has not been--I just want to remind everybody in this country 
today--that there has not been one balanced budget since 1969; not one 
in 26 years. There have been only seven balanced budgets in the last 60 
years. Only seven. The national debt is now over $4.8 trillion. That is 
more than $18,500 for each man, woman, and child in America. Every one 
of us is in debt better than $18,500 and going up every day.
  The national debt has increased $3.6 trillion since the Senate last 
passed this balanced budget amendment back in 1982 when I, as chairman 
of the Constitution Subcommittee, along with Senator Thurmond and 
others, brought it to the floor for the first time in history. We 
passed it through the Senate by the requisite two-thirds vote plus two. 
But the House killed the amendment, and since that date in 1982, the 
national debt has gone up $3.6 trillion.
  In 1994, last year, gross interest against the national debt exceeded 
$296 billion. Just to put that in perspective, that interest that we 
paid last year was more than the total Federal budget or total Federal 
outlays in 1974. Just think about it. We spent more just paying 
interest against the national debt--that is money down the drain--than 
all of the outlays of the Federal budget, all of the spending of the 
Federal budget, in 1974. And that $296 billion interest payment last 
year is more than the total revenues of our Government were in 1975.
  In 1994, gross interest consumed about one-half of all personal 
income taxes.
 One-half of all personal income taxes paid just went to pay interest 
against the national debt in fiscal year 1994. We spent an average of 
$811.7 million each day just on gross interest. That is $33.8 million 
each hour and $564,000 each minute that we were spending on gross 
interest alone.

  Net interest payments in 1994 were 5\1/2\ times as much as outlays 
for all education, job training, and employment programs combined. Just 
think about that. Net interest payments--that is net interest 
payments--in 1994 were 5\1/2\ times as much as all we spent for 
education, job training, and employment programs in this country in the 
Federal Government.
  In the 24 days since we first began this debate on the balanced 
budget amendment, the amendment that we have debated for years, the 
national debt has increased--I guess I better put that up here--has 
increased $19,906,560,000.
  I have to put these indicators up because we have not done so. This 
is the 19th day. Here is the 20th day since we started the debate. That 
is $16.5 billion. Here is the 21st day since we started the debate. 
That is $17.5 billion, almost. The next one is the 22d day since we 
started this debate. That is $18,247,680,000, and last but not least is 
the--excuse me, this is the 23d day, $19 billion--$19,077,000,000--and 
finally, on the 24th day, just since we started the debate on this 
matter, we are now up to $19,906,560,000 in national debt that 
increased over those 24 days. Now, that is about $75 for every man, 
woman, and child in the United States of America.
  I hope they have enjoyed this debate. It is not as good as ``Les 
Miserables,'' but it is about as expensive. Now, can you imagine what 
we are doing on an annual basis? We are going up by leaps and bounds--
almost $1 billion a day in national debt. So this is really important. 
This is important stuff.
  I do not find any fault with those who feel otherwise except that I 
think they are wrong. Something has to be done. We can no longer fiddle 
while Washington burns. We have to change the old way of doing things 
around here. We have to start doing things in a better way.
  This amendment, as imperfect as it may be, is still the most perfect 
we have ever brought to either House of Congress, and it is a 
bipartisan consensus amendment. This amendment is something that would 
get us to make priority choices among competing programs and force us 
toward trying to live within our means. And it does it in a reasonable 
and worthwhile way.
  So I hope our colleagues will realize this because we have 52 of 53 
Republicans who are going to vote for this. All we need are 15 
Democrats out of the 47. We are hopeful we will find 15 of them, and if 
we do, we will be on our way to solving some of these terrible problems 
that are besetting our country, and we will be on our way to helping 
the future of all of our children and grandchildren.
  I thank my dear friend from West Virginia. I look forward to his 
amendment, and I thank him for allowing me this time just to set the 
tone for the debate beginning this afternoon.
  (Mr. COATS assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah 
for his many courtesies and also for the work that he has done on this 
amendment.
  I do not expect everybody to agree with me by any means on this or 
anything else, but I sometimes find it hard to understand why others 
disagree with me especially on this subject. But every person has a 
mind of his own, and I do not set myself up as a paradigm of thought or 
action. I do think, however, that when the distinguished Senator from 
Utah makes reference to the need for a constitutional amendment in 
order to force us to exercise the discipline to balance the budget, it 
seems to me that that is a very sad commentary on the character of 
elected public officials; to say that we have to have a constitutional 
amendment to give us the discipline. I remember the words of H.L. 
Mencken, who was a great American writer and author and editor, who 
said that ``There is always an easy solution to every human problem--
neat, plausible, and wrong.''
  This constitutional amendment, in my estimation, falls into that 
category of being an easy solution to a very serious problem; it is 
neat, sounds plausible, but it is wrong.

       The devil knew not what he did when he made man politic; he 
     crossed himself by 't: and I cannot think but in the end the 
     villanies of man will set him clear.

  Mr. President, this constitutional amendment unequivocally states 
that:

       Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total 
     receipts for that fiscal year--

  That means every year.

     unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of 
     Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of 
     outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

  The two must balance, ``unless three-fifths of the whole number of 
each House of Congress shall provide by law,'' meaning passed by both 
Houses and signed by the President, ``for a specific excess of outlays 
over receipts by a rollcall vote.''
  It cannot even be done by unanimous consent.
  Of course, there is nothing in the present Constitution which says 
that we have to have a rollcall vote on everything that passes either 
body. The Constitution does require a rollcall vote if one-fifth of 
those present in either House request a rollcall vote. I have no 
problem with requiring a rollcall vote. I do not mind that. And I do 
not think other Senators mind it. I have not missed a rollcall vote now 
in over 10 years. I have cast around 13,500 rollcall votes since I have 
been in the Senate, not counting the rollcall votes that I answered 
when I was in the House of Representatives. The waiver has to be by a 
rollcall vote.
  And what of the economic effects of this mandate for yearly budget 
balance?
 In fact, larger spending cuts or tax increases would be required in 
slow growth periods than in periods of robust growth, exactly the 
opposite of what is needed to stabilize a weak economy and prevent 
recessions--exactly the opposite.

  The amendment, therefore, not only risks making recessions of greater 
frequency, depth, and duration, but mandating a balanced budget by 
fiscal year 
[[Page S2922]] 2002--a year for which a deficit of $322 billion is 
projected by CBO--or within 2 years following ratification, whichever 
is later--would also impose constraints on the economy far in excess of 
those entailed in the 1993 budget law--a double whammy--a double 
whammy--that can stifle economic growth and cause unemployment to soar. 
The three-fifths waiver provision would prove ineffective as most 
recessions are already underway before they are recognized as such.
  So, any recession may already be upon us. It may have been several 
months in duration already before it is recognized as such. Recessions 
often are not recognized as recessions until a month, 2 months, several 
subsequent months are passed. How are we, then, going to waive, by a 
three-fifths vote, this requirement, so as to pass a resolution for a 
specific excess of outlays over receipts? How are we going to do it?
  Suppose we have already passed the close of the fiscal year before we 
realize that we are in a recession? The end of the fiscal year, 
September 30, has gone. How are we, then, going to waive by a three-
fifths vote this requirement so as to provide a law for a specific 
excess of outlays over receipts for that fiscal year which has just 
passed. How are we going to do that?
  We hear it said that the American people have to balance their 
personal budgets. That is one of the shibboleths that we have heard so 
often: The American people balance their budgets. Every family has to 
balance its budget, we hear. States have to balance their budgets--that 
is another shibboleth. States have to balance their budgets, why can 
the Federal Government not balance its budget? Let us take a closer 
look at these popular notions. First, I do not think anyone would argue 
that businesses should not be able to borrow. We all know that 
businesses borrow to finance the purchase of high technology and 
equipment. Businesses borrow to modernize plants and equipment.
  They would go under if they could not borrow. They have to keep their 
equipment modernized in order to compete with the other businesses in 
the community or nearby. They have to borrow in order to finance the 
purchase of high technology and other equipment. Businesses borrow to 
modernize plants and equipment. States borrow. My State of West 
Virginia borrows. Other States borrow to pay for roads and schools and 
other capital projects.
  The chart to my left sets forth the total State government debt, 
fiscal years 1960 through 1992. And the source of the data on which the 
chart is based is the Bureau of The Census. Viewing the chart to my 
left, the viewers will note that in 1960, the total of State government 
debt for 1960 is $18.5 billion, of which the amount shown in the red 
coloring, $9.2 billion, was nonguaranteed debt. The portion that is 
shown in the yellow color is that portion of the debt which is backed 
up by the full faith and credit of the State.
  Now, notice how the State debt has grown, both the nonguaranteed debt 
and the full faith and credit portion of the debt. In 1992, the total 
State government debt was $371.9 billion, of which $272.3 billion was 
not backed up by the full faith and credit of the State but was 
nonguaranteed debt. That nonguaranteed debt costs the State taxpayers 
more than the guaranteed debt, in terms of interest. That portion that 
is colored yellow on the chart, that portion of the total State debt 
was backed up by the full faith and credit of the State.
  Therefore, one will see that in the course of 32 years, 1960 to 1992, 
State debt in this country increased from $18.5 billion to $371.9 
billion. In other words, roughly, as I calculate in my cranium, the 
total State debt had increased about 20 times--20 times. State debt in 
1992 was 20 times greater than it was in 1960.
  Who says that States balance their budgets? The States do not balance 
their budgets. They are in debt. They are heavily in debt. They borrow 
to invest, in most cases; but they borrow to pay for roads and schools 
and other capital projects. Many of the Governors will say, ``My State 
balances its budget, why can the Federal Government not balance its 
budget?'' Those Governors know better than that. They know that the 
States operate on two budgets, a capital budget and an operating 
budget. So why attempt to mislead the people into thinking that oranges 
are apples or that apples are oranges or that black is white or that 
white is black, when the case is plainly not such?
  The Federal Government operates on a unified budget. It does not have 
two budgets, a capital budget and a operating budget. So the States are 
different. But do not let anybody ever tell you that the States are not 
in debt. They are heavily in debt and they are going more into debt all 
the time, as we can see from this chart to my left.
  Then there are those who say that the American families balance their 
budgets--a lot of people believe that. But when they stop to think 
seriously about the matter, they will come to the conclusion that most 
American families really do not balance their budgets. They borrow. 
They borrow to buy what? To buy an automobile. What else? To buy a 
home. I know, because I have had to borrow in my lifetime to buy a 
home. My wife and I have worked hard to pay off the mortgage on the 
home. We were in debt. We did not balance our budget.
  We balanced our operating budget, but we did not balance our total 
budget. We had to borrow. We borrowed the money. We did not balance our 
budget, did we, in the sense that we are talking about here when we say 
that the Federal Government ought to balance its budget? No. We 
borrowed the money, and we paid back, over a period of years, the 
principal and the interest on that borrowed money.
  We hear much these days about a so-called Contract With America. The 
so-called Contract With America. That is a big joke. In pursuance of 
that so-called Contract With America, the other body adopted this 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget in 2 days--2 days! There 
is not a town council in this country anywhere that would not spend 2 
days--at least 2 days--in determining whether or not to issue a permit 
to build a golf course. Two days! Our Founding Fathers spent 116 days, 
from May 25, 1787, to September 17, both inclusive--116 days, behind 
closed doors. They stationed sentries at the door, and the windows were 
kept shut to prevent eavesdropping on what was being said on the 
inside. George Washington instructed the delegates to not leave any 
papers lying on the desks and to not discuss the proceedings with 
anyone on the outside. We cannot even have a caucus without someone 
having to come out of the caucus and spill his guts to the press.
  At that Constitutional Convention, on one occasion, someone 
carelessly left his convention notes on the desk overnight. George 
Washington, the next day, called attention to the fact that someone had 
left his notes, and Washington was upset. He threw the notes onto a 
table and said: ``Let him who owns it take it.'' Nobody claimed the 
notes. Washington walked out of the room. It was serious. The Framers 
met for 116 days; yet here, in 2 days time--2 days--the other body 
adopts this constitutional amendment.
  Thank God for the U.S. Senate! The Founding Fathers certainly knew 
what they were doing when they created the Senate, a place where we can 
have unlimited debate. It can only be limited by a cloture motion or by 
the willful entering into a unanimous-consent agreement on the part of 
all of the Members.
  This constitutional amendment is part of the so-called Contract With 
America. I read about it every day. The newspapers keep a running 
marker on the so-called contract--how many days have gone by, and what 
has passed the House, and all that.
  Well, I once signed a contract myself. But not the so-called Contract 
With America. I signed a contract once upon a time and I have a replica 
of it here on this chart. This was entered into on May 25, 1937, almost 
58 years ago. Let us see what this contract says. Mind you, now, one of 
the shibboleths in this debate is that the American families balance 
their budgets. I consider myself as being an average American. I once 
had to work in a gas station, which was my first job after graduating 
from high school in 1934. Then I became a produce salesman. I sold 
cabbage, turnips, rutabagas, watermelons, peaches, pears, apples, 
radishes--all those nice things. I used to spread them on my produce 
counter. Then I 
[[Page S2923]] became a meat cutter. I worked as a meat cutter for a 
number of years.
  While I was working in this meat shop for Koppers Stores, I entered 
into this contract. It is not the so-called Contract With America, you 
understand. This contract cost me $189.50. What did I get out of this 
contract? No Contract With America is as bona fide as this contract 
was. If I had broken this contract, I would never have come to the U.S. 
Senate. Here is what it said:
  ``Store number 30.'' You see, Koppers Stores was an organization that 
had a number of stores in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and some other 
States. The customer, who was he? Robert Byrd. Date, May 25, 1937. That 
was 4 days before I got married. I am still married to my first wife. 
On May 25, 1937, I entered into that contract. What does it say?

       This conditional sales agreement between Koppers Stores, 
     Division of Koppers Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation, 
     hereinafter called Vendor--

  I probably did not know what ``vendor'' meant at that time. I had 
just graduated from high school three years before. I was out of high 
school 16 years before I started to college.

     and Robert Byrd, residing at Stotesbury, House No. 207 . . . 
     in the County of Raleigh, State of West Virginia . . .--

  Here is what was in the contract: A five-piece bedroom suite 
consisting of one vanity, one bed, one chest, one night table, and one 
bench, valued at $189.50. Here is what the contract said.

     . . . which articles Purchaser agrees to use and keep in like 
     good order and for which Purchaser agrees to pay in cash or 
     scrip of the above-named company as follows: $5 on delivery 
     of this agreement, the receipt of which is hereby 
     acknowledged, and the sum of $7.50, twice each month, payable 
     on the two Saturdays which are nearest to the tenth and 
     twenty-fifth days of each month at the offices of the above 
     named company, for 13 months . . .
       . . . or until the total amount of $189.50 shall have been 
     paid, and Purchaser hereby assigns to Vendor out of any wages 
     due to Purchaser from Purchaser's employer, semimonthly, the 
     said sums so payable semimonthly to Vendor under the terms 
     hereof until said total amount shall have been paid, and 
     hereby authorizes and directs his employer to deduct said 
     sums on the days aforementioned from wages due him on such 
     days, and to pay the same to Vendor, after which total 
     payment the title to the above listed property shall pass to 
     Purchaser without encumbrance.

  See, not until I have paid that $189.50 did the title pass to this 
poor old butcher boy.

       It is understood, however, that pending such total payment, 
     title to said property is reserved and remains in Vendor. And 
     it is agreed that Purchaser shall not, without the consent of 
     Vendor, remove said articles from Raleigh County, nor sell, 
     mortgage, or otherwise dispose of Purchaser's interest in 
     them.
       And it is agreed that if Purchaser should be in default--

  Get this.

     in the payment of any of the installments of purchase money 
     due hereunder, without the written consent of Vendor, or if 
     Purchaser should sell, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of 
     purchaser's interest in any of the above listed property, or 
     remove any of said property from Raleigh County, then the 
     Vendor, its successors and assigns, shall have the right to 
     retake possession of said articles and deal with them in 
     accordance with the statutes for such cases made and provided 
     and in so doing, enter and, if necessary, break into any 
     house, place or premises where said articles may be, provided 
     the same may be done without breach of the peace; or the said 
     company may, at its option, rescind this sale.
       Witness the following signatures and the seal of Purchaser 
     this 25th day of May, 1937.

  And here is yours truly, ``sign here,'' it says, ``Robert Byrd.'' 
This is it! That was my contract--$189.50.
  Now, that is about what every family in America has to experience 
from time to time in buying a house, buying a car, buying a bedroom 
suite, buying a refrigerator, buying a farm.
  My foster father bought a farm in the mid-1920's. Did he pay for it 
in cash? No. He had to go in debt for it. I remember that we lived in 
Mercer County at that time. He had a gentleman sign his note. The man's 
name was Eads--a Mr. Eads. I forget the first name, but he lived at 
Camp Creek in Mercer County, West Virginia. He signed the note for 
$1,800. It was a 26-acre farm. It was not a great farm; just two 
hillsides that came together down in the hollow where a creek meandered 
its way down the valley. Sometimes it became a swirling treacherous 
stream when the rains came.
  But he went into debt for that farm, $1,800, along about 1925-1926. I 
was in about the fifth grade. My dad had to go in debt.
  So that is the story as to how American families ``balance'' their 
budgets.
  So don't let it be said that the Federal Government should balance 
its budget like ``every family in America balances its budget.'' Only a 
few fortunate families, relatively speaking, are able to balance their 
budgets. Families borrow to buy a farm, or farm equipment, or to 
finance a college education. Many parents borrow money to finance the 
college education of their sons and daughters. In fact, the American 
people have borrowed billions of dollars, as shown on the chart to my 
left, for myriad reasons.
  This chart to my left indicates the consumer debt from installment 
loans in billions of dollars. This excludes real estate, which amounts 
to over $3.5 trillion.
  In 1980, the consumer debt in this country was $292 billion. It has 
gone up every year, has increased, with the exception of 2 years. In 
1991 and 1992 there was a slight drop. In 1992, it dropped to $731 
billion. But in 1994, September, the consumer debt in this country from 
installment loans was $880 billion. That does not count real estate 
debt. Real estate debt that the American people owe is over $3.5 
trillion--over $3.5 trillion--for their homes and farms. But other than 
real estate, consumer debt itself from installment loans went from $292 
billion in 1980 to $880 billion in 1994. In other words, in 14 or 15 
years, it increased from close to $300 billion to almost $900 billion, 
almost three times as much.
  Those peoples are borrowing to make an investment, for the most part. 
They are investing in a roof over their heads when they borrow money 
for their homes. They are investing in a brighter future for their 
children when they borrow money for college loans. These are 
investments that families make in the future. Surely no one would 
advocate passing a law that would prohibit that type of borrowing. 
Surely no Senator would stand on this floor and offer a bill that 
mandated that a family or a business or a State of this Union would be 
denied all loans unless those loans could be paid in full within 12 
months.
  Yet, under this amendment, unless three-fifths of the whole number of 
both Houses vote to allow Federal borrowing on an annual basis, the 
Federal government will be denied the methods that most businesses, 
State and local governments, and families use to finance investments 
critical to their proper functioning, economic prosperity, stability, 
and well-being. We would be making it nearly impossible for the Federal 
government to ever again make a substantial investment in its people, 
and in their future unless it could be totally paid for each and every 
year. Never mind the merit of the investment. Never mind the wisdom or 
the need of the investment. There is only one standard which must be 
met and that is the standard of ability to completely offset any costs 
yearly.
  I know there is the out, there is the escape hatch, of three-fifths 
of the Members may vote to waive this mandate.
  What about the argument that 49 States have some type of statutory or 
constitutional balanced budget requirement, so why should we not have a 
balanced budget amendment to the Federal Constitution? This argument is 
simplistic, perhaps interesting, but really not relevant. The States, 
unlike the Federal government, are not required to raise and support 
armies, not required to provide and maintain a navy, not required to 
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United 
States. Nor do they carry the responsibility for the conduct of 
international relations or for the fiscal and economic policy of the 
Nation. Moreover, there are fundamental differences in Federal and 
State fiscal and budgeting structures. Balanced budget requirements for 
States generally affect operating budgets but not capital budgets, 
whereas the Federal government operates on a unified budget. Operating 
and capital budgets are not separate and distinct in the Federal budget 
as they are in State budgets. This proposed balanced budget amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution would require the total Federal budget to be 
balanced, including capital investment, 
[[Page S2924]] pension funds, and operating expenditures, and it would 
require such a budget each and every year.
  Furthermore, balanced budget requirements and practices at the State 
levels leave much room for evasion, so that not everything meets the 
naked eye. Revenues and expenditures are often shifted from one fiscal 
year to the next, off-budget agencies are often used, program and 
funding responsibilities are shifted to county and local governments, 
short-term borrowing and borrowing from pension funds are common at the 
State level.
  Much State borrowing is made through off-budget, non-guaranteed debt 
instruments which require higher interest payments. The States are in 
debt. We better believe it. The Governors say, ``We balance our 
budgets.'' Mr. Reagan used to say, ``Well, we balanced our budget in 
California, the States have to balance their budgets.'' ``The States 
have it, why not let me have it?'' Mr. Bush would say the same thing. 
``They balance their budgets, why not the Federal Government?'' But in 
fact, they do not. The States are in debt, but they hide it.
  On another front, Mr. President, the three-fifths requirement to 
waive the requirements of section 1 would have the real effect of 
diluting the power of the small States of this country. I hope that the 
rural States and smaller States will take a long, hard look at this 
provision. If this amendment is ratified, we are going to have to 
balance this budget, come--I will not say the word ``hell,'' I will use 
the word Abaddon or Sheol, but as some would say--hell or high water, 
in any and every fiscal year--recession, depression or not, unless 
``three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a 
rollcall vote.'' Now, that dilutes the voting strength of the small- 
and medium-sized States in this country. It puts into the hands of the 
large States vast bargaining power.
  Let me illustrate my point. I will take only six States. How many 
votes would be required to defeat any waiver? It only takes two-fifths 
plus one vote of either House. The Senate might unanimously support a 
waiver of section 1 in a given year. In the Senate, all the States are 
equal. This is the only forum in this Government in which all the 
States--large States, small States, middle-sized States--are equal. 
Little West Virginia is equal to the mighty State of California. West 
Virginia has three votes in the other body. Three votes. California has 
52. Two-fifths plus one of the other body, can thwart the waiver. That 
is where the voting strength of the small States would be diluted. 
There are 435 Members of the other body. One-fifth is 87. Two-fifths is 
174. All that is needed in the House to block the waiver of section 1 
would be 175 votes. Now, on the chart to my left. Viewers will 
recognize six States that have a total of 177 votes; California, with 
52; New York, with 31; Texas, with 30; Florida, with 23; Pennsylvania, 
with 21; and Illinois, with 20. That adds up to 177 votes. Two votes to 
spare. It only takes 175 votes in the other House to thwart a waiver of 
this requirement in this new constitutional amendment. We could 
substitute Ohio for Illinois, substitute 19 for 20, and if we do that 
we have 176 votes. So we still have one vote to spare.
  Remember that 175 votes will block the waiver of section 1, or the 
waiver of section 2. If we substitute Ohio for Pennsylvania, Ohio with 
19, Pennsylvania with 21, and put Ohio in with 19 votes, we hit it 
right on the nose--right on the nose, 175 votes.
  Therefore, under this scenario, 6 States have by virtue of the 
provision in the proposed constitutional amendment outvoted the other 
44 States.
  How do small States feel about that? The big States can have the 
ability to band together and bargain. If those six States stood solidly 
in the House, they could say to the whole Senate, they could say to the 
rest of the Members of the House ``We will not budge unless you give to 
us this or that.'' The voting power of the other 44 States will be 
rendered nugatory. Small States had better take a good, hard look at 
the fine print with this constitutional amendment. And Senators who 
represent small States had better take a hard look because in the other 
body, small States will not wield nearly the power as would the large 
States. The people of the small States and the newspapers in the small 
States had better take notice. Small States are going to be left out in 
the cold. It will be a perpetual winter of discontent. Perhaps it would 
only be in an extreme situation, and it would be, that six States would 
line up as they are lined up on the charts, but it is possible. Small 
States would be penalized under this amendment.
  It might not be 6 States, it might be 8, might be 10, it might be 15. 
Make no bones about it, small States will be penalized under the 
amendment. Make no bones about it.
  Now let us take a look at the sections of the amendment involving 
limit on the debt. Under House Joint Resolution 1, the debt limit 
cannot be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each 
House votes to do so by rollcall.
  I will read it:

       Section 2, the limit on the debt of the United States held 
     by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of 
     the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such 
     an increase by a rollcall vote.

  Increases in the debt limit often muster only a bare majority, and 
then, with some difficulty. In fact, the debt limit has been raised 29 
times over the period February 1981 through August of 1993 and in only 
two of those instances did three-fifths of the whole number of both 
Houses vote to increase the debt limit. But, on only two of those 
occasions did three-fifths of the whole number of both Houses vote to 
increase the debt limit over the period of February 1981 through August 
of 1993. This means that on only two occasions did the Congress meet 
the supermajority requirements of this balanced budget amendment. To 
further illustrate the difficulties of requiring a supermajority vote 
to raise the debt limit I quote from a letter which I received from the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Dr. Alice Rivlin. She 
writes in part ``* * * the amendment's debt limit provisions would lead 
to financial brinkmanship. It would permit a minority, in the House or 
the Senate, to hold the Federal Treasury hostage whenever the nation's 
finances require the issuance of additional debt.'' This is an 
exceedingly irresponsible requirement. It is a ``doomsday'' device. 
Using the debt ceiling to force Congress and the President to come 
together on spending cuts or revenue increases in order to avoid a 
presumed deficit, while holding the American people hostage is fraught 
with problems. So what happens if Congress fails to extend the debt 
limit? The Treasury would cease to issue new debt. Writing checks for 
any purpose would be severely curtailed. There could be no assurance 
that social security checks could be issued.
 There could be no assurance that payments could be made to our 
military men and women, or our judges, the President, Congress, or 
anyone else. Even interest payments on our current debt obligations 
could not be assured. Payments for unemployment benefits, farm price 
supports, Medicare bills, and child nutrition programs would be, at 
best, intermittent, if made at all--if made at all. Even basic 
government services could not be assured. The Federal government would 
be in chaos.

  A vote for this constitutional amendment is a vote for delay, at 
least until the year 2002. It is as phony as a $3 bill. I have never 
seen a $3 bill, just as I will never see a balanced budget through this 
amendment. It is a cop out. It will straitjacket the Government in 
recession, and it will force us to overload services and programs on 
the States, and, in the end, it will open the way to litigation, and 
the invitation to the courts of this country to become the super-
Offices of Management and Budget and involve themselves in the 
legislative control over the purse.
  This could be rightly named the ``lawyer's amendment'' or the 
constitutional amendment for the benefit of lawyers. ``The first thing 
we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' Shakespeare said in the second 
part of Henry VI. ``The first thing we do, let's kill all the 
lawyers.'' The lawyers are going to have a field day on this amendment, 
because it is going to open up the way to litigation, and it will be an 
open invitation to the courts of this country to become the super-
Offices of Management and Budget and involve themselves in the 
legislative control over the purse. It 
[[Page S2925]] would enthrone the judges of this country with the power 
to tell the people where the money will be spent and how revenues will 
be raised. These judges will become unelected representatives of the 
people appointed for life. The end result would be taxation without 
representation, and we fought one war over that principle a little over 
200 years ago.
  The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in 
which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an 
imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so 
declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole 
number of each House, which becomes law. This is section 5.
  I am going to read section 5 of the constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget:

       The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for 
     any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. 
     The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal 
     year in which the United States is engaged in military 
     conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat 
     to national security and is so declared by a joint 
     resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House, which becomes law.

  Mr. President, if the Nation found itself in a situation so serious 
that the Congress passed a declaration of war, then certainly the 
Congress would exercise this waiver, I should think. No doubt about it.
  Declarations of war have been known to be in effect for many years 
following the termination of the actual fighting war--which might 
create a problem here.
  However, as a practical matter, the United States has been involved 
in three wars and numerous other military engagements over the past 50 
years and none of them has been conducted under a declaration of war.
  The Korean war under the auspices of the United Nations; the war in 
Vietnam; the Persian Gulf war, and numerous other military engagements 
in the past 50 years were conducted without a declaration of war.
  Section 5 goes on to provide for a waiver of the balanced budget 
requirement if the Congress passes a joint resolution, by a majority of 
the whole number of each House, declaring that the United States is 
engaged in a conflict that poses imminent and serious military threat 
to the national security. This would appear to provide the flexibility 
required, but it is easy to envision scenarios where this scheme would 
break down.
  If a military emergency develops late in a fiscal year and the 
President, as Commander in Chief, takes immediate steps to address the 
crisis, such as happened in Operation Desert Shield, then how would the 
funding be affected? Even if the Congress passed a resolution 
supporting the President's initial action, the situation might not 
clearly meet the test of ``imminent and serious military threat to 
national security.'' The Congress might be deeply divided on the 
policy, with no majority of the whole number of either House supporting 
the President's action. Let us remember that the resolution authorizing 
the use of force in the Persian Gulf passed the Senate by a vote of 52 
to 47. If such a situation did not meet the test of section 5 and 
three-fifths of the Congress would not vote to waive this amendment as 
provided in section 1, then the Nation could find itself with a 
Commander in Chief forced to operate in violation of this 
constitutional requirement. Unfortunately it is a very possible 
outcome. Moreover, America's ability to respond to national emergencies 
even if a waiver were granted could be seriously impaired because, for 
the first time in the history of our nation, we will be shackling our 
defense preparedness to other unrelated factors.
  America's defense preparedness could, if this amendment becomes law, 
be determined by shifts in the overall economy or cost growth in 
entitlement programs. This would inject great uncertainty and very 
likely chaos into our defense planning when what is needed, especially 
in the area of defense, is long-term dependability, predictability, and 
stability. Budgeting for defense under the balanced budget amendment is 
especially unwieldy because of the long-lead time needed for our 
important weapons systems. Many years of research and development are 
needed to ensure that our forces can respond to emergencies and are 
never outgunned. Programs cannot be started and stopped at the whim of 
an out-of-balance budget, caused by a rise in interest rates or 
unforeseen growth in entitlement programs. We cannot recruit and train 
military professionals
 adequately in a climate of constant budget uncertainty. Defense 
preparedness and effectiveness cannot result when the funds for a 
strong defense are uncertain or in peril from year to year.

  Mr. President, this balanced budget amendment is plagued with 
problems. They are problems which cannot be rectified because they 
impose fiscal rigidity upon the nation's economic and fiscal policies. 
The amendment promotes a paralysis of the nation's ability to act to 
protect itself in a crisis. It amounts to a lockjaw, a tetanus economic 
policy both now and forevermore. It is a bad idea whose time never was, 
and it deserves to be soundly defeated.
  It seems to me that some of the most disturbing flaws in this most 
disturbing Constitutional amendment are to be found in section 5 
because section 5 sets up an obstacle course--deliberately constructs 
hurdles and traps--which must be conquered before we can deal with a 
threat to our national security. Additionally, when section 5 is 
coupled with section 1 and section 3, the President and the Congress 
can both be put in a perfectly ludicrous situation with regard to the 
protection of our fighting men and women and the national security 
interest.
  Section 1 states that three-fifths, ``* * * of the whole number of 
each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of 
outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.'' Suppose we are involved in 
a military conflict which crosses from one fiscal year to another. But, 
then let us also suppose that the conflict appears to be winding down, 
and for a time it appears that there is not ``an imminent and serious 
military threat to national security,'' and so the Congress does not 
waive the provisions of the article.
  Then let us further suppose that the conflict flares up toward the 
end of the fiscal year and our fighting men and women are at risk and 
the battle is raging. The President of the United States is forced 
under this amendment and under section 3 to submit a balanced budget 
every year. He is forced to try to guess at what the costs of the 
conflict might be and, if they are going to be large, to savage some 
other part of the budget in order to try to pay for the conflict. Or he 
can just ignore the situation and trust that the Congress will bail him 
out and either muster the three-fifths vote to pay for the costs of the 
conflict at the end of the fiscal year or pass a joint resolution 
waiving the appropriate provisions of the amendment.
  I would not want to be a President charged with protecting American 
lives under those circumstances. I would not want to be a President 
charged with protecting the national security under those 
circumstances. I would not want to be a general in the field under 
those circumstances. I would not want to be the father of a son or a 
daughter or grandfather of a grandson or granddaughter fighting in that 
conflict. I would not want to be an ally of a nation with that kind of 
convoluted uncertainty lurking behind its ability to make good on its 
commitments.
  I think we have a right to believe that other nations likewise would 
have some qualms about being our ally under those conditions. Nations 
that are our allies would certainly not feel that they could count on 
this Nation in a moment of criticality.
  A dedicated minority could so hamstring a President that he is unable 
to continue his commitment to our fighting men and women and to our 
allies in a conflict. A devious enemy could use the hurdles and traps 
which we are constructing with this ill-conceived proposal to affect 
this Nation's ability to wage a war.
  Why in the world would any nation want to set up such a vicious snare 
for its own national security interests?
  Why would any other nation want to line up with us, knowing that it, 
the other nation, could not depend upon us to deliver the three-fifths 
requirement or to deliver the majority of the total membership of both 
Houses in a critical situation?
  I wonder if the authors of this amendment really sat down and thought 
about the impact of this ill- 
[[Page S2926]] conceived idea upon our nations security interests? We 
have heard all of this talk about protecting the defense budget from 
cuts under the amendment, but have the proponents really played out the 
consequences of sections 1, 3, and 5 in the event that we are engaged 
in lengthy military operations?
  I believe that the proponents have become so obsessed with the idea 
of ramming through a constitutional amendment to balance the budget 
that they have put all other concerns on the back burner. They are 
wearing huge and heavy blinders. While blinders may be useful to help a 
nervous horse run a race, they serve human beings, who must keep their 
eyes on many priorities, very poorly indeed.
  This amendment so rewrites the constitution, so shifts the balance of 
power among the three branches, and so thoroughly rearranges the checks 
and balances that it is in effect anticonstitutional.
  Now, obviously, it will not be unconstitutional if the Congress 
adopts it and it is ratified by three-fourths of the States. It will 
not be unconstitutional because it will then be part of the 
Constitution. But it will be anticonstitutional in the sense that our 
framers had in mind when they created a system of mixed powers, checks 
and balances, with the power of the purse, power to tax, power to 
appropriate funds lodged in the legislative branch.
  I believe that the adoption of this amendment will have the impact of 
shredding the constitution as we have traditionally known it. Such 
confusion will abound, such litigation will occur, such unintended 
snares and bottlenecks will arise that we will most assuredly suffer a 
constitutional crisis of large proportions if it is adopted.
  Now, those are the nightmares if this constitutional amendment is 
enforced. Of course, if it is not enforced, then it creates a different 
nightmare, that being the nightmare of the amendment's being nothing 
more than an empty promise written into the Constitution of the United 
States, an empty promise, in which event the confidence of the American 
people in the Constitution will be shattered and their confidence in 
their Government will suffer further.
  To mandate such an unrealistic criterion for a great nation is in 
effect to chain its most vital function--its ability to protect its 
citizens and its national interests--to the fluctuations of a giant 
economy, to the unpredictability of the whims of public opinion and to 
a green eyeshade view of national priorities.
  Balancing the budget is a laudable goal. I share that goal. We all 
share that goal. But absolute budget balance, each and every year, is 
neither laudable nor, in every case, wise.
  Surely, we do not want to go down this dark and murky road. It is 
more than apparent that the wisdom of the Framers is not manifest in 
this latest proposed addition to the Constitution.
  If we have not the ``wisdom'' in the crafting of the proposal, let us 
at least have the wisdom to reject it.


                           Amendment No. 256

  (Purpose: To permit waiver of the article when the United States is 
             engaged in military conflict by majority vote)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe I have an amendment at the desk, 
No. 256. I call up that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 256,

       On page 2, lines 24 and 25, strike ``, adopted by a 
     majority of the whole number of each House''.

  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the effect of this amendment is as follows. 
It would strike from section 5 the words, ``adopted by a majority of 
the whole number of each House.''
  It would leave standing all of the foregoing words, namely:

       Section 5, the Congress may waive the provision of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, which becomes law.

  So it eliminates the requirement that such a joint resolution be 
adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes 
law.
  I call attention to the fact that to require a majority of the whole 
number of each House would preclude the Vice President of the United 
States from casting a deciding vote on a given motion to waive this 
section. If the votes were tied--tied at 40-40, he might as well not 
vote because his vote would not count. If they were tied at 50-50, as 
we have seen occur in the case of the 1993 reconciliation bill--the 
1993 reconciliation bill, that was to reduce the budget deficits over 
the period of the following 5 years by something like $482 billion--the 
votes were tied: 50 votes for and 50 votes against. Not a single 
Republican Senator voted for that package. They all voted against it 
because they said taxes were increased in it. But they all voted 
against it. The vote was 50-50. The Vice President cast the deciding 
vote in that instance.
  In this situation, if we find that our country is faced with an 
imminent and serious military threat to its security, Congress can 
waive the requirements of the amendment, namely that the outlays in a 
given year not exceed the receipts. But Congress can waive that 
requirement only if a joint resolution is passed, which is adopted by a 
majority of the whole number of each House. There is no such 
requirement now in the law or in the Constitution. But, with past 
experience vividly in view, it is not untoward to conceive that there 
could be a future time when the vote in the Senate is a tie--when there 
are 50 for and 50 against a joint resolution to lift the waiver imposed 
by this constitutional amendment at a time when our country's very 
security is in serious jeopardy, and the lives of our fighting men and 
women are on the line. The vote is tied, 50-50.
  Normally, under the Constitution as it now exists, the Vice President 
could cast a vote to break that tie. What about this situation? He may 
still cast a vote, but the resolution on that occasion has to be 
adopted by a majority of the whole number of each body. The ``whole 
number'' in the Senate is presently 100 Senators. A majority of the 
whole number is 51. Consequently, if this amendment is riveted into the 
Constitution, a resolution waiving the strictures of this 
constitutional amendment in a time of serious peril to our Nation 
cannot pass on a tie vote. It cannot be adopted by this Senate by a 
majority of 50 to 49 or 50 to 40 or 50 to 30 or 50 to 20 or 50 to 10 or 
50 to 1. There must be 51 votes cast to adopt the resolution waiving 
the requirements that are imposed by this constitutional amendment. 
There must be 51, no less. And the 51 votes have to be cast by Members 
of the body.
  The Vice President is not a Member of this body. If the vote is 50-
50, as it was in the case of the deficit reduction package, the 
reconciliation bill in 1993, the Vice President cast the deciding vote 
there, but in this situation his vote would not count because he is not 
a ``Member'' of the Senate. There must be 51 Senators, and in the House 
there must be a majority of the whole number of the House. The whole 
number there being presently 435, there would have to be 218 votes in 
the House by a rollcall vote. If that is not straitjacketing the Nation 
when the Nation's security is at stake, I do not know what a 
straitjacket is.
  It seems to me what would happen in an event like that--aside from 
what may happen to our national security and what may happen to the men 
and women whose lives are at stake out there--what would happen would 
be a constitutional crisis. Do not think that the court would not enter 
into that political thicket. If the Constitution is amended by this 
monstrosity--the original portion of the Constitution says that the 
Vice President may cast the deciding vote. The courts are going to 
intervene, because you have the original Constitution saying on the one 
hand, that the Vice President, in the case of a tie, may cast the 
deciding vote. On the other hand we have this balanced budget amendment 
which says that a joint resolution, to be adopted, must be adopted by a 
majority of the ``whole number'' of each House before that resolution 
can become law. The Vice President is not a Member of either House.
   [[Page S2927]] So the Vice President's vote cannot count in the 
Senate in that situation. Hence, if you have a 50-50 vote, the Vice 
President's vote cannot count, because the joint resolution must be 
supported by 51 Members of the Senate in any occasion involving the 
language of this amendment, section 5 thereof--it has to have the 
support of at least 51 Senators; 49 votes are not good enough; 50 votes 
are not good enough. It must be 51. All Senators opposed to the joint 
resolution can just stay home. Their votes do not count anyhow in a 
sense, because it takes at least 51 votes of Senators. What is the 
court going to say? What is the court going to say? The court will not 
say that that is a political question. The courts are going to say, 
``That is a constitutional question, and we are going to decide it.'' 
The court will go into that thicket, because two provisions of the 
Constitution will now be in direct conflict.
  The same thing would be true in the case of raising revenues. Section 
4 says, ``No bill to increase revenues shall become law unless approved 
by a majority of the whole number of each House by rollcall vote.'' 
Again, the Vice President is not a Member of the Senate and, if the 
vote results in a tie, the Vice President may cast a vote if he wishes 
to do so, but his vote will not count. He is not a Member of the 
Senate, and the supporting votes of at least 51 Senators will be 
required. A vote of a simple majority of the Senators present and 
voting--as is now the case under the Constitution and the rules--will 
no longer prevail.
  Section 4 of the balanced budget amendment reads:

       No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless 
     approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a 
     rollcall vote.

  I would like for somebody to come and explain this. Where is that 
``Republican response team,'' that noble, noble response team? Come 
over and explain to this Senator from the hill country how we shall 
interpret that section. The Vice President--the Vice President's vote 
again will not count. He is not a Member of this body.
  I believe I am limited to 1 hour under my control on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I do not want to utilize my time further in, waiting on the 
valiant and noble members of the ``response team'' of nine Senators to 
respond to this poor little old Senator from West Virginia. I suppose 
it is legal for them--and constitutional--for them to gang up on me 
like that, but I am not going to use up my hour waiting on them.
  So, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I have called 
up the amendment. It has been read.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask 
the time not be charged against either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask 
unanimous consent that following the disposition of the pending Byrd 
amendment, Senator Rockefeller be recognized to call up his amendment 
No. 306, and that time prior to a motion to table be divided as 
follows: 60 minutes under the control of Senator Rockefeller; 30 
minutes under the control of Senator Hatch or his designee; and that 
following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the majority leader 
or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table amendment No. 
306.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 256

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am always interested in the arguments of 
our distinguished colleague from West Virginia who has raised issues 
concerning section 5 that he feels are prominent and important. But 
section 5 of this amendment, which in part provides for a waiver of the 
amendment's requirements for any fiscal year in which the United States 
is involved in a military conflict that presents a serious threat to 
national security by a constitutional majority of both Houses of 
Congress, does not in any way, shape or form hinder the ability of this 
Nation to protect itself, as Senator Byrd, the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia, and certain opponents of the balanced budget 
amendment contend.
  Does anyone really suggest that Members of Congress would vote 
against a waiver for an ongoing military engagement which presented a 
threat to national security? I really do not think that argument can be 
made with a straight face.
  This is not a situation analogous to the situation before the Haiti 
invasion, where there was no imminent threat to the United States and 
where congressional and public opinion was in fact split. This is more 
like the situation in the Persian Gulf and in Kuwait back in 1991.
  Thus, after the gulf war began, H.R. 1282, the Operation Desert 
Shield/Desert Storm Supplemental Act passed the House by a vote of 380 
to 19, on March 7, 1991. It passed the Senate 98 to 1, on March 19, 
1991, and was signed into law by President Bush on April 10 of the same 
year. This amply demonstrates that Congress will overwhelmingly take 
measures to protect our troops and to protect our country, where 
national security interests really are involved.
  Moreover, even before hostilities are commenced and where our Nation 
faces a real and imminent military or national security threat, I am 
confident that the U.S. Congress would raise revenue by the requisite 
constitutional majority of section 4, or find the three-fifths majority 
needed to waive the debt ceiling under section 2 of the amendment, or a 
combination of both, to provide the needed funding for our young men 
and women in the military. I have no doubt about that and I do not 
think anybody else does either.
  We are not going to allow our young people to be placed in harm's way 
without the backing of the Constitution of the United States. So this 
is kind of a red herring.
  The constitutional majority requirement of section 5, on the other 
hand, is necessary for two reasons. It retards Congress from labeling 
mere spending programs as national security or emergency measures.
 Witness President Clinton's so-called 1993 stimulus program, most of 
which was defeated and which contained things like $1 billion for 
summer youth employment--nothing to do with the national security, just 
another spending program--$1.3 billion for infrastructure improvements, 
which again has nothing to do with national security; $735 billion for 
compensatory education.

  The Clinton package was labeled the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act of 1993. No matter what one's view as to the 
importance of these programs, they cannot be considered emergencies 
that needed immediate funding. In fact, if you take the summer youth 
program, we would have all kinds of summer youth programs and have them 
then. We have over 150 job training programs, a number of which are 
used for unemployed youth, including Job Corps, which I have helped to 
save, an expensive but working program that really does save us 
millions of dollars over the long run with regard to each person that 
they place in work life positions. As far as compensatory education 
programs, we have all kinds of those as well. They were clearly not 
emergency programs.
  So, No. 1, Congress has to be retarded from labeling regular spending 
programs as emergency programs, or Congress will call everything an 
emergency measure, just as this administration tried to do so in its 
emergency stimulus program.
  The second reason is, the constitutional majority requirement does 
force a rollcall vote. That is something we do not always do around 
here. We have what is known as a voice vote situation that saves 
Members of Congress, and especially Members of the Senate, from making 
the tough economic votes around here. This provision requires a 
rollcall vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I will be pleased to yield.
   [[Page S2928]] Mr. BYRD. I do not want to interrupt him in the 
middle of a sentence. But why do we have to write in the Constitution a 
provision to require a rollcall vote? The Constitution that we now have 
says that on the request of one-fifth of the Members present, we will 
have a rollcall vote. Why do we have to write a new constitutional 
amendment to get a rollcall vote?
  Mr. HATCH. Well, in this particular case, to answer my distinguished 
colleague from West Virginia, we have had countless illustrations of 
voice votes on matters as important as real emergency matters. And what 
this does, it just says, ``Look, you are going to have to have a 
rollcall vote if you want to call something an emergency, and you are 
going to have to have a constitutional majority in order to succeed on 
that rollcall vote.''
  If it is an emergency, I do not see any problem getting a 
constitutional majority which, after all, just means one thing, and 
that is that before this measure can pass, Congress is going to have to 
stand up and vote, at least 51 Senators in the Senate, 218 Members of 
the House, in order to do so.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, that would not be any blue ribbon 
accomplishment that is worth going through the throes of getting a new 
constitutional amendment written into the present Constitution, to say 
that Members will have to stand up and vote.
  Who minds that? I have not missed a vote in over 10 years. I am sure 
other Senators have not missed many votes. I daresay, may I say to the 
distinguished Senator from Utah, that practically every Senator in this 
body, I would say, without having looked at the record recently, has 
better than a 90 percent voting record.
  Mr. HATCH. I think that is right. When they are called upon to vote, 
Senators generally vote. And in these instances, they will have to 
vote. Where, as the distinguished Senator knows, we have many very 
tough votes that are cast by a voice vote where the rollcall is not 
recorded, because there is no rollcall.
  Mr. BYRD. Why? Because no Senator requests the yeas and nays in those 
cases.
  Mr. HATCH. And there is reason for that.
  Mr. BYRD. If a Senator requests the yeas and nays, he is going to get 
a sufficient show of seconds, or he will put in a quorum call until he 
does get a sufficient number to require a rollcall vote.
  Mr. HATCH. That is true. The Senator makes a good point. I think the 
Senator from West Virginia has been one of those who is willing to vote 
on everything. He has always had the courage to stand up and vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes, I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator has not answered the main point 
of my reasoning; that being, that the requirement that a joint 
resolution, in section 5, be adopted by a majority of the whole number 
of each House. That provision calls into serious question the vote of 
the Vice President in the case of a tie vote. How do we get around 
that?
  Mr. HATCH. Well, I think I have answered the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia. The reason we are putting that in there is because 
we want to make it difficult for the Congress to hide any spending 
program under the ``emergency'' designation.
  Mr. BYRD. That is not an answer to my question.
  Mr. HATCH. Well, it is an answer to your question.
  Mr. BYRD. No, it is not. What does the Senator have to say to my 
question, which goes right to the point of allowing the Vice President 
of the United States to cast a deciding vote?
  Mr. HATCH. Let me get to that.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well.
  Mr. HATCH. First of all, what we are trying to do is to make it 
difficult to hide behind the word ``emergency'' in passing whatever 
they want to by a simple rollcall vote.
  Second, there are other supermajority votes already in the 
Constitution where the Vice President's vote is not essential in the 
Senate. Veto overrides are certainly illustrations where the Vice 
President's vote is not going to count for anything.
  What we are doing here is providing a means whereby you have to have 
a constitutional majority of the whole number of each House in order to 
pass legislation pursuant to section 5, among others. The purpose of 
the constitutional majority, or 51 within the Senate, makes it clear 
that there is not going to be any tie. If you are going to have an 
emergency, you want to vote on it, you are going to have to have 51 
Senators vote for it at least, and at least 218 Members of the House.
  In other words, it has been contemplated by the Founding Fathers, who 
put in majorities in some instances into the constitution, the veto 
override being just one illustration of something in the Constitution 
that says you do not have simple democratic majoritarian rule in all 
matters in the Constitution. In this particular case, so that we do not 
have a continuous hiding behind the word ``emergency,'' we are saying 
that you must have a constitutional majority of the whole number of 
each House in order to waive the provisions of article V.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there are supermajorities in the 
Constitution. We have discussed those on previous occasions.
  Mr. HATCH. That is right.
  Mr. BYRD. But nowhere, nowhere, do we find a supermajority required 
in connection with the great substantive powers granted to the Congress 
in article I, section 9, or article I, section 8. None of those great 
substantive powers turns on a supermajority vote. We have gone over 
those--I see the ``response team'' gathering.
  But the question is, where we have a 50-50 vote, you cannot squeeze 
another drop of blood out of that turnip, because there are only 100 
Senators. You have a 50-50 tie. If the Vice President casts a vote, you 
do not have the 51 Members, you do not have a majority of the whole 
number of the Senate. Now, I am still waiting for the Senator's answer 
on that.
  Let me read from Federalist No. 68, by Hamilton, in reference to the 
Vice President.
  Mr. HATCH. May I ask my colleague from West Virginia if he will do so 
on his own time.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will read this on my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Not that I mind yielding my time, because I am happy to do 
it. This is a good debate. This is a good interchange. But it would 
allow me to save some time.
  Mr. BYRD. This, it seems to me, is one of the critical points that is 
raised by section 5 of this amendment. I hope to have more than an 
hour, and that we could take a little more time if needed.
  Hamilton said in Federalist No. 68, with reference to the Vice 
President:

       The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-
     President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not 
     mischievous * * *. But two considerations seem to justify the 
     ideas of the convention in this respect. One is that to 
     secure at all times the possibility of a definitive 
     resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President 
     should have only a casting vote.

  Meaning the President of the Senate.
  Now, how can the requirements of the original Constitution be lived 
up to? How can the principles as expressed by Hamilton in the 
Federalist No. 68 be obeyed if we deprive the President of this body, 
the Vice President of the United States, the opportunity of casting a 
deciding vote?
  I will read that again: One consideration ``is that to secure at all 
times''--all times, not just part of the times, not just on certain 
occasions--``secure at all times the possibility of a definitive 
resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have 
only a casting vote.'' He can only cast that vote to break a tie so as 
to bring about a definitive resolution of a given matter.
  Now, otherwise in this amendment here, if we have a tie vote, may I 
say, it seems to me that we are not going to have a ``definitive 
resolution'' by this body.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I may answer, the Founding Fathers not 
only provided for the Vice President to break a tie vote when we have a 
simple majority vote--which would continue to be the law, it would 
continue to be constitutional law--but they provided means in article V 
where we could 
[[Page S2929]] amend the Constitution of the United States. They 
expected there would be amendments, and they made it very difficult for 
Members to amend. That is why we have only had 27 amendments to the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  This amendment, if it passes by the requisite two-thirds majority, if 
we are able to keep other amendments off and pass it by the requisite 
two-thirds majority and it is ratified by three quarters of the States, 
would become the 28th amendment to the Constitution, assuming there are 
no other intervening amendments that go through the same process.
  That means that what we are doing here is saying that we are amending 
the Constitution because of the extraordinary danger of the continually 
rising national debt and deficits.
  To be honest, they contemplated that we might want to do that from 
time to time.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator still has not answered my question.
  Of course, the framers provided for the amending of the organic law. 
They did that in article V. But that is no answer to my question.
  Say we adopt this amendment, the States ratify it by the necessary 
three-fourths, it becomes a part of the Constitution. We will then have 
two different provisions of the Constitution in direct conflict with 
each other.
  One says that the Vice President shall cast a deciding vote, and the 
reason for that is ``to secure at all times the possibility of a 
definitive resolution of the body;'' but on the other hand, we have an 
amendment now that is about to go into the Constitution which says, in 
the case of section 5, when the Nation's security is in danger, we have 
to have 51 votes of Senators. In essence, that is what it says. We have 
to have 51 votes in the Senate to adopt that joint resolution, and they 
have to be cast by Senators. We cannot count the Vice President's vote, 
cast to break a tie.
  So what do we do in that situation?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may suggest to my friend from West 
Virginia, and he is my friend for whom I have a very high regard, this 
is no more in conflict with the other provision in the Constitution 
than the requirement that we have a two-thirds vote for a treaty.
  That does not permit the Vice President to cast that deciding vote. 
Or a two-thirds vote for impeachment. So we put the entire Constitution 
together. This particular provision was added by our colleague, Senator 
Heflin, for a national emergency.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not know what Constitution the Senator 
from Alabama was reading. Or what Constitution the Senator from 
Illinois is reading.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, he is clearly amending this Constitution.
  Let me just say that the idea of a supermajority vote--in this case, 
I would not call it supermajority, just a constitutional majority 
vote--is not new in the Constitution.
  Let me mention a few. Article I, section 3, says that the Senate may 
convict on an impeachment with a two-thirds vote. The Vice President 
has no role in that.
  Article I, section 5, says that each House may expel a Member with a 
two-thirds vote, a supermajority vote. The Vice President has no say in 
that matter.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. If I may just finish this line of statement, I will be 
happy to yield.
  Article I, section 7, involves the Presidential veto. It can only be 
overridden by a two-thirds vote of each House. The Vice President has 
no say in the Senate.
  Article 2, section 2, the Senate advises and consents to treaties 
with a two-thirds vote. Article V, the constitutional amendment 
requirement requires two-thirds of each House or a constitutional 
convention can be called by two-thirds of the State legislatures, and 
if three-quarters ratify, then it becomes an amendment to the 
Constitution.
  In other words, article V itself acknowledges that we have to have a 
two-thirds vote to amend.
  So we are amending the Constitution. And, yes, I personally believe 
that the Vice President's vote will not count in this situation because 
we will have to have 51 Senators of the whole number of 100 actually 
vote.
  Mr. BYRD. So then what happens? The joint resolution falls.
  Mr. HATCH. It falls unless we have----
  Mr. BYRD. And we have men in peril. We have the Nation's security in 
peril.
  Mr. HATCH. I do not think so. I pointed out in that resolution last 
year, there were a number of features that were certainly not emergency 
features. They might have had to have been taken out.
  Also, I might mention that I think under those circumstances, that 
highlights and augments and I think makes even more important the 
consideration by Members of the Senate.
  Let me just finish this. Article VII of the Constitution, required 
ratification by 9 of the 13 States. This is not a new concept. The 12th 
amendment requires a quorum, two-thirds of the States in the House, to 
choose a President. And a majority of States is required to elect a 
President.
  The same requirement exists for the Senate choosing the Vice 
President. The 25th amendment dealing with the President's competency 
and removal requires that if Congress is not in session, within 21 days 
after Congress is required to assemble, it must determine by a two-
thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge 
the duties of his office.
  Now, there is an excellent letter which was printed from one of our 
colleagues, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Spencer 
Abraham, which was written in Washington, February 15, 1995, but 
published in the New York Times under the editorial letter section on 
Monday, February 20, 1995, which I think directly addresses what the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia is saying.
  So I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record 
at this particular point, because I think it would be very 
enlightening.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                 Founders Provided for Budget Amendment

                            (Spence Abraham)

       To the Editor: In ``Would Federalists Like Their Fans?'' 
     (Week in Review, Feb 12), David Lawsky maintains that James 
     Madison and Alexander Hamilton would not be amused by the 
     proposed balanced-budget amendment Well and good. As a 
     founder of The Federalist Society, I am well aware that 
     amending the Constitution is serious business. But Madison 
     and Hamilton would be amused by Mr. Lawsky's use of their 
     words.
       To claim that ``The Federalist'' and the Constitution rest 
     on the conviction that all Congressional actions should be 
     approved by a simple majority of members present is 
     ridiculous. Amending the Constitution requires approval of 
     the two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then of three-
     fourths of the states.
       Federalist 41 makes clear that amendments will at times be 
     necessary. The Founders' genius was to find an amending 
     process that ``guards equally against that extreme facility, 
     which would render the Constitution too malleable; and that 
     extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered 
     faults.''
       The Founders felt that acts that should be taken only with 
     great deliberation and after establishing broad consensus 
     should require more than a simple majority for approval. Thus 
     the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to expel a member 
     of the legislature, a two-thirds vote of senators present to 
     convict a President of wrongdoing after impeachment by the 
     House and a two-thirds vote of both houses to override a 
     Presidential veto.
       The Founders certainly feared, as Mr. Lawsky suggests, an 
     ``anarchy'' from the rule of minority factions. But this is 
     what we have today. Special interest groups get government 
     money because there is no longer any spending discipline in 
     Congress. The result is an anarchic growth of Federal 
     government and spending.
       The balanced-budget amendment will go a long way toward 
     restoring order. It will require that three-fifths of all 
     members of Congress approve deficit spending and that a 
     majority of members voting approve new taxes. We in Congress 
     would have to exercise self-discipline in budgeting because 
     we could run deficits or raise taxes only if a substantial 
     majority thinks them necessary.
       As to Mr. Lawsky's claim that the balanced-budget amendment 
     ``offers no course of action'' if Congress disobeys it and 
     racks up more deficits, November's election results show how 
     false the view is.
       [[Page S2930]] As stated in Federalist 51, ``A dependence 
     on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the 
     government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity 
     of auxiliary precautions.''
       Auxiliary precautions like the balanced-budget amendment 
     and term limits will make Congress more responsive to the 
     people's will. Term limits will insure that Senators and 
     Representatives do not serve so long that they lose touch 
     with the people and begin treating their offices like private 
     fiefdoms. The balanced-budget amendment will teach Congress 
     that it must be honest with the American people, making clear 
     not only what programs it likes but also the cost and whether 
     and how we can pay for them.
  Mr. BYRD. How does that letter address the point?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it does not address the point directly of 
the Vice President, but it does address that the founders did expect 
Members to audibly come up with additional amendments.
  Mr. BYRD. Of course, I have voted for five constitutional amendments 
during my time in the Senate.
  Mr. HATCH. What we are doing here is we are doing a new amendment 
that does change the regular parliamentary majority vote with regard to 
section 5 and requires a vote of the whole number of both Houses, which 
is different from--as all of these provisions--from the one provision 
that would still exist with regard to other votes, that if a Senate is 
equally divided, the Vice President can break the tie.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, who I think on 
this point had a statement.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Let me just go back to 1787 again for a moment. They spent a great 
deal of time on the fact that Congress had to declare war because they 
did not want Members to get arbitrarily, at the whim of a President, 
into a war.
  We are living in a very different world today. We have not formally 
declared war since World War II. We did not declare war in the Korean 
war; we did not declare war in the Vietnamese war. In Desert Storm, we 
had a resolution. We had, in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
  To say that a simple majority of those in the House and the Senate 
would have to approve our getting involved in some conflict is 
certainly in line with what they talked about in 1787 when they drafted 
the Constitution.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, they did not say this.
  Mr. SIMON. They did not say that.
  Mr. BYRD. The Framers did not say ``has to be adopted by a majority 
of the whole number of each House.''
  Mr. SIMON. But they contemplated a world in which we can sit around 
and debate for 2 or 3 weeks whether or not to declare war. The 
President is going to have to make some fast decisions. And I think 
ordinarily we could get 60 votes for any kind of an emergency. But this 
contemplates doing less than that or the President living within the 
budget constraints.
  I think the amendment Senator Heflin drafted is sound, and I am going 
to support the amendment rather than the motion to defeat.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, why would the proponents of the amendment 
want to make it difficult for this Nation to respond to a national 
security threat? Why set up this additional hurdle? There has to be a 
majority of the whole number. Why do they not just say a simple 
majority? But they are saying it has to be 51; in essence that is what 
they are saying. The Senator can talk all he wishes about the framers 
of 1787 and how we are living in a different world, but John Marshall 
said, this ``Constitution was intended to endure for ages to come, and 
consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.'' 
Here we are treating that Constitution almost like a scrap of paper. 
That is a marvelous document. It is a document to be revered, and we 
talk as though Marshall's words mean nothing.
  Mr. HATCH. If I could take back my time, nobody reveres it more than 
I. As you know, we provide Congress can simply waive the provisions if 
there is a declaration of war. Number one, declared wars are going to 
require just a simple majority. But the reason we have done this is the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama wanted to take care of any 
``emergencies,'' but he recognized that we should not just do a simple 
majority because that word ``emergency'' would be used for everything. 
So that is why we went to a constitutional majority which requires the 
whole number of each House.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BYRD. But what do we do with the Vice President's vote?
  Mr. HATCH. The Vice President would not vote in that instance. It is 
my opinion that the Vice President is not a Member of the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. We agree on that, he is not a Member of the Senate.
  Mr. HATCH. If he is not a Member of the Senate, it is going to take 
51 Members of the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. You cannot get it.
  Mr. HATCH. I think we will on a real emergency.
  Mr. BYRD. You think we will.
  Mr. HATCH. I have no doubt we will. If not, it will not be a real 
emergency.
  Mr. SIMON. If the Senator will yield, with all due respect to my 
friend from West Virginia, I think his argument is with the framers of 
the Constitution rather than with Senator Hatch and myself, because 
they spent a great deal of time to see that we would avoid using this 
matter of the military and national security as an excuse to get into 
wars excessively.
  Washington's Farewell Address is on our desk. This was not put out 
here by those of us who happen to favor this constitutional amendment. 
Washington warned about that, just as Washington in this farewell 
address warned about acquiring debts.
  I think this particular amendment is completely consistent with the 
discussions of 1787.
  Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator. Let me just say this. It will 
not be an emergency unless you get a majority of the whole number of 
each House. But if you look at the other side of the coin, the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, if you want to stretch the 
philosophy here, is really arguing that emergencies can be solved by as 
few as 25 Members of the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Plus the Vice President.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? The Senator says, I understood him 
to say, there would not be an emergency unless it was decided by a 
majority of the whole number of each House. Is this how we are going to 
determine what an emergency is? An emergency is an emergency only when 
it is decided by a majority of the whole number of each House? That is 
what my friend seems to be saying?
  Mr. HATCH. Under this provision, that is true, and we are talking 
about an imminent and serious military threat to national security, not 
just any emergency.
  Mr. BYRD. That is right.
  Mr. HATCH. Any emergency is going to have to meet either the three-
fifths vote to increase the deficit or a constitutional majority to 
increase taxes. There are lots of ways of meeting emergencies, but what 
we are saying here is, we are going to have people vote and they are 
going to have to. If they want to call something an imminent and 
serious military threat, they are going to have to have a majority of 
the whole number of each House, and we think that is right.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 31 minutes 36 
seconds. The Senator from West Virginia has 43 minutes 54 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield the floor at this point to my 
colleague or answer more questions.
  Let me yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Utah has 
referred to the six instances in the original Constitution in which a 
supermajority is required, and he has referred to the three instances 
in the amendments thereto--amendment XII, amendment XIV, and amendment 
XXV, in all of which supermajorities are required, either 
supermajorities that constitute a quorum, or a supermajority required 
on a vote.
  Mr. President, those supermajorities go either to the structure of 
our form of government or to the protection of individual rights. It is 
a quite different supermajority. There is not one, as I 
[[Page S2931]] said a while ago, there is not a single supermajority 
involved in any of the great substantive powers enumerated in section 8 
of article I or in section 9 of article I of the Constitution.
  Now we are talking about including a supermajority requirement in a 
matter involving fiscal policy, and we are talking about including that 
in the Constitution. And besides, may I say to my friend from the great 
State of Utah, there can be no tie vote anticipated in the 
supermajority that is required in the Senate for the approval of the 
ratification of a treaty. Two-thirds of the Senators present and voting 
are required to approve the ratification of a treaty. There can be no 
tie therein in which the Vice President would cast a vote.
  The same thing is true with regard to the expulsion of a Member of 
the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senators are required to expel a Member 
of the Senate. There can be no tie vote for a Vice President to break.
  I had reference a moment ago to the two-thirds vote for approval of 
the ratification of a treaty. That is a check and balance situation. 
The framers spoke of it in the Federalist Papers. They spoke of the 
necessity of having the Senate involved in treaties as a way of 
checking against a President who is only elected for a 4-year term, or 
perhaps for a second term, where the possibility of corruption being 
involved. So, the protection against corruption and intrigue came in 
the form of including the Senate in matters involving treaties and 
requiring a two-thirds vote.
  With respect to the expulsion of a Senator or a Member of the other 
body, that involves the individual right of a Member who is about to be 
expelled. That is for the protection of all Members and also to protect 
against a majority eliminating the minority. If a bare majority can 
expel the senior Senator from West Virginia, then the next thing that 
that majority could do would be to expel a Senator from Virginia or 
some other State. They would not expel the second Senator from West 
Virginia, because that would deprive a State of an equal vote in the 
Senate, and nobody can change that guarantee in the Constitution. 
Gradually, a majority could eliminate a minority. But a two-thirds vote 
is required for protection against such an event.
  Now, the proponents continue to say, well, there are other 
supermajority situations; the framers required two-thirds for this; 
they required two-thirds for that; they required two-thirds for 
something else. But, Mr. President, there cannot be a tie in a two-
thirds vote. In a two-thirds requirement, there cannot be a tie for a 
Vice President to break.
  Here we are talking about the possibility of such a tie.
  May I say to the Senator from Utah, as I understand it, in last 
Thursday's Record, a statement by Mr. Schaefer was included by Mr. 
Levin. Mr. Schaefer, the prime sponsor of this joint resolution in the 
other body, this constitutional amendment, stated on page H 758 of the 
Congressional Record of January 26--now I shall read it:

       This language is not intended to preclude the Vice 
     President--

  This is what Mr. Schaefer said. It does not square with what the 
distinguished Senator from Utah has said.

       This language is not intended--

  Says Mr. Schaefer--

       This language is not intended to preclude the Vice 
     President, in his or her constitutional capacity as President 
     of the Senate, from casting a tie-breaking vote that would 
     produce a 51-50 result. This is consistent with article I, 
     section 3, clause 4, which states: ``The Vice President of 
     the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall 
     have no vote, unless they be equally divided.'' Nothing in 
     section 4 of the substitute takes away the Vice President's 
     right to vote under such circumstances.

  Thus, you have the House sponsor differing with Senators who have 
spoken on this matter. Even if the Vice President casts a vote, he is 
not a Member of the Senate. Consequently, the requirement under section 
5 of this balanced budget amendment would not have been met.
  I am still waiting for someone to tell me how this section 5 can be 
made to work. How does this language square with the provision in the 
original Constitution that gives the Vice President the power, the 
authority and the right to cast the deciding vote, the deciding vote, 
so as to secure ``a definitive resolution'' in this body. He may cast a 
vote, but it is not going to be the deciding vote. It is not going to 
secure ``a definitive resolution'' of this body.
  Well, I do not suppose I will get a clear answer to my question, but 
I hope Members will carefully study this question when they vote on 
this amendment. This section creates a very serious question, a very 
serious question.
  Let me read what Hamilton says in the Federalist 22 with regard to 
minority rule. All of these supermajorities in the balanced budget 
amendment create a minority veto. They set up the possibility of a 
minority veto in this body and in the other body. In other words, we 
are getting away from the democratic majoritarian concept of our 
governmental system as laid down by the framers of the Constitution. 
Here is what Hamilton said in Federalist 22 with respect to minority 
rule.

       In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or 
     badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of 
     the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for 
     action. The public business must in some way or other go 
     forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion 
     of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the 
     majority in order that something may be done, must conform to 
     the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller 
     number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to 
     the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays--continual 
     negotiation and intrigue--contemptible compromises of the 
     public good * * *. For upon such occasions, things will not 
     admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government 
     must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated. It is 
     often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence 
     of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of 
     inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness--
     sometimes border upon anarchy.

  Hamilton goes on to say in the Federalist 22:

       Suppose for instance we were engaged in a war, in 
     conjunction with one foreign nation against another. Suppose 
     the necessity of our situation demanded peace, and the 
     interest or ambition of our ally led him to seek the 
     prosecution of the war, with views that might justify us in 
     making separate terms. In such a state of things, this ally 
     of ours would evidently find it much easier by his bribes and 
     intrigues to tie up the hands of government from making 
     peace, where two thirds of all the votes were requisite to 
     that object than where a simple majority would suffice.

  This does not require two-thirds in the case of the second sentence 
in section 5, but it does require more than an ordinary simple 
majority.

       In the first case he would have to corrupt a smaller 
     number; in the last a greater number. Upon the same principle 
     it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we 
     were at war, to perplex our councils and embarrass our 
     exertions. And in a commercial view we may be subjected to 
     similar inconveniences.

  What Hamilton is saying there, Mr. President, goes to the point that 
I have raised. Mr. President, I have raised a question here which has 
not been answered. This section 5 requires more than a simple majority. 
And when the vote comes out as a tie, it precludes the Vice President 
of the United States from casting a deciding vote, because under this 
amendment his vote would not count, if it were cast to break a tie.
 The requisite number of 51 votes would not have been produced.

       O, that my tongue were in the thunder's mouth!
       Then with a passion would I shake the world:

  I have not gotten an answer to my question.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I wonder where the other noble members of the response team 
are? Somebody, please come to the floor and answer this question for 
me. If not, the court will answer it at some day and time.
  This is a serious constitutional question. We may find ourselves in a 
situation in which the country's security is in jeopardy and, in order 
to waive the strictures of this balanced budget amendment, which says 
that outlays and receipts have to balance every year, a joint 
resolution can be introduced to lift these strictures, in other words, 
to waive the requirements of this balanced budget amendment, in each 
fiscal year. But that resolution must be ``adopted by a majority of the 
whole number of each House, which becomes law.''
   [[Page S2932]] I ask the Senator from Utah again, how is he going to 
respond to the necessity of that moment when 50 Senators vote for that 
resolution and 50 against? We are in danger. Our country's security is 
involved. Planes are flying in distant countries. Ships are plying the 
several seas. Mothers and fathers are wondering about their sons and 
daughters. And here we have a Senate with a vote of 50-50 on that 
resolution to waive the amendment.
  So, what is going to happen? We do not have time. We do not have time 
to wait, in a situation like that. We do not have time. We need to act 
quickly.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, to answer the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, if we do not get 51 Members of the Senate, in my opinion 
we will not have had an imminent and serious military threat. I cannot 
imagine--I do not really believe the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia can imagine--
  Mr. BYRD. Oh, yes, I can.
  Mr. HATCH. The serious, imminent and serious military threat to our 
national security that would go unaddressed by either or both Houses of 
Congress. But more important, if that very unlikely situation occurred, 
then what I would do is look for contingent moneys. I would try to cut 
spending--which is what the purpose of this amendment is--or I would go 
and try to increase taxes or I would try to get a three-fifths vote to 
increase spending. But I would try to cut spending before I would say 
that the country cannot survive.
  Mr. BYRD. Senator, we do not have time to cut spending.
  Mr. HATCH. If we do not have time and it is that imminent and serious 
a military threat, then we will vote to sustain it.
  Mr. BYRD. This is an emergency.
  Mr. HATCH. We will vote for a tax increase to take care of it if we 
do not have the money.
  Mr. BYRD. How much of a majority does the constitutional amendment 
require for a tax increase?
  Mr. HATCH. Well, now, let me just propose back to the distinguished 
Senator. If we have an imminent and serious military threat, we do have 
a military budget of almost $275 billion. If it is a large, imminent 
and serious military threat that would require all of our military, I 
just cannot conceive of one instance in the history of the country 
where we could not get 51 Senators to stand up and do something about 
it.
  But if it is a small one, and something that involves one theater or 
involves, say, Cuba, or some small imminent and serious military 
threat, we have enough money in our military to take care of that 
problem.
  We have enough money in our military to take care of that problem.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator is really on the ropes.
  Mr. HATCH. No, I am not.
  Mr. BYRD. He is really on the ropes. He is trying to use the old 
rope-a-dope on me here. But he is not Mohammad Ali.
  Mr. HATCH. I learned it from him.
  Mr. BYRD. This section does not say anything about the military 
threats being large, small, middle-size, or whatever. I will read the 
language of the section----
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Let me read this. ``For any year in which the United States 
is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
military threat to national security''--there is the threat. Somebody 
determines that it is serious. Perhaps it is the President.
  But the point is, in order to lift the strictures of this amendment, 
there must be a majority of the whole number of each House that casts 
such a vote. In other words, there must be at least 218 in the House 
and there must be at least 51 in the Senate. The Senator said he could 
not imagine such a situation. If Senator Sarbanes were here, he would 
tell you. He read this into the Record the other day. Let me pick up on 
what he said. He said:

       Let me bring the Senator back to the very real-life 
     problem--

  He is talking with reference to the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Smith], at that time.

     that I wish to discuss with him.

  Senator Sarbanes was reading from an article that appeared in the New 
York Times, I believe, in the summer of 1991. Senator Sarbanes read 
this article:

       Fifty years ago last Monday, on August 12, 1941, House 
     Speaker Sam Rayburn saved the draft from legislative defeat 
     and kept the U.S. Army intact to fight a war that was only 4 
     months away. The margin of victory was a single vote.

  Now, this is a real-life situation, Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. I am aware of that.
  Mr. BYRD. This is not a hypothetical situation.

       And the battle could have been lost as easily as won except 
     for Rayburn's personality and leadership and mastery of 
     parliamentary procedure. If Rayburn had failed, the Army 
     stood to lose about two-thirds of its strength and three-
     fourths of the officer corps. At issue was whether to extend 
     the 12-month service obligation of more than 600,000 draftees 
     already in the army, thousands of others being inducted every 
     day, and the active duty term of several thousand National 
     Guardsmen and Reservists who had been called up for 1 year. 
     Without an extension, the obligations of both the draftees, 
     Guardsmen and Reservists would begin expiring in the fall. 
     The United States had adopted its first peacetime draft 
     during the previous summer after weeks of heated and 
     acrimonious debate in both congressional Chambers.

  The article went on to point out:

       Although the legislation limited the draftees' terms of 
     service to 12 months, it provided that the President could 
     extend the period indefinitely if Congress declared that the 
     national interest is imperiled.
       On July 21, 1941, with the prospect of war increasing, 
     Roosevelt acted. In a Special Message to Capitol Hill, he 
     asked Congress to declare a national emergency that would 
     allow the Army to extend the service of draftees, guardsmen 
     and reservists for whatever period the legislators deemed 
     appropriate.
       Despite the measure's unpopularity and strong lobbying by 
     isolationist forces, the Senate approved a joint resolution 
     on August 7 declaring the existence of a national emergency 
     and authorizing the President to extend the service of most 
     Army personnel by 18 months.

  So there was a real-life situation, a real-life situation. And we can 
very well face that kind of situation again. Mr. Sarbanes pointed out 
that the vote on that occasion was 45-30 in the Senate. So it fell 
short of the required 51 votes that would be necessary under this 
section 5; 45-30. This shows you are going to need 51 here. And in the 
House the final vote was 203-202. It passed by one vote. One vote. It 
passed by a vote of 203-202, only after Rayburn walked the Halls and 
went door to door over there, talking with Members of the House 
individually. That was not a hypothetical situation. That can happen 
again.
  So what did the proponents have in mind? Did they think of this 
possible problem? What did they have in mind when writing that language 
that requires a majority of the whole number of each House, which means 
that the Vice President could not cast a tie-breaking vote?
  Mr. HATCH. Under this amendment, a majority vote would win today in 
both of those cases--a simple majority vote.
  Mr. BYRD. No, no, no. It says a majority of the whole number.
  Mr. HATCH. No, no. We are talking about either increasing spending or 
increasing taxes. In that situation, they increased the number of 
months, extending the Selective Service Act. So it would still--today, 
if you had the same vote, it would still be a simple majority vote. The 
difference is this----
  Mr. BYRD. I am saying in that situation--forgetting about the draft, 
setting up this situation in which there is a serious military threat.
  Mr. HATCH. My point is that the Senator is using a poor illustration 
because it does not apply in this situation.
  Mr. BYRD. It applies in that it indicates that a situation can come 
down to a vote with only a one-vote difference.
  Mr. HATCH. Not really.
  Mr. BYRD. You could not get the three-fifths in the House.
  Mr. HATCH. It did not involve an increase in spending or taxes, which 
is what is involved here.
  Mr. BYRD. When you talk about increasing revenues, you are going to 
run into the same problem.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me just say this.
  Mr. BYRD. No bill to increase revenues shall become law unless 
approved by a majority of the whole number of each House.
  [[Page S2933]] Mr. HATCH. What do those have to do with increasing 
taxes or spending? Those----
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is the one who brought up raising revenues. He 
raised that subject.
  Mr. HATCH. The point is, if that came up today and we wanted to 
institute the draft and extend it for another 12 months, we can do that 
by a simple majority vote. You do not have to have a constitutional 
majority on every vote here--only on those that either increase taxes 
or increase spending.
  Mr. BYRD. But under this section, if our country is confronted by a 
serious military threat to national security, the Senator says you can 
raise taxes. It runs under the same probability.
  Mr. HATCH. You either have to cut spending or increase spending or 
increase taxes. If you want to increase spending under the balanced 
budget amendment, or increase taxes, then you have to stand up and vote 
to do so. And in the case of increasing spending, you have to have a 
three-fifths vote. In the case of increasing taxes, you have to have a 
constitutional majority. But we could have a majority of each House 
vote today on extending for 12 months the selective service.
  What is important here, as I see it, is that if the balanced budget 
amendment is in place, then the political posturing is going to be 
lessened by a great deal. You will find people--if we are really 
confronted with an imminent, serious military threat under section 5, I 
do not think there is going to be any difficulty getting that vote. 
Anybody who puts the country at jeopardy at a time like that is not 
going to be sitting here the next time his or her election comes 
around. People know that.
  Mr. BYRD. Senator, that is not the answer to the question. I am sure 
the Senator would not be hesitant to cast the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I would increase spending or taxes if I had to.
  Mr. BYRD. But the Senator controls only one vote, as I do. When this 
happens, neither the Senator nor I may be in this Chamber. We do not 
know what the intent of Senators will be 5, 10, or 20 years from now. 
This is a very difficult obstacle--in the event of a serious situation 
arising that involves a military threat.
  Nobody--not one Senator--has been able to explain why the proponents 
have written into section 5 a provision that virtually deprives the 
Vice President of the United States from casting a deciding vote in a 
certain given situation.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield on that, many of us did not want 
this provision in the balanced budget amendment. We wanted only a 
three-fifths vote to increase spending or a constitutional majority to 
increase taxes, and we only wanted the above part of that that said 
Congress may waive the provision of this article for any fiscal year 
for which a declaration of war is in effect.
  Mr. BYRD. I am going to offer an amendment that will strike that out. 
I hope the Senator will vote for that amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. No, not at this point. One of the reasons this amendment 
is important--and this is the only time in history we can pass it--is 
because it is a consensus, a bipartisan amendment. One of the things we 
did was take Senator Heflin's provision. He was very concerned about 
any imminent and serious military threat that fell short of a 
declaration of war and, I think, rightly so. Personally, I have grown 
to prefer the language that he has put in here. But in order to 
prohibit the Congress from just using that loophole by calling 
everything an imminent and serious military threat to national 
security, we provided for a constitutional majority which does 
alleviate the necessity of having the Vice President vote to break a 
tie. Now, this being a new constitutional amendment, this being in 
addition to the Constitution, fits the same mold as the supermajority 
required that I read off before and read into the Record.
  Mr. BYRD. Except, as I have said, those supermajorities the Senator 
read off before, and which I read off some days ago in this Chamber, 
have absolutely nothing to do with the substantive powers that are 
granted in article I, sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution. And those 
instances go to the structural parts of the Constitution and to the 
protection of individual rights. This balanced budget amendment has 
nothing to do with such. We are talking about fiscal policy here, and 
that has never been written into the Constitution. The Senator tries to 
explain this dilemma by saying, well, it requires a constitutional 
majority.
  Mr. President, my problem goes not only to the fact that it requires 
three-fifths in two instances, and a constitutional majority in two 
other instances--section 4 and section 5--but it also deprives the Vice 
President of the United States from casting his deciding vote. Nobody 
has explained why the proponents would do that.
  Mr. President, if any Senator wishes me to yield, I would be happy 
to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question without losing 
his right to the floor?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. How much time would the Senator need? Mr. President, 
how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. SARBANES. I will need just 3 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I underscore what the very distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia has been saying here on the floor. Section 5 
of this article is fraught with danger, and I hope Members will 
consider it very, very carefully.
  It says:

       The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal 
     year in which the United States is engaged in military 
     conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat 
     to national security.

  The first thing I want Members to think of in their own minds is 
this: If we could face an imminent and serious military threat to our 
national security at a time when we were not yet engaged in military 
conflict. We may recognize that we are going to become engaged in 
military conflict and we need to take measures to address that 
situation.
  Under this provision, no waiver is available in that circumstance 
because this provision requires that you be engaged in military 
conflict. I listened to the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
who made reference to the imminent and serious military threat to 
national security, as though that was what you needed to show in order 
to get the waiver. That is not the case.
  The way this sentence is structured, you have to be engaged in 
conflict, already engaged in conflict which causes an imminent and 
serious threat to national security. So you would not be able to react 
to what I regard as a very pressing situation.
  Second, even in those situations in which you are able to act 
according to a waiver, in order to invoke the waiver you have to have 
the whole number of each House. Now what that means, simply put, in the 
House of Representatives with 435 Members, you have to have 218 votes 
to invoke the waiver.
  Everyone says, ``Surely the Members of the Congress will invoke the 
waiver in a dire situation of this sort and there will not be any 
problem with it. Of course, you will get the waiver.'' And my response 
to that is, ``Don't be so sure.'' And then I say, ``If you go back 
through our history, there are numerous instances in which very 
critical votes were carried by bare majorities not meeting the 
requirement of a majority of the whole number.''
  The example I used the other day in the course of the debate was the 
extension of the draft before World War II. In that instance, the 
extension in the summer of 1941 came on a vote of 203 to 202. Now, that 
is a majority of those present and voting and it is clearly a quorum, 
but it was not adequate to meet the standard that is contained in this 
amendment. That waiver, therefore, would not have taken place. You 
would not have been able to make the expenditures necessary in order to 
carry through this provision.
  What was at stake then is our national security. As you will recall, 
in the summer of 1940 we put in place a draft, but the term of service 
of those who had been drafted was a year and it was due to expire. 
President Roosevelt sent a message to the Congress to extend the time 
of the draftees and the guardsmen and the reservists and that had to be 
enacted in a joint resolution. The joint resolution barely carried on 
a 
[[Page S2934]] vote of 203 to 202. It was not a majority of the whole 
number of each House.
  Mr. BYRD. Which would have been 218 votes.
  Mr. SARBANES. It would have been 218 votes. The 203 votes fell well 
short of the 218 votes which this amendment would require in order to 
invoke the waiver.
  Now I submit to you, it seems to me that is a clear example where the 
national security interests of the United States were at stake. 
Literally 4 months later, we were in World War II. Had that extension 
not carried, more than 600,000 draftees already in the Army, their 
obligation would have begun to expire that fall and they would have 
been departing from the service. Four months later, Pearl Harbor 
occurred.
  So I do not see how people can be so almost glib in the sense of 
asserting that surely this waiver will be invoked in a time of crisis. 
Clearly then, had the standard applied, we would not have met it and I 
think we would have been in dire circumstances. Therefore, I very 
strongly support the amendment which the able Senator from West 
Virginia has offered.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``How Mr. Sam 
Saved the Draft; One Vote and a Quick Gavel Rescued the Army on the Eve 
of War,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 18, 1991]

  How Mr. Sam Saved the Draft; One Vote and a Quick Gavel Rescued the 
                         Army on the Eve of War
                          (By John G. Leyden)

       Fifty years ago last Monday--on Aug. 12, 1941--House 
     Speaker Sam Rayburn saved the ``draft'' from legislative 
     defeat and kept the U.S. Army intact to fight a war that was 
     only four months away.
       The margin of victory was a single vote, and the battle 
     could have been lost as easily as won except for Rayburn's 
     personality, leadership, mastery of parliamentary procedure 
     and--when push came to shove--lightning-fast gavel.
       If Rayburn had failed, the Army stood to lose about two-
     thirds of its strength and three fourths of the officer 
     corps. At issue was whether to extend the 12-month service 
     obligation of more than 600,000 draftees already in the Army 
     and thousands of others being inducted every day, and the 
     active-duty term of several hundred thousand National 
     Guardsmen and reservists who had been called up for one year. 
     Without an extension, the obligations of both the draftees 
     and the Guardsmen and reservists would begin expiring in the 
     fall.
       The United States had adopted its first peace time draft 
     during the previous summer after weeks of heated and 
     acrimonious debates in both congressional chambers. In the 
     House, tempers became so frayed that two Democratic members 
     got into a fist fight on the floor until both were ejected 
     with bloody noses and bruised egos.
       Congress finally passed the Selective Training and Service 
     Act, authorizing the Army to induct up to 900,000 draftees 
     annually. President Roosevelt signed it into law on Sept. 16, 
     1940. One month later--on ``R'' Day--some 16\1/2\ million men 
     between the ages of 21 and 36 registered for the draft. The 
     first lottery drawing was held Oct. 29, and the dreaded 
     ``Greeting'' from local draft boards was in the mail shortly 
     thereafter.
       Although the legislation limited the draftees' terms of 
     service to 12 months, it provided that the president could 
     extend the period indefinitely if Congress ``declared that 
     the national interest is imperiled.'' On July 21, 1941, with 
     the prospect of war increasing, Roosevelt acted. In a special 
     message to Capitol Hill, he asked Congress to declare a 
     ``national emergency'' that would allow the Army to extend 
     the service of draftees, guardsmen and reservists for 
     whatever period the legislators deemed appropriate.
       Despite the measure's unpopularity and strong lobbying by 
     isolationist forces, the Senate approved a joint resolution 
     on Aug. 7 ``declaring the existence of a national emergency'' 
     and authorizing the president to extend the service of most 
     Army personnel by 18 months. The vote was 45-30.
       In the House, it was a different story. The Republican 
     leadership viewed opposition to draft extension as a 
     political opportunity just too good to ignore. Others had 
     their own reasons for opposing the measure.
       As summarized by Time magazine, they included 17 Irish 
     congressmen whose votes were based on anti-British 
     sentiments; Tammany Hall Democrats upset that the 
     administration was supporting nonpartisan New York Mayor 
     Fiorello LaGuardia for re-election; a large group of 
     Democrats who believed draft extension violated the 
     commitment given to those already in service; straight-out 
     pacifists who opposed all defense bills; and a ``big group in 
     both parties who vote blindly against anything Franklin 
     Roosevelt is for.''
       In an effort to ``depoliticize'' the issue as much as 
     possible, Roosevelt and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson 
     designated Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall as the 
     administration's point man on the bill. Marshall worked 
     tirelessly but found converts difficult to come by despite 
     his tremendous prestige on Capitol Hill.
       ``You put the case very well,'' one Republican congressman 
     told him, ``but I will be damned if I am going along with Mr. 
     Roosevelt.''
       The vote was set for Monday, Aug. 11 but Rayburn put it off 
     for one day out of respect for a Republican member who had 
     died over the weekend. With the president out of town--
     meeting secretly in Newfoundland with British Prime Minister 
     Winston Churchill to frame the ``Atlantic Charter''--Rayburn 
     spent the additional day roaming the corridors of Capitol 
     Hill, trying to win over recalcitrant Democrats and wavering 
     Republicans. His lobbying style was like the man himself--
     honest, direct and intensely personal without a hint of 
     intimidation.
       ``I wish you would stand by me because it means a lot to 
     me,'' he would say. Mr. Sam, up close and personal, was a 
     hard man to refuse.
       Shortly after 10 a.m. on Aug. 12, the House began debating 
     the joint resolution already passed by the Senate. A largely 
     anti-draft crowd looked on sullenly from the packed visitor 
     gallery. Included among the spectators were many servicemen 
     in uniform and ``delegations of mothers clutching little 
     American flags.''
       The debate dragged on for 10 hours, through lunch and 
     dinner. Amendments designed to weaken the bill were defeated 
     with the help, ironically, of isolationists who wanted an 
     ``all or nothing'' vote on the joint resolution. Finally, at 
     8:05 p.m., the reading clerk began calling the roll. Then, as 
     required, the clerk went back through the list, repeating the 
     names of members who had not answered the first roll call.
       After 45 minutes of ``grinding suspense,'' the vote was 
     completed--204 to 201
      in favor of the draft extension. But before it could be 
     announced, New York Democrat Andrew Sommers was on his 
     feet demanding recognition. Rayburn obliged and quickly 
     regretted the move: Sommers changed his vote from aye to 
     nay, opening the door for further defections.
       To forestall this, Rayburn turned from other Democrats who 
     were calling for the floor and recognized Missouri Republican 
     Dewey Short, a leader of the anti-draft forces and thus a 
     known quantity. Short requested a recapitulation but 
     committed a fatal error--by not insisting that the recount 
     precede announcement of the original vote.
       Sensing his opportunity, Rayburn quickly read the results: 
     ``On this roll call, 203 members have voted aye, 202 members 
     nay, and the bill is passed.''
       In so doing, Rayburn had frozen the vote. Under House 
     rules, the recapitulation would be limited to those who 
     already had responded, and they were proscribed from changing 
     their vote. When the recount was completed, validating the 
     original results, Rayburn announced (some say ``mumbled''):
       ``No correction to the vote. The vote stands, and the bill 
     is passed. Without objections, a motion to reconsider is laid 
     on the table.''
       It was all over but the shouting, because the words ``laid 
     on the table'' meant the subject of reconsideration had been 
     decided adversely and could not be revived except by 
     unanimous consent. Still, there was plenty of shouting from 
     both the floor and the galleries.
       The outvoted and outflanked Republican leaders denounced 
     the speaker's tactics and accused him of short-circuiting the 
     reconsideration process. Rayburn kept his composure. He was 
     patient with members who seemed not to understand that only 
     those who voted with the winning side could move for 
     reconsideration--and stern with those who challenged his 
     integrity. ``The Chair does not intend to have his word 
     questioned by the gentleman from Minnesota or anyone else,'' 
     he told one member icily. Opponents got the message, and the 
     debate fizzled out.
       Three days later, after the Senate had approved the 
     slightly different House bill and thus prevented another 
     confrontation in the lower chamber, Rayburn decided he and 
     his colleagues deserved a rest.
       ``I want to go home [to Bonhom, Tex.],'' he said in calling 
     for adjournment. ``I live on a broad highway, in a white 
     house where everyone can find me; but I have another little 
     place. * * * When I start toward that place--and it is about 
     13 miles from my home farm--the road gets narrower and 
     narrower every mile I go; and when I get to the end of the 
     narrowest part of the road, there is a gate and there is no 
     telephone out there.''
       Another gavel stroke emptied the chamber and brought an end 
     to Rayburn's first year as speaker. The battle over draft 
     extension was one of his finest hours in a long and 
     distinguished congressional career. Any reservations or ill 
     feelings about the outcome would disappear on Dec. 7, 1941.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. 
Sarbanes, for his resourcefulness and his diligence in going back, 
searching for, and finding this real-life record of what actually 
happened; not something that may have happened, not something that 
someone said would happen, but a real-life emergency occurred.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
   [[Page S2935]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes and 
30 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from Utah have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 31 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to a couple of 
comments that have been made and respond to the Senator from West 
Virginia, who I know makes this suggestion with the integrity of the 
Constitution and the institution and the defense of the United States 
very much in mind, and we all do.
  I served in the House of Representatives for 8 years on the Armed 
Services Committee and have been criticized for being a hawk, so I 
appreciate arguments that could negatively impact our ability to carry 
out our defense functions as much as anyone.
  But with all due respect to the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, I think this argument overstates a potential problem. In 
fact, I think there is no potential problem.
  Essentially, what we are arguing about here in the U.S. Senate is the 
difference between 51 votes and 50 votes. And in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, it is the same 218 votes as would be required in any 
case to carry a majority issue if all of the Members are present and 
voting. So the only question is whether some Members may be absent or 
not voting and therefore you still have to have the constitutional 
majority of 218.
  In my experience, in very few instances did you not have, on the 
major, important votes, almost all of the Members present and voting.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. KYL. Of course, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. I think it is instructive that there are many, many 
close votes in the House of Representatives in which the prevailing 
side did not obtain 218 votes. The fact of the matter is that, on most 
votes in the House of Representatives, rarely are all the Members 
present. After all, there are 435 of them. On many votes, 5, 10, 15, 
perhaps even 20 Members are absent. And there are a lot of votes in the 
House that are decided by very close margins--208 to 204, 211 to 205, 
et cetera, et cetera. Close votes, but they do not reach this level of 
the 218 votes.
  I sought to cite what I thought was a really on-point example in 
terms of the national security being at stake, a 203 to 202 vote with 
respect to extending the obligation under the draft before World War 
II.
  Mr. KYL. I appreciate the example that the Senator has cited.
  In recent years, on important votes, most Members of the House of 
Representatives are present. It is only in situations of illness or in 
situations where there has been a family emergency or something of that 
kind that Senators and Representatives do not care enough to be in the 
Chamber voting on very important national security matters.
  If it is the argument of the Senator from Maryland that this is such 
an important point that the national security of the United States of 
America is jeopardized but he suggests, on the other hand, that a lot 
of Members will not bother to be present to vote, I suggest the 
argument fails. On important votes, Representatives and Senators do 
their duty.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. If I may just finish this thought.
  By definition, if it is an important vote, they are there doing their 
duty.
  It does not seem to me to be an unreasonable requirement that, for a 
matter of this magnitude, one would require a majority of both the 
House and the Senate to approve exceeding the requirement for a 
balanced budget. And especially on matters as important as those 
suggested by the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from West 
Virginia, Members will be present, will reflect on the matter 
seriously, and therefore will vote.
  I am happy to yield further to the Senator.
  Mr. SARBANES. I only point out to my colleague that you could have 
virtually all the Members of the House there. Let us say you could have 
98 percent of the Members there, which would mean nine Members are 
missing. You could have a very close vote, since the issue may well be 
very controversial and divisive, and you would not reach the 218 
benchmark.
  So the way this possibility is simply being brushed aside concerns me 
greatly. The situation I am outlining could easily happen. It has 
happened in the past.
  By allowing it at that level, suppose we have ten Members absent?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may interrupt, the Senator from Maryland 
said this has happened in the past. I am not aware of a situation where 
the Congress has refused to fund an ongoing military operation of the 
United States of America.
  Mr. SARBANES. Because Congress was never required to produce a 
majority of the whole number. All we had to produce in order to do that 
was a majority of those present and voting.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, has the Congress ever refused to fund an 
ongoing military operation of the United States? Not to my knowledge.
  Mr. SARBANES. But it has funded such operations on occasions when it 
carried the vote without having a majority of the whole number.
  Mr. KYL. Of course.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, if we go back through the Vietnam 
experience, there were instances in which the funding was carried 
through, but the vote by which it was done represented a majority of 
those present and voting, but that number did not represent a majority 
of the whole number of the House.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could reclaim my time. I am not aware of 
a situation. There may very well be one. I have not heard of any one 
situation in which fewer than a constitutional majority but a majority, 
a simple majority, voted to fund an important military operation of the 
United States, ongoing military operation.
  I think it is important to put this in context. Throughout the entire 
year the Congress can fund operations of the Government, including the 
Defense Department or the State Department, where we are involved in 
military conflict. We are involved in military situations around the 
globe today, some of which can involve conflict.
  As a matter of fact, if something occurs in Haiti or one of the other 
countries in which we have troops today, that is a military conflict. 
We are funding those operations. We are not voting on that. We do not 
take a vote every time we send another ship or more jeeps or tanks to 
one of these places of military conflict.
  This question of funding only arises in a few situations. It may 
arise with regard to a supplemental appropriation where we will, in 
effect, refund the money to the Defense Department, or it may arise in 
connection with a defense authorization bill, which we do once a year, 
or a defense appropriation bill.
  So we can deal with these issues throughout the year. The only thing 
we are talking about in the constitutional amendment is the question at 
the end of the year when we have to either be in balance or vote to 
exceed that balanced budget requirement. At that one critical moment in 
the year when we decide to let an ongoing military operation continue 
with the funding it has rather than to override or to exceed the 
balanced budget requirement, in that case we have to have a 
constitutional majority rather than a simple majority, meaning 51 
Senators out of 100, 218 Representatives out of 435.
  Mr. President, I just suggest in closing the debate on this amendment 
from our side that while the seriousness of the Senator from West 
Virginia is always apparent and issues of national security are known 
to all Members to be of utmost importance, I suggest that this is much 
ado about nothing. A constitutional amendment that says we should have 
51 Senators out of 100 or 218 Representatives out of 435, a mere 
majority, is not too high a requirement. It is not too much to ask. If 
we are going to be putting our young men and women in harm's way we 
better have the support of half of the Senate and half of the House of 
Representatives. That is all that the balanced budget amendment 
requires with respect to the requirements for funding.
  [[Page S2936]] I really do not think this is a significant matter. It 
certainly is not something that would suggest the appropriateness of an 
amendment to our proposed constitutional amendment here.
  Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield for a question, Mr. President?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. I am looking at the report for votes dealing with the 
SDI. This was a motion to table an amendment which would have cut the 
amount of money for SDI, so the tabling motion in effect would have 
kept the higher figure for the SDI Program.
  I do not want to argue the substance of the SDI Program. As I recall, 
the Senator was in favor of it when he was in the House. I want to get 
at the point of the close votes and the assumption that there is no 
problem. That vote was 50-50. The Vice President voted ``yea'' to break 
the tie. In other words, he voted to table this amendment which would 
have cut the SDI. He wanted the higher SDI figure. This was Vice 
President Bush at the time.
  Now, I take it, under your provision, that would not work. We would 
have had a different outcome, correct, under this amendment?
  Mr. KYL. It all depends on whether or not the expenditure--first, 
whether this was an expenditure of funds, whether it would put Members 
over the balanced-budget-limit requirement, and whether it was done in 
furtherance of support for our activities in an ongoing military 
conflict.
  Mr. SARBANES. Assuming none of those factors were met, I take it that 
this vote, then, under this amendment we would have a different outcome 
than we had at the time?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, no, no.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thought the Vice President's vote 
would no longer count.
  Mr. KYL. The vote the Senator is talking about is to fund the 
strategic defense initiative, not a vote to support an ongoing military 
conflict or ongoing military operation. It simply has no relevance to 
the amendment that the Senator from Maryland is espousing.
  Mr. SARBANES. If it is related to addressing an imminent and serious 
military threat, it would be relevant.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if it were.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, just on the factual situation, that is a 
very close vote.
  I take it under this amendment, assuming all the other factors were 
met, we would have a different outcome. Is it your view we have to 
produce 51 Senators? Or can the Vice President cast the deciding vote 
in cases of a tie under this amendment?
  Mr. KYL. In the amendment, we have to have 51 Senators to exceed the 
balanced budget requirement in situations in support of an ongoing 
military conflict.
  Mr. SARBANES. So the Vice President's casting a vote is nullified.
  Mr. KYL. In this situation, the Vice President--just as in any other 
situation where we do not have a tie--the Vice President is not casting 
a tie vote.
  It is very rare that the Vice President has to cast a tie vote, but 
we are aware of the fact he has on occasion. No one will suggest that 
there are not occasions where we have a tie vote. What we are saying 
is, if we are talking about supporting an ongoing military conflict 
involving a U.S. interest, we have American men and women sacrificing 
or at least risk their lives in support of this operation, if we cannot 
muster 51 votes in support of those young men and women, then 
presumably the Senate has said we do not want them over there taking 
whatever risks they are taking. If we cannot trust the U.S. Senate, 51 
Senators, to make that kind of decision, it seems to me there are not 
very many other judgments we could make.
  Mr. SARBANES. Could the Nation go to war with a declaration of war on 
the basis of a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yes, the Nation could.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Nation could do that. But the Nation could not then 
fund the war which it has declared on the basis of a tie-breaking vote 
by the Vice President?
  Mr. KYL. It most certainly could. If I could finish.
  Only in the event that we did not find the money to fund the war 
effort and all of the other obligations of Government, would we have to 
exceed this balanced-budget-requirement limitation.
  Obviously, in a case of a World War II we would be spending a lot 
more money. We probably would go into deficit. One would assume the 
votes would be there. But, for example, the conflict of Haiti, which is 
not a declared war and obviously would not necessarily require that we 
break the bank in order to support the operation in Haiti, it does not 
seem to me to be an unreasonable requirement to require 51 Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the crux of the problem was the 
Senator's comments that we just assume that we would fund these items. 
I do not know how we can make that assumption when one can show that 
there had been close votes in the past which would not meet the 
requirement of the amendment and, in fact, would give the opposite 
result from what occurred in situations in which I think it can be 
argued very reasonably there were important national security interests 
at stake.
  Mr. KYL. I want to yield to the Senator from Idaho, but I will make a 
point first. The Senator is correct, I am assuming that in important 
matters where funding was necessary, 51 Senators would be willing to do 
that.
  But the Senator from Maryland is assuming that that is the right 
thing to do, as am I in this situation. If 51 Senators said, ``No, 
we're not going to break the budget; we're not going to unbalance the 
budget to fund your operation in Haiti,'' or wherever it might be, I 
cannot assume that that is a wrong decision, if 51 Senators have made 
that decision.
  I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. This 
most certainly is a serious discussion about the amendment of the 
Senator from West Virginia. Every time in our Constitution we have 
established a vote, in this case a constitutional majority, and in 
other cases a supermajority, we know that is the standard. That is the 
level we have to reach to perform in certain ways, to respond in 
certain ways, as so prescribed by the Constitution.
  The validity of analyzing prospectively a situation by the 
comparative of other situations done in an entirely different 
environment really has no context in this debate. This debate is about 
an amendment that sets new standards, constitutional requirements that 
we will meet. Certainly, the Senator from Maryland and I know that on 
certain votes on this floor, we have watched our leadership orchestrate 
votes. Some votes are very tough and some Members really do not care to 
vote. I have been on the floor on occasion when it was well known in 
advance that the vote more than likely would occur in which the Vice 
President would have to break the tie, simply because it was a tough 
vote. But we do know that in instances where, if that did not occur, 
there is a strong likelihood that if it was the position of the 
majority party or the majority of those here that this was the kind of 
vote required, and it was by Constitution the vote necessary, that it 
could be gained if it was of that importance.
  But as the Senator from Arizona has so clearly stated, if the 
priorities rested that we would not break the budget to fund an ongoing 
military operation that was outside the declaration of war, my guess is 
the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Idaho, if we agreed that 
it was important to fund that, and certainly the Senator from West 
Virginia, if he were in his past role as chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, would change or shift the priorities necessary and move 
money from other programs of less importance to the program of high 
importance, in this instance military funding, for the purposes of 
doing those kinds of ongoing funding.
  That is the real role of this Congress and the most important role 
under a balanced budget amendment. That is, to establish priorities, 
not just to get enough votes to bust the budget or to go beyond 
balance, but in the environment of a declared war, which is 
distinctively different and we all know that because it is then the 
decision of this country to put its men and women at risk because our 
very freedom is at 
[[Page S2937]] risk, that we go back to the majority necessary to do so 
under that context, the simple majority.
  That is why those who have spent their time crafting this amendment 
have argued so and, therefore, established section 5 of this article to 
make sure that we force the priorities of spending the way they have 
never been forced before in the Congress of the United States.
  If we had had that kind of prioritizing before, most certainly we 
would not have the $4.8 trillion debt, the $18,000-plus debt per 
citizen, the $300 billion interest charge--it simply would not be here, 
because the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Idaho would have 
been operating during their presence here under a different mindset. We 
know our standards and levels of performance, and we may have argued 
very loudly over what the priorities of spending ought to be, but in 
the end, we know that those priorities would have to have been 
established under a balanced budget.
  So I am suggesting that the Senator from Arizona is absolutely right. 
To pull a vote from 1941 and argue that that is the context in which 
article V fits is to argue that every circumstance, every emotion, 
every understanding of the time and the situation would be identical 
and we, of course, know that is not the case.
  How do you justify that 21 Senators did not vote on that critical 
day? Well, probably because there may have been a few pacifists, there 
may have been a few who could not vote either way because they simply 
could not make such a critical decision as to send this Nation to war 
or, in this case, the draft. Those are the realities of the moment and 
time and the emotion and the politics of that vote, and certainly the 
Senator from West Virginia, who is senior to all of us with his 
experience on the floor, knows that every vote has its own chemistry, 
its own politics, and its own emotion.
  What we are saying here is this is a minimal standard to force the 
Senate to prioritize under fiscal matters which we think are terribly 
and critically important to maintaining the stability of the economy of 
this country and the fiscal responsibility of this Senate and our 
Government.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for one further question?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I know that we have some additional time. I 
would be happy to have the colloquy continue on our time, if that is 
the preference.
  Mr. SARBANES. Let us assume that two Members of the Senate are in the 
hospital. We take a vote on this waiver and the vote is 50 to 48 in 
favor of making an expenditure to address a national security threat. 
So a clear majority of those present and voting have voted to do it. 
That does not meet the standard in this article; is that correct?
  Mr. KYL. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. And, therefore, that effort would fall, even though a 
majority were in favor of it.
  I have difficulty with understanding how one can be so quick to 
dismiss that possibility. I have seen many close votes on the floor of 
the Senate. I have seen instances in which Members have been absent 
because they are in the hospital, or for other good reasons, in which 
the sentiment is very closely divided and you get a majority in favor 
of a position but it does not rise to the level of a majority of the 
whole number of a House.
  I think the problem is even more pressing in the House of 
Representatives where you often have votes when all Members are not 
present. In fact, if a seat is empty that, in effect, is a vote 
against. Let me ask the Senator this question: Is the majority of the 
whole number reduced if there are absent seats? There are occasions in 
the House of Representatives where you may have three, four, five seats 
that are not filled at one time. That happens on occasion. Is the 
majority to get reduced from the 218, or does the number stay at 218 
even though there may be 4 or 5 empty seats in the House?
  Mr. KYL. The answer, as I understand it, is the requirement would be 
218 irrespective, but I do think it is a mischaracterization to say not 
infrequently there are 3, 4, or 5 vacant seats in the House. In my 8 
years there, the most ever at one time was three, and very rarely were 
there any.
  I think if I could get back and conclude my part of the debate on my 
time, then I will be happy to hear from the Senators from West Virginia 
and Maryland.
  I think we have to put this back in context. We have a very important 
issue before our country right now. It is the runaway Federal budget 
deficit and the accumulating debt that we are consigning to our 
children and our grandchildren. All of us understand the importance of 
dealing with that. We have some disagreement about precisely how to 
deal with it.
  But those of us who support the balanced budget amendment believe 
that one thing we should do is to say that if we are going to exceed 
that balanced budget limit, even in a time of military conflict, it 
should require a constitutional majority, meaning 51 Senators, 218 
Representatives. That is hardly too much of a burden in that situation. 
Why? Because in that situation, we have already put young American men 
and women in harm's way by definition. Therefore, the seriousness of 
that commitment should require an equally serious commitment on the 
part of the House and Senate in providing for the funding for those 
operations.
  We provided, in a case of declaration of war, of course, which, as 
the Senator from Maryland correctly pointed out, only requires a 
majority vote, you should only require a majority vote to fund that 
operation beyond the requirement of the balanced budget amendment.
  But in those cases where you have not made a declaration of war, such 
as the situation in Haiti, just to cite one example, if the funding 
cannot occur any other way than by breaking the budget, then we suggest 
that a mere 51 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House is not too much 
to ask for.
  The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia would change that to 
a simple majority of those here and voting, however many decide to 
vote. We think that that is not a substantial enough requirement to 
break the balance of the budget that we are trying to achieve by the 
passage of the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. May I say to the Senators, we get the same kind of answers 
to every question. They say, well, we will readjust priorities. We will 
transfer funds from some other program in order to fund the military 
needs during an emergency.
  I have been chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and may 
I say to my friends, I am now in my 37th year on the Appropriations 
Committee. We do not have time to adjust priorities in emergency 
situations.
  Suppose you are near the close of the fiscal year when a threat to 
our military security occurs. The funding that has been provided for 
various and sundry agencies is almost spent for that fiscal year. How 
are you going to dip around and readjust priorities and pay for the 
military emergency that is confronting you at the end of that fiscal 
year, as envisioned by this language? You do not have time. We are 
going soon to be into a new fiscal year.
  There are those here who cannot conceptualize of our being in a 
situation in which we will have a tie vote here in this Senate, 49 to 
49, 48 to 48, or 50 to 50. If the President of the Senate--the Vice 
President--casts a vote, it will not count, because only the votes of 
Senators will count.
  We get the same old answers from the proponents all the time: Oh, I 
cannot conceive of this event; I cannot believe that this will happen; 
or the intent is not thus and so.
  Mr. President, that's a bountiful answer that fits all questions.

       It is like a barber's chair, that fits all buttocks--the 
     pin-buttock, the quatch-buttock, the brawn-buttock, or any 
     buttock.

  That is not original with me. That was Shakespeare, but it makes my 
point. The proponents have an answer that fits all questions. It is 
just that easy. They just brush aside these real-life questions, and I 
think that this afternoon proves our point. This is a constitutional 
amendment which is not well thought out, and I say that with the utmost 
respect for those who were engaged in the writing of it. It was not 
well thought out.
   [[Page S2938]] I believe that if it is welded into this 
Constitution, those who have supported it in ``reaching to take of the 
fruit'' will ``chew dust and bitter ashes.''
  I regret that questions I have raised, and those that have been 
raised by the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, have been, 
not necessarily treated with a cavalier attitude, but those who 
responded to the questions cannot seem to conceive that real-life 
situations can occur such as we have tried to present here. And if 
those situations do occur--and there is no question but that they will 
in the long years ahead--the country is going to be faced with a 
dilemma. We seem to be observing a very, very lax attitude here by the 
proponents of the amendment.
  Why would they want to make it difficult for the Nation to respond to 
our Nation's security? Why set up a hurdle like that in section 5?
  The point here, again, is that we will be hamstringing the ability of 
the Chief Executive, the Commander in Chief, to deal with a national 
security emergency, a real-life national security emergency, by 
insisting on 51 votes of Senators and by disallowing the Vice President 
to vote to break a tie. That is reckless--reckless. I am sure it is not 
intentionally reckless, but it is thoughtlessly reckless. It defies 
logic. It counters simple common sense. If we ever reach a real-life 
situation that confronts us and this language is nailed into the 
Constitution, then we will have found that a great disservice has been 
the result--disservice to our fighting men and women--and it ought to 
be changed. Why not strike out this sentence? Why not change it to say 
adopted by a majority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are prepared to yield the remainder of 
time on this side.
  Mr. President, at this time, I move to table the amendment of the 
Senator from West Virginia and I 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. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table the amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the 
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. 
McCain] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 41, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inhofe
     McCain
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 256) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is recognized to propose an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 306

  (Purpose: To protect the disability and death benefits of veterans)

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] for 
     himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Wellstone, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 306.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 6, add the following: ``However, no 
     legislation to enforce or implement this Article may impair 
     any payment or other benefit based upon a death or disability 
     incurred in, or aggravated by, service in the Armed Forces if 
     such payment or other benefit was earned under a program 
     established before the ratification of this Article.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia controls 60 minutes. The Senator from Utah controls 30 
minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing is extremely simple and 
very straightforward. Should the balanced budget amendment go forward--
and it is very close--and actually become part of the Constitution, 
which is a result that I continue to strongly oppose, the benefits 
furnished by the Federal Government to those particular veterans 
suffering from service-connected disabilities, and to their survivors, 
will be protected by my amendment.
  Specifically, my amendment provides that the balanced budget 
amendment may not be implemented by impairing any benefit based upon a 
death or disability incurred in, or aggravated by, service in the Armed 
Forces--service connected.
  Mr. President, at the outset, I want to be clear that while my 
amendment is targeted on benefits and services directed to service-
disabled veterans, I in fact wanted very much to be able to protect all 
veterans and all benefits from the kind of meat-ax cutting that I think 
will take place if the balanced budget amendment becomes part of our 
Constitution. However, I have to be realistic and I have to target--and 
I am forced to do that by the circumstances--in an effort to focus most 
directly on the most critical parts of our commitment to veterans. I 
have settled on those with service-connected disabilities, those with 
the greatest call for our protection.
  All who serve in the military deserve our thanks and our support. If 
I had my way, I repeat, they would also continue to benefit from the 
full range of programs that have been developed over the years. 
Unfortunately, those who favor deficit reduction over all else have 
significant support today, and no Federal expenditure is secure. 
Therefore, while I intend to continue my strong support for all 
veterans programs as long as I am in a position to do so, my amendment 
is crafted narrowly. Specifically, the benefits that would be protected 
by my amendment are the most vital benefits administered by the VA: 
compensation paid to service-connected veterans; dependency and 
indemnity compensation paid to the survivors of those who die in 
service or from service-connected disabilities; vocational 
rehabilitation provided to disabled veterans, who are disabled because 
of their service; health care furnished by the treatment of service-
related disabilities; burial allowances paid when the veteran dies in 
service or from service-related causes; and certain other ancillary 
benefits 
[[Page S2939]] provided to service-connected disabilities.
  Mr. President, these benefits are at the core of the mission of the 
VA. Stated simply, the principal mission of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs is to ensure that we, as a Nation, honor the commitments to 
those who have served us and protected us, often in times of need and 
often at enormous sacrifice to themselves, and most especially those 
who were injured or disabled during that service.
  Too often, this commitment and this obligation to those who have 
answered the Nation's call and suffered as a consequence, frankly, sort 
of gets lost, glossed over, forgotten. Sometimes issues relating to the 
appropriate benefits and services for these brave men and women who 
have served, who defended us and are now disabled by virtue of having 
done so, get lumped with other obligations of Government, as though all 
of the things the Federal Government does are kind of on an equal 
basis, that everything is equal. Plainly, this is not so.
  We must never diminish the obligation that is owed to those who have 
served in the armed forces, and especially to those who have suffered 
disability or death from that service. Taking care of those who join 
the military, so as to defend the general population, is a tradition 
that goes way, way back in our Nation's history. In the history of 
America, this imperative can be seen from our earliest days. One of the 
first American veterans benefits laws on record was enacted in 1636 by 
the members of the Plymouth Colony.
  That law provided that, in the event one who served in defense of the 
Colony returned ``maimed and hurt,'' the Colony would maintain the 
soldier ``competently'' during the soldier's life.
  This commitment to care for the veteran who returned disabled from 
service has remained strong, remained vital down through our time, and 
it must continue to be honored.
  Mr. President, if we are to amend the Constitution in the name of 
fiscal policy in the mindless way that is proposed in the underlying 
resolution, then at a minimum we must ensure that disabled veterans and 
their survivors are protected in that same action in the Constitution.
  President Lincoln would be, I suppose, the President with the 
greatest sense of depth and immediacy of the obligation of those who 
served. He spoke of this in 1864. He said:

       All that a man hath, will he give for his life. While all 
     contribute of their substance, the soldier, the soldier, puts 
     his life at stake and often yields up in his country's cause. 
     The highest honor then is due the soldier.

  That was Lincoln.
  The terms of this obligation, which is the guiding principle of the 
VA, was characterized no better than when, again, President Lincoln 
spoke of the obligation to ``care for him who shall have borne the 
battle and for his widow and orphan.'' That is what is written beside 
the front door of the VA. That was a long time ago that he said that, 
but these words ring no less true today.
  Indeed, as we enter into this new era with the cold war behind us, we 
should pause and recall how, in fact, we came to be where we are. We 
should pause and remember those who served from the world wars through 
Korea, Vietnam, to the Nation's most recent conflict in the Persian 
Gulf and reflect on what their service has gained for all of us and 
what they are owed by a grateful nation for that service, most 
especially those disabled by that service and the survivors of those 
who gave the last full measure.
  We must keep faith with those who served. It is a simple sentence, 
but it is a strong one. We must keep faith with those who served for 
that is the sort of people that we are.
  And on a far more pragmatic level, we must honor the commitments to 
those who served in the past so that those who are considering entering 
the service today know that the promises made to them today will be 
kept when their service ends. To fulfill our fundamental obligation, we 
as a nation have established a wide range of veterans benefits that are 
provided to those with service-connected disabilities, and we must 
remain true to those commitments.
  Mr. President, the Senate recently engaged in an extended debate on 
the relationship between Social Security and the balanced budget 
amendment. I agreed fully that Social Security deserves to be protected 
from the vagaries of the sort of mindless budget-cutting exercise that 
will have to take place if the Constitution is amended to require a 
balanced budget. I think the benefits of service-disabled veterans 
deserve protection just as well.
  There is no question that the Social Security benefits are in the 
nature of a contract. And it is equally appropriate to identify some 
Government benefits, you know, these days as mere gifts or giveaways, 
so as to contrast those benefits with Social Security.
  But that is not the nature of benefits for service-disabled veterans. 
The contract that relates to these benefits was one signed in blood and 
many, many times over. Veterans paid for these benefits with their 
limbs, their sight, their mobility, their mental and physical health, 
indeed, with their very lives.
  Benefits paid to veterans who are injured while in service to their 
country are valued perhaps more than any other in the VA. And veterans 
in general would agree with that. Why? Because our Nation recognizes 
and respects, as we should, the commitment we made to those who gave up 
their livelihood, left their homes, agreed to risk their lives for 
their country, asked no questions and suffered an injury while in the 
course of their service. Many never came home.
  Who here intends to break our contract with the disabled men and 
women who have served their country and risked so much? Who would do 
that?
  Cutting benefits to those who served us all and who became disabled 
during that service is simply not the sort of thing we should allow to 
happen in a country called America. I can think of no population with a 
greater claim on our concern and our love and our protection than those 
who sacrificed their well-being in our common defense.
  Mr. President, I will not repeat the legal analysis that was 
presented during the debate on Senator Reid's amendment on Social 
Security as to why this provision needs to be a part of the amendment 
itself and not a mere afterthought in other and separate legislation. 
It is enough to note the obvious. Since some of our colleagues believe 
that it is necessary to amend the Constitution in the name of fiscal 
policy, then surely in the same amendment they can be clear that they 
do not intend, for whatever mischief is to follow in the name of fiscal 
policy, to have an adverse impact on disabled veterans and the 
survivors of those veterans who gave, as I say, their all.
  Mr. President, I want to believe that this is the point of view of 
those who support the balanced budget amendment, but I must confess to 
having some serious worries. Being able to see the words that would 
provide the protection included in the amendment itself would remove 
any lingering doubt on my part and on the part of America's veterans.
  Mr. President, I have more to say about my amendment and in its 
defense, but at this point I notice the Senator from Maryland is on the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from West Virginia yield time 
to the Senator from Maryland?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator indicate how much time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. How much time would the Senator require?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Five minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I rise with great enthusiasm to support the Rockefeller amendment. I 
believe that we should under no circumstances balance the red ink of 
the Federal budget by using the red blood of America's veterans.
  Americans have served the United States of America proudly with 
honor, with dignity and enormous self-sacrifices.
  We are at the 50th anniversary of the commemoration of World War II--
World War II in which ordinary people were called to do extraordinary 
things, and they did them. They did it at Normandy, they did it at 
Okinawa, they did it at the Battle of the Bulge.
  And when, at the Battle of the Bulge, a message was sent to our 
troops to 
[[Page S2940]] surrender, our military sent back a message and said, 
``Nuts.''
  Well, that is exactly what we are saying on the floor today for those 
who would not be willing to exempt veterans with service-connected 
disabilities from the balanced budget amendment. We say, ``Nuts'' to 
those who wish to use veterans funding and make them vulnerable to 
these swashbuckling kinds of issues that we are discussing here.
  We know that the veterans appropriation for medical care alone 
numbers about $15 billion to $16 billion. I know that, Mr. Chairman, 
because I once was the Chair of the subcommittee that appropriates 
those. Though I am now in a sabbatical from the chairmanship, I am not 
in a sabbatical from fighting for American veterans.
  That $15 billion is designed to meet the needs of America's veterans 
in order to be able to meet their acute care, provide primary care 
connected to service-connected disabilities, and long-term care for 
those who bear the permanent wounds of war.
  Do we really want to make that vulnerable to budget cuts, mandatory 
budget cuts that will obviously come through a balanced budget 
amendment?
  The other part that the VA funds is disability pensions for those, 
again, who were wounded in the war and for those who are also now 
applying for those, who served in Desert Storm and other recent 
conflicts. Because of inadequate funding, we have a backlog that needs 
to be addressed, because our veterans now have to wait several months 
in order for that backlog to be able to be processed.
  Mr. President, I believe that the veterans who have already served 
the United States of America should not be called to do double duty by 
placing those programs related to the deficit--those veterans with 
service-connected disabilities being exempted from that.
  When we think of those veterans, they are the men and women of the 
Armed Forces who fought over there so we could be safe there. People 
like my Uncle Pete, my Uncle Fred, my Uncle Richie, who left banks, 
shops, and grocery stores to fight the Nazis and the war in the 
Pacific. They were the brave men who fought in Korea in an undeclared 
war, and in Vietnam in an unpopular war, and in Desert Storm in a high-
technology war, and countless other contingencies, so when a President 
dials 911 they are there to answer, ready and fit for duty.
  Then what do we say? Thank you. We always say a grateful Nation will 
never forget. Well, I am absolutely concerned that we will forget and 
those who we will forget the most are those who wear the green 
eyeshades rather than military epaulets, as they look down at the 
Federal budget.
  That is why I support the Rockefeller amendment. Each and every one 
of those men and women in the military is a symbol and living testament 
to the principles that have kept this country strong and free: loyalty, 
self-sacrifice, and patriotism. When we think of our enlisted people, 
we think of everything that is good about this country--courage, 
loyalty.
  Our responsibility now is to live up to the kinds of promises we made 
to them when they were called to duty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the Rockefeller amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to 
conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will think 
long and hard, that when they go to Veterans Day observances, when they 
go to Memorial Day, when they rise at Fourth of July parades and give 
the V sign or the thumbs up, and when we vote we should never, ever 
balance the red ink of the Federal budget on the backs of American 
veterans who have served so well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, veterans' benefits and veterans' programs 
will continue to compete very well under a balanced budget amendment.
  But this constitutional amendment is not the place to set budget 
priorities. We cannot put statutory programs into the Constitution. 
Constitutional and statutory confusion will result if we include 
references to statutory programs in the text of the Constitution. It 
would create a new type of law somewhere between constitutional law and 
statutory law. Would we need to amend the Constitution to increase 
veterans' benefits? Would we really want to give quai-constitutional 
status to the technical language of the veterans' benefits statutes? 
Would we want to allow those statutes to be a loophole to let off the 
pressure of balancing the budget? This could pose a risk to veterans' 
programs as Members of Congress would have an incentive to redefine 
spending programs as veterans' programs.
  Mr. President, this amendment is yet another attempt by opponents of 
the balanced budget amendment to use a worthy group of beneficiaries--
in this case our Nation's veterans--to start putting loopholes in the 
balanced budget amendment. This poses risks to the balanced budget 
amendment, could engender constitutional confusion, and might hurt 
veterans' programs.
  Let me repeat that veterans' benefits hold a priority place and will 
be well protected. But we should not start exempting statutory programs 
from the broad universal mandate of the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the Senator from West Virginia, and I resist in saying the words ``Here 
we go again,'' for the simple reason that I now have the privilege of 
serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee of this Senate and, by the 
outcome of the last election, missed the opportunity to serve under the 
chairmanship of the Senator from West Virginia of this critical and 
important committee.
  So when the Senator from West Virginia stands up to speak about 
veterans and veterans issues, I know he speaks with the utmost 
sincerity as to his concerns, as does the Senator from Maryland.
  Because of that sincerity, because of the commitment that this 
Senator has, we will prioritize at the top of nearly every budget the 
responsibility we have to honor the commitment that this Government 
made to the men and women who put their lives in harm's way to provide 
for our safety and security as a nation.
  But there is no question that as we debated the Social Security issue 
and as we now debate veterans issues, that we find our services falling 
into the Gramm-Rudman trap of taking away or exempting from any budget 
consideration, under a controlled scenario and under this instance of a 
balanced budget, these programs.
  What does that say? I guess it could say they are at the top of our 
priority list, but it says we can also spend in a lot of other areas 
that have less priority, and we exempt these programs from any 
budgetary consideration that is fair and responsible.
  Two weekends ago, Mr. President, I visited a new veterans home in 
Idaho that I am very proud of. I helped gain the money for that home 
and the State of Idaho moved that money. It now is the residence for 70 
veterans who served their country well but find the need to have 
shelter provided by this unique and beautiful home. I visited with most 
of them, spoke to them. We were talking about the very issue that we 
are debating on the floor tonight, the balanced budget amendment.
  All of them said, ``Senator, get the budget under control. I am 
really worried about the future of this country and I am worried about 
my grandchildren. So I hope you win. I hope you balance the Federal 
budget,'' because what those members of that Idaho veterans home knew 
was that the commitment their Senator had was to always put their 
issues at the front, to prioritize, as the history of this Congress has 
always demonstrated that we will treat fairly and responsibly those who 
served our country, because of the commitment we made when they took 
the oath. That does not mean we move them outside of the arena of 
budgetary considerations or the intent to be fiscally responsible.
  If we allow but one exemption, then there are a lot of other priority 
areas that many other Senators would find necessary. I would have to 
say to the Senator from West Virginia, what about his coal miners? What 
about our 
[[Page S2941]] rail workers? What about my farmers and ranchers? No, 
they did not put their lives in harm's way to ensure the safety and 
security and freedom of this country. But we have said for a long, long 
time we have an obligation to them for a variety of reasons.
  Yet, we have not chosen to exempt them, nor should we choose to 
exempt anyone, but to force this Congress to maintain the priorities we 
think are critically necessary. We believe that that has to be done 
under the context of a balanced budget. As I said when we debated the 
Social Security amendments, the threats to veterans benefits is not 
this amendment, the threat to veterans benefits is the debt and the 
deficit. The deficit itself is crowding out the benefits, because we 
have to pay interest on that debt.
  I say now if we did not have the $300 billion deficit payment, 
interest on debt payment on an annualized basis, the Senator from West 
Virginia and I would not have to make the critical decisions we are 
going to be making in this budgetary cycle, with or without a balanced 
budget requirement, which will entail reductions in growth rates of 
certain veterans benefits, not because of a balanced budget amendment, 
but because for too long this Senate has not been fiscally responsible, 
and we are now crowding out the very real programs that are extremely 
valuable.
  Mr. President, at this time, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming and 
the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee here in the Senate, 
such time as he might require.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is one of the periodic missions 
assigned to those who chair the Veterans' Affairs Committee or who 
serve as ranking member during the debate on any issue that has 
anything to do with veterans.
  I am a veteran. There are 27 million veterans. I know some get tired 
of me quoting the statistics. But I do not get tired of it, because the 
American people have been forced, in this debate on the balanced 
budget, to wake up and figure what is going to happen to them.
  My wake-up call came during service on the Entitlements Commission, 
the bipartisan Entitlements Commission, chaired so ably by Senator Bob 
Kerrey and Senator Jack Danforth. And 30 of the 32 of us--a very 
diverse group ranging from Rich Trumka, Malcolm Wallop, my fine senior 
colleague in those days, John Dingell, Tom Downey, Senator Carol 
Moseley-Braun, Senator Gregg--a wonderful group of people--and 30 of 
the 32 of us have agreed and presented to the President the fact that 
in the year 2012, with no increase in taxes, that there would be only 
sufficient revenue to fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Federal retirement and interest on the national debt and that there 
will be nothing--absolutely nothing--to be used to fund transportation, 
education, defense, Head Start or NEA or any other discretionary 
program of the Federal Government, and everybody knows it.
  I would think the veterans would have picked up on it. Veterans are a 
bright group. They have powerful organizations in this community. But I 
must say, in my 16 years here, and having served as ranking member 
under a fine able chairman, Senator Al Cranston--people often confuse 
us and say, ``You're Al Cranston.'' ``No, I'm Al Simpson.'' I have to 
clear that up daily. Nobody ever calls him Al Simpson but many call me 
Al Cranston. But it was difficult. That was the only thing difficult in 
that relationship because I enjoyed him thoroughly.
  There is nobody I enjoy more than Jay Rockefeller. He is a splendid 
friend. I watched the chairman through the years, Senator Frank 
Murkowski, and the wonderful work that he has done, and on it goes.
  Always we get into this wretched excess about veterans: ``What are we 
doing for the veterans of our country?'' And the answer is everything. 
I am telling you, when I came to this body, the veterans budget was $20 
billion in 1978, and today it is double--double, $39.5 billion proposed 
for 1996. And in 1978 it was $20 billion. It has doubled. And every 
year I have to come here and listen to what we are doing to the 
veterans of America. It is a tedious exercise, a truly tedious 
exercise.
  It comes from the veterans' groups. The organizations gin the 
rhetoric up all day long. The average increase for veterans is over $1 
billion a year. When every other program in America is taking a hit, 
the veterans do not take a hit. They have not taken a hit in any way. 
We keep adding things.
  What we really tragically do is add new things in the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee and on the floor, because you do not dare vote 
against any kind of bill that has the word ``veteran'' in it. So we 
come here and we have voted for entitlement programs that we cannot 
fund, and then the veterans groups come back in and say, or the 
veterans themselves come back in and say, ``How come I couldn't get 
into the VA Hospital in Cheyenne or Miles City?'' Or ``Why couldn't I 
do this'' or ``Why couldn't I do that''?
  The answer is, ``Well, we didn't fund that.''
  ``Well,'' they said, ``you should have funded it.''
  So all I can tell you is that if anyone can tell me that the people 
of the United States, through their elected representatives, have not 
supported the veterans of America, that is plain erroneous information.
  I suppose we are going to have some charts about GDP and increases in 
this and or the increases in that. It is like dealing with Medicare. If 
you want to deal with another power group, other than the veterans 
organizations, deal with the AARP, who have managed to tell the 
American public that we have cut Medicare $200 billion in the last 10 
years. Well, I would like to see that one on paper because Medicare was 
$37 billion 10 years ago, and it is now $157 billion. So if somebody 
can tell me where the $200 billion dropped off the table, just drop a 
fax or something or slip it under the door and I will be glad to read 
it if I can to see how $200 billion simply disappeared. It is absurd to 
say that the veterans have not been taken care of in some way.
  There is a terrible confusion here, a very unfortunate confusion, a 
fuzzing--unintentional, I am sure--about the difference between a 
combat disabled veteran and a service-connected disabled veteran. I 
know this may be inside baseball to some, but it is critical, very 
critical, because this well-intentioned amendment will do some serious 
things.
  You have to remember, as Senator Rockefeller says, those who enter 
service must know that their commitments will be met. Each Congress we 
have added to the benefits available to veterans--each year.
  Not a year has gone by in my presence as chairman or ranking member 
that additional presumptive diseases have not been added. I know that 
is inside baseball, too. People say, ``What is a presumptive disease?'' 
Well, there are now 86, I believe, presumptive diseases. Some of them 
obviously are connected with service in the U.S. military and the 
majority of them are simply connected with being alive: Ulcers, 
hypertension, stress, high blood pressure, the things that happen to 
every other person in society. If you have been in the military, they 
are presumed to have happened to you because of your service in the 
military. For example, the list includes lupus. I can get the list. It 
is an extraordinary list.
  Ninety-three presumptive diseases are called to my attention--93. If 
you saw the list you would see that it includes every malady--and some 
are serious and some are not as serious. But every malady on that list 
affects every other person in society.
  We do that every year. We have made additions to the cost-of-living 
allowance. We have every year increased accessibility for services and 
benefits, and benefits have been expanded in each and every year of my 
being here.
  Hear this: The argument is that we need to care for those injured as 
a result of their service. The amendment of my friend from West 
Virginia, by freezing benefits for many who are being paid for injuries 
or illness unrelated to their service, would impair the ability of a 
future Congress to respond to the needs of those actually harmed as a 
result of their service. This is, I am sure, a highly unintended 
consequence.
  Furthermore, Senator Mikulski--and she did a yeoman job as chairman 
of the HUD and VA subcommittee. She and Senator Jake Garn worked so 
well on that. She is a spirited advocate of the amendment. She cites 
many combat veterans. No one--please--no one, not a soul in the land 
questions our obligation to those injured in the performance of their 
duty. But this amendment goes far beyond that. This 
[[Page S2942]] amendment would include--hear this--it would include the 
19 percent of service-connected veterans with ordinary diseases 
unrelated to duty.
  There is a 19 percent cadre of people who I do not think were ever 
intended to be included here. It would include the 6 percent of 
service-connected vets who are injured off base in accidents unrelated 
to duty. I do not think that was ever intended.
  It is a remarkable, periodic thing that we go through here, and some 
of it is, believe it or not, politically motivated. I know that is a 
shocking statement. I am not attributing that here, but over the years 
I have attributed it because I can remember very well one time when I 
came to the floor of the U.S. Senate many years ago and there was a 
Senator--he is not in our midst, he is no longer in the Senate--who was 
railing about the veterans of America and how they have been cheated, 
short sheeted, ripped off, treated like bums. I have never heard a 
speech quite like it. It was a ringing thing. In fact, it is still 
ringing.
  Afterwards, we were riding the subway back and I said, ``I have a 
question to ask: Have you ever been in the service?''
  And our colleague, now not with us, said, ``No.''
  I said, ``How come it is that a person like you who has never been in 
the U.S. military will give a speech like that when you haven't even 
been in the Civil Air Patrol?'' I said, ``I get tired of that. And the 
next time you do it, I'm going to get out there and rip one, and we're 
not going to listen to that kind of stuff again.''
  He said, ``You wouldn't do that. It would ruin the comity of the 
Senate.'' I said, ``Well, you are already ruining it by getting out and 
pretending we don't do anything for the veterans in the United 
States.''
  That was 1979. That gentleman never spoke again on the issue of 
veterans because I just kept a big drawer full of the statistics about 
what we do for veterans in this country.
  People cannot understand that there are 27 million veterans, and only 
3 million of us have ever had a live shell go past our head in combat. 
Now, they will say, ``Oh, we can't tell how many saw combat.'' Well, I 
say you could get pretty close. We have a form, a DD-214, that tells 
where you were, where you served. It is a great ploy to assert that you 
cannot tell where someone served or what they did. I do not believe 
that one anymore either.
  The VA does not want to provide that information because you can use 
the word ``veteran'' to cover, literally cover, people who served 6 
months--6 months. There were thousands of veterans, when I came to the 
committee, who had served 6 months, never left the United States, and 
did not know a mortar tube from either end. They received every benefit 
this country had, and I said, ``This is absurd.'' And Al Cranston 
helped me change that. We at least put in a requirement for 2 years 
service, and I believe that is where we are now.
  So you can serve 2 years, never leave the United States, and not know 
a mortar tube from either end and still draw every single benefit that 
a disabled veteran or a veteran of combat receives.
  Now, people do not like to hear that, and they say, ``Simpson, you 
are not doing that again.'' I almost can feel my staff pulling on my 
clothing as I bring it up again. But it is true.
  And then I ask you to remember another one. This will get me in deep 
trouble. You can be a service-connected disabled veteran by busting up 
your knee playing special services basketball at Heidelberg, ladies and 
gentlemen. Hear that. Hear it. Because if I get to have horror stories 
used on me, then I get to throw the horror stories going the other way 
back into the box.
  You can really be a service-connected disabled veteran for hooking 
your knee over a bayonet stuck in a tree, saying, ``I want to draw a 
green check for the rest of my life.'' I saw a guy do that in the woods 
of Germany, and he said, ``I'm out of here, see you.'' I said, ``Boy, 
this is great. That's not what I had in mind when I put in my 2 
years.'' He said, ``Well, that's what I have in mind.''
  I do not know where that man is now. But just to believe that every 
single veteran is ``deserving of everything out of the Federal 
Treasury'' is to believe that every lawyer is deserving--I am one of 
those in life--or that every politician is wholly deserving, or that 
every person deserves a Federal check. That is not so.
  Veterans served, you bet they did, and with honor and distinction, 
and they sometimes fought, and, tragically, some were maimed and many 
died. Does anyone believe that we do not all know that, and have 
tremendous passion and compassion for what they did. How absurd to have 
to come and get into a debate and hear that some of us do not care 
about those veterans or for those who bore the battle and for their 
widows and orphans. Their service and sacrifice gave their children and 
their grandchildren a chance to live in freedom.
  But today, our country's future, and the freedom of our descendants, 
face threats that are every bit as dangerous as the foreign enemies 
that America's 27 million veterans defeated. The victories won by 
America's veterans in war will be lost in peace if our Nation is 
brought to her knees by the burden of our national debt.
  All of us know what we are doing. We will all vote on April 1, or 
thereabouts, to raise the debt limit to $5 trillion. Now, when we get 
the debt limit to $5 trillion and the interest on the national debt to 
$300-plus billion, you could do a lot of things for veterans with the 
$300-plus billion interest payment that will instead have to be sent 
down the rathole. You could do a lot of things for veterans with a $300 
billion payment down the rathole as interest on the national debt.
  The budget this year is $1.6 trillion, and $40 billion of it is going 
to go to the veterans of America. And I have not the slightest qualm 
about that. I am ready to vote that. And the veterans will get to watch 
along with the rest of our American citizens as the deficit goes $200 
billion a year out into eternity, but that is nothing, because in 1997 
it will begin to go to $250 billion, and then it will go to $300 
billion per year.
  I think the veterans' organizations would want to pay attention to 
that. And then the debt in the year 2003 will be $6.3 trillion. I think 
the veterans' organizations would really want to pay attention to that 
because, if our country goes belly up and we monetize the debt, 
veterans are going to get stuck along with everybody else, along with 
everybody on Social Security, along with the seniors and Head Start and 
everybody else. That is the way that works.
  If that happens, the sacrifice of service members who died or were 
wounded protecting the future of our country will have been in vain. 
Their service will have been absolutely in vain if the future of our 
country is dictated by the demands of an ever-increasing debt and 
deficit. And the commitment of the Congress and this country to care 
for those who bore the battle, their widows and orphans will count for 
nothing if the economy that supports all of the veterans' benefits 
collapses under the weight of the deficits we incur today.
  Does anyone believe that will not occur? If we continue business as 
usual, we continue to spend based on desires and pressure from the 
interest groups; rather than budget based upon our resources, the 
future is very clear and the outcome is inevitable. And I have 
described to you what will occur in the year 2012. And, of course, 
there is another fact to throw in the pot. The Social Security system 
will be broke in the year 2029. That nightmare is not just a vision of 
some mad Reagan supporter somewhere or Jimmy Carter or George Bush or 
anyone you wish to name who served our country with distinction as 
President.
  No. We are told that the system will go broke by the trustees of the 
Social Security system, who are not exactly off the wall. They are 
people like Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Reich, Donna Shalala, and two members 
of the general public. And they are saying that in the year 2029 the 
system will be broke. And they moved the doomsday up from 2036 to 2029 
just last year. Next year, when they meet again, will they move the 
doomsday from 2029 down to 2025? I do not know. But those of us on the 
Finance Committee are asking those questions. People like Senator 
Moynihan are asking those questions. Senator Packwood, the chairman, is 
asking those questions. These are real issues, absolutely, totally real 
concerns.
  [[Page S2943]] So when we come to the point of monetizing the debt, 
or whatever you have to do when you have a debt of $6 trillion, and you 
put Federal borrowing in short-term securities because the interest 
rate is less. When we have to roll over that short term debt, as the 
occupant of the chair knows so well, a one-point increase in the 
interest rate translates to, I think, $48 billion
 to 48--$48 billion; 1 point in the interest paid by the Government 
costs that much.

  So, when that happens we do not need to worry about little things 
like this amendment. When that happens, there will be no money to pay 
the salaries of VA employees who would process the benefits this 
amendment proposes to protect. There will be no money to pay the 
salaries of VA doctors or nurses to care for any nonservice-connected 
illness--any nonservice-connected illness. This is an important 
distinction.
  If any Senator offered any proposal to limit VA health care only to 
service-connected disabilities he would face the ultimate, immediate 
and undisguised wrath of the veterans organizations. But that would be 
the full effect of allowing the continued growth of the deficit.
  A Federal budget with no room for discretionary spending, I can 
assure you, will have no room for nonservice-connected health care--
believe me. It will not. Because, if you want to get into a description 
of nonservice-connected health care, there are some things in there 
that you really don't want to see.
  I thought the most interesting part of the debate, at least as some 
of the material has come out, is that I had a very pleasing letter from 
the Paralyzed Veterans of America. If we want to continue to talk about 
people who gave their all and do their all, then I think we would want 
to listen to the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Let me read this letter 
dated February 14, saying:

       On behalf of the Members of the Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America I urge you to oppose an amendment, which we 
     understand will be offered today by Senator Jay Rockefeller.

  Then they go on to describe, and I would certainly subscribe to the 
description also--they describe the amendment, as being ``motivated by 
a heartfelt desire to attempt to safeguard benefits and services.''
  Boy, I believe that about my friend from West Virginia, that this is 
heartfelt. I subscribe to that and I believe that. But this attempt to 
do this--and again I am reading from the Paralyzed Veterans Association 
letter

       . . . will fragment veterans' programs and seriously weaken 
     the veterans' health care system. By protecting only a 
     portion of the funding needed to maintain the VA health care 
     system, the future of the entire system could well be 
     jeopardized.

  I believe that. The VA health care system, and particularly its 
specialized services such as spinal cord injury medicine, upon which 
the PVA members rely, will be faced with a drastically eroded patient 
base and diminished resources necessary for its continued existence.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 1995.
     Hon. Alan K. Simpson,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Simpson: On behalf of the members of the 
     Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), I urge you to oppose an 
     amendment, which we understand will be offered today by 
     Senator John D. ``Jay'' Rockefeller, IV, to H.J. Res. 1, the 
     Balanced Budget Amendment. PVA also requests your opposition 
     to H.J. Res. 1 itself. Neither of these initiatives is in the 
     best interests of the veterans of this Nation.
       Senator Rockefeller's amendment, while motivated by a 
     heartfelt desire to attempt to safeguard benefits and 
     services for veterans disabled in military service, will 
     fragment veterans' programs and seriously weaken the 
     veterans' health care system. By protecting only a portion of 
     the funding needed to maintain the VA health care system, the 
     future of the entire system could well be jeopardized. The VA 
     health care system, and particularly its specialized services 
     such as spinal cord injury medicine, upon which PVA's members 
     rely, will be faced with a drastically eroded patient base 
     and diminished resources necessary for its continued 
     existence.
       If this Nation is to maintain its commitment to the men and 
     women who have served in the defense of freedom, then the 
     merits of veterans' benefits and programs should be judged on 
     their merits in an open, ongoing Congressional process. 
     Senator Rockefeller's amendment recognizes the service and 
     needs of some veterans, while leaving the benefits of 
     millions of other subject to the arbitrary cost-cutting 
     mechanism which a balanced budget amendment will no doubt 
     entail.
       The Balanced Budget Amendment, H.J. Res. 1, is itself a 
     fiscal artifice which in the name of expediency is touted as 
     a promise to cut federal spending with no regard for the 
     purposes, merits or rationales of the programs and benefits 
     which will be reduced. It is our strong belief that fiscal 
     constraint and balancing federal spending must be achieved in 
     open Congressional action, with the value and purpose of each 
     benefit of service independently judged. Not all federal 
     programs are of equal value, nor are they an equal reflection 
     of our national commitments.
       Again, on behalf of the members of Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America, I request your strong opposition to both Senator 
     Rockefeller's amendment, and to the Balanced Budget Amendment 
     which motivated it. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Richard Grant,
                                               National President.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, a balanced budget does not require a 
reduction in any benefit or program. It would require only a reduction 
in the rate of increase of entitlement spending.
  I commend those who desire to ensure that our Nation remembers her 
obligation to those who are injured as a result of their military 
service.
  But I urge them to remember that the best way to protect the future 
of veterans' benefits--is to protect the future of the Nation that 
provides those benefits.
  If we are serious about our obligation to veterans--we have to be 
serious about protecting economy that supports the benefits veterans 
receive.
  I have no fear for the strength and persistence of our Nation's 
commitment to veterans. I do fear for the ability of our Nation to 
convert that commitment into the reality of effective and enduring 
programs--unless we make a commitment to protect the future of our 
Nation, and the future of our economy, by bringing our appetite for 
debt under control.
  It is by happy coincidence that the Washington Post published on 
Tuesday, February 15, contains two columns illustrating my point.
  The first piece, by Robert J. Samuelson, provides one blueprint for 
balancing the budget. Samuelson's plan does not reduce veterans' 
benefits. I am sure there are many others. Thus, we can lay to rest the 
notion that balancing the budget must reduce veterans' benefits by 30 
percent, or--for that matter--by any other percentage.
  The second piece, by James K. Glassman, reminds us that, if the 
Congress makes no change in spending and entitlement policy, future 
generations will face ``net lifetime tax rates'' that average 84 
percent.
  Think about that.
  If we continue with business as usual, future generations will have 
to pay 84 percent of their net lifetime income--that's what's left 
after allowing for Government payments back to the taxpayers, to pay 
for this generation's spending. The source of Mr. Glassman's 
calculations? The President's budget for 1995.
  Does anyone doubt that such a taxation rate would bring down the 
economy, and the veterans' benefits that depend upon it? These articles 
are so illustrative of the point I am trying to make that I ask 
unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record of this debate.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               The Budget With the Hidden Generation Gap

                         (By James K. Glassman)

       For the past three years, the most frightening part of the 
     president's budget has been a section discussing something 
     called ``generational accounting.''
       The economists who wrote last year's section calculated 
     that if the government didn't change its policies on spending 
     and entitlements, future generations would face a net tax 
     rate of 94 percent!
       That figure was buried deep inside last year's 2,000-page 
     budget, and it caused a small sensation when it surfaced in 
     the press. It reminded Americans that, while President 
     Clinton was indeed cutting the deficit, government spending--
     especially on Social Security and Medicare--would still 
     overwhelm the young and children yet unborn.
       So when the president's new budget came out last week, I 
     naturally searched the four volumes for this year's section 
     on generational accounting.
       [[Page S2944]] It wasn't there.
       I phoned Laurence Kotlikoff, the Boston University 
     economist who developed the idea of looking at the federal 
     budget from the point of view of the age groups that pay the 
     bills.
       A mild-mannered fellow who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, 
     Kotlikoff was distraught. ``I think it's a big scandal,'' he 
     said. ``We'd assisted OMB [the Office of Management and 
     Budget] on this through the fall. Then, at the last minute, 
     some of the political types in the White House threw it 
     out.''
       Kotlikoff sent me the new analysis that he and Alan 
     Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and 
     Jagadeesh Gokhale of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland 
     had worked out for OMB.
       They calculated that, if current policies continue, future 
     generations will face ``net lifetime tax rates'' that average 
     84 percent.
       Gross tax rates--the percentage of their pay that members 
     of these generations send the government--will be even 
     higher. The ``net'' figures represent the difference between 
     their taxes and what they'll receive in transfer payments 
     like Social Security.
       Using more optimistic assumptions about health care 
     spending, the net rate could be 59 percent to 74 percent. But 
     that's little comfort.
       ``Levying such high net tax rates on future Americans is 
     not only unconscionable, it's also economically unfeasible,'' 
     wrote Kotlikoff and Auerbach.
       But what to do? There are, as the Congressional Budget 
     Office has noted, infinite paths to a balanced budget--
     cutting Medicare, freezing spending, raising taxes. ``The 
     real question,'' write Kotlikoff and Auerbach, ``is not 
     whether, but when.'' Yet, in this dire emergency, Clinton has 
     proposed a budget that projects deficits of $1 trillion over 
     the next five years. And Republicans, so far, have been 
     practically silent.
       Which brings us back to the omission of the generational 
     accounting section from this year's budget. Was it cut 
     because of fears it would prove embarrassing? That it would 
     turn the spotlight on the deficit-cutting left undone?
       OMB spokesman Lawrence J. Haas insists the section wasn't 
     suppressed. He says it wasn't included in the budget simply 
     because it wasn't ``in the kind of shape it needed to be in 
     to be printed.'' He added: ``We have committed to publishing 
     a paper of some sort down the road on long-term issues facing 
     the nation, of which generational accounting will be one 
     issue addressed.''
       When that paper is finally presented, I hope it shows that 
     the 84 percent tax rate for future generations is only a 
     symptom of the real disease--which is the spectacular, but 
     largely unnoticed, disparity of wealth that's developed 
     between the young and the old in America.
       Consider, for example, what Capital Research Associates 
     recently discovered about households with incomes of $30,000 
     or more: Families headed by a person aged 35 to 44 had an 
     average net worth of $66,000 while those headed by a person 
     65 to 74 had $222,000.
       Eliminate real estate and the
        disparities are even greater. The net financial assets of 
     a family headed by someone under age 45 averaged less than 
     $8,000 while those of a family headed by someone over 65 
     averaged more than $77,000.
       But, even though the old are richer than the young, it's 
     the old who receive the government benefits. ``There has been 
     a huge redistribution'' over the past 30 years, says 
     Kotlikoff. And that shift in wealth helps explain why the 
     U.S. personal savings rate has fallen from 6.1 percent in the 
     1970s to a dangerously low 3.9 percent in the 1990s.
       As Nobel prize-winning economist Franco Modigliani 
     demonstrated with his life-cycle model, young people save and 
     old people consume. So, if the government takes 15 percent 
     out of the paycheck of a saver and sticks it in the bank 
     account of a consumer, the nation as a whole will get less 
     saving and more consumption.
       But if old people are getting more of the wealth, aren't 
     they giving some of it back to their kids? Alas, says 
     Kotlikoff, research shows that altruism doesn't operate much 
     in economic life, even within extended families. Old people 
     spend what they have--on travel, shelter, medical care.
       Last week, Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.), the Finance 
     Committee chairman, warned that, if Congress did not pass a 
     balanced-budget amendment, the nation would face ``a 
     cataclysmic clash between the generations when Social 
     Security begins running out in the next century.'' Yes, just 
     imagine the nightmare when we self-centered Baby Boomers 
     reach retirement age.
                                                                    ____

                    Here's How To Balance the Budget

                        (By Robert J. Samuelson)

       In 1,000 words, I am going to balance the budget. I am 
     going to do it without sweeping reductions in basic services, 
     crippling tax increases or major cuts in Social Security. The 
     point of the exercise is to puncture the bipartisan myth--the 
     whining by both parties--that balancing the budget involves 
     staggering sacrifices that would somehow change the face of 
     America. It doesn't.
       I don't mean this would be fun. Balancing the budget does 
     require a ruthless elimination of marginal or ineffective 
     programs, such as farm subsidies. My plan also involves 
     abolishing some grants to states and localities for local 
     services (schools, police, mass transit); for example, it is 
     not the federal government's job ``to put 100,000 cops on the 
     street.'' Finally, a sensible budget-balancing plan cannot 
     afford new middle-class handouts (a k a, ``tax cuts'') and 
     would impose modest tax increases.
       Still, most Americans would hardly notice the needed 
     changes. Our budget deficits now equal 2 to 3 percent of 
     gross domestic product (GDP), our economy's output. Almost 
     any mix of spending cuts or tax increases would leave the 
     government doing just about what it does now: taxing and 
     spending about 20 percent of GDP. Spreading changes over five 
     years--to allow people to adjust--would make them even less 
     jarring.
       I start with Clinton's deficit projection for the year 
     2000; nearly $195 billion. This includes $20 billion for 
     middle-class tax cuts; I disregard this and use the $20 
     billion as a cushion against optimistic estimates. To balance 
     the budget, I would do the following. (All deficit savings 
     are annual and are culled from documents of the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.)
       End outdated or marginal programs: Get rid of farm 
     subsidies (including the Farmers Home Administration), 
     culture subsidies (public broadcasting, the arts and 
     humanities endowments), Amtrak, the Small Business 
     Administration and Cold War propaganda agencies. Deficit 
     savings: $16 billion.
       End some subsidies for local governments: Community 
     Development Block Grants should be axed; so should subsidies 
     for mass transit, ``special education'' and ``local impact'' 
     school aid. Ditto for law enforcement grants. Deficit 
     savings: $15 billion.
       End inept programs: Federal job training programs don't do 
     much good; the Clinton administration admits as much by 
     proposing to end most existing programs and use the savings 
     for training ``vouchers.'' Just end the programs. Deficit 
     savings: $12 billion.
       Trim Medicare and Medicaid: Reimbursement rates for 
     doctors, hospitals and laboratories can be cut. Clinton made 
     similar proposals to finance his health care plan but now has 
     dropped them. Deficit savings: $40 billion (by the year 
     2000).
       Raise taxes: A 12-cent a gallon oil tax (introduced over 
     three years, or 4 cents a year) would raise $23 billion by 
     the year 2000. Taxing capital gains (profits on stocks, 
     bonds) when people die would raise $10 billion. Eliminating 
     tax-exempt bonds for some private investment (some housing, 
     for instance) would raise $2 billion. Cigarette taxes could 
     be raised modestly; other tax preferences could be ended. 
     Deficit savings: $50 billion.
       Cost-of-living adjustment (COLA): Cut 0.5 points annually 
     from the COLA; a 3 percent change would become 2.5 percent. 
     Most economists think the consumer price index--used to 
     adjust tax brackets and spending for Social Security and 
     other programs--overstates inflation, though there's 
     disagreement on how much. Deficit savings (by the year 2000); 
     $22 billion ($13 billion in lower spending, $9 billion in 
     higher taxes).
       All these spending cuts ($96 billion) and tax
        increases ($59 billion) total $155 billion. But lower 
     deficits mean that government would borrow less and pay 
     less interest. By the year 2000, the annual interest 
     savings would reach about $40 billion. Total savings: $195 
     billion. If Clinton's estimates are accurate, there would 
     be a small surplus and, if not, a small deficit.
       You will notice the absence of defense cuts. This is not 
     because the Pentagon has no waste. But defense has already 
     been sharply cut and is still declining; as a share of GDP, 
     it will soon be lower than any time since 1940. I doubt 
     whether further cuts are wise, though we could improve how 
     well we spend. Nor have I included sweeping cuts in programs 
     for the poor. Before savaging the safety net, I would want a 
     major debate. But we do not need to wait for that to balance 
     the budget.
       Although I don't say other cuts couldn't be made, I do say 
     that this plan involves no genuine national hardship. Food 
     would be grown without farm subsidies. Public broadcasting 
     would survive without federal aid. Older Americans would not 
     starve if their benefits rose 2.5 percent instead of 3 
     percent. States and localities would howl about lost grants; 
     but these equal only one percent to 2 percent of their 
     revenues. And federal taxes? Well, the tax burden in 2000 
     would be only slightly higher (19.5 percent of GDP) than now 
     (19.3 percent of GDP in 1995). Most tax ``increases'' offset 
     a slow erosion of taxes under present law.
       Harder choices do loom for the future. The retirement of 
     the baby boom, beginning about 2010, will require either 
     steep tax increases or benefit cuts. In my view, retirement 
     ages need to be raised over the next 20 years; benefits for 
     affluent elderly need to be trimmed. Somehow, Medicare will 
     have to be reformed; doctor and hospital fees cannot be cut 
     forever. But these steps require ample advance warning and do 
     not involve today's budget deficits.
       On these, Republicans and Democrats talk differently but 
     behave similarly; both act as if the process would involve 
     gut-wrenching changes. Democrats (led by Clinton) won't say 
     how they'd balance the budget--now or ever. Mostly, they 
     peddle false rhetoric about the harsh cuts in Social Security 
     or Medicare that would be needed for balance. Meanwhile, most 
     Republicans hide behind the constitutional balanced budget 
     amendment.
       The press has adopted the same attitude, treating a 
     balanced budget as a feat beyond mortals. All programs are 
     considered permanent. Any spending cut or tax increase is 
     [[Page S2945]] seen as political suicide. Genuine debate 
     about government's role or competence is thought naive. The 
     supposed horror of deficit reduction rationalizes inaction 
     and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is not a 
threat to veterans and their benefits. In fact, the balanced budget 
amendment may be the last and best opportunity we will have to protect 
the future economy upon which those benefits will depend.
  For that reason, for veterans, and for veterans' children, and for 
the grandchildren of veterans, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
protecting the integrity of the balanced budget amendment by opposing 
the well intentioned, but counterproductive, amendment of my friend 
from West Virginia
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. What is the situation with regard to time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 14 
minutes and 42 seconds. The time controlled by the Senator from Utah 
has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. All time has expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was originally 30 minutes; and 1 hour.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will yield 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment 
proposed by Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia, which would protect 
the service-connected benefits received by our Nation's 2.2 million 
veterans from cuts that might be required--or may be required in the 
balanced budget amendment. We have been hearing a lot about contracts, 
contracts with America, but we have not heard that much about what is, 
I think, an irrevocable contract with America's veterans who have 
often, all too often, risked their lives for our country.
  Abraham Lincoln, with his characteristic eloquence, laid out the term 
of this contract with America. It was 130 years ago when he spoke of 
our obligation: ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and 
for his widow and for his orphan.''
  I might add that President Lincoln did not say that this was an 
obligation that would or could be subordinated to our need to balance 
the budget. When Americans from all walks of life have periodically 
volunteered to serve our Nation, no one ever told them that if they 
were injured or disabled or they died that their survivors could count 
on Government assistance only if that funding was not needed to balance 
the budget. That is what is so important about this amendment proposed 
by the Senator from West Virginia.
  Let there be no mistake about it. What this amendment addresses is 
earned entitlements. Let me repeat that--earned entitlements. These are 
not mere gifts to be given or withdrawn or curtailed at the whim of the 
Congress, but entitlements earned with the blood and the sweat and the 
tears of American service men and women, as well as with the anguish 
and the pain and the tears of their loved ones.
  These service-connected programs for veterans and their survivors run 
the gamut from compensation to injured veterans to health care for 
service-connected injuries to vocational rehabilitation to burial 
allowances for those who die from service-connected conditions.
  I want to speak to one particular group of veterans I feel very close 
to. By the way, when I hear the Senator from Wyoming--and I have no 
doubts about his commitment to the veterans in this country, no doubt 
whatsoever. This is one of those debates where people honorably just 
have a different perspective.
  Mr. President, I received a poem that I would like to read from a 13-
year-old daughter of a Vietnam veteran suffering from PTSD, Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder. I wish every citizen in the country knew 
what it was:

       For someone to share
       Is only to care.
       He was in the war
       And never opens his door.
       He lives in a shell
       And that must be like hell.
       He used to be my dad
       But now he looks so sad.
       If only he knew
       It makes me feel blue.
       I know he loves me
       Why won't he hug me.
       My mom says ``he's numb.''
       What will I become
       Without my father to guide me.

  I say to my colleague from Wyoming, this was not a poem written in 
opposition to the balanced budget amendment. This was not a poem 
written in behalf of the amendment proposed by the Senator from West 
Virginia. I do not want to decontextualize this poem, but it was one of 
those moments we have as Senators that we just do not forget.
  We have veterans calling in all the time--this is not an 
exaggeration--especially veterans who are suffering from PTSD. All the 
time we get calls from veterans saying ``I do not have a place to stay. 
I am living in the streets.'' They suffer from PTSD and they are not 
receiving the support, they are not receiving the help. Veterans who 
call, ``I am going to blow my head off. I am going to take my life.'' 
They are not receiving the support, the assistance they need. Veterans 
who call suffering from PTSD who say, ``I have these flashbacks and 
violent thoughts and I feel like I am going to kill someone.'' They are 
not receiving the support that they need.
  I was at the VA medical center in Minneapolis on Sunday. We were able 
to obtain several hundred thousand dollars more for some additional 
treatment programs for vets that are suffering from posttraumatic 
stress syndrome.
  I have to say, I read the poem from this 13-year-old girl about her 
dad. She lives in Glenwood, MN. There are some veterans out there who 
served this Nation who, as a matter of fact, right now are not 
receiving the kind of support they really need. These are just unmet 
human needs that cry out, I think, for assistance. These are men and 
women who served the country, and they deserve the support.
  So when Senator Rockefeller proposes this amendment that there should 
not be cuts in needed service-connected programs, I am thinking that 
the existing programs right now do not meet the need. This is, if you 
will, a very personal issue for me. It is to obtain more assistance for 
these veterans that are dealing with PTSS.
  Yet, we are talking about the potential of all sorts of deep cuts. We 
know that. One more time. Let me give context. We are talking about 
$1.3 trillion worth of cuts. We are going to increase the Pentagon 
budget. We have not talked about decreasing it. We have not talked 
about decreasing military contractors. In addition, we are going to pay 
the interest on the debt. We have this bidding war to cut taxes when we 
say we are for more deficit reduction.
  Senator Feingold and I had an amendment last week on the floor that 
said at least consider $425 billion of tax expenditures. These 
loopholes and deductions quite often are dodges when it gets down to 
the question of how we are going to balance the budget. That was voted 
down. We do not lay out where we are going to make the cuts. So once 
you see what is off the table and then you see what is left, we know 
there are going to be some deep cuts in veterans programs.
  That, I believe, is the importance of this amendment of the Senator 
from West Virginia. That is why I rise to the floor to support this 
amendment.
  I really believe that we would be making a terrible mistake if we 
made cuts in these service-connected programs, especially when we can 
make a lot of cuts and balance the budget in a whole lot of other ways. 
In the sense of holding us accountable with an amendment like this, I 
believe we are going to go back on a very sacred promise that was made 
to veterans in this country and veterans in the State of Minnesota.
  I thank the Senator for his amendment. I am very pleased to be an 
original cosponsor. I certainly hope the U.S. Senate will vote for it.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for coming to the 
floor and speaking the truth.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask my colleague for a moment? I ask unanimous 
consent that the poem from the 13-year-old daughter of a Vietnam vet 
suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome be printed in the Record.

[[Page S2946]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     For someone to share
     Is only to care.
     He was in the war
     And never opens his door.
     He lives in a shell
     And that must be like hell.
     He used to be my dad
     But now he looks so sad.
     If only he knew
     It makes me feel blue.
     I know he loves me
     Why won't he hug me.
     My mom says ``he's numb.''
     What will I become
     Without my father to guide me.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Democratic leader is about to 
come onto the floor. So I will not get started on a number of things 
that I have to talk about. But I note that the Senator from Wyoming, my 
good friend, Senator Simpson, mentioned that the Paralyzed Veterans 
spoke out against this amendment, which is something that saddened me 
very much. They wanted all veterans included. So did I. They want all 
their members included. They have 16,000 members of Paralyzed Veterans 
nationwide. Their chapter in West Virginia actually does not agree with 
them. The head of the West Virginia chapter is non service disabled, in 
a wheelchair. He said that he did not agree with his national 
organization's position, that he wanted me to do whatever I could to 
preserve veterans benefits.
  On the other hand, let's turn to the Disabled American Veterans 
(DAV). They represent 1.4 million veterans, and DAV very much supports 
the amendment.
  Mr. President, last week was Valentine's Day. That is a day, of 
course, we remember to set aside for those we love. Valentine's Day has 
another meaning altogether for a certain West Virginia veteran who 
served in World War II through the Korean war. He is a friend of mine, 
Ezra Miller. I want to talk about him.
  It was on Valentine's Day, in fact, in 1943 that Ezra Miller was 
captured by the Germans and began his own private war, which was a 
private war to survive. Ezra grew up on a farm in Lincoln County, WV. 
That is a rural county. Like so many of our mountaineers, he never 
hesitated when he thought that his country needed him.
  Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Ezra had enlisted in the Army. In 
early 1943, Ezra found himself close to the front lines in North 
Africa. His unit's mission was to go ahead as foot soldiers, and blow 
up a pass that would prevent the Germans from entering into North 
Africa. He got this assignment on the 2d day in combat. His description 
of the event goes like this. This is one of the men that we will be 
protecting.
  He said:

       On that day, a small American observation plane flew over 
     our gun emplacements and dropped a message from headquarters 
     that said, ``Destroy everything and get out on foot, if you 
     can. The Germans have you surrounded.'' After taking the 
     message to the outpost, I tried to get out of the area on 
     foot but I never made it because I got pinned down by dive 
     bombers. I laid down in a slit trench and a 500-pound bomb 
     exploded very close to me and pushed an enormous amount of 
     dirt all over me.

  Ezra goes on to say that a German tank rolled right over that slit 
trench now filled by dirt and by Ezra, and after it passed, he got up 
and found himself looking into the barrel of a German rifle. Ezra spent 
the next 2 years, 3 months, and 27 days as a prisoner of war. During 
that time he lived in five different prison camps, one of which was 
called Dachau. At one point, he and his fellow prisoners traveled in 
boxcars. We have heard about those things, have we not? The boxcars, 
Mr. President, should have held only 40 men. The Germans crammed 84 
POW's and Ezra into a boxcar, and they rode like that for 4 days and 3 
nights. They had to remain standing because they were packed in there 
so tightly that they were unable to move. Ezra called it ``pitiful.'' 
He said they could hear the planes passing overhead, but had no idea 
whose they were or what was happening.
  When Ezra enlisted in the Army, he was in his early twenties. He 
stood 5 feet 11 inches tall and he weighed 174 pounds. When he was 
freed, he weighed less than 90 pounds. Yet, he remained in the 
military, and he went on to fight in Korea.
  For the last 2 years, Ezra has made his home at the West Virginia 
Veterans Home in Barboursville, something I started when I was 
Governor. He tells me that he loves living there, and I as a Senator 
and as his friend am delighted that Barboursville is there for Ezra and 
the many deserving veterans like him.
  But I want to make a very important point that I think cannot be 
overlooked. One would expect that our Government is paying a sizable 
benefit to Ezra, I would think a large one, and the others like him who 
were prisoners of war. No, not so. Ezra Miller is only 10 percent 
``service-connected.'' That is the terminology for it. That means his 
monthly check to compensate him for injuries he received during his 
military service--do you know how much per month? Eighty-seven bucks.
  If we pass this balanced budget amendment and we do not pass this 
amendment to it, and we take 30 percent of that, Ezra will receive 61 
bucks per month. Are we going to tell Ezra that it is his time to 
sacrifice again, for him to pull in his belt? He is back up to over 90 
pounds again. Not this Senator from West Virginia, not me.
  Our country had almost 150,000 Americans who were captured and 
interned from World War I through the Persian Gulf war. Can we ask our 
POW's to take a cut in benefits, our prisoners of war?
  Mr. President, I notice the presence of the Democratic leader on the 
floor. I will address a question to the Democratic leader. Would he 
care to proceed? I know he wanted to say something on this amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia and thank him for the leadership he has exhibited on 
this issue. I rise in support of his amendment and urge my colleagues 
to support it when it comes up for a vote later this evening.
  Mr. President, earlier in this debate on the balanced budget 
amendment, I offered a proposal called the right-to-know amendment. 
That measure would have required Congress to spell out how it would get 
to a balanced budget before sending the amendment to the States for 
ratification.
  I offered my proposal so that the American people would understand 
the kinds of cuts in Federal spending that will be needed to zero out 
the deficit.
  But the Republican majority rejected my proposal. In doing so, they 
indicated that everything except Social Security would be on the table.
  Let us be clear: Everything except Social Security includes the 
benefits that are paid to veterans who were disabled as a result of 
their military service.
  There are currently 2.2 million American veterans with service-
connected disabilities. They are men and women from all walks of life 
with all kinds of injuries. But they all have one thing in common--they 
were injured while serving our Nation in the Armed Forces.
  When they joined the service, they made a simple pact with the 
Federal Government. Their part of the bargain was to defend this Nation 
and protect its national interests. In return, the Government promised 
to care for them should they be injured during their military service--
or for their survivors should they be killed.
  This commitment to our veterans is one which our Nation must uphold.
  It is a commitment that we have upheld for decades. It is a 
commitment that goes back virtually to the very foundation of this 
country. And we have renewed this commitment after each conflict, to 
each new group of veterans. This commitment has withstood the test of 
time, and it has withstood the many forces that have sought to erode 
our firm promise to those who have defended this Nation so gallantly on 
so many occasions throughout our history.
  The amendment offered by my friend Senator Rockefeller, the ranking 
member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, is simple and 
straightforward. It says that Congress cannot cut the 
[[Page S2947]] benefits that were promised to our disabled veterans in 
order to balance the budget.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that 
this amendment is not necessary. They will say that Congress would 
never cut these benefits, and indeed I hope that is true.
  But I say to the American people--and to our veterans--how can we be 
so sure?
  How can we be sure that these benefits will be protected if we do not 
spell it out in the amendment itself? How can we be sure if we are not 
willing to put our intentions in writing? The only way we can be sure 
is if we are willing to put in writing, in the amendment itself, our 
determination to protect service-connected veterans from the budget 
axe. We must spell out that we will honor the commitment we made to the 
men and women who risked and gave their lives for this Nation.
  The disability compensation payments and the health care we provide 
to these veterans can never make them whole again. But it can help take 
care of them in their time of need, just as they answered the call when 
this Nation needed them.
  Veterans should not be asked to give up the benefits they so rightly 
deserve in the name of deficit reduction.
  They have sacrificed enough for this Nation already.
  I certainly hope that my colleagues will appreciate this commitment 
to our veterans and will agree to put into writing what we all say we 
want: protection for disabled veterans at a time when they need it the 
most. We need to support the Rockfeller amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the comments made on 
this amendment by my friend, the Senator from West Virginia, regarding 
the extreme importance of benefits for veterans with service-connected 
disabilities. I could not agree more.
  I have heard the compelling arguments that veterans with service-
connected disabilities are the most deserving and most honorable 
population in our society. Again, I could not agree more. These 
citizens have served their Nation, and have served well.
  However, I must respectfully disagree with the notion that we should 
exclude these benefits from the strictures of the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I am committed to the concept of the balanced budget 
amendment. I am committed to the idea that the financial security of 
this Nation rests on the ability of the Federal Government to curb the 
practice of spending beyond its means. In reviewing the fiscal history 
of this Nation over the past 25 years, it has become clear to me that 
the will to exercise the necessary spending restraint does not exist 
within this body without a strict requirement that we do so. I believe 
that the balanced budget amendment provides such a framework, and that 
is why I support it.
  Clearly the Rockefeller amendment is difficult to vote against. But 
in listening to the debate, I believe strongly that the very arguments 
made by the proponents of this amendment are exactly those that will 
insulate veterans disability benefits from future budget cuts.
  I am certain that every Senator in this body would put veterans' 
disability benefits high on the list of expenditures to be protected. 
But if we are serious about passing a meaningful balanced budget 
amendment, then we must reject efforts to dismantle that effort through 
piecemeal exclusions of programs, however worthy they may be.
  When it comes to the annual appropriations process, of which I am an 
active participant as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
I will be at the front of the line to protect veterans' disability 
benefits. But as a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, I must 
object to this exclusion.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from West Virginia which seeks to protect our Nation's 
veterans from the cataclysmic impact of the balanced budget amendment.
  The bill currently under consideration requires the Federal budget to 
be balanced each year, beginning in the year 2002. If Congress is 
unable to balance the budget each year, across-the-board cuts would 
probably be implemented to meet this balanced budget mandate. If this 
occurs, veterans programs, especially the Veterans Administration [VA] 
health care programs, would be decimated.
  On October 6, 1994, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown 
testified that an across-the-board cut in veterans programs would 
result in a decrease of 44,000 VA medical personnel. In addition, 
250,000 veterans could no longer be treated at VA hospitals, 5.4 
million outpatient visits could not be provided, and many of the VA 
medical facilities would have to be shut down.
  Other programs, including treatment of Persian Gulf veterans and 
veterans with PTSD, would not be receiving the level of quality care 
they currently receive. Thousands of veterans who are leaving the 
services due to the reductions and budgetary cut-backs would not be 
able to receive transitional services, which have been successful in 
integrating our Nation's veterans back into the civilian work force.
  More importantly, however, is the devastating impact the effects of 
the balanced budget amendment would have on our Nation's service-
connected disabled veterans. Over 2,000 VA personnel, who counsel 
veterans and process claims, including service-connected disabilities 
and pensions, would have to be terminated. The current claims backlog 
will only escalate without resources, which will directly impact the 
service-connected benefits entitled to our disabled veterans.
  Disabled veterans, often times, our most vulnerable citizens who 
barely live above the poverty level would experience the greatest 
impact. The balanced budget amendment would result in dramatic 
decreases in health care service and financial assistance to our 
service-connected disabled veterans. This would result in many disabled 
veterans and their survivors to live below the poverty level. Those who 
were wounded defending our Nation deserve better treatment--they 
deserve our appreciation and support. We should not be taking away 
their service-connected benefits in their time of need.
  We need to balance our budget, however, I do not believe we need a 
balanced budget amendment to do so. We must make difficult policy 
decisions to reduce our spending and eliminate our deficit. We should 
not do so on the backs of our Nation's service-connected veterans.
  As a cosponsor, I urge my colleagues to support the Rockefeller 
amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent to have printed a letter I 
referred to from the Disabled American Veterans.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

             Disabled American Veterans, National Service and 
                                      Legislative Headquarters

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 1995.
     Hon. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: On behalf of the more than 1.4 
     million members of the Disabled American Veteran (DAV) and 
     its Women's Auxiliary, I take this opportunity to thank you 
     for your efforts to protect the VA benefits and services 
     provided to our nation's 2.5 million service-connected 
     disabled veterans, their dependents and survivors from 
     additional cuts.
       While we in the DAV certainly understand the need to 
     balance our nation's budget, we do not support doing so on 
     the backs of America's service-connected disabled veterans 
     and their families. As you know, the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Acts of 1990 and 1993 alone cut VA benefits 
     and services by nearly $7 billion. In addition, the budget 
     recently sent to Congress by President Clinton proposes to 
     cut veterans' benefits by an additional $3 billion to the 
     year 2000.
       Senator Rockefeller, we believe all veterans benefits and 
     services deserve the highest priority in this country and 
     should be protected from further cuts. Inasmuch as your 
     amendment to H.J. Res. 1 protects the benefits of those 
     veterans who became disabled during service in this nation's 
     military, we fully support it.
       Again, thank you for your continued efforts to protect the 
     benefits earned by our nation's service-connected disabled 
     veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Donald A. Sioss,
                                               National Commander.

   [[Page S2948]] Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, am I going to have to 
tell approximately 21,000 service-connected veterans and their 
dependents who receive benefits in my State of West Virginia that the 
promises made to them will no longer be kept, that the amount of money 
they are receiving for their injuries received while dutifully serving 
their country, or the survivors' benefits they are receiving, because 
they lost their husband or their father, will be cut by 30 percent?
  Zeke Trupo, in my home State of West Virginia, would be a good 
reference for us today and I advise my colleagues on the floor, 
particularly as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Iwo Jima.
  Zeke, a Marine, had been wounded once, treated and returned to his 
battalion just in time to make the Iwo Jima landing. And engaged in one 
of the best known battles of World War II. Zeke describes the battle 
much like this: It was around the clock combat with flamethrowers, K-
bar knives and trenching tools when the ever-present sand jammed the 
rifles. It was pitching grenades and point-blank artillery fire and 
sometimes even using the dead for cover. That is what he said.
  He was wounded in the face, in the hands, arms and legs. He said he 
was scared to death. He thinks about his buddies who did not make it. 
This World War II U.S. Marine veteran from West Virginia, who earned 
two purple hearts, Zeke Trupo, as a service-connected veteran, is 
receiving compensation for his injuries. He injured four parts of his 
body, but he is rated 10-percent service-connected. He is a good 
example of one of those service-connected veterans whose compensation 
some think we should stop.
  Raymond LaPointe lives in Mannington, West Virginia. He is a 70 
percent service-connected veteran. Raymond served in the army, entered 
the service in the late 1940's, was sent to the Pacific to help with 
cleanup after the war. He recalls searching caves for Japanese, who as 
you may remember, many of them did not know that the war was over.
  So it may have been after the war but was it? He then went on to 
Korea, where he was a combat veteran, earning a Purple Heart, two 
Bronze Stars for valor and the Distinguished Service Cross.
  Today, Raymond is not living out a happy-go-lucky life in Mannington, 
West Virginia. He has PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder, one of the 
worse things that can happen to any human being, and he has it. He just 
recently returned home from the hospital where he had been for 63 days 
for the treatment of PTSD.
  He is unable to work. He cannot be left alone for any extended period 
of time. He has intrusive recollections, he has nightmares, and he is 
considerably angry and focuses his anger on the war. His wife and grown 
children can readily explain how turbulent and sad the past years have 
been because of what Raymond has gone through.
  Now, as a 70-percent service-connected veteran, this man, who has 
virtually had no life of his own for so many years, receives $915 a 
month from what we are talking about here, service-connected 
disability--$915 a month.
  Without my amendment being adopted, Raymond and his wife, June, will 
see their check drop from $915 a month to $614 a month. That is called 
below poverty.
  George Zutaut is a 100-percent service-connected veteran--100 
percent--who lives in Beckley, West Virginia. George is an Air Force 
veteran who served in Vietnam. His company would fly in and out of Viet 
Nam repairing our C-130's, which were our cargo planes.
  George has multiple sclerosis. He has been in a wheelchair now for 
almost 20 years. He tells me he does not know how he would have made it 
without the services he received from VA.
  George receives a service-connected compensation check that allowed 
him to raise his family--it is one way you pay back a debt--and he got 
help under the adaptive housing benefit in the VA that enabled him to 
adapt his home--he has to have adaptive housing help--so he could 
continue to live there, because of his wheelchair, and continue his 
life in spite of his disability.
  What are we going to do about those benefits, Mr. President? Going to 
cut them, too.
  Mr. President I must remind everybody that the benefits a service-
connected veteran is receiving is something that he or she is receiving 
to compensate--that is the key word--compensate--for an injury 
received. It is payback, as promised.
  I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may I ask a question, please?
  Mr. HATCH. I withdraw my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for an 
inquiry.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I wonder if I might direct it to the 
Senator from West Virginia, through the Chair.
  If this amendment should be adopted, will my friend, the Senator from 
West Virginia, vote for the balanced budget amendment?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. My record has been very clear from the very 
beginning that I oppose the balanced budget amendment for a lot of 
reasons, of which my concern for veterans is a main one.
  I have no illusions as to what is going to happen to this amendment 
and neither does the chairman of my committee, on which I am the 
Ranking Member. My good friend Alan Simpson knows what is going to 
happen to this.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I 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 of 
the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], to table the amendment of the 
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller]. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the 
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Inhofe] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] and 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--33

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bond
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inhofe
     Johnston
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 306) was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
   [[Page S2949]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                            Motion to Refer

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] moves to refer 
     H. J. Res. 1 to the Budget Committee with instructions to 
     report back forthwith H. J. Res. 1 in status quo, and at the 
     earliest date possible report to the Senate a report 
     containing the following text:
       Pursuant to section 201(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act, the Committee on the Budget recommends that the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives do not appoint a Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office for the term expiring January 3, 
     1999, until the Senate and House have had an opportunity to 
     consider legislation amending section 201 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act to require that the Director be 
     appointed by concurrent resolution of the Senate and House.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, for my colleagues' information, I shall 
discuss this motion and then withdraw the motion. I intend to offer 
this as an amendment on the next piece of legislation that comes to the 
floor of the Senate following the disposition of the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. But I do wish to speak about it for a 
few moments, and I am pleased to see the chairman of the Budget 
Committee is on the floor.
  I want to make a couple of comments about the appointment of a 
Director for the Congressional Budget Office. Let me state again, as I 
have stated several times, my comments are not comments that are 
directed to the capabilities of Prof. June O'Neill, who has been 
announced by the chairmen of the two Budget Committees as their 
recommendation for the post of Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  My concern is about the process. I do not know much about Professor 
O'Neill, but at least from what I understand about this process, it is 
not in keeping with the process that has been used in the past.
  Frankly, this is an extraordinarily important appointment. The person 
selected to head the Congressional Budget Office, in effect, becomes a 
referee on a whole range of important economic and budget issues that 
are presented to the floor of the Senate and the House. We know from 
having seen many statements and heard a lot of discussion, some of it 
political, some of it policy, that there are people who are enormously 
frustrated with the way things are scored by the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Some say if we could just get a Congressional Budget Office that uses 
dynamic scoring rather than static scoring, well, then we would have a 
much different set of numbers to work with. I understand why people 
feel that they would like numbers that are more satisfactory to them, 
that better reflect their own views. Some people strongly believe in 
dynamic scoring and want to see it used.
  I recall the discussion back in the early 1980's about dynamic 
scoring. They say if we do the following several things, it will 
produce various kinds of incentives that will lead to other results. 
For example, if you cut the tax rates, you will, in fact, increase the 
tax yield.
  That is dynamic scoring. They produced the Laffer curve and a whole 
series of things to describe what the dynamic scoring meant.
  Well, Prof. June O'Neill is someone who has been designated now as 
the person they want to head the Congressional Budget Office. My ears 
perked up when I heard the discussion about the appointment. The 
discussion in news reports indicated that Prof. O'Neill tried to be 
diplomatic on the question of dynamic scorekeeping. She said, ``I 
expect I will be dynamic when that's called for and static when that's 
called for.'' And then the chairman of the House Budget Committee 
jumped in and said, ``I think it's fair to say we would not have 
selected somebody who is in concurrence with everything that's been 
done up until now. I'm personally comfortable,'' the chairman of the 
House Budget Committee said, ``with the fact that June O'Neill will 
begin to upgrade the models within CBO.''
  The point is, he said, ``I wouldn't have selected somebody who is in 
concurrence with everything that's been done up until now.''
  I happen to know that on the House side at least the ranking minority 
member of the Budget Committee had a chance to visit with Professor 
O'Neill the afternoon following the morning that her selection was 
announced by the chairman of that Budget Committee.
  Well, we have in the past selected Alice Rivlin. We have selected 
Rudy Penner. We have selected Bob Reischauer. Generally speaking, the 
appointment process has been a consultative process; it has been a 
bipartisan selection process in which each side respects the other's 
judgment about these things.
  I have seen the letter in which the minority members on the Senate 
side indicated they felt that the Budget Committee should seek 
additional applicants before reaching a decision.
  So my point is not that this person is necessarily the wrong person. 
My point is this person was selected without wide consultation. I do 
not know about the Senate as much as I do about the House on the 
minority side, but I do know that the minority side in the other body, 
the lead minority Member, did not get a chance to talk to Professor 
O'Neill until after the announcement was made that she was going to be 
selected.
  Well, that is not, in my judgment, the process that we would like. I 
personally think that the CBO Director should be subject to the 
approval of the full House and Senate. Let us go ahead and have a vote 
on it. I am going to offer an amendment that will provide for that kind 
of process. I intend to offer that amendment to the very next 
legislative bill that comes to the floor of the Senate.
  I hope very much that the majority will withhold the appointment of 
Professor O'Neill and let the House and the Senate express their will 
on this appointment.
  Now, I understand that many people have very strong feelings about 
this. Some people think Professor O'Neill is exactly the right person 
for this job. That may be the case. I do not know. I do know this, that 
we have had plenty of debate around here by people who say we are going 
to change things down at CBO. ``No more of this static scoring 
nonsense,'' people have said. ``We are going to get somebody in there 
who sees this the way we see it. We want somebody who scores it our 
way.''
  Well, I do not know whether this is a candidate who would do that. If 
she is, I would be greatly concerned. If she is not a dynamic scorer, 
maybe we have more discussion about it and maybe everybody is 
comfortable, and that is just fine. But my point is that it is not just 
fine the way it rests now because I do not think this process has 
produced a consensus among people who should develop a consensus on 
this on both sides of the political aisle.
  So that is why I raise this issue today. This is not just some other 
old, ordinary appointment. This is the selection of a referee. I want 
that referee to have the respect of everyone in the House and the 
Senate. I want that referee to be someone in whose judgments the full 
Senate can have confidence. We need to know that a CBO Director's 
judgment will be impartial, and that the judgment is not biased due to 
some notion about how one side or the other in this Congress will be 
affected by the decision coming from CBO.
  I think most of us believe that has been the case with the past 
several Directors of the Congressional Budget Office. I hope it will be 
the case with the next several Budget Directors. But I do not have 
confidence that is the case now, given the lack of consultation during 
this appointment process. Again, my hope is that we will not proceed 
with this appointment until I have an opportunity on the next piece of 
legislation to make a change in the process by which the appointment is 
made.
  I know my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, wishes to 
speak. Let me indicate again I intend to withdraw this on this 
particular measure because this is not the place to do this, and I will 
offer it on the next legislative measure before this body.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  [[Page S2950]] Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to join Senator 
Dorgan, my colleague from North Dakota, in raising this issue. I do so 
because I genuinely believe that the appointment of the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office ought to be a bipartisan undertaking. Both 
sides need to have confidence in the fairness and objectivity of 
whoever is the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. And it 
seems to me the appropriate way to reach a decision is for both sides 
to have input and both sides to participate in the conclusion as to who 
should hold that office.
  I serve on the Budget Committee. I serve on the Finance Committee. I 
think all of us recognize the critical importance the Director of CBO 
plays. We saw last year that Director Reischauer, who was put in place 
when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, disagreed with 
a central part of the President's presentation on health care. The 
President believed that should be treated as an off-budget matter, and 
the Director of CBO felt differently and ruled differently. It had a 
significant impact on that debate. I personally think Dr. Reischauer 
was correct. I told him at the time I thought he had done the right 
thing by ruling as he did, even though it was adverse to the interests 
of a President of my own party.
  And yet I think that is what distinguishes the Congressional Budget 
Office for all of us, that we have an ability to have confidence in the 
decisions of that person, and that person is above partisanship; that 
person is above weighting the evidence; that person is above changing 
projections for political purposes.
  Mr. President, when I was in my previous life before I came to the 
Senate, I was the tax commissioner of the State of North Dakota. In 
that position, I had a responsibility for estimating the revenues that 
were under my administrative direction for the State of North Dakota. 
We had one requirement in my office, and that was we were going to do 
our level best to make an objective determination as to projections for 
the fiscal types that were under our control and authority.
  I am very concerned that Dr. O'Neill, Professor O'Neill, may be 
willing to shade her opinion. And I say that because of the press 
reports of what Chairman Kasich indicated he believed were commitments 
that he had from Professor O'Neill.
  I am also deeply concerned about the process we have gone through 
here, because I do not think we have a circumstance in which there is a 
meeting of minds between the two sides. I do not for one moment take 
away from the majority that they have the lead in this matter. I think 
they have that obligation and that responsibility. But I think there 
ought to be at least a concurrence on the other side, and I believe 
that ought to be the case if my party were in control, because 
ultimately both sides must have confidence in the judgments made by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office. That is absolutely 
critical to the success of the work that we do here.
  I have great regard for the chairman of the Budget Committee. There 
are very few people who do their homework around here as seriously as 
the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. We sometimes disagree on 
policy, but I have never questioned his commitment to fairness. I have 
never questioned his commitment to making certain that both sides are 
dealt with in an equal and even-handed way.
  Mr. President, I must say, I rise on this matter to say I do have 
sincere reservations about the way this has been handled. I do not 
think it is something that should be repeated, and I say that whether 
it is the Democrats who are in control or the Republicans in control. 
With respect to this position I believe both parties ought to have an 
ability to contribute to the selection of the person named.
  We have had people of, really, I think, broad reputation, people who 
were held in high regard by both parties in that position since I have 
been here. Dr. Reischauer, Rudy Penner, Alice Rivlin--all of them came 
to that position held in high regard, were taken seriously and I think 
respected on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me, my 
understanding was when you take a look at this process you see how 
unusual it was. On the House side in the Budget Committee when they 
began to have a short discussion on this potential appointment, and 
apparently not too far into the discussion, a Member of the majority 
party moved the previous question--which is almost unprecedented in the 
Budget Committee, to move the previous question to cut off discussion.
  So there are a whole series of things that are unusual here. I wonder 
why, especially the statement when the chairman of the House Budget 
Committee jumps in and says, ``Well, I think it would be fair to say 
that we would not have selected somebody who is in concurrence with 
everything that has been done up until now.'' This coming from the 
person who has led the way here in the last few months talking about 
the need to change the way we score. We need to have dynamic scoring, 
we are told. I do not understand what he understands about this nominee 
because I am not on the Budget Committee. But this at least says 
something to me that is of interest. I just wonder why. Why move the 
previous question when they began a short discussion about the subject 
in the House Budget Committee?
  All I am saying is this process somehow has broken down, if it is 
supposed to be a process, as the law says, that results in ``the 
appointment of a director without regard to political affiliation'' et 
cetera. The process has broken down. It needs to be a process that 
engenders trust on both sides that this person is a fair person. Maybe 
this person is but I am just saying the process does not lead us to 
achieve that result at this point.
  I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  Mr. CONRAD. I just say in conclusion, perhaps this person is fair. I 
do not know that. But I do know the process we have gone through is not 
an appropriate process, certainly not in the eyes of this Senator. I 
hope very much that we revisit this issue before it is concluded and 
have a chance to do it in a way that will engender respect and support 
on both sides of the aisle.
  I thank the President and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will not take a lot of time. It is 
late. I say to my good friends, both of the Senators who have spoken 
with reference to the selection of Dr. June O'Neill for CBO Director, I 
greatly respect their opinions. I just happen not to agree with them 
tonight.
  I would like to share with the Senate what this is really all about. 
First, the biggest issues with reference to dynamic versus static 
scoring have come with reference to taxes, for some contend that the 
Republicans intend to pass a capital gains tax and to use some kind of 
miraculous scoring to make it easier to pass it than it would otherwise 
be from the standpoint of budgets and fiscal policy. Everybody should 
understand that the Congressional Budget Office director, whether it be 
Rudy Penner, who was a Republican when the Republicans controlled, or 
whether it be Dr. Alice Rivlin, when the Democrats controlled, or Dr. 
Reischauer, when the Democrats controlled both Houses--in none of those 
events, as will be the case for this new director, do they have 
anything to say about dynamic scoring of taxes.
  There was a formal decision made by the Senate and the House of 
Representatives that the estimation of taxes, both the loss of revenue 
and the increases in revenue, the extent to which they are dynamic 
versus static, is totally within the judgment call of the Joint Tax 
Committee. So, No. 1, whatever our friends on the House side say--
either for real or in exuberant state--that they expect the new budget 
director to change the way they have done business, of course I do not 
have anything to say about what they say. I cannot control that. But 
the truth of the matter is this new director will have nothing to say 
about dynamic or static, with reference to tax changes by the U.S. 
Congress in the tax codes of this country. So I think one must 
understand that.
  [[Page S2951]] That is just the first few remarks. Let me make sure 
the Senate understands, and I greatly appreciate that we are not going 
to vote on this issue, that Rudy Penner, once this decision was made, 
said: She will be a good director. I recommend her. The Senate should 
know that.
  Bob Reischauer, one of the esteemed current operatives within public 
service in Washington, DC, when some on the other side started the flap 
over Dr. June O'Neill, got ahold of one of the Senators on that side--I 
think it is common knowledge now, and has since gotten ahold of a 
number of them--and said: Nothing is wrong with Dr. June O'Neill. If 
she is the one being recommended she is a competent economist and 
deserves an opportunity to serve.
  Dr. Alice Rivlin contacted the candidate, the nominee, and said: I 
congratulate you. I think you will do a good job.
  Just tonight I went to a reception for the esteemed Dr. O'Neill, who 
will be the budget director of the United States--and the Senate can 
count on that. That will happen. She will be. At the reception were two 
of the liberal-to-moderate economists, renowned in this city for their 
positions opposite to many currently serving in the majority in the 
U.S. Congress. And they were there as members of the community of 
economists to wish her well.
  How does this process go? Frankly, I have been part of the process 
for each of the budget directors that have been chosen previously, and 
intimately involved in two out of the previous three. I know on the 
Senate side there is consultation between Democrat and Republican, 
majority and minority--whichever the case may be. In the House they do 
things differently and I do not stand before the Senate and account for 
that process. They vote and in that committee they voted after John 
Kasich, chairman, did some interviewing and concurred with Senator 
Domenici on this side, the chairman, that we ought to recommend Dr. 
June O'Neill.
  I understand some Democrats on that committee voted for Dr. O'Neill. 
I do not know that, but if a vote occurred I think some Democrats did. 
If I am mistaken please correct me right now.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I might say the majority of the Democrats 
either abstained or voted against her. I believe 4 voted for her, 4 
against her, and most abstained, and they did that because of the 
process.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much for the clarification. 
But I think my statement was right. It was not a purely Republican 
vote, even though the consultative process is much narrower in the 
House than it is here. Knowing of the need for consultation and input, 
let me put in the Record a letter dated November 21, 1994. This was 
written by myself to every Senator. This is a copy of the one I sent to 
the leader. Every Senator can go look in his or her files. Perhaps they 
did not check, perhaps they do not know. I asked them to please submit 
suggestions, ideas, concerns they might have as to who might be budget 
director for the United States.
  I might state not a single one recommended a single person nor had a 
single comment to submit to the chairman of the committee which I am 
privileged to be at this point.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                       Committee on the Budget

                                Washington, DC, November 21, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Republican Leader's Office,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader: CBO Director Bob Reischauer's term of office 
     expires on January 3, 1995. Dr. Reischauer has served 
     Congress in a highly professional and nonpartisan manner 
     these last six years. Because of his leadership, CBO has 
     maintained its high degree of professionalism and integrity. 
     I believe we in the Congress, and the country as a whole, owe 
     Dr. Reischauer our sincere thanks for his years of dedication 
     to public service.
       By statue the Director is appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House and the President pro tempore of the Senate after 
     considering recommendations from the Committees on the Budget 
     of both the House and Senate. According to the law, political 
     affiliation is not to be considered in the appointment, but 
     by precedent the next Director will be Republican.
       It is my hope that the Senate Budget Committee can act 
     quickly to make its recommendation. Dr. Reischauer may 
     continue to serve until his successor is appointed.
       This letter is to invite your recommendations for this 
     important position. The Budget Committee will establish a 
     Search Committee to review all recommendations, conduct 
     appropriate interviews, and come to one recommendation for 
     the President pro tempore. This entire procedure is being 
     coordinated with the incoming House Budget Committee Chairman 
     John Kasich.
       Please forward any recommendations or resumes no later than 
     December 9th. Thank you for your cooperation in this 
     important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Pete V. Domenici

  Mr. DOMENICI. Second, I suggest the Washington Post, on Friday last, 
had it right. Anybody you select for budget director, they decide they 
are going to call them all skunks, because they are skunks at the lawn 
party, so as to speak. They indicated in their editorial that we once 
again succeeded for we have selected another skunk who is not going to 
be beholden to anyone and will most positively, as they view it--
because of her excellence in economics, her being part of that 
community and her reputation therein--that she will be an excellent 
overseer to this very important body.
  I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 17, 1995]

                           An Excellent Skunk

       In the 21 years since it was founded to help Congress take 
     back the power of the purse from the executive branch, the 
     Congressional Budget Office has become among the most 
     valuable and widely trusted agencies in the government. The 
     trust reflects not just the consistently high quality of its 
     work but also its carefully guarded reputation for 
     independence. The symbols of that independence have been the 
     agency's gifted directors, Alice Rivlin, Rudy Penner and 
     Robert Reischauer.
       Now Mr. Reischauer is to be succeeded by June O'Neill, an 
     economics professor at Bernard Baruch College in New York who 
     herself once served on the CBO staff under Ms. Rivlin as well 
     as on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisers in the 
     Nixon-Ford administrations. She has also over the years been 
     a research associate at both the Brookings Institution and 
     Urban Institute. It's a reassuring appointment. Mrs. O'Neill 
     appears to be well within the tradition that it will be her 
     responsibility to carry on. The Democrats complaining without 
     any basis that she will toe a Republican line and the 
     Republicans muttering likewise that she won't toe it enough 
     should both back off.
       Some leading House Republicans had threatened just after 
     the election to politicize the agency. They wanted to use 
     their new majority status to appoint not just a new 
     director--Mr. Reischauer's term was expiring--but one who 
     could be counted upon to switch to a ``dynamic'' method of 
     scoring or estimating the cost of tax cuts. The charge was 
     that CBO had over the years exaggerated such costs--and 
     thereby made tax cuts harder to pass--by failing to allow for 
     the revenue the cuts would generate by stimulating the 
     economy.
       In fact, it's a false issue. CBO has traditionally allowed 
     for all the stimulative effects that mainstream economic 
     theory would permit; it just hasn't been willing to go 
     beyond, and rightly so. The threat to turn the agency into a 
     rubber stamp for policy that sound analysis might thwart set 
     off alarms among other Republicans, particularly in the 
     Senate. The O'Neill appointment indicates that they 
     prevailed.
       We once wrote about a particular piece of testimony by Mr. 
     Reischauer that CBO's job, and his, was to be the skunk at 
     the congressional picnic. Someone has to be willing when it 
     is required to spoil the party--to say that no, these things 
     aren't free, that they can't be done at no cost or, when the 
     occasion arises, that the numbers being put forward are 
     really suspect. Mr. Reischauer was an excellent skunk, as 
     were his Democratic- and Republican-appointed predecessors 
     and as his successor will likely be too. Congress itself has 
     been the principal beneficiary of their disciplined analysis. 
     The good news is that the discipline and benefits both seem 
     likely to continue.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I greatly respect the proposal that the U.S. House and 
the U.S. Senate vote in confirmation of the Congressional Budget Office 
in the future.
  But I must say, when it is offered, if it is offered, I will resist 
it. It is not because I will be part of choosing very many more CBO 
directors; maybe one more; maybe no more. Who knows? I frankly do not 
think an open vote in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate is the 
inviolate way to protect and assure 
[[Page S2952]] impartiality and to assure that there is a neutrality of 
the type sought by my colleagues on the other side. In fact, it is one 
of a number of ways.
  I might submit, while it is part of our Constitution for many 
appointments and nominees, I am not at all sure that it is even the 
best way. It is also riddled with opportunities for candidates to lose 
who should win and nominees who should lose to win. Frankly, I think a 
smaller circle representing the entire group might just as well work 
their will and do better for the people of this country.
  So I do not think that I want to change because we have had excellent 
budget directors, and we have not had the entire Senate vote on them 
ever before. Who would deny that they have been good, that they have 
been impartial, and that they are professional? Not a single one came 
before the U.S. Senate for a confirmation vote to make sure that they 
were good, that they were neutral, and that they would do a good job.
  Lastly, nobody is truly challenging my reputation here. I thank both 
Senators for their kind remarks with reference to this Senator. But in 
a sense, they have said in this case you did not do it very well. I 
think we did it under the circumstances very well. Things are very 
different. Things are very different than they were 6, 8 or 10 years 
ago. Clearly, everybody knows that. I mean when the chairman of the 
House Budget Committee says at a press conference, at which I am with 
the nominee we have both chosen--he chooses to say what he expects, and 
I choose to say what I expect. And we are very different in what we 
expect. But it surely does not mean that what either of us expect is 
what a well-reputed economist is going to do taking on the mantle of 
the predecessors, which is excellence personified.
  So John Kasich, chairman of the House committee, says that he expects 
something different out of the budget director than past directors, I 
said I do not come here to this meeting with the press expecting 
anything other than a good job and integrity, honesty and a full-faith 
implementation of your responsibility.
  So in a sense, if you add to that the fact that we interviewed a 
number of candidates, that I did not shut out Democrats from the 
interviewing process--in the House they do not let them interview. Here 
we did. I regret in this instance that I did not get the full 
concurrence of Senator Exon of Nebraska, the ranking member, but 
actually the letter that he sent, right at the end in one sentence at 
least, acknowledges that perhaps she is a competent economist, and then 
suggests we should look at some more. I made a decision that looking 
for some more was not worthwhile. I will not divulge all the details. 
But I will tell you it is not very easy anymore to get people to want 
to come to be interviewed for jobs like this. And I think we ended up 
with a splendid candidate. I am proud of her.
  I respect my fellow Senators on the other side for their feelings. 
But she is going to be the CBO director, and she is going to do a good 
job. That is all I can tell the Senate in the same kind of sensitive 
approach that I have taken in the past, whether I was leader of the 
crew, or whether I was in the minority helping the process along. She 
will be a good one.
  For those who do not like some of her writings, let me remind the 
U.S. Senate that every CBO director that we appointed had some writings 
that some Senators did not like. Some were too liberal in their 
writings. Some were too conservative in their writings. Some were too 
supply oriented. But if we are going to judge them as competent 
economists schooled in American economics from the best of our schools 
managing different jobs--in this case having worked 4 years for the 
CBO--and then to second guess with reference to whether they are going 
to be fair or right or prejudiced, I just do not think we can work all 
of that out.
  So I regret that I cannot agree with those who seek to delay this. It 
will not be delayed. It should not be delayed. She will be the CBO 
director. If she is not already, she will be very, very soon.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to withdraw this. Let me make a 
couple of observations quickly.
  The Senator from New Mexico is very able and makes his case 
aggressively. I must say that I smiled a bit when he reached for the 
Washington Post for a measure of support for his position. It is not 
usual to see that coming from that side of the aisle. But, nonetheless, 
I understood his citation of that editorial.
  This is different. The Senator from New Mexico will understand and 
know when I say that we have not chosen a CBO director in these 
circumstances where you have people calling for a vote on the previous 
question in the Budget Committee, not having the ranking minority 
member on the Budget Committee even having the opportunity to interview 
the appointee before the decision is made. I think anybody would agree 
that this process is different.
  Again, I would have said to the Senator from New Mexico that I am not 
making a judgment about Professor O'Neill. I do not know Professor 
O'Neill. I know economists get in the room, and they like each other 
and speak well of each other. I am not surprised. I used to teach a 
little economics. So the fact that the Senator argues that some other 
economists think well of this economist, that probably is not 
surprising.
  But I must say that I also spoke with Dr. Reischauer, and he told me 
the same thing the Senator from New Mexico suggested; that his view is 
that this is a good candidate. I said, ``What do you think of this 
process?'' He said he did not think much of the process. The other side 
of it, at least in my discussions with Dr. Reischauer--and I hope he 
will not mind my disclosing that--was as to process.
  We are going to vote on this. We will not vote on it this evening. 
But I intend to offer this amendment to the next bill, and then I 
intend to ask for a vote because I think in the future, if we have 
people who on the one side or other decide they are going to call the 
previous questions and do these kinds of things, then I think those of 
us who believe that we ought to have somebody who ought not have 
questions about them raised after the fact, we ought to have someone 
who is subject to a vote of approval by the House and the Senate.
  So that would be my intention on the next legislation that comes 
before the Senate. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from 
Utah.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the motion that I have previously 
offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  So the motion was withdrawn.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________