[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2210-S2212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE RESOLUTION 133--TO REQUIRE THAT NEW WAR FUNDING BE OFFSET
Mr. FRANKEN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Budget:
S. Res. 133
Resolved,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This resolution may be cited as the ``Pay for War
Resolution''.
SEC. 2. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL WAR SPENDING.
(a) In General.--For purposes of budget enforcement and
except as provided in this section, it shall not be in order
for the Senate to consider budget authority for overseas
[[Page S2211]]
contingency operations if it increases the on-budget deficit
over the period of the budget year and the ensuing 9 fiscal
years following the budget year.
(b) Offsets.--Budget authority provided for overseas
contingency operations in a bill, resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report shall be considered deficit
neutral for the purpose of this section if such authority--
(1) is considered subsequent to an Act of Congress that
raises revenue for the designated purpose of paying for such
overseas contingency operations; or
(2) includes new reductions in spending authority.
(c) Iraq and Afghanistan.--For purposes of this section,
the following amounts are not required to be offset with
respect to the overseas contingency operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan:
(1) For fiscal year 2012, $118,000,000,000.
(2) For fiscal years 2013 through 2016, an amount equal to
the President's budget request for that fiscal year for
overseas contingency operations funds for Iraq and
Afghanistan.
(d) Budget Determinations.--Compliance with this section
shall be determined on the basis of estimates provided by the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
(e) Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--The provisions of this section may be waived
or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling
of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on my pay-for-war
resolution, which I am submitting today. This resolution would change
the way we pay for war spending, and it would change the way we
deliberate about going to war.
This is not a symbolic resolution. It would return us to the
traditional American way of paying for wars, where the Congress and the
Nation confront head-on the financial cost, commitment, and sacrifice
of going to war. This is something I believe in strongly. It is an
issue I have been working on for months. This did not start with Libya,
though Libya certainly gives it a new urgency.
A number of my friends on both sides of the aisle have expressed
concerns about the potential costs of the war in Libya, but this
resolution is broader than Libya. It is about how we are going to pay
for any wars in the future. The resolution seeks to reestablish a
fiscally responsible way of paying for our wars.
It is fiscally responsible because it would require that war spending
be paid for or offset, as we say in the Senate. It is also morally and
politically responsible because it would reestablish the connection
between the citizenry of the United States and the cost of going to
war--a burden that is now shared solely by the men and women of the
military and their families, while the rest is passed on to future
generations in the form of debt.
Over the last 10 years, our wars have been paid for by borrowing,
mostly from China and other countries willing to finance our debt, and
by giant emergency spending bills. That is unusual in American history
and, frankly, my resolution is aimed at making sure it stays unusual.
Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us well over $1 trillion. In fact, the
Congressional Research Service's most recent estimate is that,
including this fiscal year, Congress will have approved $1 \1/4\
trillion for Iraq and Afghanistan--$806 billion for Iraq and $444
billion for Afghanistan.
That is a staggering sum of money, and it has been financed through
debt, through borrowing from other countries, and emergency
supplemental spending bills which go on our debt. What is more, the
Iraq war was accompanied by a massive tax cut. That failed fiscal
experiment created the impression that going to war requires no
financial sacrifice. We know that is not true.
The question is, Who will bear the financial sacrifice, the
generation that has decided to go to war or its children and
grandchildren? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars drove up our deficit. They
didn't single-handedly create our deficit problem, but they made it
much worse. If we are going to fix our deficit problem, rejecting how
we finance those wars must be part of the solution.
We have to ensure that the manner of funding--by borrowing--the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars remains an anomaly in American history. That is
exactly what my resolution seeks to do. It will ensure that future wars
don't make our deficit and debt problem worse. It will ensure that
Congress and the American people face the financial sacrifice of going
to war, and it will force us to decide whether a war is worth that
sacrifice.
A huge gap has grown between the majority of the American people and
the small proportion who serve in the military. So much sacrifice has
been asked of them and their families, yet so little of the rest of us.
My resolution will reconnect those who serve and our larger society.
The Obama administration is taking an important step in seeking to
reduce reliance on emergency spending bills and, instead, budget for
war through the regular budget process. They have included an overseas
contingency operations account over and above the budget for the day-
to-day operations of the Defense Department. That account is where we
now find our war funding. But the improvements the Obama administration
has made are not enough. The momentous decision to go to war deserves a
way of paying for those wars that matches the seriousness of that
decision.
Overseas contingency operations should be paid for. Thus, my
resolution simply says that if there is a new overseas contingency
operation requiring new funding beyond the Defense base budget, that
funding must be offset. It does not specify how that offset is to be
found, leaving it up to Congress to decide. Different people have
different ideas. Some may propose spending cuts, others may propose
revenue increases or a combination of the two. But the bottom line is,
Congress must find a way to pay for the cost of new wars we decide to
undertake.
More specifically, this pay-for-war resolution creates a point of
order so any Senator can object to a legislative proposal that allows
for spending on new overseas contingency operations that is not deficit
neutral. But it has some flexibilities. First, it allows the cost for
war in a given year to be offset over 10 years. Because of how the
budgeting process works now, spending cuts must be found in the same
year of funding as the war spending. But if there is any offset on the
revenue side, it can be spread out over 10 years.
My resolution also allows the offset requirement to be overridden by
a vote of 60 Senators. So if three-fifths of us deem it important
enough to spend on an overseas contingency operation without paying for
it ourselves, that can happen. I believe this fully addresses any
concern people might have about unduly tying the hands of the President
or of the Congress, for that matter. If there were a genuine emergency
that required immediate military response in the short term, and that
could not be covered by the base defense budget, my resolution would
not tie our hands. Any true emergency would certainly motivate enough
of us to vote to waive the point of order.
Similarly, if at a particular time our economic circumstances make it
especially ill-advised to offset the spending on a war, we would be
able to waive or override the offset requirement with 60 votes here in
the Senate.
Let me talk briefly about how this resolution handles Iraq and
Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we are where we are on Iraq and
Afghanistan. This resolution is not meant to drive policy on those
wars. It is forward looking. Earlier I mentioned the Obama
administration's praiseworthy effort to reduce reliance on emergency
supplemental spending bills. My resolution would strengthen that effort
by exempting the spending on those wars from this offset requirement
but only up to the amount of the President's regular budget request.
Anything above that cap would be subject to the offset requirement. For
example, for fiscal year 2012 the President requested $118 billion for
Iraq and Afghanistan. Any costs over and above that request would need
to be offset. That number should go down as we draw down from Iraq and
Afghanistan. This idea is derived, by the way, from a recommendation of
the President's fiscal commission.
The idea that we should pay for our wars is not a Democratic idea. It
is not
[[Page S2212]]
a Republican idea. It is not left or right, it is not antiwar, it is
not pro-war--it is common sense. That is why my resolution has garnered
expressions of support from a diverse range of organizations and
defense and budget experts. It is supported by the Center for American
Progress Action Fund, by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and by the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Noted fiscal hawk David
Walker, the former Comptroller General of the United States, has
expressed his support. So has Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a
Responsible Federal Budget.
A number of experts have stated the rationale for the bill very
powerfully. Here is what Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution
said:
Senator Franken's proposal is serious and smart. It seeks
to remedy a major problem of the last decade--fighting wars
while not asking the broader nation for sacrifice and
commitment and meanwhile racking up Federal debt in a way
that endangers the economic progress of future generations.
Here is what William Niskanen and Ben Friedman of the Cato Institute
said:
Democracies cannot accurately evaluate policies with hidden
costs. Deficit financing sends war bills to future taxpayers.
That limits the extent to which voters and their
Representatives weigh the wars' costs against other
priorities. The effect is to make war feel cheaper than it
is.
Here is what Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research said:
The vast majority of people in the country have no direct
connection to the people serving in the military. If we think
that a situation requires the men and women in our military
to risk their own lives, then the rest of us should at least
be willing to pay for the costs of this adventure with our
tax dollars.
My resolution makes budgetary sense and it makes moral and political
sense. That is why I am confident my resolution will garner the support
of my colleagues and of the American people. I think Americans
understand that the way we have gone about paying for the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan--by borrowing and putting the financial burden on later
generations instead of taking it on ourselves--is not good budgeting
and, frankly, it is not good decisionmaking about war. Right now we are
hiding the costs of war by shifting their financial burden to future
generations and we are refusing to consider the real sacrifices that
war requires of a nation--not just the members of the military. That
has to change. We need to start paying for war and it needs to be part
of the larger conversation about how we address our Nation's deficit
and debt.
____________________