[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5264-5265]
[From the U.S. 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 
     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.

[[Page 5265]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________