Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am not talking about the amendment. I am talking about a provision----

Mr. DODD. I am saying where the vote is 50-50.

Mr. DODD. To waive.

Mr. DODD. That is a procedural vote.

Mr. DODD. I am talking about a matter that would come before this body.

Mr. DODD. Is there any other situation which my colleague from Utah can cite in which we have excluded the vote of the Vice President in a tie vote?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. We are talking about a waiver issue here.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield?

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, my colleague had read this amendment. My colleague is getting a bit emotional. If he would read the amendment----

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment I have offered here this afternoon. We have several hours of debate. It may not be necessary to consume all of that time. I will notify my colleagues. Others may want to come over and address the issue. Although we have set a time of 5:30 p.m. for a vote, we may find ourselves having exhausted all of the brilliance on both sides of this amendment and able to move to a vote earlier than that. It would take unanimous consent to vote earlier, but that may happen at some time here this afternoon. In the meantime, Mr. President, let me state once again what this amendment does. I urge my colleagues and others to pay attention. I will put aside the debate of whether or not we ought to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That matter has been debated and will be debated over the next several days. The amendment that I raise, Mr. President, does not address the underlying question of whether or not we ought to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But it addresses section 5, and section 5 only, of the proposed amendment. It raises what I believe to be a very legitimate issue in dealing with the national security of this country. This is an amendment that I offer which you could support and do no damage--in fact, I would think strengthen--the argument in support of the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I myself have serious underlying problems with the constitutional amendment. I do not want my colleagues to have any illusions about that. But I am going to put aside that debate and ask my colleagues to draw their attention to section 5 and an amendment that I will offer that I think addresses a legitimate concern. My amendment corrects two serious flaws in this section. Let me read this section, if I can. Section 5 of the proposed amendment, not my amendment, the proposed constitutional amendment, says: 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. First of all, this most important section currently contains language, in my view, that would seriously undermine--the distinguished Presiding Officer is a former Attorney General, and someone who has had a serious amount of experience in judicial matters will appreciate that every word in the constitutional amendment is not a casual word. These words must be selected very, very carefully. So I do not treat this lightly at all. ``A declaration of war''--these are the words that are most of concern to me--and ``the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security . . .'' The provisions of the balanced budget are waived only if war is declared, or if the United States is ``engaged.'' The balanced budget amendment is quite clear in specifying that our Nation must be engaged in military conflict before a waiver can be granted. The problem, as I see it, is that prudent foreign policy often requires responding to serious threats before we actually become involved in military conflict. Yet, the language of this amendment is ``engaged''--not ``might be engaged or there is a threat of engagement''--but rather is ``engaged'' in military conflict. Throughout our history this Nation has often found itself necessarily engaged in conflict but yet in situations where immediate action was essential. The gulf war is one example that immediately comes to mind. I will discuss that example and others in the debate shortly. My amendment removes this section 5 and would lift the provisions of the balanced budget amendment under a declaration of war or if the United States faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security. The requirement of being engaged is dropped. The amendment that I offer would also clearly define the role of Congress in certifying the existence of an imminent and serious military threat. Under the current language, in section 5 the courts could conceivably be called on to determine whether or not an imminent and serious military threat to national security exists. My amendment--the amendment that I offer and is at the desk--makes clear that a resolution passed by Congress is the sole requirement for certifying that such a threat exists. Finally, the amendment that I have offered restores a reasonable standard for voting. The balanced budget amendment creates a cumbersome, I believe, standard for passing the resolution certifying that a military threat exists. It says a ``majority of the whole number of each House'' must pass the resolution. In the case of the U.S. Senate, this means that 51 Senators would have to vote in favor of the resolution, no matter how many Senators were present and voting. This could be absolutely critical, particularly in a time of national crisis. When not all Senators are able to reach Washington on short notice, for instance, we could be prevented by our own Constitution from quickly and properly responding to an international emergency. Furthermore, the ``whole number'' standard leaves open the question, I point out, of whether or not the Vice President would be allowed to cast a vote should we arrive at a tie of 50-50. My amendment alleviates this problem by requiring a simple majority of those present and voting for passage of the waiver resolution. Mr. President, I am well aware of the heartfelt support, as I mentioned at the outset, of these remarks on the part of my colleagues who are squarely for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I also know that many of us--myself included, clearly--have underlying problems with the whole balanced budget amendment. But I think we should all be able to agree, regardless of where we are positioned on the issue of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we should all be able to agree that any amendment to the Constitution should in no way shackle our country in time of an emergency. The amendment that I offer, Mr. President, I think helps ensure that the Nation remains prepared and able to respond in time of an international crisis. For these reasons, I hope that it will enjoy the support of a broad majority of my colleagues. Mr. President, I want to cite the language of the amendment that we are offering. Let me recite the copy of the amendment that I am offering: On page 3, line 7, strike beginning with ``is'' through line 11 and insert, ``faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security as declared by a joint resolution.'' The point being here, if you are not actually engaged, or you don't have a declaration of war and the Nation, in preparation for such a conflict, wants to exceed the balanced budget requirements, we should be able to do that. I do not know of anyone who would believe that, as important as this amendment is, it should have a higher priority than the national security interests of the country. Yet, my fear is based on the exact language of section 5--that that is the problem we have posed before us. If it requires a declaration of war, or requires, as the language reads, ``is engaged in a conflict,'' it seems to me that we would have to wait for one of those two conditions to be met in order to waive any constitutional requirements prohibiting deficit financing. And so I would urge the adoption of this amendment which says, ``faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security as declared by a joint resolution,'' so that we do not allow the courts to decide. You can imagine a debate going on here about whether or not an imminent and serious threat existed, someone runs to the Federal courts and says, ``I don't think it is an imminent and serious military threat,'' and we have a panel of judges deciding whether or not that threat exists. I do not think any of us want to see that happen. So the joint resolution allows that a simple majority of Senators would be able to declare the threat in order to waive the provisions of the balanced budget amendment. I mentioned earlier, Mr. President, that there are historical examples for this that I think point out the problem. They are historical and they may be 100 years old or 20 years old. None of us can say with any certainty what we may face tomorrow or next week or next year or the next century. But I will cite five examples to point out the problems. Imagine, if you will, that this section in a constitutional amendment to balance the budget were in place at the time we faced these five crises. Ask yourself how would we have responded, what would have been the implications, putting aside whether or not you were for or against the particular issue at hand. The gulf war is one; lend-lease, back in the late 1930's, early 1940's, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the Panama crisis back under the Bush administration, and the defense buildup during the Reagan administration. Let me cite, first of all, the gulf war example. Saddam Hussein, as many in this Chamber will recall and, invaded Kuwait on August 1, 1990. We were running a deficit, I would point out, Mr. President, at that time of $221 billion, on August 1, 1990, putting us in gross violation requirements of the balanced budget amendment. There were only 2 months left in the fiscal year, no time to adjust spending or to raise taxes, I might point out. We were not certain ourselves how we were going to respond to that situation, but an invasion of Kuwait clearly had happened. Saddam Hussein was threatening not only Kuwait where he had invaded but Saudi Arabia, and clearly our security I think. By controlling Saudi Arabia, of course, he would have become a dominant force in the gulf, and the obvious implications of that for the United States and the West are clear. We had to deploy troops to protect our allies and our security, and the President did so. But we were not engaged in a conflict, and we had not gone through the lengthy process of making a declaration of war. It was merely a question of whether or not we were going to be able to place those troops immediately in the Middle East in anticipation because an imminent threat certainly occurred, but we were not engaged. It was not until January 16, 1991 that we began the air war. The initial deployment to defend Saudi Arabia, Desert Shield as it was called, was 100,000 troops. The eventual deployment to prepare to invade Kuwait was 500,000 troops. The total cost was $71 billion. The deficit, as I pointed out, was $221 billion. Our action, I would argue, could not have happened under a balanced budget amendment under section 5 because we were not engaged in military conflict. A resolution allowing military action to force out Hussein passed the Senate in January 52 to 47, after a lengthy debate about whether or not we ought to use military force immediately. My colleague from Utah certainly was here and remembers that debate. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported the action in the gulf ought to remember this and remember what happened. If the balanced budget amendment had been in effect in 1990, a minority of Senators could have blocked those Senators who supported action and we would not have been able to have the waiver. I do not know what the implications would have been. In 20-20 hindsight, we say, look, it was clear. As things worked out, there was an imminent threat. There was a debate here, heated debate in the country about what our action should be. You can imagine in addition to the complicated questions of whether or not we ought to respond, we would have had to go through and waive constitutional amendment requirements. This would have been with all of the people in this country divided, as many were, over whether or not we ought to be involved in the Middle East, putting United States servicemen and women at risk. With all the questions, we then either would have had to go through a process of declaring war, which we have not done in 55 years, or go through a process of waiting for an actual engagement to occur. As section 5 says, engaged--not likely to be engaged, not might be engaged, not a threat of engagement. It says you must be engaged. So my amendment, as I pointed out earlier, which talks about the imminent threat, facing an imminent and serious military threat to national security, is a far better standard and test, it seems to me, in order for us to respond to those situations. Let me cite the example, if I can, of lend-lease. There is no one in this Chamber who was serving at the time. Our colleague from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, of course, remembers this debate, I am sure, very vividly, as someone who served in World War II, I believe the only remaining colleague of ours who served in World War II. Britain was in a crisis. We were highly divided in this country in the late 1930's as to whether or not the United States ought to be involved. In fact, I think surveys at the time indicated most Americans were opposed to the United States being involved in a European conflict. We had in fact America First groups. Charles Lindbergh, I recall, was a leading proponent of the United States staying out of World War II. The conflict in Europe was raging. So we had a significant debate in this country over whether or not we ought to be involved. I do not know of anyone today who would argue that the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt, putting together the creative lend-lease program, providing the military assistance Britain needed in its great hour of crisis, did not make all the difference in the world. And but for the lend-lease program, the map of Europe might look substantially different, not to mention what might have occurred elsewhere had we not taken that action. We were not engaged in the conflict, under the standard asked to be met in this balanced budget amendment. You were not likely to get a declaration of war in 1939 given the divisions in the country. And yet we had a deficit. Now, it was not a huge deficit. It was, in March of that year, 1941, $4.9 billion. It sounds pretty small by today's standards, but as a percentage of the budget it was probably not substantially different than today. And even with someone with the prowess of Franklin Roosevelt, can you imagine if we had to go then through the waiver process in order to get the kind of resources necessary. I do not want to dwell on this particular instance but nonetheless I think the point is quite clear. We would have required a waiver. We were highly divided as a country. As it turned out, lend- lease got a lot of support. In the vote that occurred, actually a majority, a substantial majority here supported lend-lease. But certainly those who are students of history recall the great division in the country on this issue complicating the problem, and the difficulty that Franklin Roosevelt would have had in responding to that situation. The Cuban missile crisis, in 1962. Again, we were not engaged. There was clearly a threat, in my view, to the security of the United States. We were not going to declare war at that particular point at all. The President had to respond to that situation. We had a deficit of $7.1 billion in 1962. But under the standards as laid out in the balanced budget amendment, the proposed language in section 5, the buildup that President Kennedy initiated to respond to that would have required us to go through all these difficulties of requiring waivers. Or you would have had to have the courts decide if in fact it met the standard of an imminent and serious military threat. The invasion of Panama, again, another example. The deficit in 1989 was $153 billion. The cost of the operation was $163 million. Clearly we would have had to go through this process as well. And the Reagan years of the buildup in defense. Again, you could argue--certainly everyone would have, I think--that there was an imminent danger of conflict with the Soviet Union. We were not going to declare war against them. We were not engaged in a military conflict against them. We had sizable deficits, and we increased defense spending between 1980 and 1988 from $134 billion to $290 billion. Of course, we were accumulating $1.5 trillion in debt at the same time. The amendment says: Declaration of war, engaged in a conflict. Many argue today the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union was a direct result of our buildup at that time; that it was the Soviets' inability to meet that buildup, although they tried, that caused the kind of economic collapse that resulted in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Yet, we would have gone through this process, and you can only imagine the debate--and there was a significant one, by the way, over whether or not we ought to support that buildup or not--you can imagine what would have been heard around these Chambers about the constitutional amendment to balance the budget and whether or not we ought to be doing this. It could have complicated that process seriously. I think you could have met the test in 1980 through 1988, of saying the Soviet Union posed an imminent and serious military threat to national security, and then had a joint resolution passed, as my amendment that I am offering today would have allowed us to do, that would have gotten you through the process. That is why I am offering the amendment. I am not just striking section 5, I am offering new language as an alternative. So the Reagan buildup, I think, is another good example of what could have occurred. I am not arguing for or against it, where people were on that issue, but just imagine the kind of debate that would have ensued. Let me also point up another argument here that I think deserves mention. One of the difficulties in preparing, of course, is you do not want to give your potential adversary any additional opportunities to take advantage of what is inherently a process that is slow in this country, our legislative form of government, our democracy. If a potential opponent knows that we have this balanced budget amendment, with section 5, that requires a declaration of war, that we have to be engaged, that we need waivers with a whole House voting, 218 House Members, 51 Senators, that is a pretty significant advantage to give. That is one more set of hurdles that we have to go over in order to respond. I do not think that is engaging in hyperbole, Mr. President. Why would we in any way try to make it more cumbersome for the Commander in Chief of this country--not necessarily this one, because this amendment will not go into effect until long after this President has left office, but some future Chief Executive of our Nation--to be able to respond to those situations? I am not saying they ought to be able to do it without any check by the Congress, but I think stating the country needs only to face an imminent threat and then get a joint resolution ought to be enough to get a waiver of this amendment. To insist upon a declaration of war or actual engagement seems to me to be setting far too high a standard when the national security interests of this country could be in jeopardy. Yet, that is exactly what we are doing with this amendment. So, for those reasons I hope my colleagues will look favorably upon this amendment, even if you are for the underlying amendment. I think this improves the underlying amendment. Some have suggested we should not have offered this amendment because, for those of us who have serious doubts about setting fiscal policy in the Constitution, the adoption of this amendment certainly takes away one of, I think, the most significant arguments against the balanced budget amendment. That is that we place the language of this amendment in a higher priority, in a higher standard, than the national security interests of the country. I see my colleague from Michigan is here. I have some more comments I would like to make in a few moments, but unless my colleague from Utah, who may want to be heard at this particular moment, so desires--I have just been informed, by the way, I made the mistake of saying ``Senator Thurmond,'' and I have quickly been informed by several offices, Mr. President, here--not the senior Senator from Utah, but Senator Bumpers, Senator Chafee, Senator Warner, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, and Senator Hollings, Glenn, Helms, Roth, and Stevens have been ringing up the phones here. I apologize to my colleagues. I thought they were much younger than that, and assumed they were. How am I doing here? Am I recovering from that faux pas? However you want to do this. I will yield the floor at this point, and, obviously, the Senator from Utah has priority.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a question or so?

Mr. DODD. No, go ahead.

Mr. DODD. ``Faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security as declared by joint resolution.''

Mr. DODD. Is my colleague suggesting, that the majority would go along willy-nilly with this resolution because they wanted to spend more on the program. Are we not faced with the perverse situation of having Presidents declare war in order to meet the standard of some imminent threat here?

Mr. DODD. This language is very clear. It is pointed at a very important situation that would be before us. And to suggest somehow this is a back-door attempt to fund spending programs on domestic issues, does my colleague really believe the majority in the Senate here today would vote for a back-door domestic spending increase----

Mr. DODD. On the grounds there was imminent threat to our national security?

Mr. DODD. The language--I urge again my colleague to read it--I am not making the language up and writing the report language--says, ``in which a declaration of war is in effect,'' and, also, ``The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict.'' Put aside the issue of how we vote here. The language says ``is engaged in a military conflict.'' I turn to the report language that defines those words. On page 22, it says it must involve the actual use of military force. I just know my colleagues can think of numerous examples--not phony ones, not insignificant ones--where there was imminent threat, the national security of this country was in jeopardy, we were not engaged, we were not actually using military force, but we would have wanted to waive the provisions of this particular section in order to respond to it. Whether you are for or against the constitutional amendment, it seems to me is a collateral issue at this point. The question I raise is: This language is so restrictive, it requires a declaration of war or actual engagement. Courts will interpret every word of this language in the constitutional amendment. My suggestion is not to get rid of this altogether. Keep in the declaration of war, but add or replace the language ``engaged'' and talk about the imminent threat to the national security and require a resolution to be adopted by both Houses so that it isn't just one person's interpretation, but that a majority of those present and voting in both Houses. That is not a slight hurdle to overcome, particularly when it amounts to waiving the provisions of a balanced budget amendment. I presume my colleagues will take that seriously. But we ought to be able to do it short of actual engagement in a conflict, and if we don't, I think we restrict this Nation's ability to respond to future conflicts that could jeopardize our national security and the people of this country. We do not take our jobs lightly. We would have to meet that threshold. We would understand by doing so, we would waive the provisions of the Constitution. That is a very serious matter to undertake. It is not just a casual resolution. But it seems to me we ought to be able to do so in preparation for something that may involve the engagement of our men and women, our forces, and prepare them for it and prepare the Nation for it. We cannot do that under section five as presently written. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Faircloth]. The Senator from Utah.

Mr. DODD. I wanted to yield to my colleague from West Virginia, who wanted to make a comment on the pending amendment.

Mr. DODD. Pursuant to a discussion earlier, I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk a modification of my amendment along the lines we discussed earlier. I ask unanimous consent my amendment be allowed to be modified.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me briefly sum up, if I can, this amendment. I think the handwriting is on the wall. It is one of those moments, the wave is moving here, and I deeply regret it. I have the feeling my colleagues have just not read section 5 as carefully as we should. I emphasize again and draw their attention to this not based on the argument that I asked them to not support the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but merely that we improve this section to reflect, I think, what ought to be the priorities of a nation; that is, to be able to respond to an imminent threat to our national security and be allowed to do that in a way that would permit us to waive the restrictions of this amendment. The priority of responding, I think, is a higher one than the issue of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I draw the attention of my colleagues to some pivotal words in this section, ``a declaration of war,'' or the United States must be ``engaged in military conflict,'' particularly that latter one, Mr. President. It does not talk about imminent danger. We must actually be engaged. It is ironic in many ways that we can have a declaration of war which can be reached by a simple majority here. A simple majority of Senators present and voting can declare war. You do not require that all Members be here to declare war. No vote we ever cast could ever be more profound than to commit our Nation to war. Yet, to waive the budget requirement of this amendment requires a special parliamentary proceeding which excludes the vote of the Vice President, and requires a majority of all Members regardless of who is present in order to waive the restrictions of this so we can respond to a conflict. How ironic that in the very same section you have a declaration of war that can be reached by a simple majority of Members present and voting, and yet to waive the restrictions of this amendment requires a ``super'' number, if you will, beyond that which is necessary to commit this Nation. So I urge my colleagues to look at this amendment that will be at the desk when you come to vote in a few minutes. We replace this language by saying that the Nation faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security as declared by a joint resolution that is passed into law. We must vote that we are facing that imminent threat. If we vote accordingly, that we are facing an imminent threat, then it seems to me that to waive the restrictions here is the only sensible thing to do. To require today that we have a declaration of war, the perverse idea that a President and Congress, in a future time may declare war just to avoid the restrictions of this amendment, or to actually be engaged in a conflict and not allow our Nation to prepare for a likely conflict, concerns me deeply. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, and I thank my colleague from West Virginia for his support of this amendment, but I urge my colleagues to please read this amendment and read this section and realize what great harm and danger we could be creating for our Nation if we adopt this amendment with this section as written, which I think places this Nation in an unrealistic and dangerous straitjacket. I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding the time.

Mr. DODD. I yield back my time.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield, to respond to a couple of issues raised by the pending amendment?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for that. I want to respond to a couple of provisions. The amendment we have before us, the amendment that I offered here, requires that we face an imminent and serious military threat to national security as declared by joint resolution. I was informed ``as declared by joint resolution'' does not mean someone really introducing a resolution, but that a joint resolution would have to pass both Houses. But I am fully prepared to offer an amendment. It would take unanimous consent to clarify any ambiguity about my intention here. This is not a declaration by an individual Member, but a decision by both Houses that an imminent and dangerous situation exists. I will modify my amendment so as to remove any question of my intention here and what the legislative office, in drafting this, informed this Senator that the language ``declared by joint resolution'' certainly means. If there is any doubt in anybody's mind, I'll do that. The last thing I want to do is have any one Senator able to offer a resolution that would trigger a waiver of the balanced budget amendment. Second, I think it is important because the Secretary's name has been raised by my friend from Utah on numerous occasions. Allow me, for the benefit of my colleagues, to read from prepared testimony from the Secretary of Defense: We are here today not to give you a comprehensive discussion of the balanced budget amendment, but rather to discuss specifically one very important aspect, which is the effect it would have [the balanced budget amendment] on our national security and particularly the effect it would have on our defense programs. Almost any reasonable assumption of how the balanced budget amendment would be implemented in spinning budgets and in specific programs would affect the defense programs in a fundamental way and I believe would fundamentally undermine the security of the Nation. Let me emphasize that and repeat it: . . . I believe it would fundamentally undermine the security of the Nation. In addition to that, the balanced budget amendment would threaten frequent interruptions of many long-term processes that are essential to maintaining a prudent defense posture. The statement goes on longer, but those particular words certainly don't leave any doubt as to where the Secretary of Defense stands on this issue. Third--and then I will allow my colleague from Utah to pick up where he wanted to--I urge my colleagues to read the report language in section 5 of the Judiciary Committee on this amendment, as it gives an explanation of what section 5 means. On page 22, Madam President, I am quoting, and it is dated February 3, 1997: This section, as amended, guarantees that Congress will retain maximum flexibility in responding to clear national security crises, such as in declared war or imminent military threat to national security. Now, if that is what it did, I would not offer this amendment. But it does not. It should take into consideration the declaration of war or imminent military threat to national security. But that is not what the amendment says. The amendment says in section 5, which is before us: . . . the United States is engaged in military conflict, which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security. It is the ``engaged'' part that I have such difficulty with here, because if it just said ``imminent military threat to national security,'' then you could say, fine, I understand that. We have a threat out there; we are not engaged yet, but we have a threat. So we ought to be able to pass a joint resolution here that declares that threat to exist, and the waiver then would apply. But this is not flexible. My colleagues ought to understand that. It is not flexible. You must have a declaration of war and/or this Nation must be engaged in military conflict, and it requires all 218 House Members and all 51 Senators--not 49 to 48, but 51--to then waive the provisions. I think that is so restrictive. As important as my colleagues believe this amendment is in dealing with the fiscal matters of this country-- and I am not here to argue that point today, Madam President, because that is an ongoing debate. I accept the sincerity of those who propose this amendment. But I hope no one would suggest that, as important as the fiscal matters of this country are, we would make it so restrictive for the Nation to respond to a military crisis that we would require a declaration of war or actual engagement in a conflict before we could decide to waive these provisions in order to respond to them. I think that is threatening. This is a dangerous section, as written, regardless of how one feels about the constitutional amendment. This is dangerous. This is clearly dangerous. I ask my colleagues--this is not report language now. We are talking about the actual words included in the organic law of our country, the organic law. Every word, every letter is important. It is not insignificant. These are not casual words. To require a declaration of war or to be actually engaged in military conflict before you can waive the provisions of this constitutional amendment, I think, is dangerous indeed. I am offering an amendment which does not strike it altogether but which says ``faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security as declared by a joint resolution.'' That way, if there is an imminent threat to our national security, a majority of us here and in the other body can pass a resolution that declares that to be the case, and then we ought to be able to waive the provisions and respond to them. My colleagues know as many examples as I do where we have not met the threshold of a declaration of war or been engaged in a military conflict. Examples where we, the overwhelming majority, I suspect, would have assumed there was enough of an imminent threat out there that we should have responded. We also see a highly divisive country when we see that. I do not offer this lightly, as others have suggested, as somehow a back-door approach for liberal spending programs. This goes right to the heart of our Nation's response to a crisis and whether or not we elevate the importance of fiscal prudence here to such a status that it exceeds the ability of the Nation to respond under its primary, essential function, and that is to protect the security of our Nation. I suggest, Madam President--in fact, I will read this. On page 22, the last section--they define, by the way, in these sections what each word means. The bottom of page 22 of the report. . . . is engaged in military conflict. Here is how the report defines those words: ``. . . is engaged in military conflict,'' is intended to limit the applicability of this waiver to situations involving the actual use of military force which nonetheless do not rise to the level of a formal declaration of war. This isn't my language. This is the report language. I am not interpreting this language. It must involve the actual use of military force before they meet the threshold of imminent danger. There are just hundreds of cases where something that does not involve actual use of force can meet the threshold of imminent danger. Yet, the authors of the section, very clearly --and you can imagine a Federal court, some day in the next century, reading this language as to what the words mean, and it doesn't say likely use of force or maybe a use of force, but actual use of force. We have the awkward situation, to put it mildly, of this Nation responding to its primary function-- that is, to protect its citizenry when placed under threat. Again, I will offer at the appropriate moment--I don't know why I need to, but if certain people think I have drafted this in a way to suggest that any one Member can offer a resolution and that is going to trigger a waiver--again, I submitted my language to the legislative offices here to prepare this, and they tell me that the ``declared by a joint resolution'' meets that standard of what the intent is here-- clearly, not just any one Member offering a resolution, but obviously both Houses passing it. I haven't gotten to the language in the amendment about the whole House, in terms of having 51 people. We have seen situations where Members don't get back, for whatever reason, where some crisis faces the Nation and Members can't get here. What a ridiculous situation to place this body in. I know we're not living in the horse-and-buggy age here, when Members couldn't get here and where they sat around and waited for enough Members to arrive which would allow a majority of both Houses to respond. But we sat here and determined that somehow meets purity, and insisted upon the whole of both Houses, and then, of course, I believe we excluded the Vice President from casting a vote in a tie. You have to have 51 votes of the Members, and the Vice President while the Presiding Officer is not a Member of this body. And I think that is a shortcoming as well. It is minor compared to the actual language here that requires a declaration of war, or as the report language defines is engaged in military conflict, it must involve the actual use of military force. I think that standard is way too high for us to be able to waive the provisions of this balanced budget amendment to respond to a security crisis in this country. You can vote for my amendment, and you can be for the balanced budget amendment. It does not threaten the underlying purpose of a balanced budget amendment. I believe it is a lot wiser to be cautious on all issues of national security. This is not some secondary or collateral issue. This is the primary function of any government. The primary function is to protect the security of the people. We have set a standard here that I think places that primary responsibility in some jeopardy. So for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. And I will be glad to yield the floor at this point. I will raise a couple of additional issues in a few minutes. But let me yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before turning to the subject of my amendment here, let me commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for his comments. I associate myself with his remarks regarding Alexis Herman and the hope expressed by him that a hearing will be held promptly for Alexis Herman. She deserves that hearing. I have known Alexis Herman for some time. She is eminently qualified, Mr. President, to fulfill the position of Secretary of Labor. There have been issues raised, and the purpose for which we have hearings is to allow those issues to be aired and to give a person an opportunity to respond. In the absence of that hearing, of course, the allegations remain. In many instances, as the Senator from Pennsylvania has pointed out, there is never the kind of opportunity to respond with the same voice and the same positioning with which the allegations are oftentimes made. Under our system it is absolutely essential in my view that she be given that opportunity. I am totally confident that she will respond to those issues when she is asked publicly to respond to them. It is part of the process here going back years that when people are nominated for high office in any administration they are always advised not to respond or comment but to save their comments for a hearing. Oftentimes it happens that the nominee is left in the position of having to face an assault of questions that are raised and never gets the opportunity to respond because you are advised to the contrary. Then for whatever reason, if you never get that hearing, they stay out there. So I applaud my colleague from Pennsylvania for coming to the floor this afternoon and raising this issue. I join with him in urging that our committee--and I sit on the Labor Committee--set up a hearing as soon as possible and move forward. Then, as the Senator from Pennsylvania has pointed out, the committee and/or this body will express its opinion one way or the other. But we will resolve the matter and not leave the individual out there to hang, if you will, in limbo. With all of the appropriate suggestions that the Senator from Pennsylvania has made, as we try to attract people to come serve in our Government and they watch examples like this, it is very difficult to convince people to step forward when they see what can happen to someone who is, in my view, entirely innocent of any of the allegations raised but never gets the opportunity to address them. So I applaud my colleague.