Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Under the language of this amendment, would the decision to send 100,000 troops to the gulf----

Mr. DODD. Let me ask my colleague a couple other questions.

Mr. DODD. No, in the Senate.

Mr. DODD. My question is, can my colleague from Utah cite a single example where a supermajority is not required, where there is a 50-50 tie, that the vote of the Vice President would be excluded in that situation?

Mr. DODD. And it requires 51.

Mr. DODD. That requires that this body act, and that is the provision of the constitutional amendment, requires that the whole House of both Chambers vote.

Mr. DODD. Can I get 6 or 7 minutes?

Mr. DODD. I would like to make some concluding remarks on my pending amendment. So if the Senator from New Mexico wants to take a couple minutes to do that, and then I would like to wrap up on my amendment before the vote at 5:30.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at some point, I believe a unanimous-consent request will be entered into, and we will set out the agenda for tomorrow's business, including an allocation of time for morning business, as well as an allocation of time for an amendment, which I will shortly propose, to be considered. I gather the respective leaders are working on that. In anticipation, Mr. President, I have been asked, in order to move the process along and make sure we have some business to conduct tomorrow, to submit an amendment. I will briefly describe the amendment this afternoon and then yield the floor. Based on the allocation of time the leaders are able to agree upon, we will engage more fully in the debate tomorrow. Amendment No. 4 (Purpose: To simplify the conditions for a declaration of an imminent and serious threat to national security)

Mr. DODD. No objection.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, that is the sum and substance of the amendment. Very briefly, the proposed language on the balanced budget constitutional amendment, section 5, reads as follows: 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. My concerns with this provision, Mr. President, are addressed, I believe, by the amendment that we will consider tomorrow. Very briefly, if one reads this section very carefully, word for word, and I emphasize in my reading of this section the language that is of particular concern to me, and that is ``is engaged in military conflict''--now the earlier language, ``a declaration of war,'' troubles me as well--it seems to mean we would have to be in the midst of a conflict before we can waive the provisions of the amendment. There have been numerous examples throughout our history in which we were very much aware that an imminent danger was on the horizon and we, in preparation of that imminent danger, were able to respond, utilizing deficit financing to do it. If you wait until we are actually engaged in that conflict, it seems to me you are running the risk of leaving this country very, very vulnerable, particularly with weapons of mass destruction that have the capability of causing great harm to our Nation. This amendment attempts to address that issue. If there is an imminent threat to our national security--and then allowing for the different provision here--we would have a resolution adopted by both Houses where a majority of those present and voting would be necessary in case of some emergency circumstance--I see, for example, my good friend and colleague from Idaho who has some distance to travel to get to Washington--where something may happen and Members are not able to get back here as quickly as they may need to. We would not be able to meet that constitutional requirement if the underlying balanced budget amendment is adopted, because you would need 51 Senators. The amendment that I offer addresses both points; that is, enables a response prior to actually being engaged in military conflict and allows for a joint resolution to be adopted with less than the whole number of each House. Again, I will wait until tomorrow, Mr. President, to discuss this further. This is an amendment, I remind my colleagues, which has been raised in very similar form on previous occasions. Regardless of whether one is for the balanced budget amendment or not, it seems to me we do not want to place ourselves in the position, obviously, of restricting our ability, particularly where our national security is in imminent danger and our Nation is in jeopardy and not able to respond. I cannot think of a single Member who would want to be put in a position, as important as balancing the budget is, where we would be willing to risk a threat to this country on that particular altar. So I hope Members, this evening and tomorrow, before we have time to debate this amendment, will look at it carefully and consider it in hopes that I might garner their support when we vote on this tomorrow afternoon. Again, this will depend on when the leaders are able to agree on a time for debate and a vote. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true Panamanian statesman, a renowned diplomat, and a good friend of the United States--Gabriel Lewis Galindo. Gabriel Lewis was considered his nation's leading expert on foreign affairs. And, over the past 20 years he was an influential figure in nearly all the major issues that dominated United States-Panamanian relations. As Panama's Ambassador to the United States in the late 1970's, he played an integral role in helping to negotiate the Panama Canal treaties, which will transfer control of the waterway to Panama in the year 2000. In the end, Gabriel Lewis's abundant personal charm and charisma were a guiding force behind not only the resolution of those negotiations, but Senate approval of the treaties. Gabriel Lewis was also a persistent and powerful voice for democracy in Panama. He became an outspoken and forceful opponent of the regime of Gen. Manuel Noriega seeking exile in the United States after being charged with treason in his native country. Here in the United States, he continued his tireless struggles on behalf of Panamanian democracy, mobilizing support against the Noriega regime and leading efforts to increase United States economic pressure on Panama. After the overthrow of Noriega, Gabriel Lewis continued his commitment to public service and the Panamanian people by becoming Panama's Foreign Minister in 1994. Almost immediately, he was working to improve United States-Panamanian relations. Soon after taking office, he recommended that the newly elected President of Panama, Ernesto Balladares, take in up to 10,000 Cuban refugees helping to defuse a growing crisis in the Caribbean. Often in this body we honor great Americans who are a tribute to their community and their Nation. But we must also take the time to pay homage to those, who from abroad, are the embodiment of the values and precepts we hold dear as Americans. Gabriel Lewis Galindo was just such a man and he will be sorely missed both in his native Panama and by those who knew and respected him here in the United States. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Nita, his 6 children, and his 21 grandchildren.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to digress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, a third subject matter I raise here in morning business today is one that did not get national attention except for those who may have been interested. But I want to pay tribute to a neighbor of mine, Mr. President, a neighbor and a friend, a woman who truly revolutionized the way we speak and write in this country. Casey Miller is her name. Throughout her life, Casey Miller promoted and venerated the role of women in our society by fighting to eradicate gender-specific language from everyday speech. Postal worker, artisan, police officer, and restaurant server are just some of the words that enter the glossary of modern English because of Casey Miller. While many falsely see these words as political correctness gone awry, they in fact represent a genuine effort to place America's women on the same linguistic standing as men. Her book, ``The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing'' is still considered the standard reference guide on how to correctly utilize language in order to properly address and speak of women. Too often in everyday discussions we use the words ``man,'' ``men,'' and ``he,'' as if they were interchangeable for all people. But these words only describe the role of the male gender and they demean to many women the significant position of women in our society. As the English novelist Thomas Hardy once said, ``It is difficult for a woman to define her feelings in language which is chiefly made by men to express theirs.'' The fact is that ``the man on the street'' may be the woman with a strong opinion. Things that are ``man-made'' are often built by women. The ``man of the house'' is by no means always a man. And the ``land where our fathers died'' is the same land of our mothers. Through Casey Miller's writings, more and more Americans became aware of the implicit discrimination in our language and the distinct individuality of women in our society. Though she was not a household name, Mr. President, for most Americans, her impact on the way we write and speak has been profound. For all of her efforts she deserves the appreciation of women and men across this country of ours. Besides her groundbreaking work on behalf of women, Casey Miller was an active and vital participant in humanitarian and philanthropic causes. Through Childreach, the U.S. branch of Planned Parenthood International, Ms. Miller served as a foster parent for dozens of children in poor and disadvantaged countries. What is more, she shared her good fortune with others, generously donated to her alma mater Smith College, the NAACP, and the Humane Society. On a personal level I rise here, Mr. President, to talk about Casey Miller who passed away a number of days ago not just because she was a pioneer in the feminist movement, served our country in uniform in previous conflicts, but she was a dear friend, and she happens to have been my next door neighbor in Connecticut. More than just being an activist and someone who made a significant contribution through a particular avenue that she sought, she was a wonderful, wonderful, friend. I cannot tell you the countless breakfasts, lunches, and dinners, so lively across the lawn. I could spend an evening with Casey Miller and Kate Swift, her lifetime friend and partner. For millions of us across the country, Casey Miller has had an impact--you may not know her name--for the way we speak today, for the changes that have occurred. Even in our own legislative body Casey Miller made a significant contribution. Mr. President, I just wanted to rise this morning and pay tribute to my neighbor. I will miss her very, very much. She was a wonderful friend, a great person, an individual who proved, once again, that one person can truly make a difference in our society. I ask unanimous consent that two editorials about Casey Miller be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to proceed as in morning business and the time I use not be deducted from the debate on the pending business.

Mr. DODD. I thank the President. Mr. President, I have a couple of items that I would like to address, if I may, here of a different nature than the debate on the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Myself, I will have some remarks later in the day on that subject matter, but I would like to take a little bit of time, if I could, to raise several issues. (The remarks of Mr. DODD pertaining to the submission of Senate Congressonal Resolution 6 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.)

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, all of us in this country were deeply saddened by the tragic death of Pamela Harriman in Paris a few days ago. Regardless of party or political persuasion, this was a remarkable woman who spent a lifetime, from the basement of 10 Downing Street with that most revered of leaders of the 20th century, Sir Winston Churchill, to representing the United States in the Embassy in Paris. Hers was a remarkable life in many ways. As we have been reading about the legend of Pamela Harriman over the past few days not enough attention, in my view, is being paid to her profound legacy to this country. Most of us--I think all of us, maybe with some exception in this Chamber--were born in this country. We did not make the choice to be Americans. We were fortunate enough that our parents or grandparents or great-grandparents came to this country, and we were the beneficiaries of those decisions. I have always thought it was somewhat different for people who made the choice, the conscious choice to become an American. Pamela Harriman made that choice to be an American and contributed mightily to this country. She was engaged in the political process. She was a partisan. And I say to my friends on the other side, I think that is healthy when people become engaged and not only have ideas and values and beliefs, but are willing to act on them. And for those of us who are Democrats, we will be eternally grateful for her support and her willingness to be engaged in the political life in this country. For people, regardless of political persuasion, she was a great individual who represented our country in Paris with great distinction. There was a column presented the other day, Mr. President, by Richard Holbrooke in the Washington Post which I think captured in many ways the feelings of many of us about Pamela Harriman's service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that column by Richard Holbrooke be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I express my gratitude to the majority leader for graciously arranging at the end of the business time for me to address the issue at hand, and that is the proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I, like all of my colleagues, do not know a single Member of this body who disagrees with the proposition that we ought to be balancing the budget or getting us close to it and as quickly as we possibly can. I don't think there is any debate about the desired goal shared by everyone in this Chamber and the overwhelming majority of Americans in this country for a balanced budget. They do, I think, Mr. President, share this goal for wise reason. I was asked the other day in a classroom in my home State of Connecticut by students, ``Why is balancing the budget, why is there so much talk about that? What is the importance of that?'' Maybe we take for granted that everyone understands the answer. We talk about it as if it were an end in and of itself, rather than the implications of a balanced budget for our Nation and, for that matter, people who live beyond our Nation. The reason is that balancing the budget is not a goal in and of itself. It is what it does, what it creates, and that is, of course, a sound economy and an expanded economy. It creates jobs in the country and opportunities for people that wouldn't otherwise exist if we were operating with a mountain of debt that forced the U.S. Government to compete in the borrowing business with private institutions and individuals. By balancing the budget, what we are doing is contributing significantly to the economic growth and the job creation that is absolutely essential if any nation is going to succeed, and particularly if we are going to be successful in the 21st century. Balancing the budget has importance, but its real importance is not in and of itself, but rather what it contributes to the overall wealth and strength of our Nation. So I begin these remarks, Mr. President, by stating what I think is the obvious--I hope it is the obvious--and that is that every Member of this body believes that balancing the Federal budget is an issue of critical importance to our Nation's future. Across the political spectrum, from the White House to the Capitol, among Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives, moderates, whatever label people wish to place on themselves or are placed on them, there exists, I think, a broad-based consensus on the desire for bringing the Federal budget into balance. In fact, in the last Congress, both the President and the Republican leaders agreed in principle to a 7-year balanced budget plan. The sticking point then was the details of those plans, not the notion of a balanced budget itself. So the debate today is not about whether we should balance the budget. That we agree on. The debate today, and will be over the coming days, is how we balance the budget. The proponents of this constitutional amendment would have us believe otherwise. They would lead us to believe that the Congress is simply incapable of mustering the necessary courage to make the tough choices to balance the budget. They would have us believe that only by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would we be forced, and future Congresses forced, to act. Mr. President, when one considers our efforts at reducing the deficit over the past half dozen years, I think it is fair to say such an assertion lacks credibility. Over the past decade, the deficit, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, has shrunk by more than 70 percent. Let me restate that. Over the past decade, the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product has shrunk by more than 70 percent. Today, it is only 1.4 percent of the gross domestic product. In fact, as a percentage of the economy, the deficit is at its lowest level in more than a generation in this country. These figures clearly demonstrate that contrary to the conventional wisdom, contrary to the rhetoric from across the aisle, and from other places, this body does, in fact, possess ample courage to reduce the deficit. In fact, the tremendous decreases in the Federal deficit came in the last 4 years, as this chart to my left, I think, amply demonstrates. I will just point out, it is entitled ``Bringing the Deficit Down to Ground Zero,'' which we all agreed should occur by the year 2002. What is indicated by these dots and lines, in 1992, the annual deficit stood at $290 billion. Based on the projections in 1992, that deficit was going to increase each year from $302 billion over 1993 and 1994, going up to $312 billion, then up to $319 billion in 1996, $351 billion by 1997, $391 billion by 1998. Those were the projections for the increase in the deficit that we were given in 1993. But in 1993, as many will recall, we adopted a budget plan that was, unfortunately, not bipartisan, Mr. President. It was adopted with just Democratic votes. Those were the days when we were in the majority on this side. That is, before the arrival of the distinguished Presiding Officer. We were in the majority and passed a budget resolution here in the U.S. Senate. A similar one was passed in the House. They were done in the most uncommon of fashions. Usually there is some bipartisanship. But this one was done exclusively with Democratic votes, on both sides. It was hotly contested, hotly debated. People may recall it was decided by one vote, I think, in the House of Representatives, and I think by that margin here in the Senate as well. In fact, I think it was the vote of the Vice President at the time casting the vote that made that possible. At any rate, it was a very narrow vote. But what has happened since then, since 1993, and that budget resolution? We have seen by 1993, instead of being $302 billion, the deficit went from $290 billion to $255 billion. Then it has proceeded, over the next 3 years, down to $203 billion, $164 billion, and in 1996, $107 billion. What we hope is going to occur with this budget proposal that is before us now, and over the next 5 years, is that the budget will continue, based on the projections included, will fall to that ground zero, balancing the budget by the year 2002. Let me state here that I appreciate immensely the reaction, of the majority in both this body and in the House of Representatives, to the President's budget. That is not to say they have endorsed the budget. Quite to the contrary, there are significant disagreements. But unlike almost every year that I can recall, Mr. President, whether it was a Republican President or a Democratic President, with the submission of budgets you could almost guarantee the press releases would go out from whoever was the opposing party in the legislative branch announcing that the budget was dead on arrival and we began this tremendous fight on Capitol Hill to try to come up with a new budget altogether. That is not the case this year. I give the majority here credit, as well as the administration, for working ahead of time to try to come up with some common ground on some of the more delicate issues. As I said, there has not been total agreement, but we are not in the same situation we have been in the past where this turns into a huge battle from the very beginning. So my hope is, despite what previous history there may have been, we are now going to be able to work on a budget agreement that gets us to that ground zero in the year 2002. That is really what we ought to be doing. Because as the Presiding Officer knows, and others are certainly aware, writing something into the Constitution and issuing a press release about it does not make it happen. You have to do the work. Whether it is in the Constitution or not, you have to do the kind of work in order to move us in that direction toward ground zero. Because of the implications, again, I want to stress the point. This is important to do because of what it does to our economy. It gives us the kind of economic growth, the stability, the lower interest rates that allow for businesses to borrow and expand and put people to work. That is the effect of a balanced budget. So there has been a good record here now. We are going in the right direction for the first time in years. The challenge for all of us here, regardless of party or ideology or some label that someone wants to put on someone, is to work together to see to it that we achieve those desired goals stated in this chart. None of us can predict, obviously, what is going to happen next week, tomorrow, or, for that matter, next month, next year that might disrupt our ability to move in this direction. That is one of the major reasons I have such reluctance about writing into the Constitution an economic theory that could end up being highly disruptive toward our ultimate goals as a nation. As someone suggested--I think my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, the other day, Mr. President, in talking about the proposed amendment. He suggested to a group of us that if we had any hesitation about whether or not this particular amendment belonged in the Constitution--and I have made a similar recommendation to people in my own home State--to take out 20 minutes or a half-hour, which is all you need, to read the Constitution of the United States. It is an incredible document in its simplicity and directives. Then, if you would, after you read the Constitution of the United States, pick up and read this amendment and ask yourself the simple question: Does this language in this amendment, putting aside the implications of it, but does this language in this amendment belong in this document, this organic law of our country, which represents the timeless principles--the timeless principles--that we embrace as a people? Nothing in the Constitution is contemporary in the sense that it deals with a present-day problem, except to the extent that human nature constantly raises issues that need to be addressed and protected by the Constitution. But we have historically stayed away from dealing with the issue of the day in the Constitution. I urge again that we consider what the implications would be of taking language which deals with economic theory, which is the contemporary issue of the day, and enshrining it in the organic law of the country, in such a way that I think we do an injustice to that document. Also, we run the risk, as I hope my colleagues will appreciate, of making it far more difficult in many ways for us to achieve the kind of economic opportunity, the job creation, the stability that is the underlying goal behind the entire discussion of whether or not we ought to have a constitutional amendment that balances the budget and does what we are presently on the right path toward achieving and that the Congresses in the years ahead will have to grapple with itself, as it deals with the issues of its day. So, Mr. President, I hope that Members, and others who may be in doubt about what this debate is all about, that they might take the time to read, as I say, both the Constitution and the amendment and ask themselves the question that Senator Conrad of North Dakota posed to us the other day, as to whether or not those particular words belong in the Constitution. Mr. President, other issues have been raised over the past number of days, and more will be raised next week, which are posed by this amendment. One of the issues that I will be raising has to do with the issue of national security. Again, the Presiding Officer is someone who is no stranger to these issues as a new Member of this body and he has a distinguished record in serving our country. I commend him for it. One of my concerns here is that the amendment would seem to indicate that we could not expend resources on a national security problem unless there was a declaration of war. As my colleagues are certainly aware, it has been many a year since we declared war despite the fact that we have had many conflicts in which American men and women have lost their lives. My concern would be that, given how difficult that can be, given the nature of the world in which we live today, declarations of war may be harder to achieve. This could be a matter for a separate discussion, the whole issue of the role of Congress and the war powers resolutions which we have debated extensively here over the years. But I can imagine, as I am sure the Presiding Officer could, situations that would not warrant necessarily a declaration of war, and yet it may be critically important that the United States respond because the national interest of the country is at stake, and yet we find ourselves engaged in such a debate where we have to first declare war before a President might be able to act and get the necessary funds. That is the kind of problem I see posed by the well-intended authors of this amendment, to create situations that could pose serious problems for our country. I have drafted an amendment and I have asked people to look at it. It may be an amendment that can be agreed to. It seems to me that we ought to be able to respond to situations without tying ourselves into long legislative knots around here. It may be absolutely critical that the Chief Executive, the Commander in Chief of this country be able to respond to a situation without getting bogged down in what could be a partisan battle, for whatever reason, and put in jeopardy the lives of American men and women or put in jeopardy the interests of our country. We could find ourselves hamstrung by a problem in the constitutional amendment that its authors never intended, but in the years to come could occur. So that is one issue that I find particularly troublesome about the balanced budget amendment. I urge again my colleagues to review and look at it. Another issue was raised by our colleagues from California, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. Unfortunately, their State, maybe more so than any other in recent years, has been plagued by one disaster after another, natural disasters in most cases, where they have needed additional attention and resources. There seems to be little or no provision to respond to those situations again without having to go through the tremendous gyrations of developing some support. California is a big State. They have more than 50 Members of Congress in the House. They have the same number of Senators we have. What if you come from a smaller State that does not have the same kind of political clout that California might bring to a situation, where they need those extra dollars? Are we going to be able to respond? A legitimate issue is raised, Mr. President, by the language of this amendment, this constitutional amendment, that would make it extremely difficult for the Congress to respond to natural disasters that could hit any State in this country. Again, that is another reason that I think my colleagues ought to examine carefully some proposals that will be offered and, I would say, ultimately to step away from what I consider to be sort of a bumper- sticker approach to an issue that deserves far greater work and diligence than merely writing into the Constitution language that could make our job as legislators far more difficult in responding to the needs of our Nation. Mr. President, I will not take a great deal of time here today. I merely wanted to rise to indicate once again that we are on the right track. I think we are going in the right direction in dealing with the issue of getting our budgetary house in order. That is what we are going to have to do year in and year out, to see to it that we have the ability to respond. I am not old enough to remember the Great Depression, and I am confident the Presiding Officer is not either, but there are people certainly who will read this Record who are listening to what we are saying who remember the 1930's. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for that Congress and that Chief Executive Officer. In the Northeast, in my State of Connecticut, and the Midwest was particularly hard hit in those years, what would life have been like in a Connecticut or Nebraska if we had been hit as we were with that Great Depression and faced with the tremendous need to provide resources to people in our States. We ought to be very thankful that we do not have national depressions. We have taken enough steps over the years to avoid the kind of difficulties that can sweep across a nation. Mr. President, I am sure the President is aware of this, my State, over the last 4, 5, 6, or 7 years, has been very hard hit economically. We have historically been called the Provision State, dating back to the Revolutionary War, and we are proud of it. The builders of helicopters, and jet engines at Pratt & Whitney, and submarines and electric boats, radar systems at Norden, we have a long history. The end of the cold war, the recession and the real estate collapse all hit my small State very hard. It has been very, very difficult for us to get back on our feet. Luckily, these economic troubles did not sweep across the country. Most parts of the country have done well. What am I to do in my State because of its unique problems? We need some particular help in responding to the needs of our people. What worries me is that we may not have national depressions, but we could have regional depressions. Will there be enough votes in these bodies to have supermajorities to provide the resources that specific regions of the country need? It could be an agricultural problem that hits--possibly bad crop seasons. I know the people of my State have been sympathetic in the past in responding when that has occurred. They are consumers of the food that is produced in this country. But natural disasters can hit. People can be literally wiped out in a matter of weeks. How do we respond? Should we respond? Is every State that does not have the same interests going to vote accordingly? Again, hamstrung by a constitutional amendment, it would make it difficult for us to use common sense and respond. That is troublesome to me, to put it mildly. For those reasons and others, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to move away from this particular debate. If the issue was we needed to get the attention of some reluctant Members of Congress--and I happen to believe there were some who were not serious enough about this issue. I go back to the days of the early 1980's. As an original sponsor of the Gramm-Rudman proposal, I think it could have worked had we not had a bunch of loopholes. Back in 1982 or 1983, I offered a pay-as-you-go budget, Mr. President, requiring that for every single expenditure there had to be resource to pay for it--every single expenditure. Had we adopted a pay-as-you-go in 1982, we would have been in balance 11 years ago, in 1986. I only got 22 votes on the floor of this Chamber in 1982 on that proposal. I take very seriously this debate about getting this budget in balance and moving in the right direction, but I again argue, as I did at the outset, it is work. It is not easy. Everybody has to go back to their constituencies and explain why everyone has to share in this responsibility. Merely taking out a chisel and etching into the organic law of this country the conclusion of a proposal of balancing the budget does not get us there, and it does raise serious, serious questions about other weighty matters that this Nation must come to terms with from time to time. In my view, it places them in jeopardy, and particularly at a time when it seems to me that we are on the right track, moving in the right direction. I do not understand why we would place in jeopardy other vitally important issues when, in fact, we are achieving, I think all would agree, the goals stated by those who strongly endorse this constitutional amendment. In addition the constant inflexibility in our budgetary decisionmaking process could have a disastrous impact on the business community. The private sector expects order and consistency in our economic policy. What's more, they rely on the Federal Government for our support and assistance in myriad ways. Whether it's the research and experimentation tax credit, our aggressive advocacy for American exporters, or the vital statistics and information published by Federal agencies, the private sector receives crucial support from the Federal Government. However, passage of this amendment could threaten to create a frantic rush, year in and year out, for the savings necessary for bringing the budget into constitutional compliance. In that sort of an environment, no Federal program would be safe. Business leaders would be unable to plan ahead, not knowing what programs will be funded or cut from year to year. An R&E tax credit that is constantly in jeopardy of being canceled is of little benefit to American business. Contrary to the rhetoric of those who support this amendment, American businesses will suffer if they are forced to operate in the looming shadow of tax increases or potential cuts in important programs. What's more, under the requirements of a balanced budget amendment the Congress would be forced to reorder our budgetary priorities every fiscal year. There'd be no rhyme or reason to what we cut and what we fund, because our decisions would be based on short- term economic factors. Long-term considerations would simply go by the wayside. By almost any standard, the balanced budget amendment is bad economic policy. But, it would have even worse and more far-reaching constitutional implications. Passage of this amendment risks allowing direct judicial involvement in the enforcement of a balanced budget requirement. If for whatever reason, the Congress was unable to achieve either a balanced budget or get 60 votes to waive the requirement for such, then the Federal judiciary could be forced to make critical decisions on budgetary allocations. I must say, I find it quite interesting that many of the same people who complain about so-called judicial activism are seeking to pass an amendment that would thrust the judiciary directly into our budgetary discussions. Theoretically, judges could order the Government to stop Social Security checks from being sent out, cut Federal spending, or even raise taxes. Additionally, to those who complain about a clogged court system, we could see a significant rise in litigation by either Members of Congress or private citizens hurt by spending cuts mandated by this amendment. For the Congress to go along with such a proposal represents an abdication of our responsibilities as legislators. The Constitution mandates very clearly that the legislative and executive branches must posses sole responsibility for fiscal policy. Yet, this amendment would fundamentally transform our constitutional system of checks and balances by placing the judiciary in an unheard of position--making budgetary decisions. This contravenes the most sacrosanct notions of constitutional integrity--our system of checks and balances and division of authority among the three branches of government. And it would debase the Constitution by involving it directly in economic decision making. This constitutional amendment would place what is fundamentally a fiscal policy into our organic law. Again, I urge all my colleagues to read the Constitution before they cast their vote. Look at the sorts of amendments that have been enacted. At their core, they deal almost universally with issues of social policy and the functioning of our democratic institutions--not with economic policy. But, this amendment would change that legacy. And I believe it could begin a disquieting process of including what is basically statutory language into our national Constitution. There can be little doubt that we face a momentous decision. Changing the Constitution is not like adopting a simple statute that can be modified or repealed somewhere down the road. The fact is, amending the Constitution is one of the most sacred duties of our role as national leaders. Indeed, the language we insert into the Constitution is timeless. And it will likely stay there long after all of us leave this Earth. However, I worry that the fundamental, hallowed nature of our Constitution is being lost on my colleagues. The last Congress advocated one of the most sweeping rewrites of the U.S. Constitution since the Bill of Rights. And I worry that this Congress will continue this troubling precedent. In the 104th Congress, amendments were proposed requiring a supermajority for taxes, advocating terms limits, providing for a line-item veto, allowing school prayer, preventing unfunded mandates, criminalizing flag burning, and the list goes on. The Constitution is not a set of institutional guidelines to be amended by each new generation of leaders. Generation after generation will live with the consequences of our constitutional decisions. And while I realize that this amendment is incredibly popular among the American people, that should not be our determining factor. Amending the Constitution must not be based on the political currents of today, but the sacred principles on which our Nation was founded. There is a very good reason why, in the more than 200 years since this Nation adopted the Constitution, we have seen fit to amend it only 27 times-- 27 times in more than 200 years. In fact, in those 200 or so years, there've been approximately 11,000 proposed amendments to the Constitution. Only 33 passed the Congress. And the Bill of Rights notwithstanding, only 17 are now part of the Constitution. What's more, amending the Constitution remains an incredibly difficult task. Two-thirds of the Congress, and three-fourths of the State legislatures must agree before we change the law of the land. Our Founding Fathers made clear that amending the Constitution would not be an easy or brazen decision. As Henry Clay said 145 years ago, ``The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.'' These are not idle words. The Constitution is sacred parchment--our guiding force for more than 200 years of democratic rule and a beacon for millions around the world who yearn for the dignity that freedom and democracy bestows. In my view, this document remains one of the greatest political and democratic accomplishments in human history and the amending of it must not be a rash or impetuous act. We all agree on the need for balancing the budget, but this amendment is the wrong way to go about doing it. If we are to really bring our fiscal house in order; if we are to guarantee to future generations that they will not be burdened with our debts; if we are to balance the budget in a fair and equitable manner, then let us reject this amendment and instead roll up our shirt sleeves and get down to the task of making the tough choices to truly balance the budget. I thank the majority leader for making this possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as a matter of cold war aggression, Soviet troops invaded, as we all remember, Afghanistan in December of 1979. After years of harsh struggle for independence, the Afghan people finally achieved that goal of independence in 1992. No sooner, however, had the Soviet threat been lifted than a new destabilizing force emerged in that region. Then, instead of fighting outside aggressors, the Afghans started fighting among themselves. Today, Afghan civilians continue to live in constant fear: fear of being embroiled in armed conflict; fear of being abducted by one militia group or another; fear of persecution and torture; fear of rape and sexual harassment; and, finally, fear of dying an early and senseless death. Amnesty International has done an excellent job of monitoring and reporting on the deteriorating human rights situation in Afghanistan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a factsheet prepared by Amnesty International be printed at the end of these remarks.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the conflict in Afghanistan has changed dramatically in recent months. In September 1996, the Taliban coalition seized the capital city of Kabul, thereby securing control of two- thirds of the territory of Afghanistan. The Taliban, many of whom grew up and were educated in the refugee camps in Pakistan during the war years of the 1980's, see themselves as the guardians of Afghan security and stability. Unfortunately, this guardianship has had very harsh consequences for the women and young girls of Afghanistan. Moreover, in an effort to solidify total control over Afghanistan, they continue to engage militarily with the other factions led by various leaders of that country. Today, the Taliban controls three-quarters of the nation. Mr. President, my concern here is that we have had significant reports of terrible abuse of the young women of Afghanistan by the Taliban, including denying them even the basic opportunities to work. Many of the teachers in Afghanistan were women. They have been denied entirely the right to work, to teach. Internal tensions have been exacerbated by players who have encouraged the various factions to continue the armed conflict in order to advance their own selfish economic and security interests. Outside assistance in the form of arms transfer, military training, and financial aid seriously undermined international efforts to broker a political solution to the conflict. With respect to humanitarian issues, the fact of the matter is that none of the parties involved in the civil conflict are innocent. All have contributed to the extraordinary human rights crisis. While all these human rights abuses concern me, today I want to call specific attention to the deteriorating human rights practices as they relate to the rights and treatment against Afghan women and girls--much of these at the hands of the Taliban. I am deeply disturbed by the Taliban's discriminatory treatment of women and girls. Some of the most objectionable features of the Taliban's discriminatory policies include barring women from employment, prohibiting girls from attending schools, restricting the times when women and girls may leave their homes, and mandating a restrictive dress code for females. Moreover, the Taliban has reacted to women and girls who stray from these restrictive policies with public rebukes in the form of street beatings and stonings. I believe, and imagine most of my colleagues would agree that: Women should have the right to work--to earn a living for their families using their knowledge, expertise, and skills; girls and women must be given access to basic education; and both women and men must be afforded a basic sense of humanity and respect. Street beatings, amputations, and other forms of summary justice for alleged crimes are unacceptable. The United States cannot stand idly by in the face of unconscionable violations of basic human rights and needless killings. We certainly cannot condone, by our silence, the plainly discriminatory practices which severely handicap women and girls. I believe that the resolution I have introduced today will call public attention to the serious situation in Afghanistan. I urge my colleagues to join me in reaffirming the need for a peaceful settlement for a country that has been plagued by the brutality of war for too many years; in urging all the factions in Afghanistan to adhere to internationally recognized principles of human rights; and in calling an end to the Taliban's discriminatory policies toward women and girls. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the enactment of this resolution at the appropriate time. I am going to, Mr. President, send this resolution to the desk. And I urge my colleagues to take a look at it, along with a report from Amnesty International, and urge that they join with me in our condemnation of these events as they are occurring today. Hopefully, we can consider this resolution at some appropriate time on the floor of the U.S. Senate and adopt it and send a clear message that those of us in this body--while there are many issues we deal with at home--that an issue such as this basic fundamental denial of human rights should not go unrecognized as an institution here that cares so deeply about it in a bipartisan way as we have talked about so frequently. I urge they give their support to this resolution. I just send it to the desk, Mr. President.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Andrew Cuomo for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Those of us who have worked closely with Andrew Cuomo over the years, and have witnessed his remarkable range of skills, know that he will become an outstanding leader for the Department. He has a remarkable record of achievement in both the public and private sectors. I commend President Clinton for selecting him to help our communities prepare for the next century. For a number of years, Andrew Cuomo worked on the frontlines of community development. Although he could have lived a comfortable life as a partner at an established law firm, he answered the call to public service. In 1986, he started an organization called HELP, that worked to improve the lives of homeless people. Under his leadership, HELP grew to 500 employees, and used its $30 million annual budget to build more than 120 million dollars worth of housing and help thousands of homeless people move off the streets. While developing HELP, Andrew Cuomo realized that it was not enough to simply build housing. Although shelter was a key part of the formula for success, homeless people could not move to productive lives without additional support. Consequently, HELP also provided opportunities designed to make the homeless self-sufficient, including substance abuse treatment, mental health care, job training, education, and child care. This experience at the local level, the hands-on effort to build housing and transform lives, gave Andrew Cuomo invaluable experience. He met a payroll. He dealt with Government bureaucracies. And he learned that public-private partnerships will only work if everyone performs efficiently. Andrew Cuomo brought those lessons to HUD, when he was confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Community Planning and Development in 1993. His consolidated planning effort merged 12 bureaucratic processes into a streamlined system. This system reduced paperwork and redtape. Now communities can use Government programs more effectively. We need more efforts like this-- where the Federal Government is not the problem, but part of the solution. Additionally, Andrew Cuomo helped make HUD's homeless programs work better. With the knowledge gained from his experience at HELP, he implemented a new continuum of care strategy. This strategy addresses each part of the homeless problem--from the emergency situation where someone is sleeping on the street, to the drug and alcohol problems that must be treated when a person is in transitional housing, to the final job-training efforts that are necessary to help someone become a productive and member of society. This comprehensive approach to complex problems will be critical in the years ahead. Welfare reform will have a dramatic effect on cities across this country. We must all work to ensure that efforts to solve one problem do not create new problems. In the years ahead, we must do much more to rebuild our cities. Too many families are trapped by poverty and despair. We have to free their talents with better educational and job-training opportunities. And most importantly, we must help people find work, because a good-paying job--and the respect and self-esteem that come with it--provides the foundation for a better life. Andrew Cuomo's dedicated efforts to expand economic opportunity will play a critical role in helping to meet this challenge. At HUD, he helped strengthen job creation tools, including the Economic Development Initiative which provides low-interest loans to cities. With these tools, communities have leveraged over $8 billion from private sources, and helped put thousands of Americans to work. In short, Andrew Cuomo offers the talent, dedication, and leadership that HUD needs to help communities meet the challenges of the next century. During the Banking Committee hearing on his nomination, he demonstrated a keen understanding of the problems facing HUD, including staffing issues, expiring section 8 contracts, and the need to revitalize our cities. I am confident he will be an outstanding Secretary, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. Before closing, I would also like to commend the outgoing Secretary, Henry Cisneros, for his outstanding work. When he took the reins back in 1993, the future of HUD looked bleak. The Department was still struggling to recover from years of corruption, mismanagement, and low morale. The turnaround has been remarkable. Under the leadership of Secretary Cisneros, HUD is now a stronger partner in the national effort to build better communities. With a smaller work force, HUD is running more efficiently. Around the country, people are regaining confidence in the department. The changes in public housing are a good example of the changes. Every Member of this body knows how badly conditions had deteriorated in some public housing developments. I have been through too many buildings that were covered with graffiti, where the ceilings and walls were falling apart, and where families were afraid to go out after dark because gangs controlled the neighborhood. Secretary Cisneros saw this national disgrace, and took action. HUD is well on its way to tearing down 100,000 units of decayed and dangerous housing. Working with the resilient residents who want to build a better neighborhood, he has brought not only better living conditions, but a sense of hope to families across this Nation. In my home State of Connecticut, these efforts are helping to transform urban neighborhoods. At the Charter Oak Terrace development in Hartford, residents will soon have better housing, educational programs, and job opportunities. In New Haven, the redevelopment of the Elm Haven apartments will also help lift families out of poverty. Working together, Henry Cisneros and Andrew Cuomo have already accomplished a great deal. With that experience, Andrew Cuomo will hit the ground running and build upon that record of success. I look forward to working with him in the years ahead. Let me say in summation for those of us who have worked with and known Andrew Cuomo, this is going to be a very fine appointment. He understands the agency now, having been there for 3 years in a major capacity. He knows the personnel. He has demonstrated abilities, as I mentioned, in developing the kind of efficiencies in HUD that are absolutely critical. My hope is that the housing issues and related subject matters will once again become what they were initially, and that is a bipartisan subject. When housing initiatives were identified and supported back in the late 1940's, it was through the efforts of Republicans and Democrats who said that decent, affordable shelter ought not to be something that divides people based on politics or party. I think it is vitally important we get back to that. We have a wonderful opportunity, in my view, with the chairman of the committee, Senator D'Amato, and the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, who understand these issues, and a very fine staff that wants to work on them. The fact that Andrew Cuomo comes from New York, the home State of the chairman of the committee, can only strengthen the excellent relationship between the Senate Banking Committee and HUD. I look forward to a new era of cooperation and bipartisanship in seeing to it that decent, affordable shelter and economic development are given the attention they deserve. With that in mind, I am delighted to join my colleague from New York and my colleague from Maryland and others in strongly endorsing the nomination of Andrew Cuomo to be the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.