Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in spite of the sincerity of my colleague from California, I think I have said all that needs to be said on this. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague, and I know she is sincere. But I have to point out that her amendment, like all of the others, is just another way of making sure the balanced budget amendment has no effect. Let me read it to the people: At the end of section 5, add the following: ``The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year * * * '' That means for the whole fiscal year. * * * in which there is a declaration made by the President (and a designation by the Congress) that a major disaster or emergency exists, adopted by a majority vote in each House of those present and voting. This amendment is simply a permutation of the amendment we voted on today, the Feinstein amendment, which was rejected by 67 Senators just a few hours ago. It would have provided for a waiver of the balanced budget requirement for any fiscal year in which the United States is experiencing a serious economic emergency or major natural disaster. I was one of the 67 Senators who opposed that amendment. But I have to say that I actually prefer that amendment to the one being offered now by my friend from California. For one thing, the spending loophole created by this amendment is even more gaping than the one in the amendment we voted down this evening. As Senator Enzi said, you can ``sail an aircraft carrier through the loophole created by the Feinstein amendment.'' If so, then you can sail an entire fleet through the loophole this amendment would provide. This would provide for a waiver of the balanced budget requirement in any fiscal year in which Congress and the President declare there is a major disaster or emergency. Unlike earlier amendments, this amendment does not even require that the disaster be a natural disaster or that the emergency be an economic one. That being the case, I wonder what exactly qualifies as a disaster and an emergency under this amendment. According to the language of this amendment, a disaster is whatever Congress says it is. I think the worst disaster we are facing are these continual, piled-up unbalanced budgets every year. That is what we are trying to resolve here. Just think of all the things that a creative Congress, bent on deficit spending, could categorize as a disaster or emergency in order to justify more borrowing. Does this amendment mean to say that a drop in SAT scores can be deemed an emergency by Congress and thereby be used as a basis for borrowing to increase educational funding, without having to abide by the strictures of a balanced budget amendment? The fact is that, under this amendment, just about anything can be classified a disaster or emergency and serve as a springboard for continued deficit spending. For one thing, Mr. President, this is precisely the type of behavior that has put us into the $5.3 trillion of national debt. These unbalanced budgets for the last 28 years demonstrate that. They demonstrate the sad result of such loosely defined exemptions from borrowing or spending limits. For another thing, this amendment does nothing more than preserve a distorted version of the status quo. Under this amendment, a waiver of the balanced budget requirement may be obtained by a declaration made by the President and a similar declaration by Congress. But the precise procedure is not clear. Does this mean that the President must first declare an emergency or disaster by Executive order before the Congress acts to ratify or adopt that declaration? Does it then need to be signed by the President? Or, if that is not what this amendment means, then perhaps, in effect, it means that Congress must declare an emergency or disaster--by a joint resolution or some other legislative vehicle--adopted by a simple majority vote and then signed by the President. That is what we have been doing when we came up with these 28 straight unbalanced budgets. That is also what we've done in piling up unbalanced budgets in 58 of the last 66 years. That sounds more familiar to me. Indeed, it is familiar to me because it is exactly how we operate today. It is exactly how we have gotten our Nation into a $5.3 trillion national debt and have produced unbalanced budgets for every one of the last 28 years. Mr. President, Senate Joint Resolution 1 is a clear, concise amendment carefully drafted over several years with input from Members on both sides of the aisle. I heard earlier in the day one of our colleagues say that this is a Republican amendment. Give me a break. Yes; all 55 Republicans are supporting it. But there are 11 courageous Democrats supporting this. I wonder what Charlie Stenholm thinks about remarks like that, another courageous Democrat from the House who has helped to work on this. And Senator Bryan, Senator Graham, Senator Robb, and so many others who have played a pivotal role in this. The three-fifths waiver contained in section 1 strikes an important balance in that it is both sufficient to answer the concerns raised by the Senator's amendment and strong enough to keep the balanced budget amendment meaningful. The simple fact is that in actual circumstances of disaster or emergencies, Congress has had little difficulty achieving the supermajority vote required under the balanced budget amendment. I have done some research on the disasters in this Nation during the past 7 years with the help of the Congressional Research Service. I found that in virtually every circumstance, emergency spending bills placed before the House and Senate passed with supermajorities, even when no such requirement was in place. For example, in fiscal year 1995 the House and Senate voted on H.R. 1944, which provided $7.2 billion in disaster aid, mostly to help with recovery efforts in Los Angeles from the 1994 earthquake. The bill passed the Senate with a vote of 90 to 7--well over the supermajority requirements of Senate Joint Resolution 1. In the House, the bill passed by 276 votes--also a supermajority. The 1994 fiscal year disaster supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 3759, received similar treatment. That bill, to provide nearly $10 billion in new appropriations for emergency expenses of the Los Angeles earthquake, humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping activities, as well as for Midwest flood assistance, and highway reconstruction from the San Francisco earthquake, passed the House by a vote of 337 to 74-- some 75 votes more than would have been necessary under Senate Joint Resolution 1's supermajority requirement. The same measure passed the Senate by a vote of 85 to 10. Mr. President, I could go on, but I will summarize by saying that in the past 7 years we have voted many times on emergency disaster funding. I count only two situations where a supermajority was not reached--this despite the fact that no supermajority was needed. The reality is that when there are truly meritorious circumstances the general three-fifths waiver will not stand in the way of what is best for the American people. What will stand in the way is the kind of frivolous expenditures and disregard for the financial well-being of future generations that has plagued our budget process for each of the last 28 years, exemplified by these two stacks of unbalanced budget books. Mr. President, we are here to instill in the budget process the fiscal discipline that has been lacking for much of this century. I will say once again that what we need to do is pass a balanced budget amendment free of loopholes and gimmicks. Unless we do, we will never rein in the out-of-control spending habits that have brought us to where we are today. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Boxer amendment, and hopefully we will move quickly to pass the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, there was a discussion earlier today on whether or not the Reagan tax cuts enacted by Congress caused the debt we now have or whether it was congressional spending that has run up our debt. I would like to add some more concrete figures to illuminate that discussion. I believe the facts are clear--the Reagan tax cuts increased revenues. But spending increased faster. Let me explain further: Excessive spending and not tax cuts are responsible for increased deficits during the 1980's. Even with tax cuts, Federal tax revenues continue to increase. In fact, Federal revenues have continued to grow in every fiscal year after the 1981 tax cuts. The only exception to this was fiscal year 1983, after the recession of 1982. This increase in Federal revenues was consistent through the sources of Federal receipts--individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, Social Security insurance taxes and contributions, and other taxes. Total receipts went up by the following percentages: 1980-1986: 48.7 percent; 1981-1986: 28.8 percent; 1981-1987: 42.5 percent. The middle percentage from 1981 to 1986 is probably the most representative of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts. Further, tax revenues grew faster after the Reagan tax cuts than they have following the Bush and Clinton tax increases. From 1983 to 1989, tax revenue grew at a real rate of 8.7 percent compared to a 5.9- percent growth rate from 1990 to 1996. Similarly, President Kennedy knew the growth effects of lower taxes. During the years of the Kennedy tax cuts revenues increased 6.4 percent a year. As President Kennedy said in his address to the American people concerning his tax proposal: Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. * * * By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance.. To further illustrate these points, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two tables from the 1996 Economic Report of the President. For further detail, I also refer my colleagues to the Joint Economic Committee report on taxes and long-term economic growth, dated February of 1997.

Mr. HATCH. If I can just finish? These books were created by us, these 28 years of deficits. I am saying we have to do something to help us to be responsible. If we do that, the President, whoever that President may be--whether that President is a supply-sider like Reagan, or not--will have to be more responsible. If we do not do it, we are going to have more of the same. I have to say it was triggered long before the Great Society programs, because we have had 58 years of unbalanced budgets in the last 66 years. So it happened even before the Great Society. But once the Great Society programs started and this move toward entitlement spending--I know my dear colleague knows that. He has to deal with it every day on the Appropriations Committee, and he deals with it very intelligently. But he is stuck because almost two-thirds of the budget is entitlements. It was not the Presidents who did that; it is us. I have to tell you, the only hope for this country to get these things under control--and I have to say I don't want my dear friend to make another mistake. He is repentant for having voted for the Reagan tax cuts. I don't think he should make another mistake that he is going to have to repent for by not voting for the balanced budget amendment. I really am still hoping I can get him to change his ways and to come across here and help get this thing done. Because he, above all people in both bodies, knows how really irresponsible the Congress has been through these years.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just say this in response. The fact of the matter is, I do not think anybody escapes responsibility. But I know one thing, the Reagan tax cuts resulted in an increase of revenues because there was more opportunity, more investment, more creation of jobs, more people paying taxes. And we actually had more tax revenues come in by 40 percent over what was estimated. Where Reagan got into trouble--and I was here--was in the 1981 or 1982 tax bill. In order to get the marginal tax rate reductions that all of us knew would work--and they did, and this administration is benefiting from that to this day because the tax rates were 70 percent at that time. I have to admit they are outrageously high today, but they are not 70 percent. But, in order to get that, they had to agree, the President had to agree to all kinds of congressional spending programs. He wanted the marginal tax rate so bad because he knew that would create a good economy. And it did for 8 solid years, some say longer. And it is really one of the things that is benefiting this economy today, because the tax rates are so much lower than they were before Reagan took office. But then, in the 1986 tax bill, which I voted against, he wanted marginal rates reduced again, and to get that he had to give all kinds of concessions that I think helped trigger the S&L crisis. And it was Congress that did it. It was Members of both parties in Congress that did it. I do not think we can avoid the responsibility by just saying, well, the debt went up during the Reagan and Bush years, and now, with the biggest tax increase, it has come down as a total number. But it is still a $107 billion deficit this year, and next year it will be more. It is going up every year for the next 4 years until we are supposed to somehow conjure up 75-percent savings to bring it down in the 2 years after President Clinton leaves office, according to his budget.

Mr. HATCH. I understand.

Mr. HATCH. If I could----

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 1 more minute.

Mr. HATCH. I forgive you.

Mr. HATCH. No. They were.

Mr. HATCH. I said I admired the Senator for that.

Mr. HATCH. I kind of admired the Senator for it.

Mr. HATCH. The Senator was a part of the Congress.

Mr. HATCH. Not really.

Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. HATCH. What is the time for both sides?

Mr. HATCH. As well as some Presidential vetoes. That is true. I remember when President Ford used the veto some 60 times. He was vastly criticized by his political opponents for what he did. Now, I think there is plenty of blame for everybody involved--Presidents, but mostly Congress. See, I am not particularly picking on Presidents today. I am picking on us. The President can propose but we dispose. We are the ones who create these appropriations bills and these budget bills. We are the ones who have done the spending. We are the ones who have failed to get entitlement spending under control. We are the ones who have failed to reform Medicaid and Medicare that are going into bankruptcy. All money bills have to originate in the House of Representatives, and during all of the Reagan years the House of Representatives was controlled primarily by those of the liberal persuasion, in both parties I might add. I suspect you could say the Senate was, also, if you added up the liberals versus moderates and conservatives. I think there were more liberals in almost every year of the Reagan administration in both Houses of Congress. Frankly, I am not going to blame President Reagan. I am not going to blame President Bush. I am not going to blame President Clinton or President Carter. I might go back to President Johnson and say there were some problems there. That is when all these Great Society programs, all well-intentioned, many of which do good but many of which are out of control today, that is when they originated. I believe the distinguished Senator from West Virginia was here at that time

Mr. HATCH. If I could finish. I would like to finish. I want to make this point because the Senator has raised this. We did that. Congress did that. Congress is responsible primarily for this. I admit it could take some Presidential leadership from time to time, too.

Mr. HATCH. That is real debt. And let us just understand the basic principle of government. The President proposes, whoever that President may be, but the Congress disposes. To be honest with you, Reagan's tax cuts involved 40 percent growth in revenues more than they had predicted. But he had to deal primarily with the House of Representatives where all money bills must originate, controlled by those who did not agree with him, who kept spending. And that is Congress. And even those in the 1980's who did not agree with President Reagan and wanted to spend more in Congress, even they should not be totally blamed for this because this all began basically with the Great Society programs that have been going out of control ever since. We now have almost two-thirds of the budget in entitlement spending. I know President Reagan did not ask for that. Neither did President Bush, and neither, I guess you can say, has President Clinton. I do not even think President Carter asked for that. We did that.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I could answer that, I would be more than happy to. First of all, these are not props. These are real books. These are real unbalanced budgets, 28 of them.

Mr. HATCH. That is true.

Mr. HATCH. And $4.3 trillion.

Mr. HATCH. Now, be nice. Be nice.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there may be some responsible economists who are for putting capital budgets into the Federal Government's budget process. I personally do not know of any. If there are, I do not think that their arguments would stand up. To compare the State and the Federal Government, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia raises a good issue. You can't fully compare State budgeting with Federal budgeting. I agree with him. On the other hand, you can't say we should have a capital budget in the Federal budget because it is clear that the Federal Government doesn't operate like the States. We print the money. We don't have a referendum nor do we have a balanced budget amendment that would restrain the spending. If you have these huge loopholes, whether you have a balanced budget amendment or not, it just wouldn't work. Plus you have 50 States where it is pretty tough for State legislators in an individual State with a balanced budget amendment to fudge and fuzz up the language. In the Federal Government it is a lot easier. We just can't put this kind of language in there. It is just that simple. And if you do that, then you have made a loophole, an undefined loophole that would allow any subsequent Congress that is irresponsible--and we have had 28 years of irresponsibility. I mean all you have to do is look at this stack of unbalanced budgets for the last 28 years, and headed higher. I have to tell you. Here is one which I am just now discussing which is certainly going higher, this 1998 budget. Without the balanced budget amendment we are just lost. We are going to have more and more of this and less and less responsibility. I yield the floor.