Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. On your time, I am happy to yield to the Senator, and if you need extra time, I am happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as always, I enjoyed the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. He is always colorful. He always uses a great number of metaphors that are very interesting. He is intelligent. He is competent. And he is formidable, one of the most formidable Senators in history. So it is very difficult for the Senator from Utah to be as formidable. But I can say this. If we are going to talk about Ezekiel and bones, dry bones, here is 28 years of it, 28 years of dry bones lying over everywhere with no sinews and no possibility of any sinews, in other words, resurrection, unless we do something to countermand this philosophy of taxing and spending the American people blind. My friend talks about Hannibal crossing the Alps. If my historical background is correct, the discussion of Hannibal in the Alps was by Livy, who wrote the ``History of Rome''. I think it was a little unfair to bring in 37 elephants. Actually, as I recall the estimate was at least 100 donkeys who, if Hannibal was alive today, would probably, as the good Democrat that he was, be trampling all over the balanced budget amendment with all of those donkeys--not elephants. I think the elephants would be nudging him forward to try to do what is right. What the distinguished Senator from West Virginia seems to be saying to me, and to the world at large, in his comments here today is that the estimates that we use in the budget system today are faulty. They have never been right. He does not take into account the fact that Congress has continually changed the rules in the bills and the spending practices throughout each year. And that is one of the reasons why the estimates have not been even close to being right in most cases. Therefore, he seems to be making this syllogism. We use faulty estimates now. It appears to him that we will not be able to prevent the use of faulty estimates if the balanced budget amendment is passed. Therefore, rather than do something that might put some discipline into the budgetary process, let us retain the current faulty system. His amendment does not address the problem he is raising. So the distinguished Senator seems to be arguing for the current unsatisfactory system, no change whatsoever. I have to add, these unbalanced budgets are higher than I am, I guess, or pretty close to it. The Senator argues for no change of the continuation of unbalanced budget after unbalanced budget, because there will not be any incentives to get the estimates right, will not be any incentives to stop Congress from continuing to spend and raise new spending programs every year that we are in this budget process. The balanced budget amendment would give us incentives to get things right. If there is a charade, if there is a joke, if there is a dodge, it is during each of these 28 years. I have been here 21 of them, and I am ashamed to say that every one of my 21 years in the Senate, we have had an unbalanced budget. The reason is because we do not have a good system, we do not have a constitutional mandate to force us to do what is right. That is what this amendment will do. Now, my friend says Americans do not trust their politicians. I think that is right. I think his points are well taken. The fact of the matter is, the reason they do not trust us is because they have seen 28 straight years of this, and for 58 of the last 66 years, we have had these kinds of unbalanced budgets. Now, is that a good argument for keeping the status quo, for continuing what we are doing and mortgaging the future of our children? I do not think so. I do not know anybody who looks at it carefully who would think so. There are hoptoads all over the current system, whatever a hoptoad is, but they are all over the current system. The system is not working. The reason it is not working is because there is no incentive to make it work other than to tax and to spend more. You get more credit for spending around here than you do for standing up and saying, ``Hey, where will the money come from?'' Some of my colleagues of the more liberal persuasion have been here longer than I have, and I have yet to hear some of them say, ``Where do we get the money for that program?'' No, they go ahead and spend away our children's future, spend away our grandchildren's future. Do not worry, have a good time now and let them pay for it. We have reached a point where every living man, woman, and child in this country owes about $20,000 as their share of the national debt right now, as we stand here. Yet, some are arguing for the status quo, a system that is not working, a system that will go on as a broken system, a system where there is no discipline. We have tried five different statutory plans since 1978 and none of them have worked. Now, I have to say if it was up to my friend from West Virginia and myself, I think we could get together.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with many others in Utah who have expressed their appreciation to Bill Hodson, director of the Salt Lake City Veterans Medical Center. Bill recently retired after many years of faithful service to our Nation's veterans from New Jersey to Arizona, including the last 11 years in Salt Lake City. These years have been ones of great accomplishment, not just for Bill personally, but for the VA. We have all, in one way or another, benefited from his innovation and determination. In 1992, Bill received the Secretary's Award for advancement in nursing programs. But, we in Utah owe Bill a particular debt of gratitude for his stewardship of our Salt Lake VA Medical Center. Bill Hodson led the way on a $30 million project to renovate the main building of the VA Medical Center for patient areas and ambulatory care clinics, successful management of a dynamic heart transplant program, and expanded research and training programs. The buildings and services that Bill has built will be a lasting legacy of Bill's leadership and commitment to public service. There can be no question that Bill was a highly able administrator; but, more importantly, his compassion and concern for others has earned him a special place in the hearts of veterans--and indeed all the citizens of Utah. Bill Hodson has been active in our community, particularly in the Greater Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America. This involvement clearly shows that he not only honors those citizens who have already contributed to our country, but also that he believes in our youth and their capacity for contributing to our future. We will miss him at the head of the Salt Lake VA Medical Center, but look forward to his continuing involvement in our community. I hope that as he reads this tribute, Bill is already sitting on a nice warm beach and enjoying the first well deserved fruits of retirement. I wish him all the best and hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing an exemplary public servant.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I report to the Senate the rules adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary as provided for in rule 26.2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. These rules were unanimously adopted by the committee in open session on January 23, 1997, and I ask that they be printed in the Record. The rules follow: Committee on the Judiciary Jurisdiction Rule XXV, Standing Rules of the Senate 1. The following standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Congress, and shall continue and have the power to act until their successors are appointed, with leave to report by bill or otherwise on matters within their respective jurisdictions: * * * * * (1) Committee on the Judiciary, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects: 1. Apportionment of Representatives. 2. Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting. 3. Civil liberties. 4. Constitutional amendments. 5. Federal courts and judges. 6. Government information. 7. Holidays and celebrations. 8. Immigration and naturalization. 9. Interstate compacts generally. 10. Judicial proceedings, civil and criminal, generally. 11. Local courts in the territories and possessions. 12. Measures relating to claims against the United States. 13. National penitentiaries. 14. Patent Office. 15. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks. 16. Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies. 17. Revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. 18. States and territorial boundary lines. Rules of Procedure 139 Cong. Rec. S1645 (daily ed. Feb. 16, 1993) I. Meetings of the Committee 1. Meetings may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary on three days notice or in the alternative with the consent of the Ranking Minority Member or pursuant to the provision of the Standing Rules of the Senate, as amended. 2. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or any Subcommittee shall file with the Committee, at least 48 hours in advance of the hearing, a written statement of his testimony in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes. 3. On the request of any Member, a nomination or bill on the agenda of the Committee will be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later. II. Quorums 1. Ten Members shall constitute a quorum of the Committee when reporting a bill or nomination; provided that proxies shall not be counted in making a quorum. 2. For the purpose of taking sworn testimony, a quorum of the Committee and each Subcommittee thereof, now or hereafter appointed, shall consist of one Senator. III. Proxies When a record vote is taken in the Committee on any bill, resolution, amendment, or any other question, a quorum being present, a Member who is unable to attend the meeting may submit his vote by proxy, in writing or by telephone, or through personal instructions. A proxy must be specific with respect to the matters it addresses. IV. Bringing a Matter to a Vote The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a rollcall vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority. V. Subcommittees 1. Any Member of the Committee may sit with any Subcommittee during its hearings or any other meeting, but shall not have the authority to vote on any matter before the Subcommittee unless he is a Member of such Subcommittee. 2. Subcommittees shall be considered de novo whenever there is a change in the Subcommittee chairmanship and seniority on the particular Subcommittee shall not necessarily apply. 3. Except for matters retained at the full Committee, matters shall be referred to the appropriate Subcommittee or Subcommittees by the chairman, except as agreed by a majority vote of the Committee or by the agreement of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. VI. Attendance Rules 1. Official attendance at all Committee markups and executive sessions of the Committee shall be kept by the Committee Clerk. Official attendance at all Subcommittee markups and executive sessions shall be kept by the Subcommittee Clerk. 2. Official attendance at all hearings shall be kept, provided that Senators are notified by the Committee Chairman and ranking Member, in the case of Committee hearings, and by the Subcommittee Chairman and ranking Member, in the case of Subcommittee hearings, 48 hours in advance of the hearing that attendance will be taken; otherwise, no attendance will be taken. Attendance at all hearings is encouraged.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to briefly respond to Senator Hollings concerning his remarks claiming that passage and ratification of the balanced budget amendment would harm the Social Security Program. As did Senators Dorgan, Reid, and Conrad at a press conference held yesterday, Senator Hollings claimed that a one-page memorandum, dated February 5, 1997, from the Congressional Research Service--which was inaccurately termed a ``study''--was characterized as proof that passage and ratification of the balanced budget amendment will harm Social Security. This is alleged to be true because the balanced budget amendment would not allow the present day surplus to be used in the future when the program goes into the red to pay benefits. The problem is that the CRS memorandum did not conclude that at all. All the CRS memorandum concluded was that Social Security existing surpluses after 2019--the year the program no longer produces surpluses because of the retirement of the baby boomers--could not be used to fund the program unless benefit expenditures were offset by revenue or budget cuts. Of course this is technically true. That's what a balanced budget does. It balances outlays and receipts in a given year, and expenditure of any part of the budget is an outlay. Despite what Senator Hollings alleges today, and Senators Conrad, Dorgan, and Reid claimed yesterday at their press conference, under current law, assets of the Federal Treasury could be drawn upon to ensure payments to beneficiaries today and when the system starts running annual deficits. To clear-up the confusion that the Conrad-Dorgan-Reid press conference created about the February 5 CRS memorandum, which Senator Hollings has apparently bought into, CRS produced another memorandum at Senator Domenici's request. I want to thank Senator Domenici for requesting this new CRS memorandum--dated February 12, 1997. This memorandum clearly states--and I quote--``We [that is CRS] are not concluding that the trust fund surpluses could not be drawn down to pay beneficiaries. The balanced budget amendment would not require that result.'' Senator Hollings and the other critics of the balanced budget fail to mention a few things. They fail to mention that CRS in the memorandum also concluded that the present day surpluses are merely ``an accounting practice.'' Past CRS studies clearly demonstrate that the Social Security trust funds are indeed an accounting measure. There is no separate Federal vault where Social Security receipts are stored. There exists no separate Social Security trust fund separate from the budget. Social Security taxes--called FICA taxes--are simply deposited with all other Federal revenues. The moneys attributed to Social Security are tracked as bookkeeping entries so that we can determine how well the program operates. As soon as the amounts attributed to FICA taxes are entered on the books, Federal interest bearing bonds are electronically entered as being purchased. This is the safest investment that exists. This country has a unified budget. This means that the proceeds from Social Security Taxes are part of the Treasury--of general revenue. CRS has recognized this. Moreover, I might add, without including the present day surpluses, the budget cannot be balanced. That is why President Clinton has included the Social Security funds in every one of his budgets. Did Senators Hollings, Conrad, Dorgan, and Reid oppose this? Senator Hollings also denies that we have a unitary budget. He says that the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act [BEA] placed Social Security off- budget. That, in fact, we have two budgets--one for Social Security and one for the rest of the Nation. Let me expand on the remarks I made yesterday concerning the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act and explain why Senator Hollings position is false. Under section 13301(a) of the act, the receipts and outlays of the Social Security trust funds are indeed not counted in both the President and Congress' budgets. So it is off- budget, but for only certain specific reasons. The primary purpose for this exclusion was to exempt Social Security from sequestration by the President under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings procedures and from the act's pay-as-you-go requirement. In addition, as added protections, sections 13302 and 13303 of the BEA also created firewall point-of-order protections for the Social Security trust funds in both the House and Senate. Nevertheless, this does not preclude both Congress and the President from formulating a unitary budget--that includes Social Security trust funds--for national fiscal purposes. Look, I recognize that Social Security is in danger. But the problem is not the inclusion Social Security funds in the budget. The problem is that with the retirement of baby boomers, there will not be enough FICA taxes to fund their retirement. CRS, in an other study, concluded that the present day surpluses would not be sufficient to resolve this problem. These Senators never mention that. CRS also concluded that the Social Security Program needs to be fixed. Indeed, not including Social Security in the budget would harm the program. Congress would rename social programs--as they have done before--as Social Security and use the FICA taxes to fund these programs. Then you'll really see the program raided. My colleagues problem--in reality--is not with the balanced budget amendment, but with the problems the Social Security Program faces. We need to fix that and adopting the balanced budget amendment is a good start.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. We also know it is accounting.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. We are not. If we pass this through the Senate--hopefully, within the next week or so--by the requisite two-thirds vote, and it passes through the House by the requisite two-thirds vote, that is a notice to everybody in these two bodies that we better start hustling to get a real balanced budget by 2002, where all of us know that the only part of the President's budget that really counts is next year's budget. It is not the budget as extrapolated out to 2002, especially since 75 percent of it is balanced in the last 2 years after he leaves office. No, it is this next year, and each year thereafter. If we passed this and it is submitted to the States, I can't predict what the States would do. I believe they would ratify this amendment if we have the guts to pass it through both Houses of Congress. And if they ratify this amendment, then, by gosh, I have to tell you that I think the game will be over. We will not be able to do this anymore. There will have to be rollcall votes under the same terms.

Mr. HATCH. Certainly.

Mr. HATCH. I think it takes guts both ways.

Mr. HATCH. We will not be able to get around these things with voice votes. We will have to stand up and vote by rollcall.

Mr. HATCH. But we don't, and there is nothing that requires us to do so, necessarily.

Mr. HATCH. Let me answer the distinguished Senator's question. It is a good question. The reason that I think we will be more accurate afterwards is because the incentives will switch. The incentives will switch because unless we balance the budget year after year and start working toward surpluses and not working on deficits, we are going to be in real trouble constitutionally, and we all know that. There will no longer be the game that occurred during the 1980 and 1996 years, as shown by the Senator's very interesting chart. I think that makes one of the best cases I have ever seen for the balanced budget amendment, because the current system is not working.

Mr. HATCH. Always.

Mr. HATCH. Although I tend to share the Senator's view on the line- item veto, I think the Senator would have to admit there is a question whether that is going to be judged constitutional or not. If we pass a balanced budget amendment, it will become an official part of the Constitution, which is a considerably different situation.

Mr. HATCH. Senator Simon thinks so. One reason why he----

Mr. HATCH. I understand. What Senator Simon argued last year as the leading proponent of this amendment was that he felt there would be a greater propensity to increase taxes to solve these problems. I have to say that I do not believe that is so, but that is what he felt. I do not think that is so. I think it would be very difficult to get constitutional majorities to increase taxes except where they are clearly needed to be increased, and that is why we put in a constitutional majority. Now, it is no secret, and my friend knows this, that there are those on my side who do not think that is adequate.

Mr. HATCH. Do not think that is adequate. They want a three-fifths majority before you can increase taxes. But the reason we have a constitutional majority is because my friends on the Democratic side would not agree with the three-fifths majority.

Mr. HATCH. Well, I have to ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, if this balanced budget amendment passes, as much as he wishes that it would not, and it is ratified by the States, would the Senator from West Virginia, once it is placed in the Constitution, not do his level best to comply with the constitutional requirement, if the amendment is adopted, to meet these estimates that are in there, as he suggested that I would do my duty under the Constitution? I think what I am saying is this: Both charts that the Senator has put up, show that the current system is not working.

Mr. HATCH. The reason I point out the current system is not working is because there are not the same pressures to make it work that there would be under a balanced budget amendment. Second, if we have these wild fluctuations under the balanced budget amendment, there is going to be an awful lot of heck to pay to our voting populace, because they are going to hold us responsible for these wild fluctuations.

Mr. HATCH. They are not doing it now because they do not know who is responsible for them. If we have to stand up and vote and make supermajority votes to spend and borrow more, then they will know who is doing it to them. If we have to make a constitutional majority to increase taxes, they will know who is doing it to them. I have to say, if we do not, as a congressional body, have our CBO do better numbers, and the OMB as the executive body do better numbers, then there are going to be changes that will get them to where they have to do better numbers. Will they always be accurate? There is no way we will always be completely and absolutely accurate.

Mr. HATCH. Sure, under the same circumstances.

Mr. HATCH. I am sorry, I missed the question. Excuse me.

Mr. HATCH. Well, let me put it this way. I don't have to ask that question. I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would. But I asked it rhetorically because I know that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would do all in his power to live up to the Constitution, even though he disagreed with the provision of it, once it is part of the Constitution. As would I. And, frankly, I think that he is not alone. I think there are as many as 535 others in Congress who would, likewise, try to live up to the constitutional amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Sure. I will be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just respond to that. Even, in spite of the reductions in deficit that have occurred over the last 4 years after the enactment of one of the largest tax increases in history--some on our side say the largest tax increase in history; it is debatable, but it is one of the two largest tax increases in history, both of which, I think, were motivated by Members on the other side of the aisle--we are still in hundred-plus billion dollar deficits, going up to $188 billion and on up beyond that by the year 2002. The fact of the matter is, if it was up to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Utah, we would have the will.