Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. That's right.

Mr. HATCH. Other than the ones I have listed.

Mr. HATCH. Sure.

Mr. HATCH. When we sent troops to Saudi Arabia?

Mr. HATCH. Well, we already had had attacks by the Iraqis and we were there to protect our people. I would say that.

Mr. HATCH. One thing about lend-lease that I felt was very important is that during that period of time if we had any deficits at all, they were very minor.

Mr. HATCH. Before that they were minor in comparison to what we have today.

Mr. HATCH. Sure, we were.

Mr. HATCH. They were moving forces and materiel and----

Mr. HATCH. It may not be, until we shot the first shot, but the fact is that is what happened, and when it did happen, I cannot imagine either House of Congress not voting to provide a constitutional authority to provide whatever help the military needed.

Mr. HATCH. You don't think moving billions of dollars worth of military force into the Persian Gulf----

Mr. HATCH. That might be an argument in this body. If it is, then those who want to increase military spending or waive this budget, all they have to do is get a constitutional majority to do so. We are just saying it should not be easy to waive the constitutional amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Hardly.

Mr. HATCH. Hardly. What we are saying is if it's an actual conflict and something that deserves the United States of America risking its soldiers and its young men and women, then the President ought to declare a war or come up here and say, ``I want a constitutional vote to support me.''

Mr. HATCH. Not when it comes to our young men and women. Give me a break.

Mr. HATCH. True, and those debates----

Mr. HATCH. If I could regain my control of the floor?

Mr. HATCH. I don't think a majority would vote to do that. But I am saying that is what this amendment would allow a majority to do, a simple majority. We are saying that is wrong. We have provided enough of a safety hatch to protect the country the way the amendment is written. If we adopt the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, my goodness gracious, we could have the balanced budget amendment waived for a year any time we want to and it would just nullify the effectiveness of the balanced budget amendment. I do not see anything wrong with the President either declaring war or coming up here to make a case he needs more money for the military, but he or she ought to come up here----

Mr. HATCH. No, I am not yielding here. I want to finish my comments.

Mr. HATCH. I will yield to my colleague, but I would like to be able to at least finish a sentence now and then, or at least once in a while. I think it is very important that Presidents make their case, and I think Presidents can make their case, whoever the future Presidents would be. I think we would be very loathe to reject a President's case that the national security is being threatened. I cannot imagine the Congress doing that, to be honest with you, since the Second World War. Up to then we kind of blithely went along, acting like nothing is ever going to happen because we are way over here. This is now a very small world, and our country knows we have to back keeping ourselves strong because we are, frankly, the bulwark for freedom all over the world. One thing I really don't think we should do, and I think a vast majority in this body will also not think we should do, is to make it possible to waive this amendment at the mere majority vote of some future Congress, just because somebody alleges, through a resolution, that there is some imminent threats. I yield to my colleague from Idaho.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield for a question, but could I yield on your time?

Mr. HATCH. I understand.

Mr. HATCH. I am undertaking to explain some of them. I believe that I will do so some more tomorrow or when we get back from recess. But I am making an effort to do some explanation here today. And, hopefully, I am explaining away some of the difficulties that the distinguished Senator has raised.

Mr. HATCH. I will say that I will make more specific responses later.

Mr. HATCH. I believe any reasonable interpretation of section 6 knows that there is no way--and the distinguished Senator was right when he made the comment earlier in the day--that there is no way of absolutely being accurate on estimates. We have to do the best we can to estimate the outlays and receipts at the beginning or at some time during each year for the next succeeding year. There is just no question about it, because there is no way we can absolutely predict what will happen in the future. But I think through implementing legislation we can resolve the budgetary problems with regard to estimating outlays and receipts in a way that would be workable. And we would have to do so under this amendment.