Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Procedural or not, that is what this vote would be.

Mr. HATCH. Sure. That would be both procedural and substantive. Cloture votes are substantive and procedural.

Mr. HATCH. Well, where the vote is 50-50, where that is required, yes, but we are talking about a constitutional amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Let me finish.

Mr. HATCH. Neither would they be. In other words, what we are doing-- --

Mr. HATCH. No, you get cloture at 60----

Mr. HATCH. Well, I will miss my colleague.

Mr. HATCH. This has been a good colloquy. I will miss my colleague, and he teaches me a lot every time he comes to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. I would on the Senator's time. I think our time is running down. I know some others want to speak. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for both sides?

Mr. HATCH. I will yield on that basis, that this----

Mr. HATCH. I would like to. Listen, my friend from West Virginia, I am happy to accommodate him any time I can. I know how sincere he is. I know the efforts that he put forth this morning in making his eloquent statement. I am happy to yield, if he desires me to, at this time.

Mr. HATCH. Under those circumstances.

Mr. HATCH. I understand the distinguished Senator from Michigan would like to make his remarks. I have some remarks I would like to make immediately thereafter, so I ask unanimous consent I defer to him so he can make his remarks in support of the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, and then I would like to proceed immediately thereafter.

Mr. HATCH. I ask how much time the distinguished Senator from Michigan needs.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent he be permitted to speak for 8 minutes and then the floor return to me.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I did not realize the distinguished Senator from Connecticut had not finished his remarks. I will be happy to allow him to finish.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will proceed then on our time. I have to oppose this amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same. Senator Dodd has offered an amendment to section 5 of the balanced budget amendment. I might add, section 5 is a very important part of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. We realize that protecting the security of the Nation is the most important responsibility that we have. Indeed, it is the most important duty for any government. Thus, we have dealt with that problem in section 5 of the balanced budget amendment. In that provision, we allow the requirements of this amendment to be waived in two circumstances. One is ``any year in which a declaration of war is in effect.'' The other is when the Nation is ``engaged in a 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.'' Those are two very important protections. They protect us from all that the distinguished Senator has been talking about, and, frankly, his amendment, I think, gums this up pretty badly. The balanced budget amendment, therefore, deals with the two situations in the modern era in which the Nation faces a challenge to its ability to survive, situations in which there is a declared war between this Nation and another country and situations in which there is a military conflict that is unaccompanied by a declaration of war, but that nonetheless causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security. In those circumstances the authors of the balanced budget amendment believe that the Nation may need greater flexibility than the amendment otherwise allows. At the same time, the carefully balanced text of that provision makes sure that the circumstances in which such a waiver can be more easily accomplished are limited only to those situations in which such a waiver is necessary. I have the greatest respect for my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. We are very close friends, but his amendment would upset the balance that we have achieved in section 5. Senator Dodd's amendment would permit a waiver of the balanced budget amendment whenever we face a serious military threat by a simple joint resolution, but he explicitly removes the requirement that the resolution become law. That is troublesome in this context. Ordinarily, being silent about such a matter would be of no consequence. After all, any Member of this Chamber, like any Member of the House of Representatives, can introduce a joint resolution or can submit a resolution on this matter. The real work comes in getting a bill or a resolution passed. But here, by removing the requirement from section 5 of the BBA, [the balanced budget amendment], that the joint resolution ``become law,'' Senator Dodd's amendment could be read by an activist court as eliminating the requirement that the resolution actually become law. Thus, in order to waive the balanced budget amendment under the Dodd amendment, the President would not have to sign the resolution, would not have to put himself on the line, or herself on the line, and neither House of Congress would have to pass or even vote on the resolution. No committee would have to mark up the resolution. No hearings need be held. Apparently, all that it would require is that any Member of either body merely introduce a joint resolution declaring that the United States faces a serious military threat. That sole action would apparently suffice to waive the balanced budget rule for the entire fiscal year under the Dodd amendment. Clearly, that would be a bizarre state of affairs. I would be much more impressed with this amendment if it was sponsored by those who literally have been long-time supporters of a balanced budget amendment. Literally, this is an amendment that looks as though it is making every attempt to gut the balanced budget amendment. Madam President, both the balanced budget amendment waiver for national security and the Dodd amendment use the threshold phrase of ``an imminent and serious military threat to national security'' as being a situation in which the balanced budget amendment requirements could be waived. Even though both the balanced budget amendment and the Dodd amendment used that phrase, there are two critical differences between the two. The first critical difference is the following: Unlike the Dodd amendment, this amendment that is currently pending, the balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, that we want to pass, also requires that the United States actually be ``engaged in military conflict'' in order to waive the balanced budget rule by less than a three-fifths vote. By contrast, the Dodd amendment does not require that this Nation be engaged in such military conflict. In fact, the Dodd amendment would delete the term ``military conflict'' from the final balanced budget amendment. That alone is a significant difference between Senate Joint Resolution 1 and the amendment offered by our distinguished Senator from Connecticut. I understand what a military conflict is. It involves shooting, combat, or the like. By contrast, the term ``threat'' is far more expansive and far more pliable. That term embraces a broad range of situations that could fall far short of the type of circumstance in which section 5 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 as presently written would allow the balanced budget amendment's requirements to be waived. It is easy to imagine various events that could occur that would trigger the waiver provisions of the permissive Dodd amendment. For example, last year China fired several missiles in the vicinity of Taiwan, a valuable friend of the United States, as is China. That could have triggered the provisions of the Dodd amendment if somebody merely filed a resolution, pursuant to the Dodd amendment. The United States also has been witness to oil embargoes which also could trigger the Dodd amendment in the future. These events and others--you can go down a long list--would have allowed the Congress to easily waive the requirements of the balanced budget amendment if the Dodd amendment became part of the final, passed balanced budget amendment. Indeed, ever since the advent and proliferation of nuclear weapons, it could be cogently argued that the United States has ``faced an imminent and serious military threat to national security.'' You can argue that every year in a sense. And that threat would be presented not just by the republics of the former Soviet Union or by China, which are nuclear powers, but also by other countries that may be on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and so forth, by terrorist nations, to say nothing of any other weapons that may come along. So anyone who sought refuge or seeks refuge from the tough choices necessary to balance the budget could invoke this threat and waive the balanced budget rule. So it would never be effective, that is, if the Dodd amendment is adopted. That is just as clear as the amendment. The second difference between the balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, the amendment we are trying to pass as written, and the Dodd amendment is closely related to the first. The balanced budget amendment requires that the military conflict cause the imminent and serious military threat to national security. That would be the only circumstance under which the balanced budget amendment's requirements could be waived. The existence of a military conflict, therefore, is not sufficient by itself to allow Congress to escape the requirements of the balanced budget amendment. No. That military conflict also must have a particular effect; namely an imminent and serious military threat to national security. These two requirements in Senate Joint Resolution 1, Madam President, which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut would like to amend with this permissive language, are two important requirements. As much as we pray that these events do not occur, we must face the reality that there may be times when our Nation is at war. We also must face the reality that there may be times when our Nation is embroiled in a military conflict imminently threatening national security but unaccompanied by a formal declaration of war, such as occurred during the gulf war. When either such event occurs, the Nation and the Congress may need greater flexibility than the balanced budget amendment would allow. I am sure we all agree that protecting the survival and safety of our Nation is our most pressing responsibility. Senator Dodd's proposal does not serve these goals. His amendment is not designed to allow the military to deal with threats to national security that do not rise to the level already discussed by me. Nor is his amendment limited to permitting the military to increase spending to respond to such a threat. No. His amendment would waive all the requirements of the balanced budget amendment even though Congress has not declared war and even though the President has not committed our Armed Forces to a military conflict. His amendment provides an escape hatch for all other--for all other--situations. In short, Madam President, the Dodd amendment is a gigantic loophole. Its effect is to weaken and confuse the standard by which the balanced budget amendment may be waived and thus weakens the balanced budget amendment itself. In this age, it is well established that nations with greater economic power stand a much better chance of prevailing in sustained military conflicts. There is nothing that would be better for our economic strength than to pass Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. If we pass this loophole offered by the Senator from Connecticut, it will be abused and thus allow our debt to continue to increase. In years when we should be in balance, the debt will continue to pile up. Our children will be saddled with even more debt, and we will be woefully unprepared as a nation if it is ever necessary to defend our liberty in the future. By the terms of the President's proposed budget, we would spend nearly as much on net interest in the debt next year as we will on the defense needs of our Nation--just to pay the interest on the debt. That makes the need for the balanced budget amendment about as clear as it can be. If we continue to allow this debt to skyrocket, if we put loopholes such as this into the balanced budget amendment, if we do not stop this fiscal insanity that currently pervades our Nation, we will simply not have the economic strength to stand on our own militarily or to protect our interests in times of threat. There is nothing better for our Nation's defense than to adopt Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment, and be certain that we will have the economics necessary to keep our military the best equipped, best trained force in the world. Indeed, the Dodd amendment could be abused in a way that hurts our military preparedness. Congress could purposely underfund the military at the beginning of the fiscal year to use the extra funds for other programs. In fact, I suspect that is what is really deep down behind this. If we can waive the balanced budget for almost any reason that we call a threat to our national security, without the constraints that we have written in section 5, which is what the Dodd amendment would do, then those who want that to happen and want that loophole so that we can waive it any time we want to under almost any circumstances could spend more on liberal spending programs rather than really doing for the military what needs to be done. Our amendment requires them to do what is right for the national security interests of this country, if this matter is going to be waived. It requires the President and the Congress to take some responsibility in that matter, and it does not just waive all these obligations that we think have to be there. But under the Dodd amendment, they could underfund the military, knowing that during the course of the year they could take any international conflict and use it as a justification to waive the balanced budget amendment. In effect, if we pass this amendment by the Senator from Connecticut, those who support it would generate their own crisis by having purposefully underfunded the military. I mean, if we in fact abuse the way the balanced budget amendment would be used, that is what it would amount to under the Dodd amendment. Madam President, this sort of gaming of the system shows that the Dodd amendment is a risky gimmick that will endanger both our military readiness and our economic strength. I might add that the amendment that will come later on Social Security is even a more risky gimmick that will endanger Social Security for all of our senior citizens because they would take it off the budget so that it does not have to be dealt with not just in times of surplus, but in times of tremendous default and in times when there are not enough moneys there to run it. We have to keep it on budget to keep the pressure on everybody to do what is right to keep Social Security going for our seniors. Let me just take a few moments and elaborate on the military readiness issues. The Dodd amendment is too vague. It merely acknowledges the status quo--that there exists national security threats that are routinely handled by the readiness components of our defense budget. Its adoption could actually undermine our ability to provide a responsive surge to escalating threats to our vital interests. The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut does not acknowledge the differences of national security interests, nor does it tell us what is at stake. It is too broad, and by consequence so vague as to allow exceptions to the balanced budget amendment based on the status quo, day-to-day operation of our defense policy. To quote from former Secretary of Defense William Perry: Vital U.S. interests can be at risk when the United States or an ally is threatened by conventional military force, economic force, by economic strangulation, or weapons of mass destruction. These threats to vital interests are most likely to arise in a regional conflict and, by definition, may require military intervention. Madam President, as you can see, the Dodd amendment would allow the waiver of the balanced budget amendment at almost any time in our country's history where there is any kind of military threat that fits within the broad language that the then Secretary of Defense, in contrast, as seen from the statement, says that vital interests can be placed at risk by threat. And he continues, such threats by our vital interests ``may require military intervention.'' Senate Joint Resolution 1 complies with current defense thinking. It says that when the President takes a step beyond the normal acts of protecting national security interests and places our forces in harm's way, then should Congress, and only then should Congress, consider by majority vote suspending the balanced budget amendment restraints on defense spending. My next objection is that military spending is not and was never intended to be the only way to meet national security threats. In fewer words, still, Madam President, the amendment does not acknowledge either the multiple military and nonmilitary strategies that meet our national security requirements, nor does it appear to realize that we employ a military strategy only when diplomatic and other foreign policy remedies fail. Finally, the Dodd amendment contradicts and challenges some basic readiness, budgeting and programming concepts that both the President and the Congress support. The Secretary of Defense says, ``The number one priority of the Defense Department is maintaining the readiness and sustainability of U.S. forces.'' The concerns of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut are adequately covered by the program-budget process. This is explained by the Secretary of Defense as follows: The U.S. national military strategy outlines a broad spectrum of commitments, specifically that U.S. forces must be prepared to fight and win the nation's wars, deter aggression and prevent conflict, and conduct peacetime engagement. The same report goes on to say that ``U.S. forces are ready to meet these missions.'' Now, Madam President, the day-to-day national security risks that the Dodd amendment worries about are, as we can see, already inventoried and covered in our defense budget. Let me return to another statement of the former Secretary of Defense, William Perry: [The] challenge is to make sure the Department of Defense has the right resources allocated to the right purposes in support of readiness. Here, the Secretary emphasizes the need for the types of priority- making that the amendment before us would eviscerate since, again, everything under the DOD amendment becomes a priority. But, to balance this debate, let me turn to Secretary Perry, who wisely cautioned: Even with a solid foundation of readiness funds in the DOD budget, the costs of unbudgeted contingency operations can reduce resources to carry out training, maintenance, and other readiness-related activities. We share with Secretary Perry the need to stress readiness and the corresponding need to be able to respond to exceptional or contingency threats. In summary, Madam President, the balanced budget amendment as drafted offers a level of support to current defense planning that strengthens our defense policy. In stark contrast, the amendment of my friend from Connecticut would place our national security interests at a level of great risk by undermining the sound budget formulation, priority- making, and management practices that Congress and the President have worked out over the past decade. Now, I do not think I need to say anything more about the Dodd amendment. I hope that all my colleagues will vote it down because this amendment would just be another way of eviscerating or doing away with the effectiveness of Senate Joint Resolution 1, once passed by us and ratified by three-quarters of the States. We have adequately protected our national security interests the way article 5 is written, and we do it in a way that does not allow phony loopholes so the people can spend more on liberal projects. I guarantee you, if we adopt the Dodd amendment that will cause the amendment to be waived over for almost any reason. And all the moneys raised will probably not be for the military over the year the amendment is thrown out. Those moneys will be spent on liberal social programs, precisely what we want to emphasize. If we do waive the balanced budget amendment and we provide a means to do that during serious crises, if we do waive it then, we have to stand up and vote to do so and we do it because we have to bolster our military, and it can be done only under very rare circumstances where it really needs to be done. Under the Dodd amendment, it can be done under almost any circumstance, almost any time anybody files a resolution to do so. That would just plain do away with the effects of the balanced budget amendment. I think that is enough for me to say about the Dodd amendment. I take a few minutes now, because I think it is important to do so, to pay respect to my dear colleague and friend who spoke earlier on the floor, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Everybody knows the esteem that all of us have for the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. The Senate means as much to him as anybody who has ever sat in the Senate. This country means a great deal to him. He feels very deeply about his positions, and he argues them forcibly and eloquently. I really do, indeed, after having thought for quite a while about what he said this morning and early afternoon--he spoke for about an hour and 40 minutes, as I recall--I thought I should at least speak a little bit about that here today if I can. The balanced budget amendment is appropriate in its subject matter and approach to be included in the Constitution. It establishes a process-based control on the part of the Federal Government's spending abilities, specifically, on its ability to borrow. Inasmuch as borrowing affects all future Americans, our children and grandchildren, it is appropriate to place rules on the Federal Government to protect those Americans who will be affected but are not now represented in this political process. Now, Madam President, I call myself a student of the Constitution, and I do not undertake to amend it lightly. However, our history clearly shows the need for a balanced budget constitutional amendment if we are ever going to balance the budget. Although the text of Senate Joint Resolution 1 is modest in length, it is very significant. Its language has been worked out by Members of both parties over many, many years of fine tuning, and that language has now reached the point where it is a bipartisan, bicameral approach. Since constitutional amendments are of such importance, I will take a few minutes to walk through the provisions of the balanced budget amendment and discuss how they will cure us of our addiction to debt. Since the distinguished Senator from West Virginia did walk through these, I would like to maybe do the same. I will have more to say on this later.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, I yield if I do not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, of course the underlying amendment of the Senator from Connecticut threatens the very purpose of the balanced budget amendment. Even if he does make this small change of adding language that makes the resolution became law, this certainly would improve his amendment. That is a small matter. The reason he would have to do that, if his intention is that the resolution be passed by both bodies and signed by the President, is because he has deleted specifically our requirement that any resolution become law, meaning it passes both Houses and it is signed by the President. So there is no other way the court would construe it other than the way I have suggested it. But that is a small matter because Senator Dodd's new amendment, assuming that he modifies his current amendment, clarifies his intent in one regard. He would make it clear that a joint resolution must become law. That would be an improvement. But my other criticisms remain. There would be too many instances in which Senate Joint Resolution 1's requirements could be waived. Today, any action by a foreign nation can pose an imminent and serious military threat to our Nation. Under Senator Dodd's amendment, any such action would allow Congress to engage in increased social spending, and waive this balanced budget amendment. To me that is ridiculous. It isn't a protection. It is just another way to continue business as usual. I frankly am not for that, and I do not think most others will be either. Look closely at the Dodd amendment that allows all spending to increase--not just military spending. The ostensible purpose is to protect us militarily and our national security. But it waives the budget for all spending. It makes one wonder why. And it allows virtually any action by any country--certainly countries like Russia or China--to justify increased social spending. I have to admit that my colleagues are ingenious at wanting to keep the status quo going, and that is their right to unbalance the budget and spend and spend and spend so they can go home and claim, ``Look at what we are doing for you.'' They are putting us into bankruptcy. And all of us are doing it, both parties, without any restraint. Now they want to remove this restraint. To be honest with you, I think basically what people want to do is just keep business as usual. Secretary Perry in accepting the Dodd amendment would admit that the readiness principles are wrong that he articulated. For example, he would be saying that current threats are not covered. The Dodd amendment has no plan for a contingency. National security is always a justifiable budget buster regardless of the crisis of the moment. Let us just read the language that the Senator would change. The way the original amendment, the underlying amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1 reads, section 5 says, ``Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect.'' That is the same. ``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.'' That is what the current amendment says. That is a tremendous protection. Declaration of war or waiver by a joint resolution passed by the whole number, a majority of the whole number of both Houses, meaning a constitutional majority, which becomes law and signed by the President. Under those circumstances this balanced budget amendment can be waived. There are those who are strong supporters of the balanced budget amendment which didn't want this language in here. Senator Heflin and a number of us worked this out so that both sides would feel that they are adequately taken care of. But it is no secret. There are a lot of people who do not want this section at all because they believe that a patriotic group of Senators and Congresspeople would naturally waive the balanced budget amendment by a higher vote, by the three-fifths vote necessary to do it to put us into more debt to pay for it. But we have made it a much lesser standard. It will be a constitutional majority required by both Houses. Look at the way the distinguished Senator from Connecticut would have this read. ``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'' but in which the United States ``faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security.'' And then he strikes ``and is so,'' and then just says ``as declared by a joint resolution,'' period. I imagine he is willing to modify his amendment and add ``which becomes law.'' The ``which becomes law'' would make this amendment a little bit better. But, frankly, it doesn't solve the problem of the easy ability anybody would have for anything that can be called ``facing an imminent and serious military threat to our national security'' which can include almost anything. That would be the easiest way to waive this amendment at any time any social spending becomes the desire of the people and the Congress. And, by the way, that is what is causing our problems for 28 straight years now--social spending. I am so afraid I am going to knock these over sometime and squash somebody, and they would squash somebody. It would probably break somebody's leg. I have been told by a number of Senators that we are violating OSHA. Too bad OSHA doesn't have control over this separated power. But there is no other way to show to the American people just how really bad it is--28 straight years of unbalanced budgets. And now we are going to put changes in this amendment that would allow us to go to 29, 30, right up to 68 years, or more. We will never get it under control, if we have amendments like this. So we have to stand up and do what is right.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 11 a.m. on Thursday, February 13. I further ask that immediately following the prayer, the routine requests for the morning hour be granted and the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business until the hour of 3 p.m., with Senators to speak during the designated times: Senator Thomas, or his designee, in control of the time from 11 to 12 noon; Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Kennedy for up to 30 minutes each, between 12 and 1 o'clock; the time from 1 o'clock until 2 o'clock divided among the following Senators: Senator Grams for 20 minutes, Senator Domenici for 10 minutes, Senator Murkowski for 10 minutes, Senator Coats for 10 minutes, Senator Faircloth for 5 minutes; the time between 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock divided in the following fashion: Senator Graham of Florida, 10 minutes; Senator Kohl, 10 minutes; and Senator Hollings, 45 minutes.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Could we divide the time so the Republican time will be taken off our time and the Democratic time is taken off your time? It would be fairer.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. When I got the unanimous consent-agreement, I did so that all time would be divided equally. Can the Senator give me an indication of how long he will be speaking?