Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Very briefly.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. Does the Senator have time left?

Mr. SANTORUM. I disagree. It has been law in this country for as far as I know. The only situation where that could be a problem is if all due process, all other court access is denied. If we provide for some court access, which I am sure we will, if we provide for some court access, then I think it is very clear that they will not have other recourse--as long as we provide an avenue to the courts. We have the power to do that, to direct what avenue they take. If we say in the implementing legislation that there will be no access, I think the Senator might have a point. But I do not think we are going to do that. But I think that is a discussion for another day, not to insert in the Constitution in this amendment a complete prohibition of all court activity because I think that overreaches.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will briefly yield and then I wish to respond to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. SANTORUM. If I can take my time back, I would agree with the Senator that I think we could run into problems if we denied every access to the courts. I am suggesting that I do not believe that will be the case. I think there will be some sort of relief provided for in the implementing legislation. And if we did not, I think we would have some sort of constitutional question. But I am saying that is an issue we should bring to the floor and discuss, but we should not do a complete ban on any kind of redress to the courts. I think it is unwise just from a policy perspective. But I think it does not have a place in the Constitution as far as I am concerned.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.

Mr. SANTORUM. All I would suggest is that implementing legislation certainly must follow. It is a certainty that it will follow this legislation, and I think we will provide, I know we will provide some remedies therein to provide for redress of this grievance with respect to the question that the Senator from Michigan brought up. It is a good question. The question is whether a citizen or someone would have standing to bring here. Standing is one issue. Whether they would be successful is another issue. Standing is the first hurdle that someone must pass. With respect to that question, there is a three-part test that is used, that has been used for quite some time, and number one, the citizen must show injury in fact. I think that is a very high hurdle, for one individual to show a personal injury due to the fact that we have an unbalanced budget, and in fact we have cases that are very clear on that: Frothingham versus Mellon, a very old Supreme Court case still in effect, a 1923 case, says that allegations that amount to generalized grievance are not justiciable. That to me is a pretty clear indication that you have a high burden upon just the first leg of this three-part test to cover. No. 2, you have to show that one particular piece of legislation caused the unbalancing. Well, which one caused the unbalancing? How do you go about attacking that one as the one that did it? I think that also raises a very difficult question. And finally--and we have talked about this briefly--whether it is a redressable grievance. What can the Court do to solve this problem? And you run into the political question doctrine and a whole lot of other things about whether the Court can reach over into article I and impose taxes under a balanced budget amendment. I think that is a very tall order, for the courts to say that they have that kind of power in that branch of the Government when it is very clear that article I says that Congress has the power to tax and to spend.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wanted to make a couple of comments about some of the arguments that have been made today with respect to this amendment. I think it is a good amendment in the sense that it brings the very important issue to light of how we will deal with natural disasters under the strictures of the balanced budget amendment. I will first state that we have 7 years before we have to get to a balanced budget. And during the first 6 years, there are no strictures at all placed on either body, other than the ones now in place with respect to the Budget Act, to passing supplemental emergency appropriations bills. For the first 6 years, we are pretty much under the same rules we have been, which I see as an opportunity, as Senator Simon suggested, with respect to the overall budget, but I think even more particular with respect to emergency appropriations, for us to be able to build up reserve funds over the next 6 years, specifically targeted for this kind of emergency. We know emergencies will occur. We have had votes on emergency supplementals just since my election in 1990 to the House. We have had 16 such votes in the House and Senate. Under the 1990 Budget Act, which put in a high hurdle to get an emergency supplemental appropriation passed, we have done that. I think what we should do is understand that emergencies will occur and we should set aside some funds to be available for that purpose. We have 6 years between now and the year 2002 when we have to get to the balanced budget to accumulate money in that account. So I suggest that that might be an effort that the Senator from California and others from other States who are subject to more natural disasters than other States would work on and hopefully implement. The other point I wanted to make is with respect to the margin with which all of these supplemental appropriations since the 1990 Budget Act have passed. We have had 16 such votes in the U.S. Senate. All 16 passed with greater than a 60-vote margin. Every single one of them would have passed under the constitutional amendment that we are now considering, which requires a 60-vote margin here in the Senate, requires three-fifths. All of those would have passed here and we would have, in a sense, waived the constitutional requirements for a balanced budget here in the Senate. All but two would have passed in the House of Representatives. The only two that would not have passed is one having to do with the Los Angeles riots; and it was a very controversial aid package because of some of the measures that were put in it, controversial measures that were put in for the city of Los Angeles. I do not think anyone had any problem with providing financial assistance to the riot-torn areas of Los Angeles, but there were some measures that were included that caused some controversy; but that was a close vote, relatively close. The other had to do with extension of unemployment benefits in 1993, which was a relatively close vote in the House. Both of which, I think you can make the argument with respect to some of the pork that was in the Los Angeles riot bill and the need in 1993 when in the middle of the President's debate on passing his deficit reduction package that we were going to throw more money to unemployment benefits without paying for it, both had legitimate reasons for objections in the House. But I think it just goes to show you that when this country, when this body and the other body is faced with a natural disaster, such as the earthquake that Senator Boxer has been referring to, we stepped to the floor and in overwhelming numbers passed the disaster assistance. I will refer to the Northridge, CA, earthquake last year, the disaster in 1994, 337 to 74 in the House and 85 to 10 in the Senate. The Midwest flood, a flood in the Mississippi River and other rivers in the Midwest, 400 to 27 in the House, and it was voice voted in the Senate, which shows fairly unanimous support here in the Senate. When the disasters are serious, when people are in need, we understand we have an obligation to respond to that and we do in overwhelming numbers. We do not need an amendment to this constitutional amendment to solve this problem. We will solve it on our own and we have met and will continue to meet the expectations of the public when such disasters occur to this country. So, while I support the intention of the amendment of the Senator from California, I think it is unnecessary. And I believe if it truly is a disaster the House will go ahead--they do not have a supermajority provision right now; they can pass bills over there with a simple majority. Here in the Senate, we, in a sense, have a supermajority requirement already. We have filibusters here and we have cloture votes. Most legislation around here, if it is somewhat controversial, has to get that 60-vote requirement to pass. And so we already have what the constitutional amendment would require of us here in the Senate. Really, all this constitutional amendment does is put a little higher burden on the House. And I do not think that is a bad idea. I think, in fact, it may screen out some ``emergencies,'' like some of the ones I described here, make those bills that respond to those emergencies be cleaner and directly targeted to the aid, as opposed to Christmas treeing it with a whole bunch of other projects that Members of the Senate and House may want to attach. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. That was the 1984 earthquake supplemental which passed 85 to 10 which would have met the scrutiny. What you are referring to is an amendment that failed. That, obviously, would not require a three-fifths vote. An amendment to a supplemental appropriations would not be violative of the balanced budget amendment. What finally happened----

Mr. SANTORUM. What happened is 85 to 10 on final passage of that bill.

Mr. SANTORUM. If I can reclaim my time. The fact of the matter is that bill passed 85 to 10, which is well in excess of two-thirds. An amendment is not under the strictures of a three-fifths majority. I believe the Senator from California is aware of that. I will be happy to yield back the time.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield, I have a question for the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer]. She keeps referring to a 52 vote on something. I am looking at all these disasters since 1987. I do not see anything here that says 52 votes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Can I reclaim my time?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. To listen and to learn. I was just questioning--

Mr. SANTORUM. Is the Senator asking me to yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. So we are past the point in which you asked me a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am trying to find the page which the Senator is citing.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is the safeguard against deficits. We cannot just incur a deficit because we have to raise the debt limit. We cannot raise the debt limit without a three-fifths majority. Thereby we are bound to do something about the deficit. So we will be forced, as the Senator from Illinois was saying--here is the enforcement. Here is the teeth right within the constitutional amendment. Section 2 requires us to have a vote on debt limit increase, and when we get to zero we will have the debt limit and we should not have to change it ever. That is the enforcement mechanism. That makes us come here and do something about it to comply with section 1 of the constitutional amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. I was going to answer his question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if the Senator from West Virginia will yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if the Senator from West Virginia will continue to yield for a question, so the numbers that the Senator is saying are in error, the inaccurate estimates, are estimates that were made 21 months prior to the end of the fiscal year, correct?

Mr. SANTORUM. It is February.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I wish to go back to that chart and again try to find out specifically what data the Senator is referring to there. I just had someone look up the 1974 Budget Act and the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Enforcement Act to find out what the timeframe was for estimates to be given. And my understanding is that--I am sure the Senator knows the 1974 Budget Act; he was one of the principal writers of it--the Office of Management and Budget submits a beginning-of-the-year budgetary assessment on February 1, which just occurred the other day. They make a midseason review in July or August. That is under the Budget Act of 1974. The Congressional Budget Office makes a beginning- of-the-year--which is the end of January--assessment after OMB makes its assessment and then an end-of-July reassessment. My question is, the Senator referred to this data being May, roughly May, springtime, after all the budget resolutions were passed. I do not see any requirement for a report here, and I am wondering if in fact this data is not February data as opposed to May or June data.

Mr. SANTORUM. Are we still under the unanimous consent which he has yielded to me so I can respond, or do I need to ask?