Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield, in the last sentence, the operative underlined that I see is the word ``can'' require. They do not have to do so. But they can. They also have the option, if I understand, to rescind, retroactively tax, or ``by a three-fifths vote''--and you did not read the rest of that, but ``by a three-fifths vote impose a balanced budget.'' So there are options available, are there not, to the Congress and to the President under the balanced budget amendment?

Mr. SANTORUM. I am not moving.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you.

Mr. SANTORUM. You asked me. You permitted me to ask questions. So I was complying.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct. I am sure the Senator knows that does not mean that all expenditures or outlays have been in fact expended. So we could rescind. We could, as has been done here, retroactively tax. There are all sorts of options available to satisfy that amendment after the fact. Is not that the case?

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct. At that point we will have to have satisfied that condition. Correct?

Mr. SANTORUM. That is exactly right. That was my point. You will not know whether you have met the charge of the constitutional amendment until the end of the year.

Mr. SANTORUM. My question to you, Senator, is the language from the constitutional amendment is very clear, that at the end of the fiscal year revenues will not exceed--excuse me. Expenditures will not exceed revenues. That is very clear.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. That is exactly my point. It is very clear that it says it ``shall not exceed'' and the suggestion that you have made is that a $75 billion deficit would be permitted under the Constitution, it seems to me.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator from West Virginia will yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. I have read it on many occasions, just here today.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, does the plain, unmistakable, clear language say the budget ``shall'' not? I mean, is not that very clear from the language, that it ``shall'' not be?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield for an additional question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wanted to finish up what little colloquy and discussion we had just a short while ago with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I wanted to continue that debate, but in deference to my colleague from North Carolina, I allowed him to make his presentation. But there was a couple of things I just wanted to bring closure to before we move on to the next round. The point the Senator from West Virginia was alluding to was section 1 of the bill: Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year * * * It is unenforceable, unworkable; these estimates will throw you all off; the estimates do not work; they are not reliable. And as a result this is an unenforceable constitutional amendment that is going to cause all sorts of unconstitutional activities in this Chamber. I mentioned to him that we must look down to the next section, section 2, which states: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for an increase, for such an increase by rollcall vote. There is the enforcement; that once we get to the balanced budget, or once we get to where the debt limit is, that we cannot increase that debt limit without a three-fifths vote. That means we cannot incur a debt or a deficit from any year because if we incur a debt and do not raise the debt limit, then we cannot issue obligations to pay for that deficit, which means that would be in a sense a default of certain obligations. Now, that is the enforcement. That is the mechanism that drives section 1, that makes us get better estimates. I believe, as I am sure the Senator from West Virginia believes, that we will get better estimates and they will be more ongoing, they will not be every 6 months but will be on a more frequent basis so we can calculate what the correct number will be at the end of the fiscal year so we can hit pretty close to zero and hopefully hit a surplus. That is the enforcement. That is what makes all of this discussion about estimates, frankly, irrelevant to the enforcement of this act because the enforcement is the debt limit provision. That is what forces us to come in with a balanced budget, irrespective of what the estimates say. The response then was, well, you are creating a minority veto; that the minority is going to have all this power because it is going to be a supermajority that is going to be required to raise the debt limit. I would just suggest I have the distinct feeling that we are here because we have a minority veto, that we have been talking about this bill for 2 weeks because of a minority veto; that we will be filing a cloture motion soon and we will find out whether there is a minority veto. This place runs on minority veto. The minority veto is the hallmark-- as the Senator from West Virginia said during his discussion, things come over here to cool down a little bit, to cool down. I saw a movie the other day, ``Encino Man,'' not exactly the greatest movie that was ever made, but Encino Man was about a Cro-Magnon man and his spouse who were hit by an avalanche. Now, that is cool down. And they were encased in ice. And the Encino Man as a result of an earthquake was uncovered, and the ice block that he was encapsulated in thawed, and he came to life. avalanched to the point where we are going to be encapsulated in ice and not be able to act and do anything on this balanced budget amendment, and when we wake up it will not be as happy a world as what the Encino Man faced. When we wake up, we may have desperation, despair, and economic collapse in this country because we simply chose to cool things off. We cannot afford to cool things off any more. The more we cool things off here, the hotter it gets out there. We have an obligation to act. Do not talk about minority vetoes. We have seen plenty of that around here on this issue. And I suspect the Senator from West Virginia likes that fact, of having that minority veto. As the Senator from Kansas, Mrs. Kassebaum, said, maybe it is a bad idea whose time has come, but it is a necessary evil that we have to put on to this country to get our financial act in order for the next generation of Americans. I do not want to be the first generation of American leaders to leave the next generation worse off than we are and worse off than my grandparents were, and that is what we are standing on the precipice of if we do not act today. I am hopeful we will. I am confident we will. I do trust the better angels of our nature in this place. I know there is a lot of activity going on that is trying to cloud this issue, but I fundamentally believe that people in this Chamber will do the right thing when called upon and they will stand up for the future of this country. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. I do not think we have anyone lined up at this point to speak. I was going to speak for about 5 minutes and then I am going to sit.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would suggest to the Senator from West Virginia he read section 2 of the article, which requires a three-fifths vote to increase the debt limit.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. I am sure I will. Thank you.

Mr. SANTORUM. I do not.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator from West Virginia will yield for a question, Mr. President, does that letter that you read to me as an example violate the constitutional amendment?

Mr. SANTORUM. Are you arguing that is outside the purview of the balanced budget amendment--what they are doing is outside? That would be violative of the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am not suggesting there is. I am suggesting what they are doing is the responsible thing. Is it not your understanding that what they are saying is that they want to offset new expenditures with spending cuts from someplace else in the budget?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, would it not be in keeping with the balanced budget amendment that they would offset so that the deficit would show zero based on that particular transaction?

Mr. SANTORUM. Which would then comply with the balanced budget amendment, would it not?