Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me just carry the question a step further. Do you think that implementing legislation can rewrite provisions of a constitutional amendment?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, do you think that the implementing legislation could be used to clarify the discrepancy in view that was outlined here earlier on the floor as to whether a Vice President has the power to break a tie? Could that be clarified by the implementing legislation?

Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator that is certainly a consistent reading of the meaning ``for any fiscal year.'' At least it is being read the same way in the second sentence as it was read in the first sentence according to the committee report. Now, that is not the answer the Senator was giving us because he was giving a completely opposite view of the meaning ``any fiscal year'' in sentence 1 and in sentence 2. But it only underscores the problems with this amendment. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania came to manage the bill during this time period. The Senator had--I assume now it has changed-- a perception of the meaning of this proposed amendment to the Constitution which I am now told he is withdrawing.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, what is your view? Is your view the committee's report or is your view the answer which you gave yourself just a couple minutes ago?

Mr. SARBANES. So, the answer you gave me earlier is not correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Which is correct then, your answer or the committee report?

Mr. SARBANES. In section 5. That is not what you told me a few minutes ago. Is that right?

Mr. SARBANES. For which sentence?

Mr. SARBANES. How can the phrase ``for any fiscal year,'' which is identically the same phrase in sentence 1 and sentence 2, be given diametrically opposite definitions? You just told me that the phrase ``for any fiscal year'' in sentence 1, linked to a declaration of war, means that it can be waived for not only the current fiscal year but fiscal years beyond that. Now the Senator tells me in sentence 2, ``waive for any fiscal year'' means only the fiscal year in which you find yourself and not subsequent fiscal years. Now, how can the Senator give that phrase an entirely different interpretation? which says: ``For any fiscal year, in effect, is intended in the first sentence of this section to require a separate waiver of the provisions of any amendment each year.''

Mr. SARBANES. I ask the Senator, what does it mean? What is your understanding of the meaning? Would you have to have a waiver for each fiscal year?

Mr. SARBANES. Once a Vice President has been chosen----

Mr. SARBANES. It says: The Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But the choice is picking the Vice President. It does not answer the question that the Vice President can cast the tie-breaking vote.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, that was exactly the point I was going to make. The Senator from Pennsylvania got up and said, ``Well, if you want to know what this language means here of the majority of the whole number, just refer to amendment 12.'' Now, amendment 12 has to deal with picking the Vice President. There is not a Vice President. And it says----

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield to me? Because the analogy--

Mr. SARBANES. I think the Senator from West Virginia is absolutely correct. But what is going to draw the court in even more is the fact that two principal sponsors of this measure give absolutely contrary views as to the meaning of this clause, as the Senator from Michigan has pointed out. One of the chief House sponsors says that under section 4 the Vice President would have the tie-breaking vote. The distinguished Senator from Utah, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the lead manager for this bill, very explicitly stated on the floor of the Senate not too long ago that you would have to produce 51 votes out of 100 in with the Vice President supposedly casting a tie-breaking vote would not work. In effect, you have negated the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President. This is important in underscoring all of the pitfalls that are contained in this provision. I am certain it will bring about what the Senator from West Virginia has just stated, and that is the involvement of the courts, because the legislative history on this is absolutely contradictory on the part of its proponents.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. That has nothing to do with the Social Security System. It is terribly important for the American played with the Social Security trust fund, as was just indicated, in effect, by my colleague from New Hampshire, if they do not understand. The Social Security trust fund is more than paying for itself. People receiving Social Security owe no apology on the deficit question, because the trust fund currently is not only paying its way, it is running surpluses, which in an accounting sense are used to offset the size of the deficit. Now, the other side would obviously want to use those, and many of us feel that should not be done. In the 1980's, when the Social Security trust fund ran into some difficulties, we took the measures of reducing benefits and raising Social Security taxes in order to put the Social Security trust fund back into a healthy position. That is exactly what we did. This is an effort to raid the Social Security trust fund. It is implicit in this balanced budget amendment, and to some extent was made explicit the other day with the tabling of the Reid amendment, which sought to make it very clear that it could not be tapped or drawn on. It needs to be understood the Social Security system is paying its way. We have other so-called entitlements that are not, but the Social Security trust fund is more than paying its way. That needs to be understood, and this assault on the Social Security system needs to be repudiated.

Mr. SARBANES. The Social Security System is not only paying its way, it is, in fact, running a surplus.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, the Social Security System is paying its way.

Mr. SARBANES. It also cut spending.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will tell the Senator. First of all, it boggles the imagination that we are hearing this argument from someone who voted against the 1993 deficit reduction package. All of the situation that the Senator is talking about would be far worse had the Senator prevailed on that vote. There are tough decisions to be made. Everyone recognizes that. Because they are tough to make it is very difficult to get a majority for them. What the Senator is doing is escalating the standard from a majority to a supermajority. So the Senator is making it even tougher to make the tough decisions, not easier. The Senator is putting more power into the hands of the minority to frustrate or to thwart the effort. Where I disagree with the Senator is, in his assumption, that all of these waivers will be granted in a time of crisis. If we go back through our history, it does not support the Senator. Historically, when we come up against these situations they are often very divisive and very controversial and action in the end is taken by a bare majority. I went through at great length earlier the example of the extension of the service requirement under the draft in 1940. Clearly, that was important to the national security of the country. I am quoting from that article: In an effort to depoliticize the issue as much as possible, Roosevelt and Secretary of War Henry Stimson designated Army Chief of Staff George Marshall as the administration's point man on the Hill. Marshall worked tirelessly but found converts difficult to come by despite his tremendous prestige on Capitol Hill. ``You put the case very well,'' one Republican Congressman told him, ``but I will be damned if I am going to go along with Mr. Roosevelt.'' The vote was set for Monday August 11, but Rayburn put it off for one day out of respect for a Republican Member who had died over the weekend. With the President out of town meeting secretly in Newfoundland with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, to nail the Atlantic Charter, Rayburn spent the additional day roaming the corridors of Capitol Hill trying to win over recalcitrant Democrats and wavering Republicans. His lobbying style was like the man himself, honest, direct, and intensely personal without a hint of intimidation. Here is Rayburn himself, walking the corridors. Here is General Marshall, one of the really great statesmen of American history, a man for whom I have enormous respect and admiration, working--as they say here ``Worked tirelessly but found converts difficult to come by despite his tremendous prestige on Capitol Hill.'' When the vote came, it was 203-202. That vote would not qualify under the provisions of your balanced budget amendment proposition here. We would not have been able to respond to this national crisis. The Senator earlier said to me if they had known they needed a three-fifths requirement they would have gotten more votes. I said to the Senator, it defies belief that a sizable chunk of the 202 who voted against it would switch over because they knew there was a three-fifths requirement. They voted against it when there was a simple majority requirement and the thing would have gone down, and it would have been a disaster for the Nation had it happened. All I am saying is that these tough decisions need to be made by majority vote just as is provided for in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers could foresee these things and that is why they provided it. This is, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia said, playing Russian roulette with the national security of the United States.

Mr. SARBANES. If I could just engage in this colloquy further. The game that is being played, I say to my friend, is very clear today because the other side has been very clear that they have drafted this in a way that would have knocked out the deficit reduction package of August 1993. Now, I understand that the Senator was not for that. I was for it. I disagree with him. The Senator portrays it as a tax increase on all the American people. The fact of the matter is, it was a tax cut on the top 2 percent of the income, other than the gasoline tax. But the income tax rates affected the top 2 percent. Now, I understand the Senators on the other side have a very soft spot for the top 2 percent, but it seemed to me reasonable to do this and to try to address some of our Nation's problems. In any event, the situation could have been reversed. You could have been trying to push through a deficit reduction package that I opposed for one reason or another. The question is whether you are going to skew the Constitution in a way that a majority is not going to be able to make decisions. The Founding Fathers very carefully constructed this document and they are very explicit, both Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, in pointing out in the documents about a supermajority. Let me just read what Madison said in Federalist 58. Because he is the father of our Constitution and a man of great reason and fairness. He would recognize the other arguments and try to deal with them rationally, which is what we are trying very hard to do here today. Let me just quote him. This is Madison now, in the Federalist 58: It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of the quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free Government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences. Now, I agree with Gladstone's evaluation of the Founding Fathers. This amendment is fraught with peril. The more we go into it and the more we develop it and the more we measure it against historical experience, the more I find wrong with the amendment. The Senator asserted earlier that surely three-fifths would vote to raise the debt limit. I invite my colleague to go back through the votes on raising debt limits in the past to spot the ones where three- fifths did not. It is not so obvious. In many of these issues it is a struggle to get the simple majority to make the decision. These are controversial issues. They are recognized as controversial. The August 1993 package was controversial. You disagreed with it. I supported it. I think it has proven itself out. I think all the subsequent history supports a decision to have passed it. Those decisions ought to be made by majority vote. That is what the Founding Fathers intended. That is what I think we should stick with. I yield the floor.