Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I wanted to direct an inquiry to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia with respect to the supermajorities that are provided for in this amendment. As the distinguished Senator has very ably pointed out, the Founding Fathers rejected supermajorities. Both Hamilton and Madison are very explicit in the Federalist Papers about the dangers of supermajorities and the power we place in the hands of minorities. The argument has been made here on the floor by proponents of this amendment that they have certain waiver provisions in the amendment and if we ever found ourselves in the difficult circumstance clearly a waiver would be obtained and we would be able to address issues of national importance. The Senator earlier talked about the fiscal provisions, but I wanted to direct his attention to another section, and that is the national security section. I submit to my colleagues that this is very serious business and it is time to stop playing games. The Senator from West Virginia just pointed out one game. People are for the balanced budget amendment but they will not vote for the deficit reduction package. There is a tough deficit reduction package and they say, ``No, I cannot vote for that but I am for amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget.'' Let me leave that for a moment and let me talk about the national security section which is section 5. I want Members to stop and think about this very carefully because we obviously need to stop, look, and listen before we place ourself into any framework that could conceivably endanger the national security of our country. The provision says that Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. We do not have many declarations of war. We can get involved in a situation we have to deal with, but we do not have a declaration of war. It then goes on to say: 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 if so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law. In other words, if you are facing a threat, an imminent threat the amendment may be waived. The amendment yet engaged in military conflict. I ask the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, who is on the floor, suppose we are not engaged in a military conflict, there is just the danger of a military conflict breaking out which requires us to take action involving the expenditure of moneys. Could you waive that with a joint resolution? I ask the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the leader yield?

Mr. SARBANES. That is right.

Mr. SARBANES. In any event, it will not qualify there either.

Mr. SARBANES. 218.

Mr. SARBANES. In the House, they had 218.

Mr. SARBANES. The vote in the Senate was 45 to 30. That does not qualify. Correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield at that point? This requirement, as I understand it, does not take a three-fifths vote.

Mr. SARBANES. Sure.

Mr. SARBANES. I regret the Senator from New Hampshire does not want to address that question. Let me just point out to the Senate that when you really get down to some of these hard questions, the proponents of this amendment just slide off them and they say, ``Oh, well, we would get a waiver.'' The waiver that is required here is declared by joint resolution adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House and, as the very able Senator from West Virginia has pointed out, this is contrary to what the Constitution now requires. What this waiver means is that you would have to have 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. I have heard the proponents stand on the floor and say, ``Don't worry, no problem. If a situation arises, clearly the Members will vote for the waiver and we will be able to address it, we will get these votes, there is no problem.'' I just want to recount one story, because this is very serious business, I suggest to the Members. On August 12, 1941, the House of Representatives was confronted with the issue of extending the time of service of those members of the armed services who had been drafted the year before. In the summer of 1940, the Congress had passed the Selective Training and Service Act, and, under it, people called up were to serve for 1 year--the President could extend the period indefinitely if Congress declared that the national interest is in peril. On July 21, 1941, with the prospect of war increasing, President Roosevelt acted. In a special message to Capitol Hill, he asked Congress to declare a national emergency that would allow the Army to extend the service of draftees. The President came to the Congress and asked them to make this extension. Everyone is telling us that ``if we had a national emergency, surely the Congress would act.'' The measure regarding the draft for World War II passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 203 to 202. It passed the Senate by a vote of 45 to 30. Now, just think of this. We are literally a few months away from the outbreak of World War II. The President has said to the Congress, ``There is a national emergency. I ask you to extend the time of duty of those who had been drafted the previous year for a 12-month period. The storm clouds are on the horizon for all to see. We need to take action.'' In many ways, it is comparable to envisioning a waiver situation for national security under this amendment for which the proponents say, ``Oh, if there is a real problem, we'll get the waiver and we'll address our national security situation.'' At that time, the vote in the Senate was 45 to 30; in the House of Representatives, 203 to 202. Neither of those votes meets the requirement of section 5 of this balanced budget amendment proposal. Even though in both instances a majority of those voting on this draft question voted to extend it, 45 to 30 in the Senate, 203 to 202 in the House, with Speaker Rayburn going into the well of the House in order to bring about that vote, neither of those votes is a majority of the whole number of each House, which is what this amendment requires. So I ask my friends, the proponents of this proposition, how have they provided for the national security of the Nation? I am giving you an absolute, specific demonstration of an instance in which anyone looking back upon it would say clearly there was an important national security question that needed to be addressed and yet the vote to address it would not carry the day under the requirements of section 5 of this balanced budget amendment. The section states ``So declared by a joint resolution adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House,'' which means you have to have 218 votes in the House--it carried in the House 203 to 202; it did not have 218 votes--and means you would have had to have 49 votes in the Senate. It carried in the Senate 45 to 30, but it did not have the necessary 49 votes in the Senate. There were 48 states in the Union during World War II and 96 Senators; therefore, the whole number would be 49. can potentially do to the national security of our Nation.

Mr. SARBANES. I see. I regret the Senator does not want to respond. If the Senator from West Virginia will continue to yield?

Mr. SARBANES. What does the Senator make of this waiver provision? What is its intention to be in section 5?

Mr. SARBANES. The Congress reduced them.

Mr. SARBANES. But it was the Senator that asserted that the declaration of war would end. How does that happen?

Mr. SARBANES. What about the next sentence? Same interpretation.

Mr. SARBANES. What about the next sentence?

Mr. SARBANES. So you think it means any and all?

Mr. SARBANES. The next fiscal year comes along. Then what?

Mr. SARBANES. For any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged. So, we may waive it for that fiscal year.

Mr. SARBANES. I have to say to the Senator from Pennsylvania perhaps I am not as quick as he is to pick up the plain language. I thought the question was a good question. The question, as I understood it is, must you have a waiver in each fiscal year since?

Mr. SARBANES. Fully funded; in other words, you can violate the requirements of the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Once the Vice President is chosen and we take a vote, a 50-50 vote, can the Vice President break the tie?

Mr. SARBANES. We take a vote----

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

Mr. SARBANES. That is right. You are saying if this amendment were passed, the August vote would have been negated.