Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. That is what the Senator chooses to ignore, because that answers his question.

Mr. SMITH. But the Senator is focusing on that and ignoring article I, which allows you to raise the debt if you need to raise the debt in order to deficit spend, in order to deal with the emergency that the Senator is talking about.

Mr. SMITH. It is not a different issue.

Mr. SMITH. Is that not ordinary and prudent preparations for war? Yes, that is ordinary and prudent.

Mr. SMITH. I can read it----

Mr. SMITH. Well, since the Senator wants me to respond to certain parameters rather than the parameters I prefer to respond, I say: ``Declaration of war is intended to be construed in the context of the powers of the Congress to declare war under article I, section 8. The committee intends that ordinary and prudent preparations for a war perceived by Congress to be imminent would be funded fully within the limitations imposed by the amendment, although the Congress could establish higher level of spending or deficits for these or any other purposes under section 1.''

Mr. SMITH. The Senator knows very well that this debate is simply an attempt to divert attention from the real problem. You just mentioned a moment ago the tough deficit reduction----

Mr. SMITH. Would the Senator like me to respond to that?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would be happy to answer on behalf of the Senator from New Hampshire. The Senator from New Hampshire voted against that package for a number of reasons. One, $250 billion in increased taxes on the American people was in it. No. 2, the projections beyond the 5 years in that budget that the Senator mentioned, the deficits go up. As we see from the follow-on budget that the President has sent, we are looking at an annual average increase of $200 billion a year. And the deficits will add $1.5 trillion more to the debt by the turn of the century. He did not take the corrective action that was necessary to continue the downward spiral. True, deficits went down for over a 5-year projected period, largely due to the tax increases, not a lot of spending cuts. When we look at the outyears, the six, seventh, the eighth, they go like this, and under the President's projections those deficits will be over $350 billion as we turn into the 21st century. That is not making the corrective decisions that need to be made to turn the country around, which is why we need the amendment. If Congress had the discipline we would not be here. They do not have the discipline. This chart proves it. There are a number of attempts at balancing the budget of congressional action over the years that were taken but they never got the job done. One of the more recent ones is Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Lot of fanfare. What happened? We walked away from it because Congress did not have the discipline to do it. A comparison or analogy would be the Base Closing Commission. Congress did not have the courage to close bases that we did not need, so they created a commission. Some said we should create a commission to balance the budget. The point is the amendment forces us. It is unfortunate, I agree with the Senator. I wish we would not have to be here saying we needed a balanced budget amendment to clutter the Constitution to balance the Federal budget. We should do it. But we do not do it, and we will not do it until we have the amendment. That is why we have to have it. If we do not, I would say to the Senator, our grandchildren are going to have a country that I cannot imagine. I can imagine a press conference by a President in the future, maybe not too many years, where he comes on television and says, ``My fellow Americans, I have some very dismal news to share. We cannot meet our fiscal obligations, and I will go to Mexico and Japan and China, who knows where, and see if I cannot borrow some money to meet our obligations.'' That is going to happen, I say to the Senator from West Virginia, because he knows we have to meet obligations. We are going to get to the point where we cannot. Interest is consuming us. Interest is now 16 percent of our budget. Sixteen percent of our budget, and defense is 16 percent of our budget. Interest is going this way and defense is going this way. I would say to the Senator, where do we stop it?

Mr. SMITH. Not really. If Congress controls the purse strings, I say to the Senator from West Virginia, and the national debt increased $3 trillion during those years, how can we blame the President? I mean, whose responsibility is it?

Mr. SMITH. Well, you did not give him any choice. (Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)

Mr. SMITH. That is true. But, as the Senator knows, the Congress during those years rolled these huge continuing resolutions in to the President with everything from Social Security to defense and every little program that could possibly hurt anybody in America all rolled into one, essentially saying, ``Well, Mr. President, if you veto this, then we will shut the Government down and stop the Social Security checks.'' So, as I say, I think the reason we are here today is because of the irresponsibility, essentially, of the Congress, not any President, over the years. As we debate today right now on the floor of the Senate, $9,600 a second the national debt increases. It increases $576,000 a minute, $34,560,000 an hour, and $829 million a day--almost a $1-billion-a-day increase as this debate continues.

Mr. SMITH. Will the Senator yield for just a brief response to that?

Mr. SMITH. Neither did the Congress.

Mr. SMITH. That is accurate. He should have, but he did not. The Senator is right. And neither did the Congress.

Mr. SMITH. But the Senator knows, as an expert on the Constitution, that the Congress of the United States controls the purse strings. The President does not spend any money without the approval of Congress. So I think, to be fair about it, it would be fair to say that Congress is ultimately responsible, not the President, for increasing the debt. The President's budget is purely advisory. We do not have to agree to it. We can increase it, decrease it, ignore it, kill it, do whatever we want to do with it. But the Congress appropriates the money. The Congress authorizes the spending. And it is the spending that drove the debt up over that period of years. And I would accept that there is certainly enough blame to go around between the two parties. But my point is, I think it is unfair to say that Ronald Reagan alone was responsible for the debt that we have today.

Mr. SMITH. The Senator mentioned he might like to have me on his side in a fight at some point. This is my fifth year in the Senate. It does not come anywhere near the number of years the distinguished Senator has served here, but I am hoping that someday before either one of our terms is over in the Senate we might be on the same side on an issue, as he is a very worthy adversary. The Senator referred to a comment that I made a few days ago that made the national press; that it was our goal to wear the Senator from West Virginia out so we could get the balanced budget amendment to a vote. And the Senator is a very worthy adversary, because we have not been able to do that yet. Even though we have had a number of us out here relieving one another, the Senator still stands on his feet and still continues to debate, which is really the great thing about the Senate. Over behind my desk, there is the desk of Daniel Webster, one of the greatest orators in the Senate. The Senator from West Virginia certainly ranks up there in oratorical skills with those great Senators of that time--Clay, Webster, Calhoun, and so many others. But it does remind you that the time we spend here is very fleeting; that we are only temporary stewards of this country. But I think, in that perspective, if the Senator would continue to yield just for a moment, it is important to realize the significance of this debate. I think this is a debate of historical significance. The Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Arkansas mentioned the fact that the debt went up significantly during the Reagan years when Reagan was President. That is accurate. However, during those years, there were a lot in the Senator's party in Congress who certainly contributed to that. All of the Reagan budgets, at least from when I was here from 1985 through 1988-89 during the Reagan years, they were always dead on arrival and so predicted before they got here. And then they were increased by the party in power in the Congress. So the debt went up, true, while Reagan was President, but whether or not it went up all because of Ronald Reagan I think is something that I would take pretty sharp issue on with the Senator.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for one more point?

Mr. SMITH. The point is, it is very clear in the language that I have just indicated on the amendment as well as article I of the amendment. The Senator is correct that it does take a three-fifths vote. Now, the point is----

Mr. SMITH. Will the Senator allow me to respond to that?

Mr. SMITH. This is the time of the Senator from West Virginia. I am not going to engage the Senator on the time of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. SMITH. Not at all. That is not what this says. The truth of the matter is, there will not be any funds even to conduct war if we continue along the lines that the Senator from Maryland would like to go, which is literally to bankrupt the United States of America. We will not have any money to spend on defense.

Mr. SMITH. It did not say waive it. ``The committee intends that ordinary and prudent preparations for a war perceived by Congress to be imminent would be funded fully * * *'' There is nothing to waive.

Bob Smith

Speeches

Manage analytics