On the recordFebruary 10, 1997
I give my friend an example. The San Francisco earthquake, Loma Prieta, which was way back, we are still rebuilding from, I say to my friend. And we had a freeway go down, just a disaster, and we got the funds to rebuild the freeway. About 2 years ago on the floor of this Senate a Senator said we have to back off this because we are building it in a different fashion and it is costing too much money. I stood up as one of the two Senators from California and explained that if we rebuilt it the same way it was prior to the earthquake, it would fall down again. We had to put a little more into it to make sure that the structure was as safe as possible--to ensure that the residents traveling on the freeway would be safe. Well, I won that vote, but I have to tell you it was close, I say to my friend. Under this constitutional amendment, there is no way I could have done that because it would have required a supermajority--we would have needed to be out of balance for a short period of time because of the unanticipated funds required to respond to the disaster. And I say to my friend that, if any State experiences a multibillion dollar disaster, unless you can come on the floor and convince colleagues to cut other programs, you are going to be in deep trouble. That is the other reason why this is a very, very radical amendment.
Source
govinfo.gov




