Orrin Hatch: “I listened to my colleague, and I know she is sincere. But I have to point out that her amendment, like all of the…”

“I listened to my colleague, and I know she is sincere. But I have to point out that her amendment, like all of the others, is just another way of making sure the balanced budget amendment has no effect. Let me read it to the people: At the end of section 5, add the following: ``The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year * * * '' That means for the whole fiscal year. * * * in which there is a declaration made by the President (and a designation by the Congress) that a major disaster or emergency exists, adopted by a majority vote in each House of those present and voting. This amendment is simply a permutation of the amendment we voted on today, the Feinstein amendment, which was rejected by 67 Senators just a few hours ago. It would have provided for a waiver of the balanced budget requirement for any fiscal year in which the United States is experiencing a serious economic emergency or major natural disaster. I was one of the 67 Senators who opposed that amendment. But I have to say that I actually prefer that amendment to the one being offered now by my friend from California. For one thing, the spending loophole created by this amendment is even more gaping than the one in the amendment we voted down this evening. As Senator Enzi said, you can ``sail an aircraft carrier through the loophole created by the Feinstein amendment.'' If so, then you can sail an entire fleet through the loophole this amendment would provide.”