[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning 
business be extended until 3 p.m. under the same terms and conditions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will speak on the constitutional 
amendment on a balanced budget, and I would like to have my remarks 
placed in the Record where any debate on that subject may have taken 
place during the course of today's legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support, along with Senator Simon, the 
chief sponsor, Senate Joint Resolution 41, the balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. I think it is very vital that Federal 
deficit spending be controlled. Of course, we always put this argument 
in an economic context, saying that an unbalanced budget is not good 
for the economy. And I think deficit spending has gone on long enough 
now, 25 years in a row. Even more essentially, there are very good 
moral reasons that we ought to have a balanced budget. I think those 
override even the economic arguments for a balanced budget amendment.
  We are borrowing from our future, and that of our children and 
grandchildren, when we deficit spend. I think we must put an end to 
this practice. And because every other means has failed to produce a 
balanced budget, we must enact an amendment to our U.S. Constitution, 
just as well over 40 States have for their individual constitutions.
  A balanced budget amendment fits appropriately within the design of 
the original document. I do not accept the arguments of those who say 
that an amendment of this type is contrary to what the constitutional 
writers may have intended, because it seems to me that they took this 
into consideration in the writing of the preamble when it sets out not 
law, but the purpose of the Constitution.

       We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
     perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
     Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 
     general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
     ourselves and our Posterity * * *

  There is that word ``posterity.'' It is a word we do not hear much 
anymore. We run our Government as if the only thing relevant for 
consideration is what is in today's newspapers: In other words, living 
for today and not worrying about tomorrow. We consider the consequences 
of our acts in short timeframes. Rarely do we take into account the 
real, longterm effects that our actions will have on posterity's 
ability to enjoy the blessings of liberty as this generation has.
  Among the blessings of liberty that our constitutional system has 
maintained is a standard of living that rises with each successive 
generation. Keys to this enhanced economy have been productivity, 
growth, and investment. In recent years, productivity and investment 
and the savings rate have declined. The 25-year continuous string of 
unbalanced budgets has contributed to these economic results. I do not 
think it coincidental that the stagnation in average wages over the 
last 20 years has been accompanied by high Government budget deficits.
  Moreover, economic growth in the last 25 years of continuing deficits 
has fallen short of the prior 25 years. Budget deficits have been 
running up to fund our current consumption. Again, living today and 
paying for it tomorrow.
  The effects of these deficits already are negatively affecting our 
budget. When we last balanced the budget--that was way back in 1969--9 
cents of every dollar of Federal spending went to payment of interest 
on the national debt. Now, however, 26 cents of every dollar goes 
towards paying the interest on the national debt. And we have seen in 
the President's budget document that future generations can pay 
somewhere between 71 and 89 percent of income just to fund the 
interest.
  We cannot have that. Not only is that bad economics, but most 
importantly, it is going to steal from future generations' ability to 
experience growth and job creation. We receive nothing for the payment 
on interest on the national debt. But we force future generations to 
pay an even greater proportion of the budget in interest unless we act.
  Moreover, we will have to tax future generations at an incredibly 
high rate just to pay the interest on the national debt, if nothing is 
done. The figures vary depending upon the assumptions made. Future 
generations will pay the vast majority of their lifetime earnings in 
Federal taxes. Two-thirds, three-quarters, or even as high as I have 
already said.
  It is unacceptable that we live high on the hog by masking the real 
costs of programs and leaving future generations to pay these costs, 
and also future interest costs. That was not done to us by the 
generations that preceded us. We owe our future generations the same 
respect.
  I am concerned that some people think that the deficit and the 
national debt are issues of declining importance. While it is true that 
the deficit will fall this year, we cannot afford to declare victory 
and stop worrying about the deficit. When I say it falls this year, I 
mean that because we were anticipating a $190 billion deficit, some 
people would say ``only''--and I put that in quotes--it is ``only'' a 
$170 billion deficit. But whether it is $190 billion or $170 billion, 
it is still a tremendous cost to unload onto the young people today.

  It seems to me that as we look at this issue of a constitutional 
amendment requiring a balanced budget, that we ought to keep in the 
back of our minds that there is not a plan out there by anybody, 
including the President, that can show us with certainty that we are 
going to have a balanced budget at any time. We can go out 20 years and 
nobody is willing to say we will have one. That is bad policy in 
itself. But it does demonstrate, and it ought to demonstrate, the need 
for this constitutional amendment.
  Obviously, even this administration's estimates of the deficit will 
show rising deficits and greater deficits than what I just mentioned of 
$170 billion to $190 billion in future years, starting in 1998. I also 
believe that the administration's interest rate forecasts on what the 
interest on that deficit will be are too low. Higher interest rates, of 
course, are going to mean even a greater portion of the budget spent on 
interest on the debt. Moreover, deficits themselves increase interest 
rates in the long run, and higher interest rates harm renters, home 
buyers, and business people of all sorts, particularly, very capital-
intensive industries like the family farmers in my State.
  Deficit spending has produced other negative consequences as well. 
Last week, at hearings held on the amendment in the Judiciary 
Committee, the former Chief Actuary for Social Security testified that 
deficit spending has led to lax Government accounting. If the balanced 
budget amendment were enacted, he testified, Congress would have to 
examine Government accounting. And, according to his testimony, one 
account at the Department of Defense has been mismanaged for 30 years. 
The State Department has lost account of billions of dollars worth of 
property. The Comptroller General said that some Government bills are 
being paid twice. A balanced budget amendment will force us to take a 
tough look at Government accounting, as well as Government spending. 
This, obviously, is all to the very good, because we will, in the 
process, root out wasteful spending. Rooting out waste is one of the 
best ways to make headway against the deficit.
  Since the deficit itself is a significant problem, why not just cut 
the deficit now? Why bother to enact a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget? Well, it is because we tried a lot of other ways, 
and no other way seems to work. We know that Congress has passed 
statutes to reduce the deficit. I just think of working with the former 
Senator Byrd from Virginia in the late 1970's. He got through this body 
a law saying, ``Congress shall not spend more than it takes in in 
future years.'' I think that was in 1978. I worked with him in the 
House to get that through the House of Representatives. What good did 
that do? We had Gramm-Rudman, and we saw all sorts of ways of trying to 
get around that. We saw the deficits rise even after the 1990 budget 
deal when we were supposed to have a balanced budget by today.
  We cannot ever eliminate the deficit if we continue on our present 
path. If we are to reduce the deficit, we must put a binding obligation 
on Congress to balance the budget gradually, until the deficit is 
eliminated early in the next century. Those who believe we can cut the 
deficit down to zero without this amendment should offer an effective 
plan that will accomplish that result. There is none out there from the 
Congress, and none out there even from the White House.
  The recent rejection in the House of Representatives late last fall 
of the Penny-Kasich resolution only confirms that Congress will not cut 
spending to reduce the deficit unless forced to do so by the 
constitutional stipulation.
  We have heard it said that section 6 of the amendment, which gives 
Congress the power to enforce a statute, is inconsistent with the claim 
that statutes alone will not end deficits. But there is no 
contradiction, Mr. President. Many amendments are given life by 
provisions extending to Congress the power to enforce them. The 14th 
amendment contains one constantly used by the Congress.
  Implementing legislation is necessary to make the balanced budget 
amendment function fully. But the difference between statutes enacted 
under this amendment and Gramm-Rudman is that the Constitution then 
will demand that these new statutes be adhered to, unlike earlier 
legislation lacking the constitutional imperative.
  We cannot allow some opponents of this amendment to argue that the 
only way that the budget can be balanced under the amendment is through 
serious draconian budget cuts. This has been the strategy of the 
administration. I would like to examine that argument just for a 
minute.
  The Attorney General, Janet Reno, testified last week that the 
balanced budget amendment would cause cuts in Federal funds to fight 
crime. She said that if this amendment became effective immediately, 
offenders would have to be released from Federal prisons. The parade of 
horribles included cuts of 4,400 FBI agents and 1,100 DEA agents.
  She testified that without these FBI agents to match  community 
policing funds, ``It is going to be a long, long time before we get 
violent crime under control.''

  But during the last administration, some would have referred to this 
as a ``Willie Horton'' strategy: You and your families will be harmed 
by the convicted felons if somebody's political opponents are 
victorious.
  There are many flaws with this testimony, and I am very disappointed 
that the Attorney General testified in this fashion.
  First, the amendment will not take effect--but maybe it ought to--
before 2001. It is irrelevant what cuts might or might not have to be 
made in order to balance the budget in 1 year. We can do it gradually, 
without inflicting that kind of pain. And no one should believe these 
scary scenarios that have no basis in fact.
  Additionally, it is astonishing that the Justice Department opposes 
the balanced budget amendment based on these supposed spending cuts. 
The administration itself, I might add, is proposing to make cuts in 
law enforcement. These are the same kinds of cuts the Attorney General 
said would have to be made if we had the constitutional amendment--cuts 
she used as an argument against the constitutional amendment. These 
cuts are being proposed right now by this administration, even in the 
absence of the amendment, because the administration has already 
proposed cuts in prison construction, refusing to spend money for 
prisons that has been voted for by the Congress. Just look at the 
administration's 1995 budget. It calls for cuts in the DEA and FBI 
personnel--the same cuts in fighting crime that Janet Reno says would 
come if we had this constitutional amendment.
  Despite the tough crime rhetoric, the administration is cutting 
essential personnel in the Nation's fight against organized crime, drug 
trafficking, and other Federal crimes. It is cutting prosecutors and is 
cutting prison spending.
  How can its arguments against the balanced budget amendment on the 
grounds that it will reduce law enforcement spending be given any 
weight? There is no truth that passing the balanced budget amendment 
will necessarily mean enormous cuts in Federal law enforcement. Nor 
will the administration successfully accuse the amendment of creating 
severe cuts in law enforcement. It is the administration that itself 
today is asking for cuts in law enforcement.
  So, Mr. President, we do need this constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. We can only balance the budget, in my judgment, if 
we pass this constitutional amendment. The American people are watching 
to see if we can make this commitment. The quality of the existence of 
the future generations is at stake. We cannot afford to fail again. We 
must enact this constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  I feel some certainty about what I say because I served in the State 
legislature of my State, where there is a constitutional amendment 
requiring a balanced budget. I thought it brought a great deal of 
discipline to that legislative body whether it be controlled by 
Democrats or Republicans.
  So I think that it will bring the same sort of fiscal discipline to 
this body, as we are a body of men and women sworn to uphold the law, 
and we will carry that law out.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio is informed that 
we are in morning business; the limitation of time is 10 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent the Senator from Ohio be recognized for not to exceed 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Metzenbaum and Mr. Simon pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1866 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if no one seeks the floor, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed in morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________