[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.
____________________