[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2230-S2231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
         the daschle amendment to the balanced budget amendment

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, what the 104th Congress is all about is 
ending business as usual in Washington. We started out by passing the 
bill that Senator Lieberman and I introduced to make Congress live by 
the same laws it passes for everyone else. Then we passed a bill to 
restrict unfunded mandates.
  These proposals represent a change from business as usual. The voters 
last November demanded a change in business as usual in Washington. And 
this Congress has delivered. And I am confident that we will continue 
to deliver.
  One of the changes the American people wanted is a balanced budget 
amendment. They are tired of Congress coming up with clever rhetoric 
that has defeated this amendment over the years. Now, those same 
critics want us to spell out on an account by account basis the 
receipts and outlays for fiscal years 1996 to 2002. The proposal is yet 
another rhetorical trick designed to let big spenders defeat the 
balanced budget amendment by people who want no fiscal discipline.
  The proposal represents a last gasp by the old guard to continue 
business as usual. For them, business as usual means a continually 
expanding Federal Government. The voters have spoken, and the business-
as-usual crowd refuses to listen. That is not what representative 
government and democracy is all about.
  We all know that a balanced budget is achievable. I know that our 
respected colleague Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee 
on which I serve, is working on a variety of fiscal strategies to show 
that it can be done--without touching Social Security. The numbers are 
clear.
  We can limit spending growth to over 2 percent and reach a balanced 
budget, again without touching Social Security. Under current fiscal 
policy, Federal spending in fiscal 2002 will be 44 percent higher than 
this year if we do nothing. By holding growth to 22 percent, 
Republicans can balance the budget without cutting Social Security or 
raising taxes. Federal spending will increase under either approach.
  But by how much? That is the question. Many of the supporters of this 
right-to-know amendment think Government spending must double by 2002. 
Supporters of the balanced budget amendment think Government can get by 
on approximately $260 billion more than we are currently spending, but 
half of what other people think we should spend.
  I say that is enough money, taking inflation into account, to balance 
the budget while still allowing programs to grow. The argument has been 
made by my colleagues that, in 1993, Congress and the President acted 
honestly and forthrightly in enacting the fiscal 1994 budget. They say 
specific cuts and tax increases were spelled out to bring us toward a 
reduced budget deficit. Now opponents say supporters of this 
constitutional amendment have a similar obligation to spell out our 
plan. But the premise of the argument is invalid and the conclusions do 
not follow.
  The 1993 tax bill raised taxes, and it had very few spending cuts. I 
doubt that anybody outside of the beltway can name a single real cut. 
The whole premise of the tax bill that the deficit would be cut was 
fallacious. The President's own budget predicts $200 billion in budget 
deficits for the next 5 years if we do nothing. Notwithstanding the 
1993 tax bill, the President still projects deficits as high as an 
elephant's eye.
  And so the debt still continues to grow clear up to the sky. The so-
called honesty in budgeting of 1993 is a very slender reed on which to 
base a so-called right-to-know amendment.
  In addition to serving on the Budget Committee, I also serve on the 
Judiciary Committee and I am concerned that the Democratic leader's 
amendment--another amendment before our body--will be beyond the intent 
of the Constitution. It says that the amendment shall not take effect 
until Congress passes a budget reconciliation act.
  But article V of the Constitution--that is, the amending article--
provides that when both Houses of Congress pass a proposed 
constitutional amendment, it ``shall be valid to all intents and 
purposes, as a part of this Constitution, when ratified by the 
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions 
in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification 
may be proposed by the Congress.'' But the proposal before us would not 
allow the amendment to be 
 [[Page S2231]] effective once Congress has passed it and, in this 
case, three-fourths of the State legislatures having ratified it. 
Instead, we put a whole new condition on the amendment that we have 
before us, the amendment to be ratified: The passage of a 7-year budget 
reconciliation act.
  That is not a constitutional convention for the ratification of an 
amendment. And I think this amendment by the leader of the minority 
should be beaten.
  We have heard it said that if Congress may constitutionally insist as 
a condition for ratification that the States ratify a proposed 
constitutional amendment within 7 years, then it is constitutional for 
Congress to impose a condition such as the Daschle amendment before 
Congress submits the proposal to the States. This analysis is incorrect 
for two reasons.
  First, the courts have upheld limitations on the ratification 
process, but no case has ever upheld the imposition of a condition for 
initiating ratification proceedings once Congress has adopted an 
amendment.
  Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that although it is a political 
question, article V implicitly requires a contemporaneous majority to 
ratify an amendment. Thus, a 7-year or equivalent period is a 
constitutional necessity under the case law. But no such status 
pertains to the proposal by the Senator from South Dakota.
  So, Mr. President, we should pass the balanced budget amendment. We 
should not adopt the Daschle amendment to that amendment because it is 
impractical and because it is unconstitutional. The American people 
want us to end business as usual. They see the so-called right-to-know 
amendment to be business as usual--a business-as-usual approach, 
rejected by the people in the November 8 election, a business-as-usual 
approach rejected by Congress for the first time in 40 years, as we try 
to bring to a vote all of the things that have been buried in Congress 
by a Congress controlled for 40 years by the now minority party.
  We accept our responsibilities to reject business as usual, with our 
surveys showing 80 percent support for the constitutional amendment for 
a balanced budget. It has been before this body four or five times over 
the past 15 years. Now is the time to pass it.
  I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], is 
recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if the Chair and the acting floor manager 
will indulge me, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in 
morning business and to extend the time before the recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________