J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, Mr. Harkin, who served as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources from 1987-95 and is currently ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. EXON. The Senator is correct. Because IDEA is a voluntary discretionary Federal program, it is not considered a Federal intergovernmental mandate. Therefore, none of the provisions applicable to Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the legislation apply to IDEA.

Mr. EXON. I agree with the Senator's conclusion in light of the statements of congressional intent he cited to and the conclusions reached by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. EXON. I also wish to thank him for raising these issues.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Nebraska has 15 minutes allotted to him under the unanimous-consent agreement. Is that correct?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, next week I will be introducing a bill with regard to striker replacement. This is the same bill that I have introduced previously in this body. I discussed this possible compromise that would maybe put an end, hopefully, to the ongoing battle we have had now for many years in the U.S. Senate. I discussed this with the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, Senator Kassebaum, earlier today. I understand we will be having a cloture vote on this matter on Monday. I would simply say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of this issue that I think it is not good form, it is not good business, and it upsets the routine schedule of the Senate when matters of this nature, however important they are, and however timely they might be, should never, ever have been placed on the supplemental appropriations bill with regard to national defense that is before the body. For the life of me, I do not understand why the managers of the bill or those in opposition did not simply make a point of order that it was legislation on an appropriations bill, which it clearly is. Had that point of order been made, I would hope that the matter would have fallen. Let me say, Mr. President, that I have voted for and will continue to vote for some type of a striker replacement bill. What we have, of course, is the traditional battle: The old bulls of business on one side of the pasture, and the old bulls of organized labor on the other, glaring and pawing at the turf and snarling at each other across the pasture. All too often we do not take into consideration, I think, what is in the interest of the United States of America as we go into the international arena, the international pasture today, and certainly into the new century that is almost here. We see the quarrelsome gestures and the rhetoric about how fair or unfair this is to different groups of Americans, depending how they are postured on this particular matter. Senator Domenici was on the floor earlier this week, and I spoke after he spoke with regard to the fall of the dollar and what caused that and how serious it is. I agreed with all of that. I simply state once again that I think the matter of the fair treatment of laboring people who are organized in the United States of America is something that we should continue to address and not just simply continue with actions on the floor of the U.S. Senate that I believe, for all meaningful purposes, are designed to end the rights of organized labor and the rights of collective bargaining. Some will say that is an overly harsh statement, but I think that is the reality of the situation. And I suppose that businesses today feel that with the advent of the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that they could sit back, take a sigh of relief and say it shall not pass with the revolution that took place last November. That might well be. They may have their facts straight. Is not what I think should be a different and reasoned approach. Likewise, the organized labor should realize and recognize that the United States of America is now very much tied up, more so than they have ever been before, with the economies of the whole world. The new century that is about to come upon us, I suggest should best be recognized that we should be looking over the horizon, if we will, aside from the facts that we always have on measures of this nature. The economy of the United States of America is tied more tightly to the international community--the whole globe--than it ever has been before. Many people, including this Senator, had thought that would probably be good for the United States of America. Maybe in the end it still might be. Suffice it to say that when we are tied to the international community with trade agreements, trade treaties, NAFTAs, and GATT's, and all of these things, it is a small wonder that the dollar is not reacting well. It is no small wonder, Mr. President, that there is nervousness in the international economic and fiscal community today, with the problems of the border with our neighbor to the south, just across the border in Mexico, and certainly the Mexico bailout proposition--call it what you will. Whether it is necessary or whether it is not, whether it is good or whether it is bad simply proves the point that I am making, that the United States of America is tied into the economic structure of the world more so than it ever has been before. When we are doing these kinds of things, we should not be, therefore, particularly surprised when we see different things happening in different parts of the world and investors in different countries of the world moving for safety reasons and to get the best return on their investment. So I think we are going to be involved in a rather uncertain period and it might all work out well. That is why I think it was not wise for the President of the United States to take the action that he took by Executive order the other day with regard to penalizing certain companies or corporations that do business with the Federal Government with regard to replacement of workers. I thought that was an untimely move by the President. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect, in the end, the courts might decide he did not have that authority. But whether the President did or did not certainly has brought up the firestorm that has taken over the Senate for the last few hours. The President did not consult with me before he took that action, nor is he required to do so, except to say I think we have enough to quarrel and worry about on the floor of the U.S. Senate today without getting a labor matter involved in a supplemental appropriations bill. It should never have come up on this measure. I wish that I had an opportunity to make a point of order against this, and probably that, hopefully, would resolve it. In any event, it has brought the matter of striker replacement up to this Senator once again, and I hope that is not going to be dealt with on an appropriations bill, especially the one before us now which needs to be moved. Therefore, in the effort and sounding for compromise, once again, I am going to briefly talk about a bill that I will be introducing next week that I have introduced before, which I think if big management and big labor would take a look at and if both sides--both quarreling sides--in the U.S. Senate would take a look at it, they would see that the compromise offered by the Senator from Nebraska, if enacted, might put to rest this contentious matter that keeps bubbling to the surface of the floor of the Senate and the floor of the House with regard to striker replacements. I would like to say, Mr. President, that it is very clear to me after looking at the situation in my great State of Nebraska today, we have an extremely low unemployment rate, one of the lowest in the Nation. I think the last unemployment rate in Nebraska was 2.3 percent. That does not mean that the people of Nebraska are being overpaid. The facts of the matter are, we have a great number of college graduates today who are not able to find work in their desired type of employment, not able to find work that complements the degrees and studies that they receive from our various high-quality institutions of higher learning. That is another way to say that I think probably the main problem in Nebraska today, with our economy that otherwise is reasonably healthy, is that we have a great number of underemployed people in the State of Nebraska, many of them doing things that they are not trained for or ever sought to do in their early lives and during their educational experience. Part of this has to do with the fact that there is great instability today of employment. The record is replete with big businesses, for whatever reason and probably some of them are justified, laying people off when they get to be 50 or 55 years of age, just about the time that they were set for life. And at 50 and 55 years of age, they are not particularly attractive to many businesses for the jobs that at least pay something akin to the salary that they have been used to in their adult lives up to this period of time. So I happen to feel that if we are going to be competitive in the world internationally in the next century, we had best set about some procedures that can solve the problems that we have in America today, the problems that labor sees, the problems that management sees and try to get these two sides together. The bill that I am introducing is a compromise that I have alluded to. It is not a complicated piece of legislation at all. It simply says that under the Federal law, if it were adopted--and it would have to be a compromise; and this compromise is not accepted by big labor, they do not like it; it certainly is not accepted by big business, they do not like it--but it simply says as a compromise in trying to put an end to this, that for the first 60 days of a strike in an organized plant, the management of that company would not be allowed to hire permanent replacements. They could hire temporary people, but for the first 60 days of any legal strike that was called by an organized client under our collective bargaining laws today, management could not rush in and send the clear signal that if the people who had the right to strike do not show up, their job is going to be taken on a permanent basis by the first person that walks in the door or makes an application. For the life of me, I have never been able to understand those who say they believe in collective bargaining and then turn right around and say, ``but if the unionized plant goes on strike, management has the option at their discretion to say, `OK, we'll hire somebody else to take your place.''' Any reasonable person that believes in collective bargaining would have to agree that if organized labor does not have the right to strike, and organized labor does not use that promiscuously, but if they do not have the ultimate right to strike, the collective bargaining that they go through from time to time is heavily stacked against them because all of the chips for bargaining are on management's side of the table. Now, on the other hand, let me take the devil's advocate position, if I might, for a moment with regard to unions and union membership and union leadership. I also feel that union labor and union leaders must also recognize that we are in a new era. I do not believe that we should simply pass legislation that permanently prevents management from ever hiring a replacement worker under any circumstances. If you accept that point of view fully that organized labor pushes, which I do not agree with, that will simply mean that if organized labor never will agree to a contract, somewhat along the lines we are seeing in the baseball impasse today, then organized labor would be able to close down and eliminate a factory forever. I do not think they should have that power either. Mr. President, the compromise that I am offering, that I emphasize is detested by management and it is detested by the leadership of organized labor, would simply reach a compromise by saying for the first 60 days of an organized strike management would be prevented from hiring permanent replacement workers. Again, I emphasize they could hire temporary workers but not permanent replacement workers. The first 60 days they could not do that. At the end of 60 days, the compromise would kick in, and for the first 30-days after 60 days management would be allowed to hire 10 percent of their work force as permanent replacements. It goes up from there to 20 percent in 90 days, 30 percent in 120 days, and it goes on up to the end of 1 year, 360 days. If no settlement has been reached, then in that event and that event only would management be permitted to have total replacement of all the workers that went on strike. Putting it another way, this is simply a phased program to try to satisfy what supposedly is the beliefs of both big labor and big management without taking a look at what is good for the overall economy of the United States of America and the competition that I suggest we are likely to have from around the globe with the turn of the century, as exhibited by the difficulties that we are having right now with regard to fiscal and monetary policy and the fall of the dollar and all the problems that could and probably will cause in the United States by further increasing interest rates. And some have alluded to the fact that, indeed, that could push us into a recession that no one had previously contemplated. So I am saying, Mr. President, the votes I will be casting on this whole matter of striker replacement are in an effort to get myself into a position to hopefully bring along the Senate to stop shouting at each other, to quit listening to the dictates of big labor only and big management only and do what I think is right for America. And I have to think the Exon proposal should satisfy well meaning and well- intentioned individuals on both sides of this very contentious problem and maybe get on to lay this matter to rest and have immediately ahead when I think the United States of America is very likely to set its course as to whether or not we are going to be as successful in the new century as we were in the last. Mr. President, I am simply appealing for reason. I am only making these comments so I can explain to my colleagues the position that this Senator has on this matter, and I will be introducing the bill that I have briefly described next week so that all can look at it. I was very pleased to hear Senator Kassebaum, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, since she did not know about this piece of legislation. I do not think anybody else does either, because nobody will pay any attention to a compromise, although I have introduced this piece of legislation before and talked to some Senators about it--maybe, just maybe, Mr. President, something like this might be the bounds to stop the inflammatory rhetoric that is going on now, that is holding up the passage of the defense supplemental, which needs to be enacted into law. And we all agree on that. Yet we get off on what I think are these nonsensical maneuvers and rules to force some people's will on what should be done at a very inappropriate time. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would just like to say a few words with regard to the bill that was introduced today. As the body well knows, I favored the constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget. I am sorry that it did not pass. But now that it has failed, we need to press ahead to build what discipline we can into the budget process. We are introducing today a statutory requirement that would have most, if not all, of the teeth that the constitutional amendment to balance the budget would have instituted. The bill requires the Budget Committee to report out a resolution that shows us when we will get to a balanced budget without using the Social Security trust funds. The practical effect of this requirement would be to require the Government to run surpluses in the unified budget, surpluses that would start to reduce--and I emphasize, reduce--the debt held by the public and prepare us for the financial needs of the next century. Our bill enforces this requirement with a 60-vote point of order against budget resolutions that do not show how we get to balance. The bill allows for waiver in wartime and in recessions, using the same mechanisms that Congress put in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law. As for the schedule, the Budget Act requires the Senate Budget Committee to report a budget resolution by April 1. The Budget Act requires the Congress to complete action on the budget resolution conference report by April 15. I hope we can meet that deadline. Last year, the Senate Budget Committee reported the budget resolution on March 18. The year before last, when Congress enacted the deficit reduction bill that has reduced the deficit by over $600 billion, the Senate Budget Committee reported the budget resolution on March 12, and Congress completed action on the conference report on April 1. We look forward to working with the Republican majority to expeditiously fashion a budget resolution that shows us how we will get to a balanced budget and get on with the obvious work in this area that we must do. I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for at least 5 minutes, for the purpose of brief remarks by the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been listening with interest to the remarks by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who has served so well and so long here. I know the people back in his home State recognize and realize that New Mexico is well served here with my great friend and colleague. I want to simply add my voice of concern, as I think has been so well articulated by himself, and I think before him by my friend and colleague from the State of Illinois, who has been with us in trying to focus attention on the dire consequences of the United States of America continuing its course of reckless spending. I just cite a statistic or two that I think have been said so many times they may be old hat, but I am still not sure are fully understood. The national debt is the accumulation, year after year after year, of budget deficits. Put another way, that means the Government, year after year after year, is spending more than it takes in. Then, whether that is in millions or billions, it is shifted over at the end of each fiscal year to the national debt. But in 1980, the national debt was below $1 trillion, the accumulation of all the deficits since this Nation started over 200 years ago. From 1980 until 1995, that debt has gone up about five times, from under $1 trillion to $4.8 trillion as of now. And everyone in this body who understands the budget knows it is going to go up over $5 trillion sometime in this calendar year. Then it is going to go on up from there, because I have not seen a single projection yet by anybody, Democrat, Republican, independent, or any of the think tanks, that does not show continual, as far as we can see into the future, year after year after year, including up to the magic year 2002 that we had outlined in the constitutional amendment to balance the budget--it is going to go up each year. That is another way of saying--with that kind of accumulation, it is an understatement-- that the debt will be at least $6 trillion by the year 2000, which is another shattering statement. It may be part of the reason for the decline of the dollar and the concern for that the chairman of the Budget Committee has just outlined. I think it is well we understand that. Having said that, there are many complicating factors in play right now. I am not an isolationist, either in military policy or in economic policy, but the more and more we internationalize the United States of America's economy--the more and more we talk about free trade, the more and more NAFTA's that we have, the more and more GATT's that we have-- that is continually putting the economy of the United States of America in hands that are beyond our borders, so people in foreign countries have more and more to do with whether or not the economy of the United States of America is a sound one or a fragile one. The Senator from New Mexico made quite a point that the earlier estimate by the Clinton administration for the budget deficit at the end of this year was about $172 billion and the chairman of the Budget Committee further said that has now been revised upward from $172 billion to $197 billion or $198 billion. Of course, the basic reason for that, among other things, was partially a shortfall in the amount of money coming into the Treasury, but primarily it was due to the Federal Reserve Board raising interest rates, so that hurt Americans. But it also hurts the taxpayers in America because they have to pay more interest, a higher interest rate on the national debt. So not only is the national debt continuing to rise from under $1 trillion in 1980 to $4.8 trillion now, going up over $6 trillion before we can have any hopes of beginning to get it under control through some mechanism, but at the same time the interest that the taxpayers pay on that is going up dramatically for two reasons. No. 1, the debt keeps going higher and, No. 2, interest rates keep inching up. Now, we are seemingly getting ourselves into a situation that, after NAFTA and after GATT and after the bailout of the Mexican economy that some of us understood NAFTA was going to take care of--that was to take care of everything. That would smooth things out between those who live north and south of the border, which it obviously has not. But after all those concerns, we are still back to a situation where, among the other concerns of the budget, the fastest-growing, percentagewise, portion of the budget today is not national defense, it is not welfare, it is not Social Security benefits, it is not Medicare and Medicaid; the fastest growing percentage increase in the national debt is the interest, which is now approaching $300 billion a year. Talk about the foreigners pulling their money out of the United States of America; that is the good news/bad news situation once again. The facts of the matter are that foreign investors in the United States, those buying T-bills in the United States of America, are now receiving somewhere between $50 and $60 billion a year interest that the American taxpayers are paying. That is what they get for buying our T-bills. Another alarming thing, consider that about 25 percent of our debt, the excesses that we continue to spend, is being handled by foreigners. What kind of shape is the United States of America in today? What more reason do we need for some discipline to get our expenditures in line with our income on some kind of a reasonable, enforceable glidepath to a balanced budget? What more reason do we need than the fact that now we are becoming nervous because of the collapse of the dollar? The foreign investors in the United States may be pulling their money out of the United States of America. That could increase our interest rates. I think the sum of this whole thing is that the United States of America finds itself in an additionally perilous situation today where actions of foreigners, foreign entities, could cause a major recession in the United States of America. I am not sure, if we could balance the budget tomorrow, it would stop that, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. Let me conclude, though, Mr. President, by saying let us not be pointing fingers at the President of the United States on this. I do not agree with the connotation made by the Senator from New Mexico with regard to the fact that he said the President of the United States had walked away from the deficit problem. Mr. President, I submit the record shows that clearly is not correct. The President of the United States and the Democrats in 1993 passed, for the first time, the only significant decrease in the annual deficit that we have ever seen. We took a lot of heat for that. Whether you agree with everything that President Clinton does or whether you disagree with that, President Clinton is the first President since Harry Truman to establish a policy that has had a downward trend in the deficit for 3 consecutive years. do. And I, too, criticize the President's budget this year. Not only did the President not attack the deficit as I had hoped and wished that he would, but he also fell into line with the Contract With America that is supported by the Republicans on the House side and maybe some of the Republicans in the Senate to have a tax cut at a time we are screaming that we have to balance our budget. You cannot have it both ways. Anyone who is out there preaching a tax cut today, if they have any basic understanding of the budget of the United States of America, is either dead wrong or they are trying to mislead the people of the United States of America. So I simply say I am pleased that my colleague from New Mexico has outlined a very serious problem, another problem, something else that we had not anticipated that could have some rather dire circumstances on the United States of America. While I say I think it is important we press ahead even without the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which I was for and strongly supported, the world has not come to an end because that did not pass, and we still have the responsibility to work as best we can on a nonpartisan basis to move ahead with balancing the budget by the year 2002 or as soon thereafter as possible given the new realities of the situation. Senate Comity Mr. President, I wish to make some brief remarks on another subject that I think ties in with the reason that this Senate of ours gets itself tied up from time to time in gridlock. The events following the failure by one vote in this body last week to pass the constitutional amendment are something on which I wish to make a few remarks. I appeal to all Members of this body, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on and what their political affiliation is, to begin to recognize the lack of comity, the lack of understanding, the failure of those of us on both sides of this aisle to walk in other people's shoes on the other side of the aisle. I have been here now for 17 years. I must say, Mr. President, I am very much concerned about the fact that this body is becoming more and more a body of vicious arguments, a body that does not play within its rules somehow that we do not falsely accuse each other, with the teamwork that is necessary in passing many good pieces of legislation; the fact that if someone on the other side of the aisle or someone on our side of the aisle does not go along with a key vote that one of us thinks is absolutely critical, then there are some recriminations taking place. I need only cite the meeting that I understand from the press is going on today where the Republican majority in this body is meeting to see whether or not they are going to censure one of the most dedicated and talented Members on that side of the aisle, Senator Hatfield from the State of Oregon. Senator Hatfield had the unmitigated gall, in the opinion of some, to vote his conviction from that seat the other day and thereby, along with several other Senators that could be mentioned, caused the balanced budget amendment to fail. Now, I think I have the credentials to talk about that, Mr. President, because I did not agree with Senator Hatfield's vote. But I will defend to the end his right to vote his convictions. And if we are going to send a message throughout the land directed by the new majority that was elected in both the House and the Senate in the November elections, if that majority is going to be sending out the message that you march in lockstep with the contract, you march in lockstep with whatever we tell you to do or you are out as chairman of a committee or can be otherwise censured, then I think that points up and proves the point I am trying to make today, that this institution is beginning to break down and become a pit of rhetoric, not understanding that each one of us is pledged to do what he or she thinks is best for our State and best for our Nation. The Democrats sure do not have all the answers. We have proven that. The Republicans do not have the answers either, and I think they are proving that even faster than I thought they could. I simply say it is about time the freshmen Members of this body come into it with a bit of humbleness. Just because they served over in the other body where they could not talk more than 1 minute at a time, time and time again I have seen them come over to this body and languish in their new found freedom of talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. It does hurt, Mr. President, when Members on this side of the aisle or Members on that side of the aisle by statement, by implication, and by action indicate that we are going to punish our Members when they do not hew the line. I would only hearken back for a moment, if I might, Mr. President, to that 1993 budget bill that was passed by 50 votes in this body. We had to have the Vice President in the chair to cast the vote to break the tie. Those were all Democratic votes. There were defections from what was the position of the President of the United States, a Democrat. There were defections from what most of the Democrats in this body, including this one, thought was the right thing to do. Some of those defections were some of my closest friends and associates in this body who I served with and considered their actions and their decision at that particular time. While I did not agree with it, there was never a murmur on this side. I have never heard even in Cloakroom talk or out on the street a thought of trying to punish the six over seven Democrats that did not follow the party line. And maybe in the end, Mr. President, that is a basic difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the United States of America. They choose to try and whip their people into lockstep. I am proud to say--at least as far as I know--while we hope that there is discipline on this side to a degree when things which are fundamentally important are concerned, I have never heard of the Democrats ever considering censoring someone because they had the courage to vote their conviction. Mark Hatfield voted his conviction last week. While I thought it was a wrong vote, I admire him for that conviction. I hope that the cooler heads--and there are many of them on that side of the aisle--will not start on a warpath and not demean the standing and respect that I think this body should have in the public's eye by trying to whip or punish Senator Hatfield for casting the vote that he thought was right. Democrats and Republicans, it seems to me, can only expect us--and our constituents can only expect us--to trust our judgment to listen to them, but in the end vote our convictions and our consciences as to what is the right thing for our State and the right thing for our Nation. Mark Hatfield did that last week. I again say that I wish he had done otherwise. I wish he would have been the one vote that we needed to pass it. But I felt that I would not be stating my fondness for this institution and what it stands for without coming to the floor in defense of my friend Mark Hatfield because I am convinced that, while he did what he thought was right, if we ever get to the place in this body where Democrats are going to dictate whether they are in the majority or the minority, the Republicans are going to dictate whether they are in the majority or the minority, how I and every one of the Members of the party vote, then we have destroyed I think the deliberative body that I think the people expect from this great institution that we call the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask if I may yield to my colleague from Michigan for a statement, and I ask unanimous consent that I might yield for whatever short period he might need to my friend from Michigan.

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, as long as it would not be extended longer than the 2-minute period. We have a problem. The Senator from Michigan has to assume the chair, people have to catch airplanes. In deference to the Senator, I will not object.

Mr. EXON. Will the Chair explain to the Senator, are we in morning business, and are there time restraints on the amount of time that we are allowed to speak under the order?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will try to stay within that timeframe. I might request an additional minute or 2 if I run out of time. I want to start out, Mr. President, and briefly compliment my great friend and colleague from West Virginia. There is no Member that I have served more proudly with in the U.S. Senate than Robert Byrd. He is a very learned individual, and I listened and I have listened before to his great and persuasive arguments as to why the constitutional amendment should not be placed in the Constitution. And he has made some excellent points. He did not change my mind, but he made me quiver a few times. I simply say that I thought the statements, the way Senator Byrd, as usual, handled himself in a very professional, gentlemanly manner, made his points very, very well, and I am proud to serve with him. I am proud to serve with all of the Members of this body, even those who of course did not agree with my vote yesterday in support of the constitutional amendment. Nevertheless, I think it has been a very healthy debate. Basically, the reason this debate has been kept on track is because it has been the herding, keeping the locomotive of straight talk on track, by the Senator from West Virginia. Let me address some of the concerns I have. The main concern that I have--and I would like to say despite the fact that the balanced budget amendment did not pass yesterday, the world has not come to an end--I hope the comity and the understanding of Members on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of this important and contentious issue is such that we can move ahead in some kind of a proposition to bring our spiraling deficit and skyrocketing national debt under control. We can lament the fact that the balanced budget amendment failed by one vote yesterday. I think it is safe to assume that those Members who supported the balanced budget amendment think little is served by whipping or arguing at great length about maybe calling it up again tomorrow and turning it around. That is not going to happen. I will simply say that I hope we can leave politics as much as possible out of this debate. Having said that, I simply say, as a person who has always voted for a balanced budget amendment, I think that even with the great talents and arguments--many of them sound--that Senator Byrd and others advanced, we probably would have carried the day on the balanced budget amendment had it not been that politics got involved in this matter very early. Not long ago, the Republican National Committee, with their vast resources, decided they were going to put some pressure on Democratic Senators in certain States of the Union, and they went into those States and in some cases enlisted the Republican Governor of those States to attack publicly, at the expense of the Republican hierarchy, to bring pressure to bear. The facts of the matter are that that backfired. The facts of the matter are--and I am a pretty good vote counter in this body--I think that that activity, as much as anything else, was a prelude to the defeat of the balanced budget amendment yesterday. There were some talks today, unfortunately, on the floor of the Senate about people resigning because they changed parties and all of these kind of things, which brought a retort, of course, that possibly others who had voted for this previously and did not vote for it this time should resign. I do not think that kind of debate contributes much to the basic understanding, to advise the people on what the situation is. Let me say in the first place that I believe that there were mistakes made on both sides. I have cited what I think was a critical mistake when obviously the hierarchy of the Republican Party decided to politicize this debate, and if we look at the States where they advertised, we will see what I think is proof positive that their actions were ill advised, bad politics, and certainly bad strategy from the standpoint of passing the constitutional amendment. Everywhere they tried, they failed. In fact, I happen to feel, in conversations I have had with several of my colleagues that were caught in that attack, that it probably caused them to swing against the amendment, among other reasons. So it was counterproductive. I will also say that one of the problems I had with the constitutional amendment that I voted for was the fact that the hope was held out--in fact, it was almost a promise--that if we passed the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we would do so by the year 2002. Well, the facts of the matter are that had we passed that constitutional amendment yesterday, and had we not had a war between now and the year 2002, or a serious downturn in the economy, if everything went according to schedule, we still would not have balanced the budget the way most people think the balanced budget would have worked. I simply say it would have been far better, it seems to me, had my friends on the other side of the aisle, with whom I worked closely on this, been more upfront and said, ``Yes, we would not have actually balanced the budget by the year 2002 because we intend to use the amount of money that we protect and are going to continue to protect that is called the Social Security trust fund.'' So, therefore, it should have been said up front that if this constitutional amendment passes, we will balance the budget of the Federal Government by the year 2002, except for counting that is evident, and it is evident by the fact that it came up in discussion but has not been, I think, fully understood. Having said that, I do not agree. I did not agree and I disagree with those on this side of the aisle who, I think, made some very good political points by talking about the looting and the raiding of Social Security. Certainly, I think that was not the intent of all but one of the Members on that side of the aisle who voted for the amendment. It certainly was not the intent of this Senator. But I recognize that it was a good political argument to make. I do not believe that any of us who were supporting a constitutional amendment--I can only speak for myself, but I have some knowledge of the thinking that went on of others who were supporting this--that we were simply saying we were not raiding anything. We were simply recognizing the fact that some people do not understand; and that is that the Social Security trust fund is presently invested in T bills, securities of the United States of America fully backed with the faith and credit of the United States of America, and there is no way that we could or should raid those funds to balance a budget. Another way of saying that is a bookkeeping procedure, because clearly the law says that we cannot invest trust funds, especially Social Security trust funds, but all trust funds, we cannot invest them in the stock market or other speculative propositions, only in Government securities, basically T bills. So there was no raid on Social Security in the actual sense of the word. Let me simply ask, where do we go from here? It seems to me, although the balanced budget amendment would have given us the discipline that I think is necessary--it is not there for many and varied reasons-- therefore, that we should press on very aggressively to begin to balance a budget now without the constitutional amendment, as most of us said we hope we could do. I probably think the best way out of this is simply pass a resolution that the Budget Committee should report out, according to present law, by April 1, a budget that will balance the budget by the year 2002, or whenever. I will simply point out that the present law clearly states that you cannot use the Social Security trust fund to balance a budget. So I hope that possibly we could pass a resolution directing the Budget Committee to come out with a balanced budget amendment, notwithstanding the fact at least of now we are not going to put it in the Constitution, there is no reason why we should not press forward. I simply say I think people of good will should put politics aside now and try to work toward balancing the budget the only way we have available to us at the present time, and that is the will, the good fellowship and support of the men and women who serve on the Budget Committee; direct them to come forth with a balanced budget amendment by some period of year, hopefully 2002, that could balance a budget the way we have to balance a budget in the absence of a constitutional amendment to do so. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague, the manager of the bill. Let me be brief. I just want to say that I have listened to what Senator Simon just said about the debt that continues to consume America. Even if we pass this in the next half-hour--which I hope and urge we do--we are still at least 8 years away from beginning to cut down the national debt. That shows how far we are behind the curve. I just wish to say, Madam President, that it has been a real experience in working with the many people on both sides of the aisle. I hope we have the 67 votes in the next few minutes when we cast this historic vote. I think this amendment must be approved. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded approximately 8 minutes from the time reserved for Senator Hatch, the Senator from Utah.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a moment so I might thank him?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the High-Risk Drivers Act. Senator Danforth and I worked very hard on this legislation in the last Congress and I hope it can be passed quickly this year. This is indeed a most appropriate time for introduction and swift passage. While we have made significant progress in reducing death and injury on America's highways, it is time to build on that success and focus Federal resources on those areas which will produce the highest return on safety for each dollar invested. At this time of scrutiny for all Federal spending, the high-risk drivers bill gives taxpayers a great value. Three groups of drivers need special attention in our continuing efforts to make the Nation's highways safer. They are young drivers, high-risk drivers or repeat offenders and older drivers. This legislation encourages the States and the Federal Government to focus attention on all three groups. Even with the great need to reduce the Federal budget deficit, this is one area where we must recognize and take action on the fact that a small investment will yield significant returns. When I chaired a hearing on this important legislation last year, one expert testified that if this legislation were enacted, there would be at least a tenfold return on investment due to reduced costs of death, injury, and loss of productivity. Of course, no economist can measure the cost of the sorrow, pain, and suffering incurred by parents, friends, and families of those killed and injured in traffic accidents. No economist can measure the value of relief parents feel each and every time their young sons and daughters return home safely. Even with the long-term decline in traffic fatality rates, too many lose their lives in traffic accidents. In 1993, according to the National Safety Council, over 42,000 Americans died in auto crashes. That's like losing a city the size of Grand Island, NE and its surrounding area. This legislation focuses attention where it is most needed to reduce the carnage on America's highways. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among teenagers. Teen drivers comprise 7.4 percent of the U.S. population but are involved in 15.4 percent of the fatal motor vehicle crashes. The simple problem is that it takes a great deal of experience, judgment, and maturity to master the operation of a vehicle. Unfortunately, many young drivers are not getting the training they need to master the safe operation of automobiles. In addition, the temptations and pressures faced by today's teenagers sometimes run counter to the skills and the values needed to safely operate a motor vehicle. The high-risk drivers bill attempts to temper those temptations and impulses by putting at risk what many teens value the most, their driver's license, or, in the vernacular, their ``wheels.'' The High-Risk Drivers Act encourages States through incentive grants to conduct youth-oriented traffic-safety enforcement, education, and training programs, and to adopt a graduated license system where a full unrestricted license is not obtained until a young driver has had a clean driving record for at least 1 year. The bill focuses heavy attention on drinking and driving. States are encouraged to adopt a zero tolerance policy for underage drinking and driving by adopting, as the State of Nebraska has, a blood alcohol threshold level of .02 percent for drivers under the age of 21. In addition, the bill encourages States to adopt a minimum $500 fine for anyone who sells alcohol to minors, a 6-month suspension for drivers under the age of 21 caught drinking and driving and a prohibition against open containers of alcohol inside automobiles. The high-risk drivers bill also attempts to get parents involved by providing them with information about the effect that at-fault accidents and traffic violations have on young drivers insurance rates before any tragic and expensive accidents occur. The second focus area of this legislation is on repeat offenders and high-risk drivers. This section of the bill uses incentive grants to encourage States to maintain better records of serious drivers offenses, to improve the sharing of driver information, and to establish remedial programs for young high-risk drivers. Perhaps most innovative and effective is an effort to encourage States to adopt vehicle confiscation schemes for repeat drunk drivers. This provision, with appropriate protection for family members, will help crack down on that hard core group of repeat offenders drunk drivers who so endanger every citizen, including themselves. This legislation also establishes an aggressive research agenda for older drivers. Our Nation's transportation policies must anticipate the mobility needs of the Nation's senior population. This include strategies which use technology and licensing plans which help older drivers keep their independence. I am pleased to report that the American Association of Retired Persons supports the older driver provisions of this act. Finally, this important legislation boosts the authorization level for the important Anti-Drunk Driving Enforcement Program known as the 410 Program. This bill embraces the bipartisan compromise Senator Danforth and I crafted last year. Both the House and Senate voted for this legislation but the House-passed vehicle for this bill was blocked in the Senate during the closing hours of the last Congress for reasons unrelated to this important safety program. To put it another way, Mr. President, this measure has already passed both Houses of Congress and has agreed to, but, because of a technicality at the last minute, it failed to get passage. Mr. President, I am pleased that my own home State of Nebraska is seriously looking at a number of the proposals included in this and the original high risk-drivers bill Senator Danforth and I introduced in the last Congress. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support swift passage of this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the articles outlining some of Nebraska's efforts and the text of the High-Risk Drivers Act of 1995 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I would simply specify, Mr. President, if I might, the articles that I would like to have printed: ``Nebraska Leads in Drunken Driving Control,'' ``Panel Seeks Tougher DWI Law,'' and ``MADD Founder Faults Drunk-Driving Bill.'' be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I listened with keen interest to the remarks of my friend and colleague from North Dakota. I know he has been very much involved in this thing, and I want to thank him now for the support he gave to the Exon-Danforth bill last year. The Senator voted for it. I think it is the same, as I outlined in my remarks, since it passed the House and the Senate. I see no reason why we cannot expedite passage of this matter. I have delayed introducing it only because there were many other things going on, but I think, even as important as those matters are, that we should get going on this. Certainly, I was not aware of the sad fact that two members of his family have been killed by a drunk driver. Hardly a week goes by but that something very similar happens in the State of Nebraska, where the population compared with other States is smaller and we hear more about it. There are some things that we can do, rather than just sit back and wring our hands. There are some things, and I think the Federal Government can legitimately be of assistance to the States. I must tell the Senator that this piece of legislation was sparked primarily by a typically tragic teenage accident that happened in my State not too many months ago where young people, 16 and 17 years of age, went out for a good time at night. The problem was that the driver had one too many half-cans of beer. It is a tragic. I am not saying that this bill will solve all of the problem, but I appreciate the pledge of support from my colleague from North Dakota. I think that the feelings of this Senator, the Senator from North Dakota, and others are shared broadly on both sides of the aisle on this matter, on this measure. It is not a cure-all, but a significant step in the right direction. I thank my friend from North Dakota for his remarks.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Exon and Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 387 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') (Mr. COCHRAN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as if in morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes for the purpose of introducing a bill and making a brief explanation of it.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.