J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been listening with interest to the debate on what very likely will be an upcoming amendment with regard to whether or not we are eventually going to get to a vote on the balanced budget amendment. As the Chair knows, this Senator has been very much involved in all of this because while I think that there are many good reasons for not having a balanced budget amendment as a part of the Constitution, I think after the years that I have served here and on the Budget Committee, I must say that without that discipline that I think we have exhibited in the past by the tendencies that seem to prevail and by the fact that we have not even come close to balancing the Federal budget, I am convinced that with the reservations that are obviously in order, and many of them well taken, this Senator believes that we have to have a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget. I think the arguments that are being made today with regard to Social Security are good ones. Many of my close friends, with whom I have worked for many, many years in this body, are supporting that kind of an amendment. I guess the question comes down to in this Senator's mind: How are we going to fashion, if we can, 67 votes in this body to pass a constitutional amendment? The more I see and the more I hear, the more fearful I come to the conclusion that maybe it is not possible, maybe some of these votes that were taken pro and con on this issue are going to simply give cover to one group or one party or one Member to vote against the balanced budget amendment. I say in all candor, Mr. President, one of the big problems we have is that I am not sure a majority of this body understand the difficulty we have once we have passed a constitutional amendment and assume that will be ratified by three-fourths of the States. Another way of putting it would be that passing the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, as was done with great fervor, with great fanfare, and with great flag waving on the Contract With America, was the easy part. That was not necessarily the time for celebration. That was done in the House of Representatives, I would suggest, without fully informing the Members of the House of Representatives, 435 of them, and certainly not informing the State legislators who are going to have to vote, three-fourths of them, before such a constitutional amendment, if it passes the Senate, would be enforceable. Certainly last, but far from least, I do not believe the American people have been afforded an opportunity to fully understand what all of this means. In fact, I am very much concerned because I saw a poll the other day that I suspect is accurate. I think it kind of represents what I have heard from various sources. That is, that 72 percent of the American public strongly support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but 47 percent of the American public think the budget can be balanced by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. I say to the people of the United States that they have been sorely misled, indeed, if they believe the Federal budget can be balanced by the year 2002 with the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse. No one in this body and no one over on the House of Representatives side really believes we should have one dollar or one penny of waste, fraud and abuse. And I can understand how the public has been abused on that because of the time and attention that has been paid to $1,400 toilet seats and $200 hammers and other things of that nature, which is ridiculous on its face. There was a half an hour program on the prominent show called Nightline a couple of weeks ago, a whole half-hour devoted to whether or not we should dispose of the $268 million we are spending annually to subsidize public radio and public television, and that is a very legitimate debate. There are two sides of discussion on that, and both of them can make a point. But when you talk about that, even if we would eliminate any and all assistance, taxpayer assistance to public radio and public television, that $238 million, although it is an awful lot of money, is such a small, infinitesimal amount of the deficit that if we eliminated that and all such programs it would not even put a minor, thimble-sized dent in the budget deficit. Another way of putting all of it is that far too much attention is being focused on shortcomings in the budget process and not enough attention is being given to the significant cuts that are going to have to be made to balance the budget in the year 2002 as would be required under a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I guess another way of saying this is that I am not sure all of it has been put in proper perspective. I voted earlier today for the amendment offered by the Democratic leader called the right-to-know- amendment. I voted for that amendment not because I was particularly excited, nor did I really feel we should go so far as to incorporate such language as the Daschle amendment, of which I was a cosponsor, into the Constitution of the United States of America. I would guess that probably, if we would have passed that and it had been included, it would be the first time in the history of the United States of America such language would have been incorporated in with a constitutional amendment. And so I caution with regard to what we should be putting into the Constitution. I was a cosponsor, and I voted for that amendment, trying to have a better understanding, trying to bring the two sides, the Democrats and the Republicans, together on this issue. And even had it passed, which I suspected that it would not have, we maybe could have taken that out and gotten back to a constitutional amendment at least somewhat in the form of the constitutional amendments that have been passed in the past. Certainly I would be one of those to say we should amend the Constitution with considerable restraint. Now, back to the matter of Social Security. The Senator has stood at this good points have been made by those who do want to protect the Social Security trust fund. And I wish to do that also. I have said that even if the coming constitutional amendment would be passed without such protection, at least this Senator very likely would not ever agree to raid the Social Security trust funds. My only appeal is that possibly there is a way we could sit down and work together to come up with some type of arrangement offering proper guarantees to the logical protection of the Social Security trust fund which I think have been outlined very effectively and precisely by many of my colleagues who have spelled out this matter in this Chamber. Let me put it another way, if I might, Mr. President. I would be willing to sit down with anyone, any group, any combination of groups to see if we could factor in some type of workable compromise which would get us the 67 votes that are necessary, and I think we should try to get, to proceed to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and then refer it to the States. So I would simply like to ask, Mr. President, if there is any way that we could assure--and under those conditions I might vote with my colleagues who are offering the Social Security amendment, if I could have the assurance of some of those who are proposing the amendment that they then would turn around and be one of the 67 votes we need to pass the constitutional amendment. Putting together 67 votes in the Senate on this issue is going to be a very difficult task. From the counting that I have done as of now--it is not infallible because I think there is some shifting going on, but it would appear to me very likely, if we had the vote today, the final vote on sending a constitutional amendment to the States by the Senate would fail. Given that concern of mine, I would simply say to my colleagues on both sides of this issue, and both sides on the many other issues that are likely to be brought forth on this matter: Let us try to work together. I do not think anyone has the wisdom, the knowledge, the intellect to be able to solve all of these problems. As a body of 100 people who are charged to represent their constituents and the people of the United States as a whole, I just hope we can get together. I think there are many of us who share the goal. All of us do not----

Mr. EXON. I hope we can maybe come together on some kind of compromise, some kind of understanding that does not so weaken and change the constitutional amendment to balance the budget that it will not work. Last but not least, whatever we do, I think we must--we have the obligation to go far further than we have as of now, to explain how difficult this will be, and the sacrifices that probably every American is going to have to make to get it accomplished. I outlined in a speech 10 days ago some of the major concerns in this area, that I would reference as a part of my speech. That might be referred to. Mr. President, I call for cooperation to get a balanced budget amendment passed by the Senate. That is most important of all. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the decency provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 to clearly cover the new technologies which are increasingly part of the American way of life. As a strong supporter of telecommunications reform, I am anxious to pass legislation which will free the private sector to create the information superhighway. This exciting technology will put unprecedented information power into the hands of every citizen. The opportunities for education, culture, and entertainment are limitless. Sadly, there is a dark side to the bright flicker of the computer screen. The explosion of technology also threatens an explosion of misuse. The legislation I introduce today, known as the Communications Decency Act, establishes legal protections against that misuse. It modernizes the current law against telecommunications misuse in the digital age. This legislation will extend and strengthen the protections which exist against harassing, obscene, and indecent phone calls to cover all such uses of all telecommunications devices and increase the penalties for misuse of the public switched network. This much-needed legislation increases the penalties for obscene cable and radio broadcasts. The bill also insures that adult pay-per- view programs are fully scrambled, so that homes which do not subscribe to such services are not invaded by unwanted audio or video. The legislation also prohibits the use of toll free 800 numbers from being used as a ruse to charge callers or telephone numbers for adult and other pay-per-call services. In addition, the legislation modernizes the protections against unauthorized eavesdropping on conversations, electronic or digital communications. In addition, this legislation includes provisions Senator Gorton and I crafted last year to give cable operators the power to refuse to transmit any public access or leased access program or portion of such program which includes obscenity, indecency, or nudity. Mr. President, the information superhighway should not become a red light district. This legislation will keep that from happening and extend the standards of decency which have protected telephone users to new telecommunications devices. Once passed, our children and families will be better protected from those who would electronically cruise the digital world to engage children in inappropriate communications and introductions. The Decency Act will also clearly protect citizens from electronic stalking and protect the sanctuary of the home from uninvited indecencies. Mr. President, to illustrate the need for this legislation, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post article be included in the Record. The article warns parents about the dangers of pedophiles who use computers to lure children. It is a sad day in America when this type of warning is necessary. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to carefully study this important legislation. It was approved last year by the Senate Commerce Committee as a part of the Communications Act of 1994.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, my colleagues know that I am a long-time supporter of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. We have tried numerous other remedies, but they have failed to restrain our buy-now-and-pay-later habits. We have only proved how clever we are in creating loopholes and dodging the spending limits. I believe that the balanced budget amendment is our only hope; it is our last hope to break the cycle of runaway Federal spending. However, too many people deal with the balanced budget amendment in the abstract. They will not face up to the harsh reality that goes along with it. They are queasy about telling the American people about the sacrifices that will be involved. The real work begins after we pass the balanced budget amendment. Passage of the legislation is merely a prologue to the really tough decisions that we have to make. We will have to roll up our sleeves and begin in earnest to cut spending. The problem, Mr. President, is this: We have a distorted picture of how much is available for us to cut. I will try in these remarks to let the sunlight of straight talk shine in, revealing fully and honestly our task. It was swept under the rug in the House. We must not allow that to happen in the Senate. Mr. President, the spending pool looks much bigger and deeper than it really is. It would be prudent to test the waters before we dive in. It would be prudent for the people, their Governors, and their legislators, to know what is in the constitutional amendment. It is a far-reaching measure, and it is time we take off the blindfolds, open our eyes and take a look at it. We find ourselves in such difficult straits because so much spending is placed off-limits. The pool becomes smaller and smaller and shrinks and shrinks. And one program after another is drained into a protected reservoir, not to be cut. I want to take a few minutes to walk my colleagues through this daunting task of balancing the budget by the year 2002, the first year when the balanced budget amendment could take effect. Let us start with some reference points. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the projected deficit for the year 2002 will be $322 billion. Under the CBO sample deficit reduction path, we would have to make $1.2 trillion in savings over 7 years. Setting aside possible debt savings, we would need to cut $259 billion in the last, the seventh, year. Total spending for the year 2002 is estimated to be $2.3 trillion. At first look, you might say we can certainly find $259 billion in savings out of that. The problem is that the size of the $2.3 trillion spending pool is very misleading. Much of it has already been spoken for. For example, $344 billion is reserved for interest on the debt. We cannot do anything about that. We certainly cannot touch that money. It would cause financial chaos throughout the world. So after we take that out, we are down to $1.9 trillion in spending. To bring us into balance, we would need to make a 13-percent across-the-board cut in spending. That does not sound too bad. But what about Social Security? The Social Security bill for the year 2002 runs to $481 billion. The Republican leadership in the House and Senate have stated that Social Security should not be used to balance the budget. That is a good argument, but, if we exclude Social Security and interest on the debt that I have just referenced, our spending pool from which to make cuts has shrunk to $1.4 trillion. To bring the budget into balance now would require an 18-percent across-the-board cut. Now, we come to a very important matter called defense, a major component of discretionary spending. I have expressed my concerns about the defense budget and the cuts that have been made and the hits that national defense has taken over the years. I believe that we are courting serious danger to national security if we cut any deeper into that program. But, for the sake of argument, let us use a ballpark estimate of the President's 1996 defense budget in the year 2002, about $275 billion. Now subtract that from our available spending pool and we are down to $1.2 trillion. That translates into a 22-percent across-the-board cut in everything else to achieve a balance. I am also hearing a great deal about tax cuts. That has been discussed on the floor this afternoon. I, too, favor cuts when we can afford them. But right now, our priorities should be that deficit reduction must come first. How can we mention tax cuts and balanced budget amendment in the same breath? It strikes me as the height of irresponsibility. But for a moment, let us assume that the tax cut in the House Contract With America is passed. In the year 2002, that represents $97.7 billion drain on the Treasury, further shrinking that pool that I have been making reference to. The tax cut increases the spending cut required to reach balance from $259 to $357 billion. We are headed in the wrong direction, Mr. President. What about the across-the-board spending cut needed to achieve a balanced budget? If we pass the tax cut, it climbs to an incredible 30 percent of all remaining spending. I could carry this exercise even further. If veterans programs were taken off the table, the across-the-board cut would rise to 31 percent. Remove military retirement, it is up to 32 percent. Take off civilian retirement, it is 34 percent. Subtract Medicare, it is 50 percent. And so on, and so on, and so on. Mr. President, these are the facts. These are facts that I daresay few Members, if any, in the House took a look at and probably not too many here in the Senate have taken the time to look at them either. Of course, I do not believe that we will ever reach the point where we will have to cut 50 percent from all other programs. That is absurd. But it does show that if we follow this hands-off approach, a small number of discretionary programs are going to take a very large and perhaps an unfair share of the cuts. And what sort of programs are these that would be left for the up to 50 percent cuts? Everything from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the Women, Infants and Children feeding program, to Head Start, to cancer research, to keeping open the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone National Parks, and all of the other programs in between. Mr. President, the point here is that the American people have a right to know what it will take to balance the budget. We should lay out the policies and actions that will be necessary to reach that goal and not hide behind some curtain and say, ``We'll tell you about it later.'' We should do it before we vote on this legislation. Mr. President, let me emphasize even further how difficult this task which this Senator supports is going to be. I am going to read a portion now, Mr. President, of a letter that was recently handed to me from the Communication Workers of America that I think is very instructive, not only for Nebraska, but the other States that are mentioned in the Wharton deliberations and reports, on what would happen to Nebraska if the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would pass. The letter reads: Workers of America (CWA) urges you to reject the federal balanced budget amendment, S.J. Res. 1, when this legislation comes before the Senate for debate and vote. Enactment of this proposal would wreak havoc on the economy of Nebraska, according to a study conducted by Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates (WEFA). The WEFA study forecasts that enactment of a balanced budget amendment would cause a drop in personal income of $6,900,000,000 (six billion, nine hundred million dollars) among residents of Nebraska by the year 2003. This is a decrease of 12.9 percent from the 1994 level. Similarly disturbing, a balanced budget amendment would reduce employment in Nebraska by 29,300 jobs by 2003. This would increase Nebraska's unemployment rate by 2.6 percent. The service sector of Nebraska's economy would be especially hard hit, according to the WEFA study. On a national level, a balanced budget would bring about a loss of 6,400,000 jobs by 2003. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would decline by 3.7 percent. In conclusion, the balanced budget amendment would lay waste Nebraska's economy and damage America's well-being. CWA requests that you vote against this misguided proposal. Attached is information documenting the negative effects that this legislation would precipitate. Signed, Lou Gerber, Legislative Representative. And attached to that is a copy from the Wharton School, ``How a Federal Balanced Budget Would Affect Nebraska's Economy.'' Behind that, after Nebraska's economy, there is a table that shows its similar effect on every other State in the Union. I ask unanimous consent that this material be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague from the great State of Utah.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me comment if I can. How in the world could a Senator from Nebraska, after reading this work by the Wharton group, support a balanced budget amendment? Well, No. 1, I have not had a chance to study this in great detail. Obviously, the organization that prepared this is a well-established, well-known, well-respected forecasting firm. I remember using their material way back 20 years ago when I was Governor of Nebraska. So they are not a fly-by-night outfit. They have evidently done a great deal of study and work. I know not what assumptions, Mr. President, they made in preparing this material because, obviously, they had to make some. It is safe to say that what the Wharton people are pointing out here, while I do not suspect it is going to have an adverse effect on Nebraska to the extent that they outline, is that the constitutional amendment to balance the budget will cause some pain, suffering, and hardship in Nebraska and every other State in the Union. Another way of saying that, Mr. President, is we have to swallow some pretty sour-tasting medicine and hope that it can cure us from the spending spree that in the last 14 years has seen a series of multibillion-dollar annual deficits that are transferred at the end of the year over to the national debt. In the last 14 years, the national debt of the United States has grown from under $1 trillion to the present level of $4.7 trillion, and it is going higher. Every person in the House and every person in the Senate knows that. We will have to raise the debt ceiling and borrow more money before the end of calendar 1995. Even if we balance the Federal budget by passage of the constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget, it is obvious, Mr. President, that from now until the year 2002--when we intend to reach balance--our debt is going to continue to rise certainly somewhere near the $7 trillion figure, because every projection that we have indicates that we are going to have multibillions of dollars in deficit for the next several years. I started out by saying, Mr. President, that I was for a balanced budget amendment. I am for a balanced budget amendment even with the sour medicine, even with the hurt that it is going to cause my State of Nebraska. I am for it so long as everyone shares and shares alike as reasonably as possible. Then I believe that the people of the State of Nebraska would say, if we are treated fairly and if we are not picked on, if we have to swallow this pill to straighten out the fiscal mess of the Federal Government, let Congress do it and get it over with. Let's quit passing it along each and every year, as we have been doing since Hector was a pup, charging it off to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. President, let me say in conclusion that I think we must do this. I think we must swallow the medicine. I think we must make the hard choices. But I think we should emphasize the people's right to know. If the Wharton School of Econometric Forecasts are not right, then we should have other people make a study as to what is right for Nebraska--and Iowa and North Dakota and South Dakota and Kansas and Colorado and California and Maine and Florida and Washington State, and everybody in between. I am rising, Mr. President, to try to set a record straight, to tell the truth, to emphasize once again that passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, as was done so bravely in the House of Representatives last week, is the easy part of the ball game. The nitty-gritty, the line play, is what counts. I simply say, Mr. President, this Senator is going to be pushing for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but at the same time I am going to be saying to my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, we need to let the sunshine in. We need to take off the blindfolds. We need to tell the truth. Then and only then, do I think we would be able to marshal the support of the people of this country to make this work. Then and only then, Mr. President, can we expect the legislators of the 50 States to take a look at this with some knowledge and decide whether or not they want to ratify the amendment as three-fourths of them will have to do before this amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Mr. President, I think we are on the right track. But I think the track should be bearing a train toward a balanced budget amendment that goes slow enough so that we can see the pitfalls on the side of the road. Mr. President, I urge support for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget with its pain and suffering and with its warts, so long as we tell the people the truth and let the sunshine in. I yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 [From the Coalition for Budget Integrity, Feb. 1994] How A Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Would Affect Nebraska's Economy

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask further that, at the conclusion of my remarks, a sheet entitled ``Across the Board Spending Cuts Required to Achieve the Balanced Budget in 2002,'' which I referenced in my remarks, be printed in the Record, also.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Michigan which would establish a sunset date for the unfunded mandates bill. Mr. President, this is a fair and reasonable amendment. Quite frankly, I was surprised that a sunset provision was not included in the legislation before us today. I remind my colleagues that last session's version of the unfunded mandates bill, S. 993, contained a sunset date. It was my understanding, and also that of many of the negotiators who hammered out this bipartisan compromise, that we would have a sunset date. It is unclear why it fell off the radar screen. Mr. President, I believe a sunset provision is crucial to the success of this bill. A sunset provision will help--not out a few of the reasons why. First, sunset provisions are a common sight on the legislative landscape. For example, the revenues used to fund the Superfund Program sunset this year. We have had sunset provisions in everything from the crime bill to school-to-work to the 1990 farm bill. This is not an alien provision. Second, we are dealing with brand, spanking new legislation. It is untried and untested. Like a product coming off the assembly line for the first time, this bill needs a trial period so that any problems and bugs can be worked out. The Congressional Budget Office has expressed concern over the analyses that are required by the bill. In testimony last year before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Director Reischauer gave a candid assessment of the difficulty in completing these analyses on a timely basis, not to mention, culling reliable information for them. Now, a sunset provision in 1998 would allow Congress to pause and examine the job that CBO has performed to date. We could then fine tune, and if necessary, retool that process to make this bill even more effective. Third, a sunset provision is not going to kill the Unfunded Mandates Program. This bill's time has come and I see nothing on the horizon to lead me to believe that it would be scrapped 4 years hence. I would also point out that we have 57 cosponsors to date. If the legislation lives up to expectations, we should have no problem marshaling the same support we have today. if not, then Congress can begin the process anew. Fourth, Mr. President, the unfunded mandates bill does not operate in a vacuum. We have to look at the unfunded mandates bill in the context of the Budget Act. The caps and other major provisions of the act--including the supermajority points of order--expire in 1998. Since we will have to revisit the entire Budget Act in 1998, it makes sense to be consistent and provide for a 1998 sunset provision in this piece of legislation as well. Mr. President, this is a reasonable, well-thought-out amendment. I believe most of our colleagues can support it. In no manner does the sunset provision diminish the effect of the legislation. It merely demonstrates our commitment to quality legislation that meets not only today's needs, but tomorrow's as well.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would simply point out that I am not sure that the States, the Governors or, for that matter, maybe some of the people financial circumstances that the Federal Government--that they are a part of--is in. I am an original cosponsor and am strongly for passing the mandates bill. I have been one of the floor leaders on this piece of legislation. I predict that we will pass this legislation. I will protect the rights of those who wish to offer amendments. I think they have that right under the rules of the Senate, and I will do everything I can to protect that. But I would simply say, on a very important bill like this, every Senator, regardless of which side of the aisle, should have the right to get up and offer amendments as they see fit. Then the body as a whole has to vote as to whether or not that is a good concept. The mandates bill is going to be followed, I suspect, in reasonably short order by some kind of a discussion on the balanced budget amendment. And they are somewhat tied in. While the States are now moaning and groaning--and I think justifiably so--with regard to so- called unfunded mandates, unfunded mandates, unfortunately, have taken on a very big life of their own. The facts of the matter are that many of the States of the Union, including my State of Nebraska, get more money back from the Federal Government than the State of Nebraska pays in. The last figures I saw are that Nebraska gets back about $1.17 for every $1 that Nebraska citizens pay into the Federal Government in the form of Federal taxes. Now, one could argue, and probably justifiably so, that the total amount of taxes could be reduced if the Federal Government would go back and reduce some of their spending. And I would agree with that. That is what we are about with the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, when and if that becomes a part of our Constitution. I simply am rising, Mr. President, to send a signal very loud and very clear that this is not a one-way street. If we are going to exempt the States and hold them harmless, if we are going to start down the list and begin to exempt a whole lot of other people, then it will make it totally ``Mission Impossible'' to ever balance the Federal budget, let alone by the year 2002. Everyone should recognize and realize that, when we get spelled out in considerable detail a 7-year budget plan that I think can and should be developed by the Budget Committee and presented to the Senate floor, it will be very evident there is going to be a lot of pain and suffering, a lot of disappointments. And I would simply say that, by and large, I am not interested in starting down this road of exempting this and exempting that, because I think this is going to be a painful enough process. Therefore, I salute those who are bringing up questions about the mandates. Those of us who have long supported a constitutional amendment on the Federal budget recognize and realize that there are two legitimate points of view. There are those who strongly oppose the mandate legislation and there will be even more that will strongly oppose the follow-on piece of legislation known as the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I think those who do not agree with this Senator perform a very worthwhile service, because, as is usual with most discussion and most propositions, there are two sides. All is not white and all is not black or vice versa. With that, Mr. President, I just want to say that there are some people, including Mr. Cooper who I have quoted from this story, who simply do not understand the situation. And when he says he is for a balanced budget amendment so long as the States are protected, then that is a caveat that I think we cannot accept. I still am a strong supporter of the bill before us, but I am pleased to see there are some who do not agree with this piece of legislation and have pointed out some shortcomings with this legislation. They are providing a great public service. I suspect that there have been few, if any, bills that we have ever passed in the U.S. Senate, regardless of how well-sounding they are, that are perfect legislation. The mandate legislation is not perfect legislation. It will not cure all of our ills. When and if we pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2002, and if that is ratified by 75 percent of the States, that is not going to cure all of our problems. The devil is definitely going to be in the details when we get down to such matters as a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. [Exhibit No. 1] [From the Omaha World Herald, Jan. 24, 1995] States Fear Mandates, Expert Says (By David C. Beeder) Washington.--States will not support a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget unless it includes a guarantee they won't have to assume more federal programs, a former assistant attorney general said Monday. ``The states are already groaning under the costs of implementing federal polices,'' said Charles Cooper, who practices constitutional law in Washington. Cooper, testifying before the Joint Economic Committee, said approval by three-fourths of the states will require a constitutional guarantee against giving state and local governments programs without the money of pay for them. He said passing a law barring unfunded mandates would be inadequate protection for the states. ``The requirements of a balanced budget amendment would increase exponentially the incentives for shifting federal financial burdens to the states,'' Cooper said. Cooper, who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, said he supports a balanced budget amendment. Cooper's testimony was followed by a warning from Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, who said a constitutional amendment to balance the budget could not be forced. ``It would be wonderful if we could simply declare by constitutional amendment that from this day forward the air would be clean, the streets would be free of drugs and the budget forever in balance,'' Dellinger said. ``In the absence of enforcement mechanisms such as presidential impoundment of funds or judicial involvement in the budgeting process, a balanced budget amendment is unlikely to bring about a balanced budget,'' Dellinger said. Sen. Connie Mack, R-Fla, said Dellinger's arguments were not ``of such magnitude that we should not move forward'' with an amendment that would require a balanced budget by 2002 and a three-fifths vote to increase taxes. Mack said he would recommend enforcement of the balanced budget amendment by a spending-reduction commission resembling a presidential commission that decided on military base closing two years ago. If Congress did not balance the federal budget by 2002, as required by the amendment, the commission would recommend spending reductions to meet the requirement. Congress would accept or reject the recommendations without debate, Mack said. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we move forward on the mandates legislation, I would like to read a portion of a newspaper article that appeared in the Omaha World Herald on January 24. The headline reads: ``States Fear Mandates, Expert Says; Balanced Budget Could Mean More,'' by David C. Beeder, of the Omaha World Herald Bureau in Washington, DC. The story reads: States will not support a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget unless it includes a guarantee they won't have to assume more Federal programs, a former assistant attorney general said on Monday. Charles Cooper, who practices consitutional law in Washington, said: ``The States are already groaning under the cost of implementing Federal policies.'' It goes on to say: Cooper, who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, said he supports a balanced budget amendment. I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. President, the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Let the Record show I tried. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time is needed in support of the amendment offered by myself and Senator Domenici. Mr. President, I rise in support of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the amendment unanimously recommended by the Budget Committee regarding the role of the Budget and Governmental Affairs Committee in the application of this legislation. My friend and colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, makes a lot of sense. When we write legislation such as the broad fresh brush of this legislation, we must be vigilant not to set dangerous precedents. Unfortunately in one very troubling area, we have let down our guard. Granting the Government Affairs Committee sole jurisdiction to determine whether or not a piece of legislation is an unfunded mandate is a very dangerous precedent. However, if we strike the Budget Committee amendment we would be vesting in one committee, the Government Affairs Committee, the authority to make final determinations on the applications of a point of order. I am very uncomfortable with such a radical change. I have always relied on the good wisdom of the Parliamentarian on such matters and that is the time-tested course of action we should take with us on S. 1. Currently, for all other points of order under the Budget Act, the Chair turns to the Parliamentarian for any such determination of law. The Senate Parliamentarian's office is staffed with skilled and able lawyers, learned in the precedents of the Senate. They do an admirable job, often on very short notice. When the Parliamentarian determines that the budget estimates are required, the Parliamentarian turns to the Budget Committee as required by the Budget Act. I am not a lawyer. But for my colleagues who are lawyers, I am advised that the Parliamentarian decides questions of law much as does a judge in a trial. The role of the Budget Committee is limited by law and precedent to questions of fact, not questions of law. The Budget Committee merely provides the budgetary numbers to the Parliamentarian, who then takes these numbers into account in advising the Chair. This system has worked well for 20 years. Over the years, the Chairs of the Budget Committee have fulfilled this advisory role with objectivity and without regard to partisan advantage. By and large, the Chair of the committee merely passes along a Congressional Budget Office estimate and only rarely does an analyst for the committee have to extrapolate from such estimates. I have full confidence that Senator Domenici will continue to fulfill this role with objectivity and evenhandedness now that he has regained the chair of the committee. He did that previously. I think he will do so again. But let me say parenthetically that I shall be sure to point out most vocally any instance in which he does not. Let me also say that it is altogether fitting that a single Senator be charged with this estimating responsibility. the Chamber who can provide these estimates, sometimes long after the Congressional Budget Office has gone home for the night. Giving two committees this authority would almost certainly lead to confused advice to the Parliamentarian. The Chair must know who to turn to, as they have in the past, on such matters. The amendment proposed by the chairman of the Budget Committee and unanimously approved by that committee would merely continue that practice, indeed. If the language slipped into the draft of S. 1 that this amendment corrects were merely dropped and there were no references to the committees at all, the Parliamentarian would continue his practice of turning to the Budget Committee for budgetary estimates. What is more reasonable than that? I believe stripping the Domenici amendment from the bill would needlessly complicate the enforcement procedures in S. 1. With the Domenici amendment, we have the right mechanism to enforce violations of S. 1. Why clutter it up with a very cumbersome, clumsy, and untested process? The Budget Committee has for 20 years done this. They have the experience in dealing with language such as that contained in S. 1. We have served as the liaison with the Congressional Budget Office to provide the Parliamentarian with CBO cost estimates for all of that period. Mr. President, there is no compelling reason to set such a dangerous precedent as that suggested by the underlying governmental affairs language. There is no compelling reason to grant one Senate committee such unprecedented power over matters better left to the Parliamentarian. There is no compelling reason to change what is not broken. I urge my colleagues to accept the Budget Committee's amendment as unanimously accepted by the Budget Committee and clearly endorsed by Senator Roth, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. s.1 and budget committee's role

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is certainly correct.

Mr. EXON. How about right now?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have listened with keen interest to my friend from Michigan and the points he has made. I will simply reply that in the first interest, several sections vest the Budget Committee with decisions on matters of fact, not matters of law. Under the situations we are talking about, the Parliamentarian is the chief legal advisor to the Presiding Officer. He is the official in whom we should vest this power. I believe from the beginning that is what we intended to do. It is inappropriate to vest that power in another committee. I will simply say that the Senator from Michigan could have conducted a similar set of inquiries with regard to any new point of order. Of course, the Parliamentarian has not ruled on a point of order that has not yet been adopted or enacted into law. I do not know that there would be a different ruling from a Parliamentarian in the future, but I hope that that Parliamentarian will continue to rule on the precedents of the past. But neither does the Governmental Affairs Committee have any expertise at all in this matter. And certainly I would simply say to the U.S. Senate that regardless of the twists and turns of this matter, and regardless of this debate, which has carried not so much on the specifics of the amendment offered by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici from New Mexico, but has carried over into some concerns that I know the Senator from Michigan has on the whole matter of mandates and how they are going to be enforced. I simply say that those kinds of considerations and arguments that are going to be made in very articulate fashion, I suggest, by my friend from Michigan, probably refer to--and may be appropriate on-- passage of the whole mandate bill. I have talked with the Senator from Michigan. He has done a lot of research on this. I was very much interested and impressed with the information that has been brought to his attention in the form of a letter, after inquiry by the Senator from Michigan, from the Congressional Budget Office that raises a whole set of new questions about whether or not CBO can make these estimates, and they have said in some instances they have no way of making these estimates. I believe part of the argument that is being made against the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico are arguments that will be made along the same lines, but possibly in a little different fashion, by the Senator from Michigan. The Senator from Michigan talks about allowing consultation with the Government Affairs Committee. I have no objection to that. But the language of the bill provides no such compromise. The bill says that the Government Affairs Committee, ``shall have the authority to make the final determination.'' That is what we are trying It is open to a compromise, I suggest, regarding consultation. But to get to the compromise first we have to adopt the Budget Committee amendment to page 25 that strikes the exclusive power--and I emphasize, Mr. President, exclusive power--of the Governmental Affairs Committee that they want to maintain as they wrote S. 1, and is a part that the Budget Committee and chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee is trying to correct for the reasons that we have outlined. The basic reason is why change a system that has worked well? Leave well enough alone. That is the heart of the argument. And that is why we hope the Senate will adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. President, I had hoped and had agreed earlier, a couple of hours ago, on a time agreement--an hour equally divided. I think the Record will clearly show the Senator from Nebraska felt, when we started this debate, we were on controlled time. I find out later that has not been the case. May I suggest in the interests of moving the Senate along in expeditious fashion, since we have been on this a long time and I suspect not a great deal new is going to be said pro and con on the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico, that we agree to, I suggest, a 20-minute extension of time equally divided from this time forward and then have a vote? Is there any objection to that?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we may be beginning to make progress on this, maybe we can agree to this amendment. I advise my friend from Ohio that this Senator did not negotiate with the House of Representatives on this matter. I understand that the majority side has been negotiating with them. I have been told by the majority side that the House of Representatives endorses and wants us to leave this matter. We are checking on that right now. I hope that I can reach Senator Domenici so he can come back on the floor, since I believe it was he or one of the Republican members of the Budget Committee who did the actual negotiations with the House on this and not minority member of the Budget Committee. Let me emphasize once again that the Budget Committee has always followed the procedure, as has the Senate for 20 years, that when matters with regard to points of order have been raised on the figures supplied to the Budget Committee--which most people would agree is the authority on this, has the staff to follow it, and has the responsibility to work with CBO to get exact numbers--that those matters have traditionally been decided by the Parliamentarian, advising the Chair. We simply want to leave that the way it has always been and not change it. I hope that we will have a more definitive answer to the legitimate question raised by the Senator from Ohio with regard to what is the pleasure of the House of Representatives on this matter. It was not our intention to be doing anything except to try to parallel the processes that will be necessary to work out, I suggest, some parliamentary questions that are going to be raised and to which points of order might lie. In that instance, the Parliamentarian would be advising the Presiding Officer as to what the situation was. I emphasize again, as has Senator Domenici and as has Senator Roth, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, that all we are doing is trying to leave this the way it was. Now, I happen to think that the Budget Committee should legitimately play a role when budgetary matters are considered, and it is simply the position of the Budget Committee that we should leave well enough alone and not try to fix something that is not broken. I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, it may be a misunderstanding and we may be talking by each other on some of these matters. I simply point out what I think the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee just alluded to, and that is the fact that what we are trying to do is leave the process the way it was. There can be no argument but what if you would follow the position taken by the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, we would not be making a change. The normal order is for the Parliamentarian to rule. The Governmental Affairs Committee bill would differ with that and change it. We objected to this Governmental Affairs proposal during negotiations. We did not control the process. They said they would take out the language, as we understood it, between meetings of the staff.

Mr. EXON. I will say this, and then I will be glad to yield. I also simply say that with regard to the House of Representatives, we merely included what we understood our colleagues in the House wanted to do. We do not choose to impose any solution on the House of Representatives. We think we are doing here what our colleagues in the House want to do. Also whether it is unanimously agreed to over there or not, I know not. I simply say that I am not confusing the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee in bad faith. It might be that we are talking past each other. I simply point out that S. 993 did not include the Governmental Affairs' language that is in S. 1 that we are asked to vote on. So a change, therefore, has been made. Maybe there is some misunderstanding on the part of the Governmental Affairs Committee on this. I simply point out, Mr. President, that not only the total Budget Committee-- Members on both sides of the aisle, including myself as the ranking Democratic Member, and Chairman Domenici, and our position is supported by Senator Roth, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee support the amendment. I would like at this time, Mr. President--and then I will yield and be glad to respond to any questions from my friend from Ohio that I might--to refer to part of a colloquy that will be included in the Record, which indicates a question Senator Roth asked me as part of the colloquy, and my response was--I hope this might help clear up the matter--``I concur with the remarks made by the Senator from New Mexico. Let me reiterate several points. In this legislation, the authority given to the Budget Committee for the purpose of determining estimates coincides with the authority already granted in the Budget Act. The Budget Committee would continue to work with the Congressional Budget Office to produce the estimates of mandated levels. The bill grants the committee no new authority. The Presiding Officer would have the final determination as to the applicability of the legislation. The Budget Committee would not be involved in that process. The committee's role would be confined to providing estimates, which is a role the committee has always played, and we hope the Senate, by supporting the amendment offered by the chairman of the Budget Committee, will continue in that traditional role.''

Mr. EXON. I concur with the remarks made by the Senator from New Mexico. Let me reiterate several points. In this legislation, the authority given to the Budget Committee for the purpose of determining estimates coincides with the authority already granted by the Budget Act. The Budget Committee would continue to work with the Congressional Budget Office to produce the estimates of mandate levels. This bill grants the committee no new authority. The Presiding Officer would have the final determination as to the applicability of this legislation. The Budget Committee would not be involved in this process. The committee's role would be confined to providing estimates. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, my answer would be that obviously I would think that since the Parliamentarian does not have an estimating organization under his control, I would think the precedent, as the Senator from Michigan fully well knows, that the Parliamentarian would go along with whatever information he had at hand from the reliable source which we think in this instance is the Budget Committee.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the answer to my very dear friend is that, no, the Budget Committee does not have to accept in toto the dollars and cents on anything submitted by the Congressional Budget Office to the Budget Committee. But for all practical purposes, we do it that way.

Mr. EXON. OK. I still have the floor. Before I lose the floor, let me make one more try. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 more minutes of debate, 5 minutes controlled by the Senator from Ohio or his assignee and 5 minutes controlled by the Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am not an authority on that as the Senator from Michigan knows. I am not a lawyer so I cannot give him a legalistic answer to the question. I would simply amplify what I said before: in practice, that is the way it has always worked. It has worked very, very well. We do not think it should change.