J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, with regard to the question of whether the Parliamentarian can do what this bill would ask him to do, let me say that we have given the Parliamentarian even more difficult tasks in the past than this one. For example, the Byrd rule that we are familiar with, on extraneous matters on reconciliation bills, which are very important, and it is a very complicated statute that requires many decisions of law. Furthermore, the War Powers Resolution, to cite another example, requires the Parliamentarian to make hard choices. In the Senate, the Parliamentarian can consult with whatever committee he wishes. The point that we are making here as members of the Budget Committee, supported by the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, is that the process in place has worked well. Why do we find ourselves in this debate that has taken the last hour's time of the Senate? Because we are passing an important new piece of legislation called S. 1, which has to do with mandates on governmental agencies. What we are simply saying, Mr. President, is that we are not trying to interfere at all with the responsibility that we in the Budget Committee recognize fully is in the prerogative and responsibilities of the Governmental Affairs Committee with regard to the affairs of different levels of Government. What we are simply saying, Mr. President, is that we, as a Budget Committee, feel that we should leave well enough alone with regard to points of order that would affect the budget. We think that it has worked very well to leave that authority completely in the hands of the Presiding Officer with the advice and counsel of the Parliamentarian. It has worked well in the past and we want to continue it that way. I suggest, absolutely, that we think there is a matter of jurisdiction here, but more important than the matter of jurisdiction is keeping a system in place that works well. We still feel that the attempts by the Senator from Ohio, the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, would complicate a process that we think has worked very well under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Now, I would certainly emphasize once again that if we have a point of order--and we hope that the Presiding Officer, under the advice of the Parliamentarian, would go back to the Budget Committee for the exact figures and numbers--there is nothing to say that if it is the opinion of the Chair or the Parliamentarian that other committees should also be consulted about this, then that would be something that could be done. I will simply say that what we are objecting to is the specific inclusion of the provision the Governmental Affairs Committee is trying to get approved in this legislation. That is why we have offered the amendment authored by the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and supported by Senator Roth, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I hope with that background, Mr. President, that we could come to a vote quite soon on this. I hope and I urge the Senate to support the recommendations made unanimously by the Budget Committee, by the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, by myself, the ranking member, and strongly supported also by the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1, which the Budget Committee unanimously ordered reported on Monday, and since that time, we have come forth with a report that has been suggested and I believe that is being reviewed at the present time. I am an original cosponsor of S. 1. I want to take this opportunity to commend my distinguished colleagues and friends, Senator Glenn, Senator Domenici, and Senator Kempthorne, for the yeomans' work that they have put into this bill. We would not be where we are today if it were not for their dedication. Mr. President, unfunded mandates are not merely a thorn in the side of the Nation's Governors and State and local officials. They have burrowed deep into the Nation's landscape and present a problem of the utmost gravity. Washington passes mandates and regulations and then drops them like an orphan on the doorstep of the States, forcing officials to dig deep into their own pockets to pay for compliance, to pay for mandates, at a time when they are confronting their own fiscal shortfalls and the public's demand for greater services. Speak to any State or local official from Nebraska to Nevada, from a mayor to a town manager or a Governor, and they will tell you that this cost shifting from the Federal level to the State level is wreaking havoc with their budgets. As my good friend and colleague, Senator Glenn, rightly observed, we are passing the buck without the bucks. In spite of the cry of ``enough'' from the States, Washington keeps heaping unfunded mandates upon unfunded mandates and regulations upon regulations, and there is no end point to the mandates effect. Like an entitlement, they go on and on and on, to an endless life of their own. Unfunded mandates are relentless in their demands upon State and local treasuries and, unfortunately, the sky seems to be the limit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, compliance with Federal legislative and regulatory mandates rose from $225 million in 1986 to $2.8 billion in 1991. CBO readily admits that its estimates are highly conservative. We really do not know the full extent and magnitude of the situation. Mr. President, it is time we brought these unfunded mandates back to Earth and back to the realm of reason and responsible budgeting. It is high time that we not only rethink the relationship between the Federal and State Governments, it is time that we did something about it. And that is what this bill does. The legislation before us today would create a point of order against unfunded mandates. Under the bill, the Federal Government must provide direct spending for these mandates. If it cannot, the mandate requirements must be scaled back to the amount of money appropriated. That is fair, and that is reasonable. And above everything else, Mr. President, that is right. Mr. President, this is a bill that takes in the very broad picture. It already enjoys great bipartisan support. My last count indicates that it has 57 cosponsors and probably a few more today that I do not know about. I predict that it will pass overwhelmingly and in a very reasonable period of time. But I wish to be clear that there are no half measures in the legislation. It meets the problem head on. Of course, there are those who advocate a radical approach to the issue, what they call a no money, no mandates backstop. While I commend my colleagues' enthusiasm and dogged persistence in righting the unfunded mandates inequities, this is a classic case of correctly diagnosing the problem but applying the wrong treatment, a treatment which I suggest could have disastrous side effects. The alternative backstop strategy that some are referencing would take us down a road which could not only swell the size of an already bloated Federal bureaucracy, but it could further fan the flames of the litigation inferno that is raging throughout the Nation. This draconian approach would require that the CBO reestimate each year--and I stress ``each year''--the cost of mandates. I do not believe that we can fathom how much we would have to expand the CBO staff to meet this formidable and I think unnecessarily forbidding task. Mr. President, over the past 2 years, we have made excellent headway in meeting the American people's rightful demands to reduce the size of Government. We have much further to go. We will have the smallest government, though, I would point out, since President Kennedy sat in the Oval Office. This is not the time to undue the good and the hard work that has been done in many areas. We must be cautious but we must be effective. Second, we would be doing, I suggest, a terrible disservice to our fellow citizens if we inadvertently fueled further litigation. That is exactly what would would be lining up a hundred deep in the court, challenging at every turn the CBO reestimates. And I hope that this concern will be understood by all Members of the body. The columnist David Broder wrote a very effective piece touching on this subject that appeared in the newspaper a few days ago. Mr. Broder endorsed the bill before us today as ``a worthy effort.'' Mr. Broder further notes that the no-money, no-mandate alternative would ``split the bipartisan coalition.'' We must not split the bipartisan coalition that is moving aggressively forward and if followed will pass S. 1 in a very short period of time. If we proceed through any other course, we endanger the longstanding civil rights and environmental policy and perhaps draw a Presidential veto. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this perceptive column be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON. In a similar vein, Mr. President, the proposal of some to raise the requirement for waiving the new point of order from a majority vote to 60 votes would also split the bipartisan coalition. Another 60-vote point of order in this context would tie the Senate in knots. If we have seen gridlock over the last decade, this kind of a 60-vote point of order would lead to a glacial gridlock. Mr. President, I was involved in the negotiations that led to the unfunded mandates bill currently before the Senate. There were a few items of the bill that merit further clarification. retroactivity There has been a great deal of confusion surrounding the question of retroactivity in S. 1. Namely, to what mandates does S. 1 apply? And, will mandates already enacted into law be affected by S. 1? The drafters of S. 1 intended that reauthorization of existing laws not be subject to the requirements of S. 1 where the net costs of the legislation do not exceed existing costs of the mandate plus the thresholds established in the legislation. The no-retroactivity clause would apply to laws for which authorizations of appropriations may have expired, such as the 1987 Water Quality Act. I would add that this same principle would apply equally to regulations that are issued pursuant to existing laws, but which have not yet been proposed or finalized. However, let me stress that the existing law must be in effect at the time S. 1 became effective regardless of whether an authorization of appropriations has expired. exclusions The bill contains a broad exclusion for legislation that establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination. The drafters of S. 1 believe this language to mean provisions in bills and joint resolutions that prohibit or are designed to prevent discrimination from occurring through civil or criminal sanctions or prohibitions. points of order The legislation ensures that a simple majority in the House or Senate will be required to waive a point of order, if raised, for an unfunded intergovernmental mandate, or where a CBO statement does not accompany a bill or joint resolution. procedures The situation may arise where a mandate--already in effect for a year--is declared ineffective and enforcement or judicial action has already commenced. In such a case, the drafters of S. 1 intend that where enforcement actions have begun, the mandate in question would continue to consider applicable law preceding the declaration of ineffectiveness. For example, in a case where a mandate is fully funded in the first 2 years, but not in the third, the mandate is effective for the first 2 years, but not in the third. administrative processes and procedures When an intergovernmental mandate is either declared ineffective or scaled back because of lack of funding, these changes in the mandate will be effectuated consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. This will ensure that all affected parties including, the private sector, State, local and tribal governments and the intended beneficiaries of the mandate will have adequate opportunity to address their concerns. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to say that after much though and analysis we have found in the legislation before us today the solution to the problem of unfunded mandates. It might not be a perfect one. Certainly we all can say that we have passed few perfect pieces of legislation. It does not mean that we may not have to revisit this from time to time. But I think it is time we move aggressively ahead to solve the problem of unfunded mandates. On January 5, the Budget Committee, of which I am the ranking minority member, and the Governmental Affairs Committee held a joint hearing on S. 1. Both of our respective committees favorably reported out the measure earlier this week. We have heard loud and clear the call from the States. It is now time that we acted and passed this critical legislation. [Exibit 1] Money and Mandates (By David S. Broder) Before George Voinovich became governor of Ohio four years ago, he was a member of the Ohio legislature, a Cuyahoga County commissioner and the mayor of Cleveland. That may condemn him as a career politician in some people's eyes, but it also placed him in a unique position to help move what may become the first law passed by this new Congress--the unfunded mandates bill. Voinovich, a Republican, last year used his friendships in both parties to construct an unusually broad and solid coalition of state and local government groups to press for enactment of a long-overdue measure that will require Congress to look twice before saddling states, counties and cities with the costs of carrying out policies the federal government finds desirable. The measure was stymied in the last Congress by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cailf.) and some of the other veteran mandate- writers, but this year it has high priority in the Senate and House, with their new Republican majorities. For reasons I will explain in a moment, this measure may not provide all the relief the states and localities expect. But it is an effort to address a real problem: the increasing tendency of a federal government which has spent itself into $4 trillion of debt to make its partners in state and local government pay for Washington's good deeds. The governors, legislators, mayors, and county officials have griped about this for a long time. But it was not until they put aside their internal differences and came together last year as the State and Local Coalition that Congress began to take notice. As Voinovich commented over coffee last week in Washington, ``It is rare that an idea that was on no one's screen in Washington one year becomes the top priority in Congress the next year.'' Members of Congress ``can ignore any one of our groups, but they can't ignore all of us.'' Voinovich's political acumen also was important in keeping the legislation within bounds of reason. Some conservatives want to enact a ``no money, no mandate'' law that would stop the federal government from requiring any cost-sharing by state and local governments on programs of national importance. Voinovich recognizes that would split his bipartisan coalition, which includes many liberal Democrats, endanger long-standing national civil rights and environmental policies, and perhaps draw a presidential veto. So he has worked diligently to persuade conservatives, including Speaker Newt Gingrich, to back bills by Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) and Reps. William Clinger (Pa.) and Rob Portman (R- Ohio) that take a more measured approach. The bills do not repeal existing mandates, leaving an examination of their financing to a bipartisan commission. They exempt measures necessary to enforce constitutional or statutory rights prohibiting discrimination of any kind-- including disability. They allow future Congresses to pass unfunded mandates--but only if, on a separate roll-call vote, before final passage, a majority of the House and Senate say, deliberately and explicitly, that the purpose is so compelling they believe they should waive the rule against unfunded mandates. In other words, senators and representatives would have to tell their constituents, in effect, ``We're voting to raise your state or local taxes.'' The difficulty I mentioned earlier arises from the enforcement mechanism. Somebody has to decide how much an unfunded mandate would cost and whether it exceeds the threshold set in the proposed law--$50 million in costs for state and local governments, $200 million for private business. That agency is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan arm of Congress. That is a huge power to give to a group of unelected bureaucrats, even if they are required by law to consult with local and state officials and are supervised by the House and Senate Budget committees. Robert D. Reischauer, the director of CBO, has written some of the situations that will matter most . . . [it] will be very difficult if not impossible to determine'' the costs the proposed mandate will impose. Local officials, as Reischauer delicately put it, ``are likely to have a strong interest in having the costs of a proposed mandate appear as high as possible''; congressional sponsors, the opposite motivation. In truth, the added costs will vary enormously, depending on the severity of the problems in the locality and the degree of effort already being made. Voinovich is right in arguing that the bill will force Congress to consider future mandates with care. It will provide a forum where the states and cites can argue their case. But this law is altogether too likely to have unintended consequences. I can see the same local officials who are enraged now by Congress's caprice in passing unfunded mandates being equally enraged--and frustrated--by future CBO cost estimates. The unfunded mandate bill is a worthy effort. But in the end, the real solution lies in sorting out more clearly what responsibilities should be financed and run by each level of government. Voinovich and other governors are ready for that kind of dialogue to begin. President Clinton should take the lead in seeing that it happens.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, and possibly I shall not object if we can reach some understanding, but reserving the right to object, let me give my views as the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I wish to join with the Senator from West Virginia in questioning the rush to judgment on this bill without a report from the Committee on the Budget. Now, I say that, Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the bill, which clearly indicates that I am for it. Let me just take a moment or two to recount what transpired in the Budget Committee and thereafter with regard to the committee report.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I thank the Chair. The Budget Committee met this past Monday to mark up the pending bill, of which I am a cosponsor. We adopted eight amendments in committee. At the end of the markup I asked Chairman Domenici, my friend and cosponsor of the bill, whether he would be filing a report on this important measure. He answered that the Republican leader had asked that the committee not file a report so as to expedite the Senate's consideration of this bill as early as yesterday morning. Several members on our side of the aisle objected to this; notably, Senator Dodd and Senator Simon. Senator Domenici then made a motion that the committee report the bill without a report. The committee adopted that motion on a straight party-line vote, 12 in support thereof and 9 opposed. The next day, which was Tuesday of this week, the majority asked us whether they could file a report Wednesday night on the condition that there is no objection to shortening the normal 3-day period with the submission of the minority view, which I believe is in essence what the Senator from West Virginia is making his stand on. Two Senators objected to that request. They wanted the full 3 days to do their minority views and review the report. So then the majority filed a statement in the Record in lieu of the report. This morning, I was advised that the majority leader extended members the opportunity to review the proposed report and add minority views until Tuesday next. This is Thursday. Now they say they want to file it right away. Now, Mr. President, let me emphasize once again that I think this is good legislation, but it is not legislation that does not have a far- reaching impact. Mr. President, it is my view that nothing would be changed. Nothing would happen. In fact, it would be far better--even as an enthusiastic cosponsor of the amendment --that we took the time as suggested by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia to give Members a chance to look at this. I simply say, Mr. President, that I am not going to be caught up in this 100 days to do everything that is important for America. I am not going to be an obstructionist, as I think my friend from New Mexico knows full well. I am not sure that my friend from New Mexico necessarily disagrees with what I am suggesting. I do not know. But I suggest, Mr. President, that the Senator from New Mexico may be caught up in what the majority view is: We have to do away with all procedures, we have to do away with all caution because we have to get all this done in the next 100 days. The Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives is going to be in session more than 100 days in calendar 1995. I simply say I think that it is important, again, that reporting the bill be done to include such minority views as may be wished by the minority. I, therefore, believe we must consult with the members of the committee, the minority members, before we can consent to any such agreement. Until that consultation has been done, I would feel constrained to object to the unanimous consent request. I would not like to object to all of this, but I want to be sure that the minority rights are protected and that such a far-reaching measure, such as this one--again that I am a cosponsor of--has a time to let the Sun shine in. And so, Mr. President, the majority may be ready to file its report right now, but we in the minority of the committee have not read and have not had an opportunity to tell our side of the story. And when we tell it, it will be a straight story, recognizing that there is legitimate room for disagreement as to how fast we should move on this other bill. I am not sure that all the minority members have had an opportunity to submit their views. In fact, I am all but certain that they have not. Some members may be still working on their minority views. Therefore, I appeal to my friend and colleague from New Mexico, whom I work very closely on the Budget Committee with, to define for us, if he could, why is it necessary to rush full speed ahead on this in violation of the traditional rules of the Senate on introducing legislation, especially legislation as far-reaching and important as this one. I hope, since I am a cosponsor of the bill and strongly support it, that we would give those who may not share the enthusiasm of those who are sponsoring the bill do, to have the right to make their point. Therefore, I will be one of those who will object to any unanimous consent request in this area. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask my friend from New Jersey if he might allow me such time as is needed without losing his right to the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the final two pieces of legislation that I believe are the building blocks for a sound and responsible Federal budget. For too long, Congress has been building castles in the sky. We owe our children and grandchildren a secure financial future. But that future is flimsily constructed on deficit spending and deficit in the form of mounting debt. It's High Noon on fiscal responsibility and the American people have asked us to rise to the occasion. And these are the weapons we will take to the showdown. The first piece of legislation I offer today is a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. When I was Governor of Nebraska, I had the benefit of such a mechanism. It forced budgetary discipline and kept my State fiscally sound. We should be able to deal with the deficit without a balanced budget amendment. But all evidence runs to the contrary. The statutory remedies have failed. They are riddled with back doors and loopholes. We have also proven ourselves incapable of controlling wasteful spending. The deficit numbers speak for themselves. We need this amendment to force responsibility upon the Federal Government. We need a bold approach--a new approach--to end the dangerous habit of deficit spending. This amendment is our best chance, perhaps our only chance, to turn back the tide of red ink that threatens to engulf us. A balanced budget amendment does not spare us from the difficult, hard choices. And that is why I cosponsored last week S. 14, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act. Pork has become Congress' scarlet letter. Once again, Congress should demonstrate the type of self-restraint and sacrifice that would put this wasteful practice to an end. But I am a realist. While some Members would voluntarily refrain from pork barrel spending, others would continue with business as usual. Business as usual does not pass muster with the American people. Ideally, I would have offered a bill granting The President a constitutional line-item veto. As Governor of Nebraska, I also had a similar line-item veto and it was an invaluable tool to curb spending by my State legislature. However, those of us who have championed the line-item veto have always come away empty-handed. The obvious solution--the bipartisan solution--is to grant the President the authority to force Congress to vote on specific funding included in the appropriations bills. Congressional Members are less likely to pile on the pork if they know that they might have to defend each item on its own merits. Some might ask: ``what's the urgency? And that brings me to the second bill I am introducing today. Our Federal debt now tops a whopping $4.7 trillion and we are on schedule to reach the current debt ceiling of $4.9 trillion in September or October of this year. Too many Americans still confuse the annual deficit with our national debt. Even if we accomplish our goal of a balanced budget by 2002, we will still have a $5.5 trillion albatross hanging around our necks. Obviously, we are living beyond our means. When we raise our debt ceiling for more than we need in the coming year, we perpetuate that practice and risk plunging our Nation into financial ruin. My bill attempts to bring some sanity and control to this practice. it requires our budget resolution to state how much we intend to raise the debt ceiling each year. And any bill that would raise the debt ceiling to exceed the amount stated in the budget resolution would be subject to a budget point of order and a rollcall vote to waive that point of order. I have long believed that our Federal Government should balance its budget each year. The facts are, however, that we have not done so since 1969. During the 1980's and now the 1990's, we have become so accustomed to operating in the red that we look upon a $200 billion deficit as great progress. I, for one, take cold comfort in a $200 billion deficit. Our Federal debt now tops $4.7 trillion and we are on schedule to reach the current debt ceiling of about $4.9 trillion in September or October of this year. We have now reached a point where we barely lift a finger to balance our budget. The much heralded Kerrey-Danforth Commission on Entitlement Reform attempted to forge an agreement upon lowering the deficit to a proportion of our total economy. It failed to even reach even that modest goal. What is even more discouraging and disenchanting is that Congress often fails to limit its deficit spending to the levels that are projected in our annual budgets. We no longer decide upon how much we are going to borrow and to limit ourselves to that amount over the coming year. Mr. President, if Congress cannot balance its budget, we should at least not give ourselves a blank check to borrow beyond our means. Yet that is exactly what we do when we raise our debt ceiling more than we need to for the coming year. My bill attempts to bring some sanity and controls to this practice. It requires our budget resolution to state how much we intend to raise the debt ceiling each year. To enforce that goal, any bill that would cause the debt ceiling to exceed the amount stated in the budget resolution would be subject to a budget point of order and a rollcall vote to waive that point of order. In previous years, I have proposed that the point of order be waived with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. This bill will require only a majority vote. Yet, I believe it will do the job of highlighting this issue and alerting the American people to Congress' failure to live within its budget. I can well understand the reluctance of my colleagues to make raising the debt ceiling any more difficult than it is now. I am convinced, however, that we simply must change our process to insure some honesty and credibility in our Federal budget process. Doing so will be of paramount importance over the coming year as leaders from both political parties are promising tax break after tax break. This is an all too familiar scenario, an all too deplorable scenario. Tax breaks and spending cuts are promised yet only the tax breaks are delivered. The result was that our deficits climbed out of sight and had no resemblance to what we said they were going to be. Keeping some limits on our debt ceiling will go a long way in keeping everyone on both sides of the aisle honest. Let us force ourselves to do what we say we are going to do, and not, with a wink and a nod, simply hide our failure to do so. I have always believed that fiscal responsibility is a partnership between the Federal Governmental and the States. However, we are not living up to our side of the bargain. Washington passes mandates and regulations, and then drops them like a foundling on the doorstep of the States, forcing them to dig deep into their own pockets to pay for compliance. This cost shifting is killing the States. This game of budget tag has to end. And under the bipartisan legislation I cosponsored last week, it will. This fourth bill--the last building block--requires the Federal Government to provide direct spending for these mandates. If it cannot, the mandate requirements are scaled back to the amount of money appropriated. Others have proposed a more radical approach; names, ``no money, no mandates backstop.'' But I would caution my friends not to be headstrong. Their treatment would not only swell the ranks of the Federal bureaucracy, it could ignite a firestorm of law suits that would rage throughout the Nation. Ours is the right approach. Ours is the fair and reasonable approach that will get the job done. The $4.7 trillion debt was not built up overnight, and it will not be resolved overnight. However, we can no longer afford to sit back. As Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower said when ordering the D-day invasion, ``OK, let's go!''

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation proposing a constitutional amendment requiring the President to submit, and the Congress to enact, a balanced Federal budget. This is not the first time I have introduced such legislation. For years, I have taken a leadership role promoting passage of a balanced budget amendment. I can think of no greater priority than dealing responsibly with the Federal deficit. A balanced budget amendment underscores my bedrock beliefs in a lean and agile government and living within one's means. Thirty-seven States have balanced budget provisions. When I was Governor of Nebraska, I had no choice but to balance our State's budget for 8 straight years. I'm not complaining. It forced budgetary discipline and kept my State fiscally sound. It was the right thing to do. During last year's debate on the balanced budget amendment, I listened with great care and interest to the arguments that we didn't need it. The critics claimed that self-restraint and legislation could solve the spiralling deficits that have bedeviled us--deficits that trifle with the future and standard of living of our children and grandchildren--deficits that shackle them to a mountain of debt. The opponents further contended that a balanced budget amendment is no substitute for tough, honest, and effective leadership. Mr. President, one does not preclude the other. And I might point out that the type of leadership and courage so often extolled on the Senate floor is often in very short supply. There is a lot of breast beating about the deficit, but little will to make the difficult and hard decisions to bring it under control. Yes, we should be able to deal with deficit without a balanced budget amendment, but the evidence runs to the contrary. All of the statutory remedies have failed. They are riddled with loopholes and back doors which have been exploited to the fullest. Mr. President, we have also proven ourselves incapable of controlling wasteful spending. The deficit figures speak for themselves. There is still too much business-as-usual around here, and business-as-usual no longer works and will put future generations of Americans in terrible straits. True, we have made some remarkable headway in reducing the deficit. We turned an important corner by passing the 1993 deficit reduction package and it is performing beyond expectations. However, the deficits projections for the out-years are not reassuring. Right now, we are enjoying a brief respite from the storm, but is promises to whip back on us in 5 or 6 years. We cannot afford to hide our heads in the sand and hope the problem will go way. It won't. Let there be no mistake, a balanced budget amendment is no panacea and we will still have to make a lot of hard choices. But I see no alternative to this amendment. We are out of options. We need the balanced budget amendment to force responsibility upon the Federal Government. We need a bold approach--a new approach-- to end the dangerous habit of deficit spending. This amendment presents our best chance, perhaps our only chance, to turn back the sea of red ink that threatens to engulf us. It's the first step to the establishment of a sound fiscal policy and accountability in the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, it's time we stopped all the hand wringing over the Federal deficit. It's time we stopped dodging the issue. It's time we showed the courage and leadership demanded of us by the American people. It's time we passed a balanced budget amendment and sent it to the States for ratification. This is the legacy I want to leave our children.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the final two pieces of legislation that I believe are the building blocks for a sound and responsible Federal budget. For too long, Congress has been building castles in the sky. We owe our children and grandchildren a secure financial future. But that future is flimsily constructed on deficit spending and deficit in the form of mounting debt. It's High Noon on fiscal responsibility and the American people have asked us to rise to the occasion. And these are the weapons we will take to the showdown. The first piece of legislation I offer today is a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. When I was Governor of Nebraska, I had the benefit of such a mechanism. It forced budgetary discipline and kept my State fiscally sound. We should be able to deal with the deficit without a balanced budget amendment. But all evidence runs to the contrary. The statutory remedies have failed. They are riddled with back doors and loopholes. We have also proven ourselves incapable of controlling wasteful spending. The deficit numbers speak for themselves. We need this amendment to force responsibility upon the Federal Government. We need a bold approach--a new approach--to end the dangerous habit of deficit spending. This amendment is our best chance, perhaps our only chance, to turn back the tide of red ink that threatens to engulf us. A balanced budget amendment does not spare us from the difficult, hard choices. And that is why I cosponsored last week S. 14, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act. Pork has become Congress' scarlet letter. Once again, Congress should demonstrate the type of self-restraint and sacrifice that would put this wasteful practice to an end. But I am a realist. While some Members would voluntarily refrain from pork barrel spending, others would continue with business as usual. Business as usual does not pass muster with the American people. Ideally, I would have offered a bill granting The President a constitutional line-item veto. As Governor of Nebraska, I also had a similar line-item veto and it was an invaluable tool to curb spending by my State legislature. However, those of us who have championed the line-item veto have always come away empty-handed. The obvious solution--the bipartisan solution--is to grant the President the authority to force Congress to vote on specific funding included in the appropriations bills. Congressional Members are less likely to pile on the pork if they know that they might have to defend each item on its own merits. Some might ask: ``what's the urgency? And that brings me to the second bill I am introducing today. Our Federal debt now tops a whopping $4.7 trillion and we are on schedule to reach the current debt ceiling of $4.9 trillion in September or October of this year. Too many Americans still confuse the annual deficit with our national debt. Even if we accomplish our goal of a balanced budget by 2002, we will still have a $5.5 trillion albatross hanging around our necks. Obviously, we are living beyond our means. When we raise our debt ceiling for more than we need in the coming year, we perpetuate that practice and risk plunging our Nation into financial ruin. My bill attempts to bring some sanity and control to this practice. it requires our budget resolution to state how much we intend to raise the debt ceiling each year. And any bill that would raise the debt ceiling to exceed the amount stated in the budget resolution would be subject to a budget point of order and a rollcall vote to waive that point of order. I have long believed that our Federal Government should balance its budget each year. The facts are, however, that we have not done so since 1969. During the 1980's and now the 1990's, we have become so accustomed to operating in the red that we look upon a $200 billion deficit as great progress. I, for one, take cold comfort in a $200 billion deficit. Our Federal debt now tops $4.7 trillion and we are on schedule to reach the current debt ceiling of about $4.9 trillion in September or October of this year. We have now reached a point where we barely lift a finger to balance our budget. The much heralded Kerrey-Danforth Commission on Entitlement Reform attempted to forge an agreement upon lowering the deficit to a proportion of our total economy. It failed to even reach even that modest goal. What is even more discouraging and disenchanting is that Congress often fails to limit its deficit spending to the levels that are projected in our annual budgets. We no longer decide upon how much we are going to borrow and to limit ourselves to that amount over the coming year. Mr. President, if Congress cannot balance its budget, we should at least not give ourselves a blank check to borrow beyond our means. Yet that is exactly what we do when we raise our debt ceiling more than we need to for the coming year. My bill attempts to bring some sanity and controls to this practice. It requires our budget resolution to state how much we intend to raise the debt ceiling each year. To enforce that goal, any bill that would cause the debt ceiling to exceed the amount stated in the budget resolution would be subject to a budget point of order and a rollcall vote to waive that point of order. In previous years, I have proposed that the point of order be waived with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. This bill will require only a majority vote. Yet, I believe it will do the job of highlighting this issue and alerting the American people to Congress' failure to live within its budget. I can well understand the reluctance of my colleagues to make raising the debt ceiling any more difficult than it is now. I am convinced, however, that we simply must change our process to insure some honesty and credibility in our Federal budget process. Doing so will be of paramount importance over the coming year as leaders from both political parties are promising tax break after tax break. This is an all too familiar scenario, an all too deplorable scenario. Tax breaks and spending cuts are promised yet only the tax breaks are delivered. The result was that our deficits climbed out of sight and had no resemblance to what we said they were going to be. Keeping some limits on our debt ceiling will go a long way in keeping everyone on both sides of the aisle honest. Let us force ourselves to do what we say we are going to do, and not, with a wink and a nod, simply hide our failure to do so. I have always believed that fiscal responsibility is a partnership between the Federal Governmental and the States. However, we are not living up to our side of the bargain. Washington passes mandates and regulations, and then drops them like a foundling on the doorstep of the States, forcing them to dig deep into their own pockets to pay for compliance. This cost shifting is killing the States. This game of budget tag has to end. And under the bipartisan legislation I cosponsored last week, it will. This fourth bill--the last building block--requires the Federal Government to provide direct spending for these mandates. If it cannot, the mandate requirements are scaled back to the amount of money appropriated. Others have proposed a more radical approach; names, ``no money, no mandates backstop.'' But I would caution my friends not to be headstrong. Their treatment would not only swell the ranks of the Federal bureaucracy, it could ignite a firestorm of law suits that would rage throughout the Nation. Ours is the right approach. Ours is the fair and reasonable approach that will get the job done. The $4.7 trillion debt was not built up overnight, and it will not be resolved overnight. However, we can no longer afford to sit back. As Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower said when ordering the D-day invasion, ``OK, let's go!''

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation proposing a constitutional amendment requiring the President to submit, and the Congress to enact, a balanced Federal budget. This is not the first time I have introduced such legislation. For years, I have taken a leadership role promoting passage of a balanced budget amendment. I can think of no greater priority than dealing responsibly with the Federal deficit. A balanced budget amendment underscores my bedrock beliefs in a lean and agile government and living within one's means. Thirty-seven States have balanced budget provisions. When I was Governor of Nebraska, I had no choice but to balance our State's budget for 8 straight years. I'm not complaining. It forced budgetary discipline and kept my State fiscally sound. It was the right thing to do. During last year's debate on the balanced budget amendment, I listened with great care and interest to the arguments that we didn't need it. The critics claimed that self-restraint and legislation could solve the spiralling deficits that have bedeviled us--deficits that trifle with the future and standard of living of our children and grandchildren--deficits that shackle them to a mountain of debt. The opponents further contended that a balanced budget amendment is no substitute for tough, honest, and effective leadership. Mr. President, one does not preclude the other. And I might point out that the type of leadership and courage so often extolled on the Senate floor is often in very short supply. There is a lot of breast beating about the deficit, but little will to make the difficult and hard decisions to bring it under control. Yes, we should be able to deal with deficit without a balanced budget amendment, but the evidence runs to the contrary. All of the statutory remedies have failed. They are riddled with loopholes and back doors which have been exploited to the fullest. Mr. President, we have also proven ourselves incapable of controlling wasteful spending. The deficit figures speak for themselves. There is still too much business-as-usual around here, and business-as-usual no longer works and will put future generations of Americans in terrible straits. True, we have made some remarkable headway in reducing the deficit. We turned an important corner by passing the 1993 deficit reduction package and it is performing beyond expectations. However, the deficits projections for the out-years are not reassuring. Right now, we are enjoying a brief respite from the storm, but is promises to whip back on us in 5 or 6 years. We cannot afford to hide our heads in the sand and hope the problem will go way. It won't. Let there be no mistake, a balanced budget amendment is no panacea and we will still have to make a lot of hard choices. But I see no alternative to this amendment. We are out of options. We need the balanced budget amendment to force responsibility upon the Federal Government. We need a bold approach--a new approach-- to end the dangerous habit of deficit spending. This amendment presents our best chance, perhaps our only chance, to turn back the sea of red ink that threatens to engulf us. It's the first step to the establishment of a sound fiscal policy and accountability in the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, it's time we stopped all the hand wringing over the Federal deficit. It's time we stopped dodging the issue. It's time we showed the courage and leadership demanded of us by the American people. It's time we passed a balanced budget amendment and sent it to the States for ratification. This is the legacy I want to leave our children.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, year after year, billions of the taxpayers' dollars are larded across the Nation for pork barrel projects created at the behest of our fellow Members. This is nothing new. Each session, Congress persists in passing appropriations bill groaning with this type of spending for individual projects in a Members home State or district. Pork barrel spending has become a symbol of political prowess and effectiveness. Members can stump back home, claiming that they have the clout to deliver these projects to their constituents. Although some of these projects no doubt have their merit, pork barrel spending has become an emblem of out of control spending. Pork is Congress' shameful scarlet letter. Ideally, Congress should exhibit the type of self-restraint and sacrifice that would swiftly put this wasteful practice to an end. We owe that to future generations of Americans and to our commitment to continue to reduce the deficit. However, I am a realist and I know that while some Members would voluntarily refrain from pork barrel spending, others would continue with business as usual. Mr. President, the American people are fed up with business as usual. It's time to change the Nation's spending habits. The President is also faced with an enormous dilemma. These pork projects are carefully woven into the appropriations legislation, or as Senators Bradley and Domenici have rightly observed, through targeted tax credits and expenditures in revenue acts. The President cannot simply pull out one thread without unravelling the entire bill. He does not have that authority. The President must look at each bill as a whole, determining whether to accept the bad with the good--whether the bad outweighs the good. More often than not, it's a case of the President holding his nose and signing the spending bill. The obvious solution is to grant the President the line-item veto. Today, 43 of the 50 State Governors have some form of veto authority. As Governor of the State of Nebraska, I was privileged to have the line-item veto authority. To me, it was an invaluable weapon in my arsenal to effectively control the spending of my State legislature. I have long believed that the President too should have this power to challenge wasteful Government spending and keep us on the path of deficit reduction. All but two Presidents in the 20th century have supported some type of line-item veto authority. It's not time; it's past time we granted the President this power. Mr. President, in previous years, I have championed efforts to amend the Constitution to allow for a line-item veto. I have led the charge to give the President enhanced rescission powers. Over 7 years ago, I worked with then Senator Dan Quayle in sponsoring a porkbuster enhanced rescission proposal. I also supported an amendment by my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain that would have granted the President greater rescission powers. It is a somewhat melancholy task to come to the Senate floor year after year seeking these powers for the President and then to come away empty handed. The McCain amendment garnered only 40 votes--far short of the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster that would surely occur on any such proposal. I have come to the sad conclusion that proposals such as these stand little if any chance of becoming law. But that does not mean that we should allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Through compromise--a bipartisan compromise--we can still move forward on this issue. As such, I am an original sponsor of the legislative Line-Item Veto Act. The bill would change our current rescissions process by giving the President the authority not to spend specific funding included in the appropriations bills. Upon making a decision to rescind certain spending, the President would then be required to seek congressional approval. If Congress does not agree by at least a majority vote--not a super majority--in both Houses, the funding is released. Members are less likely to pile on the pork in the appropriations bill if they know that they might have to defend each item on its own merits. Mr. President, there are some critics who argue that the savings reaped from such a proposal will not make a significant dent in the menacing budget deficit; but that is a feeble excuse to oppose these efforts. Of course, a single bill is not going to solve the budget deficit in and of itself, or erase a $4.5 trillion debt. These problems did not occur overnight and they will not be solved overnight. There are no quick fixes, silver bullets or panaceas. We should not rise to these shiny lures. I believe that those who think clearest about reducing the budget deficit realize that we will solve the problem in an incremental fashion. We will solve it in a bipartisan fashion. In the coming weeks I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee Senator Domenici to move this legislation. I also plan further discussion with Senator Bradley of the Finance Committee as to whether we should include rescission authority over tax expenditures as well. What is demanded of us now is to push the process forward to a speedy and successful conclusion. This bill is the vehicle of compromise that will carry us to the finish line. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Exon pertaining to the introduction of S. 189 and S.J. Res. 14 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Yes, I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from the State of New Jersey very much for his excellent remarks. I think he has indeed hit it right on the head. This is a truth-in-advertising amendment, in addition to a truth-in-budgeting amendment. And the Senator made an excellent, right-on point as to what this is all about. I hope, therefore, we will have the votes to pass this. We first have to get the 60 votes to waive. I also thank my friend and colleague from Iowa. Senator Grassley and myself have worked together on many things over the years, and we will be working on things in the future. I simply say to my friend from Iowa that I was very pleased with the fact that he mentioned once again what few know--that the only reductions made in the budget last year were the Exon-Grassley amendments that he and I fashioned and worked through the Congress. What I am doing in this particular case, as the Senator has clearly indicated, is to apply to Congress what we apply to others--And if Congress wants to have a balanced budget amendment, which I hope they do, then they should live up to it. You had indicated in your remarks that while you thought the Exon amendment was probably a good one, this is the wrong place to put it. Well, I suggest that this is the right place to put it. What we are talking about here today is to make Congress live up to the laws that it applies to the people of the United States. If we are going to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, then that has to apply to the Congress. So I think it is very appropriate that this measure be passed on the bill, the underlying bill before us, which I indicated in my opening remarks I strongly support. Now, it is not the intention of this Senator to delay at all the institution of the measure that is going to receive overwhelming support.

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk as earlier outlined. It simply strikes lines 7, 8, and 9. On line 10 it strikes the number 2 and inserts the number 1. And on line 3, on the second page, it strikes the number 3 and inserts the number 2. I send that modified amendment to the desk and ask the amendment be so modified.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I understand the leader hopes to speak on this amendment very shortly. I understand that Senator Bradley wishes to speak on the amendment shortly and is on his way over. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished leader, Senator Daschle, be added as original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. EXON. We are not.

Mr. EXON. It is neutral on that. I think the Senator knows full well what happened in the House of Representatives the other day. But as of now, it would be considered as it has traditionally been considered, a majority vote. However, I would simply say that if something like that were offered under the budget rules, a point of order could be raised if we do not pay for it.

Mr. EXON. I am sorry.

Mr. EXON. It is nice, though, that we do have this kind of consideration. Mr. President, to try to bring this matter to a head, I send a revised amendment to the desk which is the revised amendment that I first suggested. It strikes lines 7, 8, and 9 of the amendment.

Mr. EXON. I was very interested in hearing the Senator--Cicero, or the Senator from Illinois--because I had anticipated exactly what my colleague just said. He probably would not object to what I suggested originally. But when Senator Byrd carried it one step further, I saw him rise.

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for just a brief statement?