J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Arkansas. I will take that under advisement.

Mr. EXON. I am glad to respond to my friend from West Virginia. I will take all that I have under consideration. The Senator makes some good points. There are some others who may not be totally enthusiastic about this. But I do not, again, think that there is any set language or set rules. I just want to make it clear that this Senator has long supported a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. After the Senator from Arkansas, a question, remarks, I am looking forward to thoughts and suggestions by my friend from Illinois, with whom I have worked for many, many years and was one of the pull horses when we lost by two or three votes last year. I am very much interested in what his views are on all of this. Did the Senator seek to ask me a question or was the Senator seeking the floor in his own right?

Mr. EXON. May I ask the Senator from Arkansas, who has also spoken to me privately about this general subject, if he agrees with the discussion that just took place between the Senator from West Virginia and this Senator. I would certainly say that I am one of those who for a long time has supported a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and I intend to support one when it is finally presented in some form, if that form does not raise too many barriers. If I am presented with a constitutional amendment that says but you cannot touch this and you cannot touch that, I may be in a position of having to say that that kind of a constitutional amendment is unworkable and under those circumstances I could not support it. But I want to make it clear that this Senator supports a constitutional amendment to balance the budget but not just any one.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in response to my friend and colleague from West Virginia, I hear his sound and wise advice very clearly. You are not the only Senator that has raised that question, but you are the first one. I will certainly say I have a right to revise the amendment. I have it under consideration to revise it at this time. As I take it, if I would revise the amendment and any amendment anyone ever writes, we could say afterwards, ``Had I had it to do over again, I would have struck this way.'' If I could anticipate the support of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I take it that he would simply say that we would strike lines 7, 8, and 9, and strike ``(2)'' in line 10 and make that ``(1)''; likewise, on line 3, on the second page, strike ``1'' and make it ``2,'' that the Senator would feel, with those changes, he would be in a position to support the amendment?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I certainly thank my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania for his remarks, as much as I disagree with them. Certainly, the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, as I believe the chairman of the Budget Committee knows, and as he has indicated in remarks on this debate this afternoon, that the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee will and is prepared to play a role in developing a list of possibilities that we could come up with. This does not fall solely on one Senator, just as it does not fall on any one Senator as to what is done in the Health and Labor Committee, the Judiciary Committee, or anything else. I would simply say that I will be working with the Republican majority the control of all of the committees and all of the subcommittees to jointly work out something. This is not a sole exercise on any Member's part. The Exon amendment that is currently before us simply tries to define the difficult task that we have in front of us. It simply says that whether we pass the balanced budget amendment or not, and I think we will, we still have a serious, serious, deficit problem on our hands. I think the Budget Committee should play a key role in this. And in answer to the suggestions of the Senator from Pennsylvania, I will be working very closely with the other members of the Budget Committee, whether or not the Exon amendment is adopted, in the name of fiscal responsibility, where I have been working now, for a long, long time. The Senator from Pennsylvania has remarked on the valuable hearings that the Judiciary Committee has been holding regarding the enforcement of the balanced budget amendment. As he probably noted, and this is also a concern of this Senator, one of the important considerations under that amendment is whether and how the courts--the courts, I emphasize--might enforce the balanced budget amendment. That is one of the reasons that I offered the amendment that I have. I do not think that the courts should be making these decisions. They should be made here in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives. My amendment, contrary to what I am afraid my friend from Pennsylvania thought, helps clear some of that up by mandating that the real congressional enforcement by specifics would be outlined, therefore, keeping, hopefully, endorsement in Congress and out of the courts, where I think none of us thinks it belongs. I think we need to talk specifics. I think we need to talk specifics not as individual Senators but in the Budget Committee, and in the other committees of the Congress that have some jurisdiction. We need to start planning now where we are going to go between now and the year 2002. I object very strenuously to some of the talk that has been carried forth here. With regard to that we do not have to rush into this. We do need to rush in, I suggest, to some kind of a blueprint that would give us some kind of a guide, some kind of an understanding by the people at large on where we are going to go, ask how we are going to get there. Let us make no mistake about it, we have to work together. But let us also make no mistake about it that, as the last election clearly indicates, while the Republicans are in the majority here, I have said time and time again during this debate, and will be saying it in the future, that I will work as a dedicated Member of the loyal opposition, not being an obstructionist but pointing out fiscal responsibility and where I think we should be going, not taking the easy road and simply saying, ``Let's just go ahead and pass this constitutional amendment to the budget. Then if the States, in their wisdom, 75 percent of them, ratify this, we will get down to the basics.'' I think that is not the way to go, and I am very fearful that that is the course that we are about to travel. I understand that the minority leader will be on the floor shortly to talk on this subject. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague from Arkansas. I will be very brief, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania. I thank the Senator for his very kind remarks and observations. I, too, would like to put off the vote on this until next week, as I indicated in my conversations with the majority leader. There is not anything very revolutionary about this proposal. I would simply explain to the Senator from Arkansas that if we did not pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, that even if we passed the Exon amendment it would have no real effect. The Exon amendment would only have effect if and when we do pass a constitutional amendment. The reason I think it is appropriate to address this now is that we are talking about applying the same rules to the Congress as we do to the people. I think it follows, then, that if we are going to rush pell-mell, as I suggested we are going to do--we are not going to wait several months, I suggest, as the Senator from Arkansas said he would like to see. I think that the first 100 days, maybe the first 10 days, at least the first 10 weeks of this session are going to be very climactic ones and I am very fearful that things are going to be rolled through over here very rapidly. What this Exon amendment does is simply send out the signal that when and if we do pass a constitutional amendment, then we have the responsibility to direct the Budget Committee to come back with some details, rather than passing the amendment and worrying about the details afterwards. I thank my friend from Arkansas for his observations. Mr. President, let me say I just want to correct myself. It does have an effect whether we pass the balanced budget amendment or not. It really says that if we proceed, we proceed in an orderly fashion, which is what the amendment is all about. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I would prefer, frankly, if I could, to stay here and debate this however late and possibly stack the vote on the Exon amendment along with any other votes that the majority leader wishes to stack next week, or whatever is his pleasure.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I understand the difficult task the majority leader has, and I think usually I have cooperated, and I want to cooperate now. He has indicated probably we will not finish this bill today and we may be stacking some votes and vote next week.

Mr. EXON. May I say, Mr. President, to the majority leader that certainly I would think that I could agree now to a vote not later than 4 o'clock, with the time between now and then equally divided. We might be able to speed it up, depending on how many want to talk.

Mr. EXON. Yes, 4 o'clock is all right.

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object. I would say to the majority leader that I do not intend a filibustering action on this, but when the chairman of the Budget Committee said something earlier about only having 15 minutes to debate that, that came as a big surprise to me. I do not know, nor did I hear, what the majority leader said a few moments ago about some kind of a vote between 1 or 2 o'clock sometime. I am here ready to debate and do business. I believe there are some other individuals that would very much like the opportunity to possibly come over and say a few words on this. I had not anticipated that we would vote that early. However, I recognize the parliamentary rights of the other side to make a motion to table at any particular time. May I ask of the majority leader, why do we want to vote on this at 1:05 when I have some other things I would like to say on this myself? The Senator from California has indicated some interest in it, as has the Senator from Arkansas. What is the rush to vote by 1:05?

Mr. EXON. I object.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee seems to be saying, in one form or another, that we will comply with the balanced budget amendment at some later date. That is just what I am concerned about. Why wait? We all know, as evidenced by what happened in the House of Representatives earlier this week, that a balanced budget amendment of some form is going to come over here; 80 percent of the people of the United States, in several polls that I have seen, indicate that they support a balanced budget amendment. Therefore, I think it is very clear that we are going to have a balanced budget amendment before us and I intend to vote for it. We only lost by, if I remember, two or three votes on obtaining the required two-thirds in the last session of the Senate. So it is a foregone conclusion that this is going to come to pass. I am very much concerned, though, when I hear my chairman of the Budget Committee talking about a downpayment, a significant downpayment on the budget. I have just cited the CBO report that indicates over 5 years, the budget deficit is going to be $130 billion to $150 billion more than previously anticipated. I cited in my opening statement the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has said that at a minimum, we are going to have to cut $1.2 trillion from the budget by the year 2002. We are probably going to have some kind of a politically popular middle- class tax cut, which will easily swell that to $1.5 trillion. So I simply say this is not a time to wait. The $500 billion downpayment that is referenced by the chairman of the Budget Committee took a lot of hard work. But it lacks, as far as I know, any real specifics at this time. That is what I am concerned about. We are going to rush to the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget without anyone having any idea of the roadmap and the detail we are going to have to use to get there. As I said in my opening statement, it is like building a bridge to fantasy land without specifying any pillars, and without even specifying any hastily sketched plan as to what the bridge is going to look like. It seems to me that, as the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee, the Budget Committee of Republicans and Democrats, we have a responsibility, if indeed we are for a balanced budget amendment, which I think most of the Members of this body are, that in doing so we have the responsibility--that is what the Budget Committee is all about--to study and to bring back the details of how we are going to reach that goal, at least in some specific a fashion, as much as possible. What we have to do, it seems to me, is to show the way, to be specific. I do not think we can wait. If I had some assurance that the amendment that I have offered would be considered in an up or down majority vote sometime in the immediate future, then I might not be pressing this today. However, I have a strong belief that the more we delay in doing what the Exon amendment says we have to do, the more we are going to be suspect in the eyes of the American people. I am afraid that many of the American people would think passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget will just take care of everything. I say to the Chair and I say to my colleagues, the easiest thing in the world the budget which everybody would say amen to; 80 percent of the people in the United States and probably 60 to 80 percent of the Members of the Congress would say that is a great idea without fully understanding the difficult role that all are going to have to play in getting from here to there by the year 2002. One thing that comes to mind, Mr. President, very clearly is the indication of the chairman of the Budget Committee and I compliment Senator Domenici for the hard work he did in coming up at least with some figures in the $400 billion to $500 billion range. But that is over a 5-year period. If we would accept that and if the balanced budget amendment is ratified by the States, which I presume it would be, and if we go along with what is recommended by the chairman of the Budget Committee, then at best we would be less than halfway and maybe only a third of the way to the $1.2 to $1.5 trillion realistic amount of cuts that we are going to have to make to get there. I simply say, Mr. President, by opposing this amendment, I think we are sending far more mixed signals to the people of the United States as to where the Congress is going and where it is not going and probably how serious we are about passing a politically popular constitutional amendment to balance the budget. On the subject of hearings, that has been brought up, let me note specifically for the record that this body passed a very famed Gramm- Rudman-Hollings. We saw that come to the floor of the U.S. Senate without 1 minute of hearing. I simply say that a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget has been discussed. Hearings were held on it for a long, long time. It is not a particularly complicated piece of legislation in and of itself. It just creates a constitutional amendment that has to be passed by both bodies and sent to the States where 75 percent of the States would have to ratify that before it becomes law. I simply say that if we passed Gramm-Rudman- Hollings way back in 1985 without hearings, which in some ways was a very complicated piece of legislation, then we do not have to have more hearings on this subject because we know we are going to pass it anyway. Certainly, I must say that I believe the chairman of the Budget Committee is very sincere in his belief. But this is one of those cases that I indicated earlier which it just so happens that good friends who I think are working in the same direction do not agree on how fast we should move. The chairman of the Budget Committee wants to wait for ratification of the constitutional amendment seemingly before we do anything more dynamic than the $400 to $500 billion grab bag of reductions that have been suggested. I know the chairman has worked very hard on those. I do not mean to say that his task was not sincere. I do say, though, that if all we are going to do is to come up with $500 billion in possible savings, then if we are going to wait around for the States to ratify, the months and years are going to go by and then the next Congress of the United States and maybe the one after that or the one after that will be facing a 2-year period between the year 2000 and the year 2002 when they are going to have to cut $1 trillion or somewhere in that area over and beyond, assuming we enact all of the cuts of the roughly $500 billion that has been named in one fashion or another by the chairman of the Budget Committee. I think more than anything else, Mr. President, that demonstrates the need that, if we are sincere about this, we have to do much more than the timely work that has been done by the chairman of the Budget Committee with the reference to the $400 to $500 billion that has been identified loosely in one fashion or another. I am afraid that we cannot wait. We must not wait or we are going to send the signal to the American people that after their States ratify a constitutional amendment, then we will get on with our business of balancing the budget. If we are sincere, then I think we should start making recommendations now, making cuts now that we know we are going to have to do anyway. I simply say that putting off the hard choices until after a constitutional provision is ratified by the States would be a step in the wrong direction. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma says that there is nothing in my amendment dealing with applying the laws of Congress. What greater law is there in applying laws of Congress to the laws that we have imposed on the people than offering them a constitutional amendment but then saying but we are not going to get into the details of this until you make your determination? I happen to believe that the Budget Committee, the House of Representatives Budget Committee, the Senate Budget Committee, respective bodies have an obligation to spell out in as much detail as we possibly can what it is going to take, what the sacrifices are that are going to have to be made to reach the balanced budget by the year 2002. That is why I said in my opening statement that unless we do something more than what has been done now, I am afraid that we are bringing forth a sham on the American people. Certainly I do not believe that the American people want any more shams. I guess that was one of the conclusions that this one Democratic Senator from a Republican State took from the last election. I, therefore, say delaying the decisions that have to be made is not only unwise and unsound fiscal policy of which we have been on for far too many years, but it is also not satisfactory. It is not carrying out our responsibility to tell the people of the United States of America to tell the legislatures of the 50 sovereign States of the United States and to tell all interested parties how we might be able to get there in the year 2002. I simply say that you do not have to be a mathematical genius to recognize the fact that we are going to twiddle our thumbs and not do more than has been thus far recommended--and again I salute him for the recommendations he has made. But if we are going to sit and twiddle our thumbs for 5 years and say we are going to cut about $500 billion in this fashion, then when and if the States ratify the measure, that Congress, both the Members of the House and the U.S. Senate, are going to be in dire circumstances indeed. And we will be faced with the proposition of either extending the year 2002 to some other date 7 or 8 years into the future beyond that, or they are going to have to make more draconian cuts than they can make in the budget that is still running to a large extent out of hand, and/or they would have to pass such massive tax increases to meet the year 2002 that it would be universally unpopular with 80 or 90 percent of the people of the United States of America. If that is not enough, such a tax increase would certainly send the United States of America into a deep, deep depression, not unlike what some of us remember happened back in the 1930's. Therefore, I renew my plea, Mr. President, and say that there is nothing revolutionary about the Exon amendment. The Exon amendment is straightforward. I think the amendment, if people sit and study it on both sides of the aisle, could simply be summed up that if you are for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, then you have to be for the Exon amendment or you are not being fully square with the American people. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank very much my great friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and my friend from Oklahoma, who is also an important member of the Budget Committee, for the kind statements. We have worked together on many, many things in the past. I assure my chairman of the Budget Committee that I will be there with him, I think as he knows. That does not mean we are always going to agree on every detail. But I think over the years, we have demonstrated the fact that while we might disagree on some of the details, I am not certain that our goals have been very significantly different. Back to the devil in the details--if we pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, then the devil will be in the details. What I am trying to do is to get a jump start on that. The chairman of the Budget Committee has indicated that we should not bring this up on this particular bill. This is such a far-reaching bill that we cannot have a 15-minute debate, without any hearings, and then come to a conclusion. I am prepared to debate this for whatever length of time is necessary. I do not think we can only debate this for 15 minutes. There are no time agreements that this Senator is aware of at the present time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Kohl of Wisconsin be added as original cosponsor to the amendment that I have offered.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive section 306 of the act for the purpose of my amendment.

Mr. EXON. addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Let me just note a few highlights that are quite evident from that report. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that unless we take action right now, the deficit will rise to $322 billion in the year 2002. In order to balance the budget between now and then, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we will need to achieve some $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, and if we add into the plan tax cuts in the Republican-controlled Contract With America and, to a lesser extent, the tax cuts suggested by the President of the United States, that figure will easily exceed $1.5 trillion in cuts that we are going to have to make between now and then. we must begin to act now. Maybe we are already too late. To quote the CBO report: If the budget is to be balanced by the year 2002, it is vitally important that Congress and the President begin immediately to put into effect policy that will achieve that goal. That, Mr. President, is what my amendment is all about. My amendment will force Congress to start dealing with this challenge now, not in the year 2002. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may choose to vote against requiring compliance with a balanced budget, but make no mistake they will have to vote, they will have to go on record, and if Senators vote against my amendment today we will know that they are in favor of the idea of a balanced budget but they are not for the reality of a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I believe that this is a critical time. We are at a juncture where we have the responsibility to show the American people that there is more to our commitment to balance the Federal budget than simply words and phrases, and passing the amendment. I suggest that it is time we showed some courage, as difficult as that is going to be, some responsibility and some constructive definitive action. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 The Congressional Budget Office Economic and Budget Outlook: fiscal Years 1996-2000--a Preliminary Report, January 5, 1995 In late January, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will publish ``The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1996- 2000.'' That volume will provide a detailed analysis of the economic and budget situation facing the nation. Because the 104th Congress plans to consider economic and budget policies during January, however, CBO is releasing this summary of the forecast, estimates, and projections that will be discussed in the forthcoming report. In brief, there have been no fundamental changes in the economic and budget outlook since CBO's last baseline revisions were released in August 1994. The economy may be a bit more robust in 1995 than was anticipated in August, but a likely slowdown in growth in 1996 leaves the current economic projection for 1999 little different from that which was expected in August. Since CBO's August projections, the short-run outlook for the deficit has deteriorated modestly, but the longer-run picture is essentially unchanged. Higher-than-anticipated interest payments and lower revenues--only partially offset by reduced medical care costs--have pushed up the deficit projections for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 by an average of almost $25 billion a year. CBO now projects that the deficit will be $176 billion in 1995, rising to $207 billion in 1996. CBO's less detailed longer-term projections (for 2001 through 2005) indicate, however, that the deficits after 2002 will be somewhat lower than those that CBO projected in August. The currently projected deficit for 2002--the first year that a proposed constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget could go into effect--is $322 billion. CBO has devised an illustrative path to a balanced budget in 2002 that is composed of deficit reduction totaling $1.2 trillion over the 1996-2002, an amount that would require major changes in current policies. The Economic Outlook CBO expects that the strong business investment and personal consumption of durable goods that spurred the economy to a 4.0 percent real rate of growth in 1994 will continue into the first part of 1995 (see Table 1). The 3.1 percent rate of growth forecast for 1995 is lower than the rate in 1994 but is slightly higher than that anticipated last August. Because CBO estimates that the economy is already operating close to potential, such growth is expected to result in somewhat higher inflation and interest rates. In turn, those higher interest rates are likely to slow growth by the end of the year--cutting it to 1.8 percent in 1996 but dampening inflationary pressures. In CBO's longer-term projections, annual average growth is close to the estimated 2.4 percent rate of growth for potential gross domestic product (GDP), inflation averages 3.4 percent, and interest rates are lower than in 1995 and 1996. The Budget Outlook CBO projects that the deficit will decline from the $203 billion registered in 1994 to $176 billion in 1995, or 2.5 percent of GDP (see Table 2). The deficit's decline in 1995 is not as great as anticipated last August when CBO projected a deficit of $162 billion for that year (see Table 3). Very little of the reestimate for 1995 or other years is the result of legislation adopted since the last baseline. Instead, higher interest rates have increased projected federal interest costs, and lower wage and salary income has led to slightly lower revenue estimates. Changes in projections that cannot be attributed to legislation or to changes in the economic forecast are called technical reestimates. One such reestimate is a reduction in projected revenues to reflect slightly lower-than-expected tax collections in 1994. In addition, the costs of Medicare and Medicaid have been reestimated downward since August to reflect lower-than-expected spending for Medicaid in 1994 and the slowdown that is occurring in the growth of health care cost. Deficits are expected to rise after 1995--to $421 billion in 2005, or 3.6 percent of GDP (for projections of revenues, outlays, and deficits for 1995 through 2005, see Table 4). Those projections assume that current policies governing taxes and mandatory spending remain unchanged. They also assume that discretionary spending is consistent with the statutory limits on appropriations (both for general purpose spending and for spending from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund) that are in effect through 1998, and that discretionary spending grows at the rate of inflation after that. See Table 5 for a comparison of that baseline with one constructed using identical assumptions, except that after 1998 discretionary spending is frozen at the dollar level of the 1998 cap. Table 6 shows the projected outlays for the major components of mandatory spending, which are the same in both baselines. Illustrative Path to a Balanced Budget A constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget will be considered during the early days of the 104th Congress. If the Congress adopts such an amendment this year and it is ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures in the next few years, the requirement could apply to the budget for fiscal year 2002. If the budget is to be balanced by 2002, it is vitally important that the Congress and the President begin immediately to put into effect policies that will achieve that goal. According to CBO's latest projections of a baseline that assumes inflation adjustments for discretionary spending after 1998, some combination of spending cuts and tax increases totaling $322 billion in 2002 would be needed to eliminate the deficit in that year. The amounts of deficit reduction called for in the years preceding 2002 depend both on the exact policies adopted and on when the process is started. For illustrative purposes, CBO has devised one possible path leading to a balanced budget in 2002 (see Table 7). Starting from the baseline that assumes an inflation adjustment for discretionary spending after 1998 (see Table 4), that path first shows the savings that would be achieved if discretionary spending were instead frozen at the dollar level of the 1998 cap through 2002. Such a freeze, along with the resulting debt-service effects, would produce $89 billion of the required savings of $322 billion in 2002. Under this freeze policy, the buying power of total discretionary appropriations in 2002 would be approximately 20 percent lower than in 1995. CBO also built into the illustrative path a possible course of savings from further policy changes. The amounts of those savings are not based on the adoption of any particular set of policies, but they do assume that policy changes are phased in between 1996 and 1999 in a pattern that is similar to the changes in mandatory spending enacted in the last two reconciliation acts. After 1999, the assumed savings increase at the baseline rate of growth for entitlement and other mandatory spending, excluding Social Security. Such a pattern of savings implies that the cuts implemented in earlier years are permanent and that no additional policy changes are made. If those savings were achieved entirely out of entitlement and other mandatory programs (excluding Social Security), they would represent about a 20 percent reduction from current-policy levels for those programs. Over the entire 1996-2002 period, the savings in CBO's illustrative path that result directly from policy changes total more than $1 trillion (in relation to a baseline that includes an inflation adjustment for discretionary spending after 1998). When the resulting savings in debt-service payments are included, the total exceeds $1.2 trillion. Conclusion CBO's most recent economic and budget projections underscore the challenge that will face policymakers who may have to enact the spending cuts or tax increases needed to balance the budget by 2002. Although, the long-term budget outlook is no worse now than it was last August, the new projections reinforce the fact that the deficit can be eliminated only through major changes in current policies. TABLE 1.--CBO MEDIUM-TERM ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS--Contiued [By calendar year] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forecast Projected Estimated ----------------------------------------------------- 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nominal GDP (billions of dollars).............. 6,735 7,127 7,456 7,847 8,256 8,680 9,128 Real GDP (billions of 1987 dollars)............ 5,338 5,505 5,602 5,736 5,870 6,004 6,141 Real GDP (percentage change)................... 4.0 3.1 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 Implicit GDP deflator (percentage change)...... 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 CPI-U (percentage change)...................... 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Unemployment rate (percent).................... 6.1 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.0 Three-month Treasury bill rate (percent)....... 4.2 6.2 5.7 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.1 Ten-year Treasury note rate (percent).......... 7.1 7.7 7.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source.--Congressional Budget Office. Note.--CPI-U is the consumer price index for all urban consumers.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are here today considering the worthwhile and laudable goal of applying to the Congress the laws by which all other Americans live. I wholeheartedly support this endeavor and, I might add, it is long overdue. But, in all of the discussions, many may have lost sight of the fact that the single most significant law that we are going to apply to the American people this year is an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget. I rise today to offer an amendment that would apply to the Congress itself a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget. Simply put, my amendment would create a point of order against considering any budget resolution that fails to comply with the requirements set out in the balanced budget amendment. In other words, under my amendment, it would be out of order to consider any resolution that failed to show a balance in the fiscal year 2002. That is what the balanced budget amendment requires. No more and no less. My amendment will force the Congress to live up to the policy statement it will set forth in the balanced budget amendment, which I am confident will be adopted sometime this year. Mr. President, I want to put my colleagues on notice, if anyone is for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--truly for it--he or she should be for my amendment, too. My amendment merely forces Congress to abide by the balanced budget amendment in its budget resolutions. There are no gray areas in this amendment. Specifically, my amendment creates a point of order against consideration of a budget resolution that would not: First, reach a balance in 2002; second, provide at least the usual budget resolution detail; and third, include reconciliation instructions to the affected committees for all entitlement and tax changes assumed. My amendment requires 60 votes to waive the point of order. This is real enforcement. My amendment applies the same standards before 2002 that a balanced budget amendment would apply to after the year 2002. My amendment is also sensible. It provides that the new point of order, just like other points of order under the Budget Act, will be suspended if the Congress declares war or adopts a resolution certifying low economic growth, using the existing procedures under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings measure. Now, some might say to me: ``Just wait until the balanced budget amendment comes up in a couple of weeks.'' Mr. President, with due respect, that is just not good enough. That is not good enough for the people of the United States of America. That is not good enough for this Senator who has come to the floor of the Senate year after year seeking passage of a balanced budget amendment, only to come away empty handed. To uphold our responsibility to the American people on the eve of the near certain passage of a constitutional amendment, we must have the guarantee before--and I emphasize, Mr. President, before--we vote on the balanced budget amendment itself that we are going to guarantee the specifics of how to reach a balanced budget. Without that, our action would be only a concept and not a plan. Without that, our action would be a politically palatable sham. Without that assurance, we would merely be voting for an idea of a balanced budget, conveniently leaving in the never, never, Alice-in- Wonderland future the enforcement mechanisms that are essential to getting us there. Without that guarantee, we are adults promising a bridge to fantasyland without pillars or even preliminary plans. Some may say we can only do so much deficit reduction at any one time. To them I say that my amendment does not force Congress to put all of its deficit reduction in 1 year. Under my amendment, Congress may even choose to delay action on deficit reduction into the year 2001 or 2002. But my amendment forces Congress to choose. It must lay out some plan to get us to a balance. Let me add, we cannot afford to delay. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office issued a brief preliminary report on the state of the deficit. I had been advised of this previously, and it has come to pass. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of that report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest that the Senate is not in order.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. EXON. In answer to my friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, the amendment that I am sending to the desk outlines a series of procedures that I think are absolutely necessary to make sure that the balanced budget amendment, which I support, can be fully operative in a reasonable period of time.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Ford amendment be temporarily set aside for the purpose of the Senator from Nebraska offering an amendment.

Mr. EXON. Can we have order in the Senate, Mr. President?