J. Exon

Mr. EXON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from North Dakota. Let me say, in probably closing debate, since I am ready to vote on this at the pleasure of the majority leader, the Senator is certainly right. The balanced budget amendment does not in and of itself balance a budget. And that needs to be said time and time again. We will need, sooner or later, an amendment just like mine if we are ever going to balance the budget. When the Senator was talking about--and I thought he made an excellent point--if we had a $200 or $300 billion deficit and we had cured cancer as a result of it, I think we would all vote for it. But the deficit has become a way of life, unfortunately. Not only is the budget deficit something that we talk about--and I think we should have possibly a better understanding by the American people of this addition to the problem of the annual deficits in the billions of dollars; that is only part of the problem. The real problem is, at the end of each and every fiscal year, we take whatever the deficit is and we get rid of it. It goes away. Where does it go? On the national debt. I find many times that many people simply have not taken the time to address the fact that they hear about billions and billions of dollars, between a $100 billion and a $350 billion deficit, and that is only for 1 year. All of that, of course, goes on to the national debt at the end of every fiscal year. So we not only have the annual deficit to worry about, we have the absolutely skyrocketing national debt of the United States that, of course, is the accumulation of all the deficits over the years. At the present time, that national debt stands at $4.7 trillion. Interest alone on the national debt that, once again, is the accumulation of the annual fiscal year deficits, is the fastest growing part of the debt--not welfare, not food stamps, not even national defense. The fastest growing part of the drain on your tax dollars is interest on the national debt. I thought the President explained it pretty well recently in a speech when he said that very shortly, when you pay your income taxes in April 1995, 28 cents--28 cents--of every dollar that is paid in taxes by the American people next April 15 goes directly to pay interest on the national debt which, of course, is the accumulation of the annual deficits. I wonder how many Americans fully understand that. Not only is that a serious problem, but I say to you that as far as we can see into the future--and even the projections into the future by the year 2002, where we are going to have annual deficits in the $200 billion to $350 billion range annually--that national debt that is already at $4.7 trillion is clearly going to go up at the rate of $200 to $300 to $350 billion a year, if and when we pass the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and if and when we ever line up how we are going to reach that by the 2002 date. Another way of saying that is under the best scenario, the most optimistic scenario, we are going to see the national debt go from $4.7 to $6 or $7 trillion while we are twiddling our thumbs here and debating whether or not an amendment to put teeth in the balanced budget amendment is germane on a bill before the U.S. Senate. It does not make any sense to me. I do not think it will make any sense to the American people when they understand it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I do not object. I agree to the unanimous- consent request offered by my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from North Dakota whatever time he desires.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield whatever time is remaining to me to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back the time remaining on this side.

Mr. EXON. I am prepared to come to a vote in a relatively short period of time. I do not want to be accused of holding up anything. I think it is important enough that it should go on this legislation. I do not think there is any piece of legislation we are likely to pass this year that is going to be more important than a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which 80 percent of the people in the United States of America want. I want to get on with that. I do not happen to buy the reason or excuse, depending on your point of view, as to why it should not be an amendment to the measure before us.

Mr. EXON. Yes.

Mr. EXON. In answer to my friend from North Dakota, I do not know of a better time or a more appropriate time, as I have said. Since we are talking about making laws that we apply to others apply to ourselves, what more important law is there than a constitutional amendment? I simply say that I thank my friend from North Dakota for his kind remarks. I must say to him that this Senator was somewhat surprised to find opposition to this amendment, because I felt that this amendment would pass overwhelmingly since we had almost two-thirds of the Senate vote for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget last year. Then I heard about the fact that there may be a point of order raised against the amendment, since it was not particularly germane, as the rules of the Senate so indicate, so therefore that. We have to have 60 votes now to even have an up-or-down vote on the Exon amendment. I was quite surprised because I thought the opposition to the Exon amendment would come from the relatively few Members of the U.S. Senate that traditionally have stood against passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. And there are some legitimate reasons that those people have, and very well thought of Members of this Senate. I do not suppose there is a better constitutional lawyer in this body than Senator Byrd of West Virginia. He is fundamentally opposed to a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget. He has pointed out in several speeches that I have heard him give that, while it is true that you have this in some of the States, it does not and should not apply in the Congress of the United States. To answer the Senator's question, I am somewhat mystified at the opposition that has arisen to this, since I thought two-thirds of the people were for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am, therefore, very concerned about the fact, I must tell my friend from North Dakota, that possibly some of our colleagues are for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget but do not want to spell out the hard choices that are going to have to be made. So I will simply say, in answer to another question that the Senator from North Dakota raised, if the Exon amendment is defeated in any fashion on this particular measure, I assure my friend from North Dakota that it will, in the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, come up again and again and again. So there will be chances for people to vote on this again if it fails today.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to lend enthusiastic support to S. 9, which I think is probably one of the most important, if not far- reaching, measures that have been introduced today, along with very many other important measures. S. 9 addresses the matter of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I have long been a supporter of that, and my name has been mentioned by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I was very pleased to join as a cosponsor of the bill of the Democratic leader to focus attention on this matter. I also happen to be the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, and the Budget Committee, with all of its other very important responsibilities, is going to play a very key, a very decisive role in the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I rise today though to say while I voted for it before and I am going to vote for it again, I am going to be plowing a straight furrow down the road on this whole matter to explain to the Senate and to the House and to the people at large that passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the easy part. There has been no legislation introduced today, and I daresay there will be no legislation introduced in this Congress, that has such far- reaching implications. This is where the rubber meets the road. Passing a constitutional amendment--which I believe will be passed--is the easy part. In doing so, we have to have a thorough understanding by every Member of the Senate, every Member of the House of Representatives, every Governor, every the awesome task that we take upon ourselves when we pass this measure. It is not going to be easy. It is probably one of the most difficult tasks that the Congress of the United States all during our history has ever saddled itself with. But saddle it we must if we are going to stop runaway deficits, skyrocketing national debts. I think the first thing we have to have a full understanding with the people on, if they do not understand it now, is that there is a difference between the annual deficit and the national debt. I am afraid the people hear about the $150 to $350 billion annual deficit and then they hear about the skyrocketing national debt that was addressed earlier in the day by Senator Daschle, under $1 trillion in 1980 and now it is $4.7 trillion. They hear often that the fastest growing part of our budget is interest on the national debt. I simply say that if we are going to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002, as is outlined in most of the measures that have been introduced thus far, we are going to have to cut $1 trillion or more, depending on how much money we expend for tax decreases--worthy or unworthy, justified or unjustified. The political climate, it seems to me, is to make everybody happy we have to have a tax cut. Add that tax cut, if you will, to the $1 trillion that I have already outlined and you see the monumental problem that we have on our hands. Meanwhile back at the ranch we have all kinds of people, well- intentioned people, who are saying, ``This has to be off limits. Of course that has to be off limits. We cannot touch this, we cannot touch that.'' I hope those of us who vote for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget recognize, as we must, that not all of us, maybe not a majority of us, will be here serving in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives in the year 2002. Yet we are mandating what people will do then. We, therefore, in my view, have the responsibility to plow a straight furrow, to tell the people exactly what the situation is, to put the pain and suffering that is going to take place in making these cuts so they are clearly understood--to recognize that, of all things, we may even have to raise taxes sometime before 2002 to accomplish the ends we are about to vote for. When you mention the tax word around here, though, that is a no-no. I simply say in tackling this proposition this Senator, and I expect two-thirds of the Senate, are strongly in support of and will pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We have the responsibility, not only to vote but we have the responsibility to fully understand what we are tackling and what we are taking on. Therefore, I want to make the point that this S. 9 is a far-reaching measure. It has to be passed, I believe, to bring some sanity to the Federal Government, to begin to balance income with out-go. Therefore it is a necessity. It is a very, very painful one and the people of the United States who send us here to do their bidding should understand when we do what they want us to do--the vast majority want a constitutional amendment to balanced the budget. I say to the people of the United States of America, it is not going to be easy. I am afraid too many believe if we just eliminate the $1,200 toilet seats and the $500 hammer, and if we cut the salaries of the Members of the House and Senate and their staffs in half, we could do those things and everything would take care of itself. It would be balanced. I heard a big debate on television last night about $300 million for public radio and public television. That is what television shows are made of. The $300 million that we spend on public broadcasting maybe should be cut. But it is a drop in the bucket. And we continue to focus on the little things, making believe if we do that, the problem is solved. It is a monumental problem of major proportions that all should understand, as we proceed down this dangerous course that in my view we must proceed on if we are ever going to bring outlays in line with expenditures. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.