[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   THE EXON-GRASSLEY BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, a few days ago, our colleague from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley, my good friend from the neighboring State, took the 
floor and stated that the smoke had begun to clear from the recent 
budget battle that was fought over the Exon-Grassley spending cut, 
included in our 1995 budget resolution. The smoke has entirely cleared 
now, and it is clear that the dire predictions that were made about the 
Exon-Grassley amendment by many sources on both sides of the aisle 
simply have not come to pass.
  The clamor in opposition by the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
the entire Cabinet, and special interest groups were proven unfounded.
  As Senators will recall, the Exon-Grassley amendment cut a mere $26 
billion from our discretionary spending over the next 5 years, spending 
that will total over $2.7 trillion over the same period of time. Yet, 
despite the modest goal, the Exon-Grassley amendment was also opposed 
by the White House, the congressional leadership on both sides of the 
aisle, and by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the 
ranking member of that committee.
  The chairman argued that the Exon-Grassley cuts were general and not 
specific and, therefore, the Exon-Grassley cuts were improper. That 
argument was repeated, primarily by Members on my side of the aisle, 
throughout the debate. At that time, I pointed out that we do not make 
in the Budget Committee, and never have made, specific cuts in our 
budget resolution. That authority is carefully guarded and carefully 
protected as a prerogative of the Appropriations Committee.
  Well, the 1995 budget resolution has now been passed by both the 
House of Representatives and the Senate and, as I and Senator Grassley 
predicted, I cannot find a single specific cut in that bill. In fact, 
there are clearly not any and never have been. Our budget resolution 
provides one number, a 602(b) allocation to the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, and that committee has jurisdiction over how that number is 
divided between the various subcommittees. That is frankly the way that 
our budget process was designed to work, with the budget providing 
broad parameters and the appropriations process determining the 
specifics of how spending fits within those parameters.

  The Exon-Grassley amendment did reduce the overall spending 
allocation for the coming year and included enforcement language to 
reduce that allocation in the coming years. By taking that action, we 
reduced the overall amount that Congress can spend, and I have no doubt 
that those reductions will indeed result in specific cuts.
  But where were those specific cuts and where will they fall? The 
ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee claimed that these cuts 
would fall primarily on defense spending. That was not the case, as the 
figures have shown so far and will be further substantiated when the 
Appropriations Committee makes its suggestions to the floor.
  I simply say that all of that debate, all of the charges that were 
made back and forth was not anything that we have not gone through 
before. But I suggest that we cannot continue to do business as usual.
  When we were talking about that situation a few weeks ago, the 
suggested solution to what was brought up by the Exon-Grassley 
amendment was the same solution that has been used for far too many 
years. I would call it a Devil's bargain that has got us nowhere. Those 
who wanted to cut domestic programs, but not defense, cut a deal with 
those who wanted to cut defense, but not domestic programs. Neither 
side would cut anything, and both sides would get what they wanted. In 
that way, no one had to risk that his or her favorite program would be 
cut any further and, just as importantly, everyone had an excuse for 
not reducing our deficit spending this year or the next. The old phrase 
``the Devil made me do it'' was assumed to be a logical answer.
  My view all along has been that the defense spending has been cut 
enough and that we should listen to our President who pointedly stated 
that defense should be cut no further than planned. The Exon-Grassley 
cuts did not mandate further cuts and, in fact, could easily have been 
taken from domestic programs that are scheduled for increases in the 
coming years.
  Senator Grassley and I suggested a whole series of places where the 
cuts could be made without taking one penny from national defense. I 
wish that that had been the outcome, but unfortunately we do not always 
get our way.
  I also believe that a sufficient and strong majority of the Senate 
agrees that defense spending has been cut enough, that we are reaching 
the point where further defense reductions cannot be made without 
seriously reducing our defense capabilities. As such, I understand the 
legitimate concerns of the ranking member of the Senate Budget 
Committee, but I disagree that our hands are so tied, that in these 
struggles we must be ever vigilant, that we have a big job to do in 
making further cuts.
  In the end, as I will describe in a moment, the decision was made to 
take a minor cut in national defense. While I wish that were not the 
case, we all do our best here to carry out what we think are the wishes 
of our constituents, and I have no basic quarrel with what was 
accomplished.
  But I simply say, Mr. President, that at some point we must be 
willing to agree to spending cuts and to let our Democratic process 
determine where those cuts will fall. Everyone in this body knows that 
we are over $4\1/2\ trillion in debt and that interest payments on that 
debt are threatening to strangle our Federal Government, if they have 
not already done so. Those problems are surely too large to be ignored, 
even for 1 year.
  Last week, the Appropriations Committee announced its 602(b) spending 
allocations. As I have said previously, I do not think that they were 
exactly perfect from my perspective, but I am one Member and one Member 
only of this body. That committee had to contend not only with the $500 
million in cuts required by the Exon-Grassley amendment for the next 
year but also with a $3 billion cut required by reestimates of the 
President's budget submission. As defense is about a half of our 
discretionary spending, opponents made the wrong assumption that 
defense would receive about half the cuts. I told them that that would 
not be the case, and I am pleased to say that I was correct. In fact, 
defense took only about 15 percent of the overall cuts, or about $530 
million, which were necessary to stay within the caps.
  It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine exactly how the 
Exon-Grassley cuts impacted the total figure on the 602(b) allocation 
to the defense subcommittee. That is up to the Appropriations 
Committee. But it seems clear that the impact was very minimal, 
particularly when you consider that the allocation to that subcommittee 
totals over $250 billion.
  So, Mr. President, the approach taken by the Exon-Grassley amendment 
was not only proper, it worked. It did not call for any specific cuts, 
but it most certainly will result in specific cuts being made over the 
next few months and next few years. Those cuts will not fall primarily 
on defense spending. The sky is still above us despite the predictions 
that that would not be the case if the Exon-Grassley amendment passed.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues in this Senate on both 
sides of the aisle who supported this further reduction this year.
  Primarily, I also want to again thank the Senator from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley, for his strong leadership and cooperation. I sought his 
assistance on this issue because I knew that he was a Member who knows 
what we need to do and would be willing to work hard in a bipartisan 
fashion to get the job done. I knew that I could trust the Senator from 
Iowa to be a strong advocate for change. The Senator from Iowa did 
indeed have to take on some of the senior Members of his own party who 
were all too comfortable with the status quo. Yet, he stood strong, and 
he delivered. His tireless efforts were greatly appreciated by me and, 
I hope, the citizens of Iowa that he so ably represents.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________