Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 3 (Friday, January 6, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 3 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S539-S562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE GIFT BAN AMENDMENT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, during the last session of Congress, I was
a cosponsor of the gift ban bill and was among a handful of Republicans
who voted for cloture on the conference report. Nevertheless, I voted
to table the gift ban amendment to the Congressional Accountability
Act.
Congress has been severely criticized for passing legislation that
applies one set of rules to itself and a separate set of rules to the
rest of the Nation. The Congressional Accountability Act changes that
practice, once and for all. The House already has agreed to similar
legislation and is expected to endorse the Senate version. Passage of
the gift ban bill would delay final approval of this important measure.
Furthermore, passage of a ban on gifts from lobbyists prior to
consideration and passage of strict lobbying disclosure requirements
is, in my view, shortsighted. The majority leader clearly stated his
intention to address the entire issue of how lobbyists interact with
Members of Congress and their staffs. Banning gifts from lobbyists
should be addressed in that context. To ban gifts from lobbyists under
our present inadequate system of registering lobbyists could act as a
disincentive to proper registration.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Can we have order in the Senate, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate come to order?
Please proceed.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.
[[Page S540]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is this an amendment, Mr. President, that would mandate
that the next budget resolution that is presented to the U.S. Senate
must show a balance?
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. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A unanimous-consent question is pending. Is
there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 6

(Purpose: To apply the balanced budget amendment to Congress)

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] proposes an amendment
numbered 6.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. .--CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF A BALANCED BUDGET.

(a) Purpose.--The Congress declares it essential that the
Congress--
(1) adopt in the first session of the 104th Congress a
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
requiring a balanced Federal budget;
(2) set forth with specificity in the first session of the
104th Congress the policies that achieving such a balanced
Federal budget would require; and
(3) enforce through the congressional budget process the
requirement to achieve a balanced Federal budget.
(b) Point of Order Against Budget Resolutions That Fail To
Set Forth a Glide Path to a Balanced Budget.--Section 301 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting
at the end thereof the following new subsection:
``(j) Congressional Enforcement of a Balanced Budget.--It
shall not be in order to consider any concurrent resolution
on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference report
thereon) that--
``(A) fails to set forth appropriate levels for all items
described in subsection (a)(1) through (7) for all fiscal
years through 2002;
``(B) sets forth a level of outlays for fiscal year 2002 or
any subsequent fiscal year that exceeds the level of revenues
for that fiscal year; or
``(C) relies on the assumption of either--
``(i) reductions in direct spending, or
``(ii) increases in revenues, without including specific
reconciliation instructions under section 310 to carry out
those assumptions.''.
(c) Requirement for 60 Votes To Waive Or Appeal in the
Senate.--Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``301(i),'' in both
places that it appears.
(d) Suspension in the Event of War or Congressionally
Declared Low Growth.--Section 258(b)(2) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended
by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``sections''.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest that the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate please come to order and will
Senators remove conversations from the floor.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nebraska.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
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.
[[Page S541]] Let us get on with it. To achieve this herculean task,
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.

[[Page S542]]
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.

TABLE 2.--CBO DEFICIT PROJECTIONS
[By fiscal year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994
actual 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In billions of dollars
Baseline total deficit:
With discretionary inflation after 1998............. 203 176 207 224 222 253 284
Without discretionary inflation after 1998.......... 203 176 207 224 222 234 243
Standardized-employment deficit:^{a
With discretionary inflation after 1998............. 187 200 216 223 221 247 273
Without discretionary inflation after 1998.......... 187 200 216 223 221 228 233
On-budget deficit (excluding Social Security and Postal
Service):
With discretionary inflation after 1998............. 259 244 280 303 308 343 381
Without discretionary inflation after 1998.......... 259 244 280 303 308 323 340
Memorandum: Deposit insurance........................... -7 -16 -9 -5 -5 -3 -3
Cyclical deficit........................................ 23 -8 (^{b) 5 6 10 13
Off-budget surplus:
Social Security..................................... 57 69 73 78 84 90 96
Postal Service...................................... -1 (^{b) (^{b) 1 1 (^{b) 1
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, off-budget surplus......................... 56 68 73 79 85 90 97
=======================================================

As a percentage of GDP
Baseline total deficit:
With discretionary inflation after 1998............. 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.1
Without discretionary inflation after 1998.......... 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7
Standardized-employment deficit:^{a ^{c
With discretionary inflation after 1998............. 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.0
Without discretionary inflation after 1998.......... 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.
Note.--Caps on discretionary spending are set by law through 1998. The first projection assumes that
discretionary spending then grows at the rate of inflation after 1998. The second projection assumes that
discretionary spending remains frozen in dollar terms at the level of the 1998 caps.

^{aExcludes cyclical deficit and deposit insurance.
^{bLess than $500 million.
^{cExpressed as a percentage of potential GDP.

TABLE 3.--CHANGES IN CBO DEFICIT PROJECTIONS SINCE AUGUST
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994
actual 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1994 Estimate^{a........................................... 202 162 176 193 197 231
Legislative Changes:
Revenues.................................................... 0 -1 1 1 3 3
Outlays..................................................... 1 3 1 (^{b) (^{b) (^{b)
Deficit..................................................... 1 2 2 2 3 3
Economic Changes: Revenues...................................... (^{b) 2 9 8 3 (^{b)
Outlays:
Net interest................................................ (^{b) 8 16 17 15 15
Other outlays............................................... (^{b) (^{b) (^{b) 1 2 2
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. (^{b) 8 16 19 17 17
===============================================
Deficit......................................................... (^{b) 10 25 27 20 17
Technical Changes:
Revenues.................................................... 8 6 5 6 9 11
Outlays:
Deposit insurance....................................... -2 1 3 (^{b) (^{b) 1
Medicaid and Medicare................................... (^{b) -7 -6 -8 -11 -15
Other major benefit programs............................ (^{b) 1 1 1 2 2
Net interest............................................ 1 (^{b) -1 (^{b) (^{b) 1
Other outlays........................................... -6 (^{b) 3 2 2 3
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. -7 -5 (^{b) -4 -7 -9
===============================================
Deficit......................................................... 1 1 5 2 2 2
-----------------------------------------------
Total Changes............................................. 2 13 31 31 26 22
===============================================
Current Estimate^{a............................................... 203 176 207 224 222 253
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.
Note.--Reductions in revenues are shown with a positive sign because they increase the deficit.

^{aAssumes that discretionary spending grows at the rate of inflation after the statutory caps expire in 1998.
^{bLess than $500 million.

TABLE 4.--CBO BASELINE PROJECTIONS OF REVENUES AND OUTLAYS, WITH DISCRETIONARY INFLATION AFTER 1988--Continued
[By fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projection Extrapolation
1994 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actual 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In billions of dollars
Revenues:
Individual income............................... 543 594 628 656 693 731 772 816 861 910 963 1,018
Corporate income................................ 140 149 151 155 161 167 173 182 192 202 212 223

[[Page S543]]
TABLE 4.--CBO BASELINE PROJECTIONS OF REVENUES AND OUTLAYS, WITH DISCRETIONARY INFLATION AFTER 1988--Continued
[By fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projection Extrapolation
1994 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actual 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social insurance................................ 461 494 517 539 565 590 618 650 682 716 752 790
Other........................................... 113 119 122 125 127 130 134 138 144 149 155 161
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 1,257 1,355 1,418 1,475 1,546 1,618 1,697 1,787 1,880 1,978 2,082 2,191
===================================================================================================
On-budget........................................... 922 998 1,043 1,084 1,135 1,187 1,245 1,311 1,381 1,454 1,533 1,614
Off-budget^{a......................................... 335 357 375 392 411 431 452 475 499 523 549 577
Outlays:
Discretionary:^{b
Defense..................................... 282 270 270 278 285 295 304 315 325 336 348 360
International............................... 20 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28
Domestic.................................... 242 253 262 274 284 295 306 316 327 338 350 362
Unspecified reductions...................... 0 0 -5 -26 -44 -47 -49 -50 -52 -54 -56 -57
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, discretionary................... 545 544 549 548 547 566 585 605 626 647 669 692
===================================================================================================
Mandatory:
Social Security................................. 317 334 352 371 390 411 433 456 481 507 534 563
Medicare........................................ 160 176 196 217 238 262 286 314 344 379 417 460
Medicaid........................................ 82 90 100 111 123 136 149 164 179 196 214 234
Civil Service and Military Retirement........... 63 66 68 71 75 80 83 87 91 96 100 105
Other........................................... 167 179 183 192 199 208 220 224 231 239 247 256
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, mandatory........................... 789 845 899 962 1,026 1,097 1,173 1,245 1,328 1,417 1,513 1,617
===================================================================================================
Deposit insurance................................... -7 -16 -9 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4
Net interest........................................ 203 235 260 270 279 294 310 325 344 365 387 412
Offsetting receipts................................. -69 -77 -73 -76 -79 -82 -84 -88 -93 -97 -102 -106
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 1,461 1,531 1,625 1,699 1,769 1,872 1,981 2,084 2,202 2,329 2,465 2,611
===================================================================================================
On-budget........................................... 1,181 1,242 1,323 1,386 1,443 1,530 1,626 1,712 1,814 1,925 2,043 2,172
Off-budget^{a......................................... 279 289 302 313 326 341 355 372 387 404 422 440
Deficit............................................. 203 176 207 224 222 253 284 297 322 351 383 421
On-budget deficit................................... 259 244 280 303 308 343 381 401 433 470 510 558
Off-budget surplus^{a................................. 56 68 73 79 85 90 97 104 111 119 128 137
Memorandum:
Social Security surplus......................... 57 69 73 78 84 90 96 104 111 119 128 137
Hospital Insurance surplus...................... 3 3 -2 -7 -12 -19 -25 -32 -39 -48 -59 -71
Remaining deficit............................... 264 248 278 295 294 324 354 369 394 422 452 487
Debt Held by the Public......................... 3,432 3,617 3,838 4,077 4,317 4,589 4,891 5,207 5,547 5,917 6,318 6,757

As a percentage of GDP
Revenues:
Individual income............................... 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.8
Corporate income................................ 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
Social insurance................................ 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8
Other........................................... 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 19.0 19.3 19.2 19.0 19.0 18.9 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8
===================================================================================================
On-budget........................................... 13.9 14.2 14.2 14.0 13.9 13.9 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.9 13.9 13.9
Off-budget^{a......................................... 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Outlays:
Discretionary:^{b
Defense..................................... 4.3 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1
International............................... 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Domestic.................................... 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1
Unspecified reductions...................... 0 0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, discretionary................... 8.2 7.7 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0
===================================================================================================
Mandatory:
Social Security................................. 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
Medicare........................................ 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.0
Medicaid........................................ 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0
Civil Service and Military Retirement........... 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Other........................................... 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, mandatory........................... 11.9 12.0 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.0 13.1 13.3 13.5 13.7 13.9
===================================================================================================
Deposit insurance................................... -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 (^{c) (^{c) (^{c) (^{c) (^{c) (^{c) (^{c)
Net interest........................................ 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5
Offsetting receipts................................. -1.0 -1.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 22.0 21.8 22.1 21.9 21.7 21.8 22.0 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.5
===================================================================================================
On-budget........................................... 17.8 17.6 18.0 17.9 17.7 17.9 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.5 18.7
Off-budget^{a......................................... 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8
Deficit............................................. 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6
On-budget deficit................................... 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.8
Off-budget surplus^{a................................. 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Memorandum:
Social Security surplus......................... 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Hospital Insurance surplus...................... 0.1 (^{c) (^{c) -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6
Remaining deficit............................... 4.0 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2
Debt Held by the Public......................... 51.8 51.4 52.1 52.6 53.0 53.5 54.3 54.9 55.6 56.4 57.2 58.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.

^{aSocial Security and the Postal Service.
^{bDiscretionary spending caps are set in the aggregate through 1998. The projections for individual categories (defense, international, and domestic)
show amounts that would be spent if 1995 funding levels were increased at the rate of inflation. Unspecified reductions show the cuts that would then
be needed to satisfy the caps. Projections for 1999 through 2005 represent 1998 spending adjusted for inflation.
^{cLess than 0.05 percent of GDP.

TABLE 5.--ALTERNATIVE BASELINES FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND THE DEFICIT--Continued
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994
actual 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline With Discretionary Inflation After 1998

[[Page S544]]
TABLE 5.--ALTERNATIVE BASELINES FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND THE DEFICIT--Continued
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994
actual 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 1,461 1,531 1,625 1,699 1,769 1,872 1,981 2,084 2,202 2,329 2,465 2,611
===========================================================================================================
Deficit..................................... 203 176 207 224 222 253 284 297 322 351 383 421

Effects of Freezing Discretionary Spending After 1998

Revenues.................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays:
Discretionary........................... 0 0 0 0 0 -19 -38 -58 -78 -100 -122 -144
Net interest............................ 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -6 -10 -17 -24 -34
All other^{a.............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 0 0 0 0 0 -19 -40 -63 -89 -116 -146 -179
===========================================================================================================
Deficit..................................... 0 0 0 0 0 -19 -40 -63 -89 -116 -146 -179

Baseline Without Discretionary Inflation After 1998

Revenues.................................... 1,257 1,355 1,418 1,475 1,546 1,618 1,697 1,787 1,880 1,978 2,082 2,191
Outlays:
Discretionary........................... 545 544 549 548 547 547 547 547 547 547 547 547
Net interest............................ 203 235 260 270 279 293 308 319 334 348 363 378
All other^{a.............................. 712 752 816 881 942 1,012 1,086 1,154 1,232 1,317 1,408 1,508
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 1,461 1,531 1,625 1,699 1,769 1,852 1,941 2,021 2,113 2,213 2,318 2,433
===========================================================================================================
Deficit..................................... 203 176 207 224 222 234 243 234 234 235 237 242
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.

^{aMandatory spending, deposit insurance, and offsetting receipts.

TABLE 6.--CBO BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER MANDATORY SPENDING
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994
actual 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-tested Programs

Medicaid......................................... 82 90 100 111 123 136 149
Food Stamps^{a..................................... 25 26 27 29 30 32 32
Supplemental Security Income..................... 24 24 24 29 32 35 40
Family Support................................... 17 18 18 19 19 20 20
Veterans' Pensions............................... 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Child Nutrition.................................. 7 8 8 9 9 10 10
Earned Income Tax Credit......................... 11 17 20 23 24 25 26
Student Loans^{b................................... 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
Other............................................ 3 3 4 4 5 5 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total, means-tested programs............... 177 194 208 229 248 268 290

Non-means-tested programs

Social Security.................................. 317 334 352 371 390 411 433
Medicare......................................... 160 176 196 217 238 262 286
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 476 510 548 587 628 673 720
==============================================================
Other retirement and disability:
Federal civilian^{c............................ 40 42 43 46 48 50 53
Military..................................... 27 28 29 31 32 35 37
Other........................................ 5 5 5 5 5 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 72 75 77 81 85 90 96
==============================================================
Unemployment compensation........................ 26 22 23 24 26 27 28
Other programs:
Veterans benefits^{d........................... 18 17 17 18 19 20 21
Farm price supports.......................... 10 10 9 9 8 8 8
Social services.............................. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Credit reform liquidating accounts........... -7 1 (^{e) -2 -3 -6 -6
Other........................................ 11 11 11 10 10 11 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 37 45 43 41 39 39 39
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total, non-means-tested programs........... 612 651 691 733 778 829 882

Total outlays

Total outlays.................................... 789 845 899 962 1,026 1,097 1,173
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.
Note.--Spending for benefit programs shown above generally excludes administrative costs, which are
discretionary. Spending for Medicare also excludes premiums, which are considered offsetting receipts.

^{aIncludes nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico.
^{bFormerly known as guaranteed student loans.
^{cIncludes Civil Service, Foreign Service, Coast Guard, other retirement programs, and annuitants' health
benefits.
^{dIncludes veterans compensation, readjustment benefits, life insurance, and housing programs.
^{eLess than $500 million.

TABLE 7.--ILLUSTRATIVE DEFICIT REDUCTION PATH--Continued
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1996-2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO January baseline deficit
with discretionary inflation
after 1998^{a................. 176 207 224 222 253 284 297 322 NA
Freeze discretionary outlays
after 1998:
Discretionary reduction.. 0 0 0 0 -19 -38 -58 -78 -193
Debt service............. 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -6 -10 -19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total deficit reduction 0 0 0 0 -19 -40 -63 -89 -212
==================================================================================
CBO January baseline deficit
without discretionary
inflation after 1998........ 176 207 224 222 234 243 234 234 NA
Additional Deficit Reduction:
Policy change^{c........... 0 -32 -65 -97 -145 -156 -168 -180 -843
Debt service............. 0 -1 -4 -10 -18 -28 -40 -54 -156
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total deficit reduction 0 -33 -69 -106 -163 -184 -208 -234 -998
==================================================================================
Resulting Deficit............ 176 174 155 116 71 59 26 (^{d) NA
Total change from baseline
deficit with inflation after
1998:
Policy changes........... 0 -32 -65 -97 -164 -194 -225 -259 -1,035

[[Page S545]]
TABLE 7.--ILLUSTRATIVE DEFICIT REDUCTION PATH--Continued
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1996-2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt service............. 0 -1 -4 -10 -19 -31 -46 -64 -175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total deficit reduction 0 -33 -69 -106 -182 -225 -271 -323 -1,210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.
Note.--NA=Not applicable.

^{aAssumes compliance with discretionary spending limits of Balanced and Emergency Deficit Control Act through
1998. Discretionary spending is assumed to increase at the rate of inflation after 1998.
^{bAssumes compliance with discretionary spending limits of Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
through 1998. Discretionary spending is frozen at the 1998 level after 1998.
^{cThis represents only one of an infinite number of possible paths that would lead to a balanced budget. The
exact path depends on when the deficit reduction begins and the specific policies adopted by the Congress and
the President. This path is not based on any specific policy assumptions, but does assume policies are fully
phased in by 1999.
^{dLess than $500 million.

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, first let me say to my friend, Senator Exon, who will
become the ranking member of the Budget Committee, I truly welcome you
sitting with me in the Budget Committee. You will be right next to me,
and I am hopeful that what you are saying here today in the Chamber
means--and I believe it does--that as we try to put together a major
deficit reduction package in the next 8 to 9 weeks, you will be here
and that you will be at my side as we try to do that.
I want to say to the Senate and the public, the Senate Budget
Committee intends to make a very significant downpayment on a balanced
budget. I do not believe in the very first budget resolution that we
propose that we can be expected to get to a balanced budget.
First of all, we have not adopted the constitutional amendment. That
means the President of the United States is not bound by it, because
until we have that, which would then become the law of the land, the
President does not have to give us a balanced budget format. We are on
our own.
I wish to submit to the Senate, if we come up with a budget deficit
package, I say to Senator Nickles, that is anywhere from a $400 to $450
billion reduction over the game plan that is in existence right now,
that will be a historic budget. It will start to make Government
smaller. It will start to change the underlying law of the land so that
instead of going up, the budget deficit will be down and down
permanently--perhaps, perhaps, I say to my friend, the occupant of the
chair, down as close as $100 billion 5 years from now, where today it
is expected to be over $300 billion.
Now, I submit all of that can be done if the Senate wants to do it.
And while I commend my friend from Nebraska, who is dedicated and
devoted to a constitutional amendment and balance, while I submit that
we are also, I do not believe we ought to be legislating how we
implement a constitutional amendment here on the floor of the Senate
with a 15-minute introduction of a major bill and 15 minutes to discuss
it. This sounds more like what the Congress of the United States will
be engaged in once the States send us this constitutional amendment and
say it is the law of the land. Then obviously that amendment says
implement that by statute law. This sounds more like an advanced
implementation done here in the Chamber of the Senate with no hearings
and no discussion.
I do not say that in any way to denigrate the seriousness that
Senator Exon, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, places on
this issue. It is important. It is important that we not send mixed
signals to the public. If we send them a constitutional amendment, we
ought to make a very large downpayment, major downpayment, on that
deficit in this very first budget resolution.
Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office is warning us today and
confirming what some of us on this side have been saying that the last
package of so-called deficit reduction efforts did not get the deficit
down. It did for a very short period of time. But the underlying basic
laws of the land were not changed enough, so that it is going back up
again. Our pledge is that in our first resolution we will change that
trend by forcing substantive law to be changed, and we will put
everything on the table, fellow Senators.
We do not need this proposal. We are going to put everything there
except Social Security. And we are entitled to a reasonable period of
time--3 months--to see if we can do that. We do not need to change the
Budget Act or change the rules, implement a constitutional amendment on
the floor of the Senate.
Having said that, I understand this matter is debatable, but I would
like to make a point of order, unless somebody wants to speak, in which
event I will withhold that, but it clearly violates the Budget Act and
requires 60 votes from what I understand. I see my friend, Senator
Nickles, standing.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator withhold before he makes the point of
order----
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to withhold.
Mr. NICKLES. So I can address the Senate for a few minutes?
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Domenici for
his statement and also I compliment our colleague from Nebraska for his
bill. I was hoping in a way it would be a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution. But I just tell my colleague from Nebraska, who is now the
ranking member of the Budget Committee, I think the Budget Act should
be amended. I will work with him to amend it. I do not think it should
be amended on the floor of the Senate today.
We do not have to pass--I just make mention to my colleagues--we do
not have to pass every amendment that might be around in our first week
in session. I know there are ideas on campaign reform. There are ideas
on lobbying reform. I hope the majority would like to pass a bill to
make Congress abide by the laws like everyone else in the country. The
House has already passed it and the Senate has not. I really would like
the Senate to pass it. I introduced it in 1991. We did not win that
time. I remember at that time the majority leader was Senator Mitchell.
He spoke out very vigorously and he convinced a lot of people and we
lost. I would really like to pass it. I would like to pass it clean.
I am interested in amending the Budget Act. I think our budget
procedures do not work very well and one of the things I would like to
change is our baseline so we do not have inflated baselines. That is
something, now, that has gained some popularity. Maybe that can be in
part of our Budget Act Resolution.
There are some other things we can do in the Budget Act, I think,
that also would make sense. When the Senator from Nebraska says that
any budget resolution should move us on a path towards a balanced
budget, I may well support that. Maybe a direct path. We can negotiate
that. But I think the Budget Act probably needs some amendments and I
will be happy to work with my colleague from Nebraska to make that
happen.
I know there are some other amendments that need to be made to the
Budget Act in addition to this that is before us today. This particular
amendment does not have anything to do with making Congress abide by
the laws like everybody else. There are 11 statutes from which Congress
has exempted itself, going all the way back to 1935, and we are trying
to remedy that.
I know colleagues have amendments: We want to ban lobbying; we want
to ban gifts; we want to ban this, and try to correct everything that
can possibly be wrong in our first week in session.
[[Page S546]] We are going to be in session next week. We are going to
be in session the following week. The majority leader has already said
we can take up several of these issues soon.
The Senator from New Mexico said we are going to take up a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We are going to take up
implementing legislation. We are going to take up a budget resolution.
That happens by statute. It has to happen, I believe, by April 15. We
have to pass a joint resolution implementing the budget resolution. So
this is going to happen. It does not have to happen today.
So the intent of my colleague from Nebraska, I think, is well made.
But I hope we will defer it, or postpone it, and let us look at
rewriting the Budget Act. Let us not do it on this bill. Let us pass
this bill as it is. I would like to pass it today. Let us send it to
the President and get his signature on it. I think it would be a
positive accomplishment for this Congress and for this President.
I yield the floor and I thank my colleague from New Mexico for
yielding to me.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Exon amendment to
balance the budget. I am a longtime proponent of balancing the Federal
budget and I believe the most effective manner to do this is through an
honest budgeting process. This amendment will require truth in
budgeting. I wish to add, however, that my support for a balanced
budget is contingent on the exemption of the Social Security trust fund
from its enforcement. An overwhelming majority of Americans support a
balanced budget amendment but not at the expense of our Nation's senior
citizens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I failed to mention one other argument I
would like to lay before the Congress. I say to my good friend, as soon
as the constitutional amendment is adopted by the sovereign States and
remitted as it must under the Constitution, and it becomes the
sovereign law of the land, there is a very different dynamic that takes
place that we do not have today. That is, we will not be the only part
of this Government that has to produce a budget resolution that is in
balance because, by that time, the President of the United States will
have to submit one. The Congress of the United States and the President
will be bound by the same generic sovereign law of the land, and I
believe we are going to move ahead with a very substantial, large
downpayment, probably far in excess of what the President will submit,
as our first efforts in the committee.
Having said that, Mr. President, I make a point of order that the
pending amendment violates the Budget Act of the United States.
Mr. EXON. addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is debatable. The Chair recognizes
the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to ask for the
yeas and nays at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Nebraska.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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
[[Page S547]] to do is to pass a constitutional amendment to balance
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. May I inquire if we are going to have a recess at the
hour of 1 p.m.?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no such order.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 7
minutes as in morning business.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. The
Senator is not going to speak on this issue?
Mrs. BOXER. Very briefly, in passing, just a sentence to make an
observation. But I have a bill I have introduced and I would like to
take about 7 minutes to speak about it, if I might.
Mr. DOMENICI. Might I say to my friend from California, the majority
leader is suggesting that we are almost finished with this amendment
and that perhaps you can have that time after we have disposed of this
amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. I inquire, what time does he feel we will be voting on
this amendment.
[[Page S548]] Mr. DOLE. Does the Senator from Arkansas wish to speak
on the amendment?
Mr. PRYOR. The Senator from Arkansas would like to speak for a few
moments in making an observation about this amendment. I ask, through
the Chair, the distinguished majority leader, do we plan on a vote on
the Exon amendment this afternoon?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I may----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. I would say that from the majority leader's standpoint, I
would like to vote on the Exon amendment very quickly. We are supposed
to be meeting from 12 to 2 with the Governors. Half of that time has
already elapsed and I have yet to show up at the meeting. From a
personal standpoint--if we can vote on the Exon amendment, I would be
happy to yield whatever time the Senator from California may need or
however long the Senator from Arkansas may wish to speak following
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I compliment Senator Exon and associate myself
with his remarks. We have to balance the budget.
Mr. President, I request 60 seconds, if I might, at this time to
speak on another topic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Boxer pertaining to the introduction of
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from
Arkansas would like to speak on the amendment, and the Senator from
Pennsylvania would like to speak for 3 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that we vote on the motion to waive at 1:05.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. EXON. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
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. DOLE. There is no rush, but I can move to table right now and we
can vote at 12:55. We can always do that. We do not have to wait until
1:05. I am trying to accommodate the Senators on each side, including
this Senator, but we will vote at 4 o'clock then. Would that be all
right?
Mr. EXON. Yes, 4 o'clock is all right.
Mr. DOLE. I do not want to vote at 4 o'clock. But we are going to do
a lot of work here today. We are not going to have one or two votes
today, because we are trying to finish this bill by Monday evening. I
do not see any way that is going to happen. I do not have any quarrel
with the Senator from Nebraska taking all the time he wishes, up to
some reasonable point. At that point, we would move to table. But
because he has not had much time for debate----
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. DOLE. I would rather not make that request now. I know some
Members have other plans this afternoon--not this Member, but other
Members on both sides of the aisle--who would like to not only complete
this amendment but a couple of others and maybe get an agreement. As I
understand it, there will be a meeting at 1 o'clock on the other side
to see if we can reach some agreement so those who had amendments could
stay and debate them. Those who did not have amendments could keep
their commitments, in some cases far away from here. We are trying to
accommodate all Senators. So I would not want to wait until 4 o'clock.
Why do we not just say we will revisit it in 30 or 45 minutes?
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. DOLE. Next week means next Monday. Probably votes will occur
after 3 o'clock. In any event, I know the distinguished minority
leader, Senator Daschle, will be meeting at 1 o'clock to see how many
amendments will be remaining on that side. We are perfectly prepared to
reach agreement so that those who have amendments can stay and debate
them but not vote. But we would like to vote on this one today.
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. DOLE. My pleasure would be not to do that.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not want to deny the Senator time.
And I hope he did not interpret my saying 15 minutes--I had inquired of
his staff how long the Senator intended to speak and they said 15
minutes and I, quite inappropriately, assumed that was the extent of
the debate. I clearly do not intend to hold anybody to 15 minutes. That
is what I understood.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I had not planned to speak this afternoon.
I certainly do not want to obstruct the flow of legislative business
here.
First, I would like to compliment my colleague and friend from
Nebraska on his proposal this afternoon. I also want to say that I
cannot support it at this time.
I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues, Mr.
President, the fact that in one section of the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, which the Senate this afternoon,
in just a few minutes of debate, is going to be asked vote on, states
that it is ``essential that Congress, one, adopt a balanced budget
amendment.'' That is one thing that the Exon amendment proposes to do.
So we, after a very few moments and a very small skirmish on a very
large constitutional issue, Mr. President, are going to be required in
a few moments, with many absences--I assume some of our colleagues have
gone back to their States, to vote on whether or not we think ``the
Congress should adopt a balanced budget amendment.'' Maybe we think
that the Congress should; maybe we think the Congress should not. But
this is a very, very far-reaching proposal.
Mr. President, my colleague and friend from Nebraska stated in the
opening moments of his very eloquent presentation the fact that the
American public, by overwhelming numbers, says, yes, we need a balanced
budget and we need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I
think there was a CBS poll or one of the polling operations that
reported today or yesterday that a great majority of those polled say
we need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
Mr. President, I know there is a great euphoria around the Capitol
these
[[Page S549]] days, but I do not think that euphoria is of such
magnitude and intensity and velocity at this moment that the American
people might not give us say a few months, a few months, perhaps even
in the summer, early fall or October, certainly before we leave, to let
us decide whether or not we want to propose to the 50 States that an
amendment to the Federal Constitution be adopted to require a balanced
budget.
The Exon proposal, in my opinion, is a very, very responsible
proposal because it will require, Mr. President, the policies to be
specified that would be required to enforce a balanced budget amendment
or, to say it in another way--I assume I am speaking with some degree
of correctness--it would imply that there would have to be implementing
legislation that would have to go along with a balanced budget
amendment. I think that is a responsible course of action.
I think, Mr. President, for us to this afternoon, on Friday, with a
short debate, to even take a position on whether we want to, require 60
votes to waive a point of order--that is a new order of consideration
provided by the Exon amendment--is questionable. We even go back to a
procedure under the old Gramm-Rudman-Hollings concept that provides
that the point of order will be suspended if Congress declares war or
adopts a resolution certifying low economic growth. This is another
question.
But the Senator from Nebraska has put his finger on one of the most
important things, and that is, do the people want us to vote for a
balanced budget amendment before we know the facts?
Now, do we know the facts, Mr. President? No, we do not know the
facts. When we know the facts, then it will be the proper time and the
proper opportunity for us to vote yes or no on whether we prefer a
balanced budget amendment to the Federal Constitution.
I hope that there will be some way to accommodate the Senator from
Nebraska. I wish we could debate this even until next week, because I
do not see the necessity to rush an amendment like this through, one of
such important consequences, for which I do applaud my colleague and
friend from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no disagreement on the floor
today about the desirability of having a balanced budget so that the
Federal Government would live within its means as every other
governmental entity, like the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a
constitutional requirement to have a balanced budget. Every city and
county in my State and every governmental unit across the country has
to live within its means within a balanced budget. Only the Federal
Government has the prerogative to print money, script, and borrow and
not live within its means. This is an affront to every family, and the
comment has often been made on this floor.
In the 14 years-plus that I have been in this body, we have debated
and talked about this subject, I think, more than any other and there
is I think agreement that we need a balanced budget.
Yesterday, in the Judiciary Committee, we had a very constructive
hearing analyzing many legal considerations on enacting a
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I think we will soon do
that.
The amendment proposed by the Senator from Nebraska on its face does
something a little different. That is, it ``enforces through the
congressional budget process the requirement to achieve a balanced
Federal budget.''

The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has raised an
understandable objection to this point in tying the hands of the Budget
Committee this afternoon with very little debate and only a few
Senators on the floor, tying the hands of the Budget Committee on what
it will do. I would suggest to the Senator from Nebraska that the
preferable course would be for the Senator from Nebraska in his
position as the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee to offer the
specific amendments to achieve a balanced budget. One of the
difficulties in the Senate and the House has been that we have done a
lot of talking about the desirability of a balanced budget, but no one
has come forward and introduced on the floor the specifics of a
balanced budget.
So I would say to the Senator from Nebraska, as the ranking member,
the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee, let him come forward with
the specifics. He wants a balanced budget. We all do. He thinks he can
propose a balanced budget this year. Let him do so. Let him take it to
the committee or let him take it to the floor and then we will vote on
it.
I expect to be a chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee this
session on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, a committee I
have served on in the 14 years-plus I have been in the Senate, and was
ranking member last year. I have already called the Secretaries of each
of those departments and have said to them, what are you going to be
asking for by way of appropriations next year? What is it that may be
eliminated? What is it that we may be able to cut on the budget in
terms of specifics? I think there is no doubt that the mandate of last
November's election was that the American people want smaller
Government, want reduced spending, and would like to see tax cuts.
I believe that we should have tax cuts but I am not prepared to vote
for a tax cut sight unseen. I am not prepared to engage in the bidding
on a middle-class tax cut until we see that we have savings. I do not
think we should have tax cuts if it will add to the deficit. I do
think, parenthetically, we should have promptly a capital gains tax
cut. That is the one tax cut which we could enact promptly which would
not lead to a revenue loss. There were 56 Members of this body in the
last session of Congress prepared to have a capital gains tax cut. We
could not get it through against a filibuster. That is one tax cut we
could have.
As to others, we ought not to be in that bidding war until we see
what spending cuts we will have. Now, as the prospective chairman of
the Subcommittee of Labor, Health, Human Services and Education with a
discretionary budget of approximately $70 billion, I am looking for
places to cut. But I am not prepared to make cuts
[[Page S550]] with a meat ax but instead with a scalpel. I am not
prepared to talk about the generalizations.
I think that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Senator
Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is exactly right when
he says, as the chairman with the responsibility to direct those
deliberations, that he does not want to see an enforcement mechanism
which will compel the Budget Committee to take action before the Budget
Committee has a chance to go through the items line by line, which is
what the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, is in effect saying.
What I am saying, is take a look at the specifics of the budget on
Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, three committees that have
discretionary budgets up to $70 billion.
The other two provisions in the amendment by the Senator from
Nebraska I think are not worthy of adoption. The first one is to adopt
in the first session of the 104th Congress, a joint resolution
proposing, an amendment to the Constitution requiring, a balanced
Federal budget. We are already considering that. It will not do any
good to talk any more about that until the Judiciary Committee reports
out an amendment and we act on it on the Senate floor.
The second line to set forth with specificity in the first session of
the 104th Congress is what the policies of achieving such a balanced
Federal budget would require. Mr. President, I think we are well aware
at this stage of the life of the Congress of what the policies are. I
would say that although this matter is worthy of debate it has been on
the floor for a little more than an hour. I do not see any avalanche of
Senators coming to the floor to debate the resolution.
What we ought to be doing at this point is talking about the
specifics. Talking about the specifics in my subcommittee and talking
about the specifics in the Budget Committee. I would invite the Senator
from Nebraska to propose the details as to how he would balance the
budget. I can assure that this Senator will look closely at that role
and would work with him in trying to balance a budget with real money.
Not a confederate proposition of ``let's talk about it,'' but let
Members be specific about how we will do it. I join him in that effort.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska
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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to fill in a little time, if
my colleagues do not object--but when the minority leader comes to the
floor, I will cease my remarks.
I would like to make just two or three more points, Mr. President. I
think that what the Senator from Nebraska is doing, the concept that he
is laying out is absolutely sound. I think it is responsible, and I
think that it is something we have to do prior to the vote on a
balanced budget amendment. There may be a lot of different thought in
this Chamber as to what the outcome of this debate might or might not
be.
Second, I think we need to know some more basic things about a
balanced budget amendment. I think we need to know how we are going to
achieve a balanced budget, and if some Senators say, ``Oh, we have 7 or
8 years to figure that out; we'll just vote the balanced budget
amendment in and we will feel good; we will write a press release; we
will go back home and we will boast that we have voted for a balanced
budget amendment,'' that does not take a lot of creativity, nor a lot
of courage.
I think what we have to ask ourselves is this: How are we going to
achieve a balanced budget if we adopt the balanced budget amendment?
What will be the implementing legislation that will be called for? What
is going to be the issue with regard to rescission? What is going to be
the answer with regard to impoundment? Are we going to basically
exclude or include Social Security? Are we going to exclude or include
veterans benefits?
These are the types of issues, Mr. President, that I think we need to
know before we stake out the course of this afternoon, saying it is a
congressional decision, that it is essential for
[[Page S551]] Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment.
The Senator from Pennsylvania stated there is no disagreement among
anyone, I think, in this Chamber of whether we need a balanced budget.
That is different from a balanced budget amendment, I say respectfully,
and I certainly agree with my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania.
But we have a lot of things going on here. We have the Contract With
America. Some of it has already started to roll. Things are happening
very quickly.
We are going to have a markup on Monday, I believe, in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, on an issue that may or may not change
the relationship between the Federal and State governments. That is a
voluminous piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that I
will probably vote for. But, Mr. President, I do not think we are
taking enough time to really look and analyze some of these far-
reaching pieces of legislation before we cast our vote.
But a constitutional amendment to the Federal Constitution to require
a balanced budget I think should be voted on when we have the facts,
when we know how we are going to achieve and how we will implement that
balanced budget that all of us may ultimately support.
Mr. President, those are the comments that I have. I see other
Senators may be coming to the floor desiring to speak. So with that I
will yield the floor, and I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does have the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I may, as
the Senator who has the floor, propound a question to the Senator from
Nebraska without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. My question is this, may I say to the distinguished
Senator: Would the Senator be willing to revise his proposal in a way
that would delete the language that is set forth in paragraph (1) and
in (a), preceding (1), which reads as follows:

Purpose.--The Congress declares it essential that the
Congress--
(1) adopt in the first session of the 104th Congress a
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
requiring a balanced Federal budget.

Mr. President, before he responds, there are some other aspects of
this proposal that the distinguished Senator has made here that I like.
I think he is not willing to go into this thing with his eyes shut. He
is not willing just to go along with having a constitutional amendment
on a balanced budget, although I believe I heard him say he was going
to vote for one. I hope he will, in his characteristic fashion, think
that through. I have always thought of him as a man who really thinks
matters through, and the fact that he has offered this as a proposal
today indicates to me that he is thinking that through and that he sees
some problems with it.
I like most of what the Senator has, but I do not like and could
never support (a) and (1):

The Congress declares it essential that the Congress adopt
in the first session of the 104th Congress a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution requiring a
balanced Federal budget.

I am not for that. I will not be for it tomorrow, and I am going to
do everything I can to oppose that for reasons that I will explain
later.
Now, would the Senator consider revising his proposal so as to leave
out that language to which I object strenuously?
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. BYRD. The Senator is getting very close. He is getting very
close. I do not want to say right here that I would support that as the
Senator has outlined the precise changes, but he is moving in the
direction, and I would like to see what he puts in as (a). I would like
to see what goes in in lieu of what is being taken out.
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. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, do I still have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Before the distinguished Senator from Nebraska inquires of
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas with reference to this matter,
may I also ask the Senator how he would feel about this proposed
language, if the Senator from Arkansas will also indulge me.
I would ask the Senator from Nebraska, does he see anything
inherently objectionable in the following changes that I would propose:

(a) Purpose. The Congress declares that prior to any vote
to adopt in the first session of the 104th Congress a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
requiring a balanced Federal budget, it is essential--

This is paragraph (2).--

That it set forth with specificity in the first session--

And I am picking up the Senator's language thereon.
This would not declare that it is essential that the Congress adopt a
constitutional amendment on a balanced budget. I do not think that is
essential. So I am opposed to that. But if we are going to have that,
then the Senator would then be saying with his proposal:

The Congress declares that--
(1) Prior to any vote to adopt in the first session of the
104th Congress a joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution requiring a balanced budget;
(2) It is essential that it set forth with specificity in
the first session of the 104th Congress the policies that
achieving such a balanced Federal budget would require; and
(3) Enforce through the congressional budget process the
requirement to achieve a balanced Federal budget.

I do not have any comments on the rest of it at this point. I will
have to look carefully at the remainder of the Senator's proposal. But
I think he is working on what seems to me to be a very worthwhile
proposal.
I have asked the question.
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,
[[Page S552]] who I believe sought recognition and was going to ask me
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. BYRD. Mr. President, I still have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska for the purpose of his asking those
questions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Without my losing the right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas had thought that
the Senator from Nebraska was posing a question, and I was rising to
answer that question. I would like to answer, if I may, by saying I
think the Senator is certainly moving in the right direction.
Right now, on Friday afternoon, before we have really geared up the
Senate, before we really place our feet and our positions in concrete
on whether we support or reject the idea of a constitutional amendment,
it is in the spirit of good legislative wisdom and in keeping with the
legislative philosophy of the Senator from Nebraska, I am sure, that
this change be made, and if that change is made, I will
enthusiastically--enthusiastically--support the requirements of
specificity that the Senator from Nebraska is addressing in his
amendment.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Arkansas. I will take that under
advisement.
Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. If I may have the attention of my colleague from Nebraska
and also the attention of my friend from West Virginia, I have no
objection to dropping point one because this is coming down the road.
I would have objection to the language offered by Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd and I differ on this, and Senator Byrd is obviously trying
to put some language in here where we will end up fighting over how we
balance the budget rather than first establishing the principle. I
think it is important that we first establish the principle.
So if my colleague from Nebraska were to accept the Byrd amendment,
with all due respect to the Cicero of the Senate, I would have to
object, I would have to oppose the Exon amendment.
Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for just a brief statement?
Mr. SIMON. I will be pleased to yield.
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. SIMON. That is correct.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois still has the floor.
Mr. EXON. I am sorry.
Mr. SIMON. If I could just ask one other question on the amendment,
because I basically like the thrust of the Senator's amendment. Suppose
that a year from now or 2 years from now or 3 years from now, we come
in with a health program for the Nation with an increase in cigarette
taxes or some other revenue. This amendment would not cause us to have
60 votes to pass such a package, would it?
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. SIMON. Yes, that is correct. And I agree with that completely.
Whatever we do in the way of spending we have to have the revenue for
it. I just want to make sure that we are not locking out some other
possibility.
Mr. EXON. We are not.
Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 6, As Modified

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 6) as modified is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. .--CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF A BALANCED BUDGET

(a) Purpose.--The Congress declares it essential that the
Congress--
(1) set forth with specificity in the first session of the
104th Congress the policies that achieving such a balanced
Federal budget would require; and
(2) enforce through the congressional budget process the
requirement to achieve a balanced Federal budget.
(b) Point of Order Against Budget Resolutions that Fail To
Set Forth a Glide Path to a Balanced Budget.--Section 301 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting
at the end thereof the following new subsection:
``(j) Congressional Enforcement of a Balanced Budget.--It
shall not be in order to consider any concurrent resolution
on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference report
thereon) that--
``(A) fails to set forth appropriate levels for all items
described in subsection (a)(1) through (7) for all fiscal
years through 2002;
``(B) sets forth a level of outlays for fiscal year 2002 or
any subsequent fiscal year that exceeds the level of revenues
for that fiscal year; or
``(C) relies on the assumption of either--
``(i) reductions in direct spending, or
``(ii) increases in revenues, without including specific
reconciliation instructions under section 310 to carry out
those assumptions.''.
(c) Requirement for 60 Votes To Waive or Appeal in the
Senate.--Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``301(i),'' in both
places that it appears.
(d) Suspension in the Event of War or Congressionally-
Declared Low Growth.--Section 258(b)(2) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended
by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``sections''.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as a longtime supporter of a balanced
budget amendment, I am pleased to join my very distinguished colleague
from Nebraska in offering this amendment.
This amendment says we should translate words into action that we
have to take immediate steps to balance the Federal budget. Passing a
constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget 7 years from
now,
[[Page S553]] while highly appropriate, does nothing today.
From all appearances, a balanced budget amendment will pass Congress
this year. There appears to be widespread support on both sides of the
aisle on that point.
But we simply cannot afford to wait until 2001 to start complying
with the balanced budget amendment. By doing so, we will be adding a
far greater burden to our national debt, which already is above $4
trillion.
If we pledge our commitment to continued deficit reduction today, we
will still need more than $1 trillion of cuts over the next 7 years to
balance the budget by the year 2002.
If we delay even 1 year, the national debt will increase by over $150
billion as a result of that delay, and the interest on the debt will be
approximately $50 billion greater. Each year that we delay adds another
enormous sum to our already-astronomical national debt, and increase
the percentage of our budget that must be dedicated to servicing that
debt.
In the last Congress, we passed a deficit reduction package that will
reduce the budget deficit by nearly $500 billion. Given the magnitude
of our existing debt, it would be irresponsible and profoundly
illogical not to continue striving toward a balanced budget this year,
not next year or the year after.
To illustrate the point that Senator Exon and I are trying to make,
consider the simple situation of a person who has run up huge amounts
of debt at the bank. Does the bank say to that person, ``You have 7
years to pay off your debt and, by the way, feel free to incur more
debt in the meantime?''
Certainly not. The bank would insist that, at a minimum, the debtor
not incur further debt.
That is precisely what we are talking about here, and that is why
every Member of this body who supports the balanced budget amendment
should support this amendment today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am not sure that everybody is aware of
what we are considering as the underlying bill in this body. But
remember, during the campaign there was a hue and cry from the
grassroots, expressed very clearly in that election, that people wanted
to end the situation where we had two sets of laws in America, one for
Capitol Hill and one for the rest of the Nation.
In other words, Congress did not have certain employment safety laws
apply to us that applied to the private sector. The small business
people of America are very up in arms about the fact that they have to
abide by very egregious legislation, and we who make the laws have
exempted ourselves from that. That bill passed the House of
Representatives 2 days ago unanimously. Senator Dole placed the
Congressional Accountability Act, which I and Senator Lieberman are
main sponsors of, as a first bill on the agenda because he wanted to
respond to the people at the grassroots who expressed in that election
the resentment of a dual system of law in America.
So that is why that bill is before us. We had debate on that bill
yesterday. Senator Glenn, the Democratic manager, spoke very eloquently
of the reasons that legislation ought to pass. Senator Lieberman did,
several other Democrats and several Republicans did.
There does not seem to be much disagreement about what the people
said in that election and that S. 2 ought to pass the Senate like it
has already passed the House. Yet, we are not getting from there to
here very quickly because we are dealing with a lot of amendments that
are unrelated to the bill that the people so clearly expressed in the
election that we ought to pass and do it very quickly.
By the way, one of the things that the new majority wants to do is
show the people of this country that it is not business as usual
anymore in Washington on Capitol Hill passing legislation that they
clearly stated they wanted passed and that is on the agenda of the
victor of that election, and we ought to get to it and get the job
done. The other body stated that they understood that very well with
their action 2 days ago. Hopefully, we will get that done in this body
very quickly. But we have dealt with lobbying reform. We have dealt
with campaign finance reform. We are going to deal with the issue of
private use of frequent flyer mileage. We are now dealing with a very
important issue of balancing the budget.
There is not one of these issues that is being presented by our
friends on the other side of the aisle that are not very legitimate
issues to be discussed here. But every one of these issues will be
discussed pursuant to the promise of our distinguished leader, Senator
Dole, who said that within just a few weeks we will have lobbying
reform and campaign finance reform before this body. It is already on
the majority agenda in both the House and Senate that we are going to
take up a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. In just
6 weeks we will be working on the budget resolution that fits right
into what my friend, the Senator from Nebraska, is trying to accomplish
this time on this very important underlying piece of legislation.
So I wish that we could get some sort of understanding that we could
deal with what the people want us to deal with. The purpose of S. 2 is
responding to the mandate of the people in the last election that we
should end the dual system of law within this country, one set of law
for Congress, and another set of law for the rest of the Nation. But
all of this other discussion that is going on is preventing us from
getting at what we promised the people in the last election.
I do not have a fight with the Senator from Nebraska. He has very
worthwhile goals on budget issues. In fact, if you remember in the last
Congress, the only successful effort to change President Clinton's
budget was the Exon-Grassley amendment that was adopted that cut $26
billion from the President's budget when it passed the Senate and $13
billion from the compromise version that came out of the conference
committee.
So I have worked very closely with Senator Exon in trying to bring a
sound fiscal policy to our Federal Government. I will continue to work
with him for a sound fiscal policy. Why do it on legislation that is so
easily understood by the American people that they very clearly want?
And we are almost set to give it to them. The President is prepared to
sign it. And I just think we ought to get on with the show and final
passage of this legislation and forget about all of this extraneous
stuff that is not unimportant. It is a very important issue to be
discussing. But there is a time and place for everything, and the time
and place is set for all these other issues within just the next few
weeks. We are taking up what ought to be No. 1 on everybody's mind. We
have it up. We ought to pass it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the debate of the Senate on a Friday
always has a certain unique quality to it. I rise today simply to say
to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska that I do not know how this
issue will be resolved. I assume it will be resolved today. But I
applaud him for raising the issue and the amendment that he has
offered.
This is really a precursor to a debate we will have here in the next
week on the balanced budget amendment. It is really a truth-in-
advertising amendment. It makes explicit what anyone who supports a
balanced budget amendment should know--which is if you vote for it you
have to deliver on it. And it makes explicit what delivering on it,
voting for the balanced budget amendment, will cost.
I really do not think that there has been adequate public focus on
what the cost of a balanced budget amendment will be for average people
in this country, for regions of the country which get a
disproportionate share of the Federal dollar or elements of the economy
that have heavy subsidies.
I think that the public needs to see what will be cut if we have to
meet a balanced budget by the year 2002. And I am all for that.
In the last Congress I was on this floor offering spending cut after
spending cut on virtually every appropriations bill. I am pleased that
within the Democrats I was No. 4 in voting for spending cuts. I am
making the point
[[Page S554]] only because after you vote for a balanced budget
amendment, you then have to vote to cut spending.
The balanced budget amendment is just a process. What the amendment
of the Senator from Nebraska, as I understand it, does is say that
after a balanced budget amendment passes, if it should pass, that any
budget resolution has a point of order against it if the budget
resolution did not submit a budget that reached a balanced budget by
the year 2002, which by the way it is projected will be the year in
which the deficit is $322 billion.
So anyone who supports the balanced budget amendment would have to
support this Exon proposal, because that would make explicit how we cut
$322 billion by the year 2002. I applaud the Senator very much for his
amendment.
I know that we will yet have a chance to debate the balanced budget
amendment. One of the puzzling things for me with regard to
understanding the support for the balanced budget amendment--and maybe
the Senator from Nebraska is aware of this--is that there are certain
States in the Union that get a higher return on their tax dollar than
other States. Certain States pay taxes, and get back a lot more in
Federal spending than they have sent to Washington in taxes.
Unfortunately, my State is not in that group because we have a high
income. We pay a high tax, and we send a lot of tax dollars to
Washington. We do not get back that many tax dollars relative to what
we sent.
Once we get a balanced budget amendment, all those States which get
back much more than they kick in--and these States are
disproportionately in the West--those
are the States that will be disproportionately hit by the need to
dramatically cut spending $322 billion by the year 2002. And in the
coming debate, I hope that we will be able to focus on these facts.

I think the Senator's amendment is an enormously positive step in
getting us to face up to what actually balancing the budget will mean.
It will not be easy. There will be no substitute for cutting spending,
and there will be no substitute for Senators coming to the floor of the
U.S. Senate and voting to cut spending, not voting for a process in
that 7 or 10 years from now if it goes into effect, and if there are no
exclusions or if there are loopholes, will lead to a balanced budget.
We need to have Senators actually coming over here and voting to cut
spending.
So I applaud the Senator from Nebraska for his amendment. I know that
perhaps he and I have a different view on the balanced budget
amendment, but his amendment makes explicit what steps must be taken if
we are to balance the budget and requires the Congress to belly up to
the wire and say in 7 years we are going to balance the budget, and
here is how we are going to do it--not that in 7 years we will create
some budget glidepath down to a balanced budget in 10 years or 15 years
from now, but in 2002.
So I am anxiously awaiting such a congressional resolution, because I
think once that congressional resolution is out there and you see how
much is going to have to be cut in virtually every subsidy, virtually
every Federal program, virtually every entitlement there for the last
14 years in the Federal Government, there will be a moment of truth for
the Congress and a moment of truth for those who have voted for the
balanced budget amendment.
I salute the Senator for his amendment.
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. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield----
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. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
Mr. EXON. Yes, I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.
Mr. DORGAN. I have listened to some of the debate on this issue, and
I have heard some say, Gee, I do not necessarily oppose what you are
trying to do, but maybe this is not the place or time to do it. That is
always an interesting discussion. I understand that one can make a
stronger or weaker case against doing something like this on one bill
or another. But the fact is that the ultimate--it seems to me that the
ultimate rule and the ultimate circumstance, which is that we ought to
live the way everybody else does in this country, would be to have a
budget process that says when you come here with a budget, let us, if
we are going to pass a constitutional amendment--and I think we will--
to balance the budget, and let us require the budget document itself to
get us to that point.
In other words, if you bring a road map to the floor of the Senate
that is purported to be the budget but never gets to the destination,
of what value is the map? And the Senator from Nebraska, who I think
has been one of the most consistent voices on this subject over the
years, I think, does a service by raising the question. I assume if the
Senator from Nebraska loses the vote here because some people say, Gee,
this is a great idea but the wrong place, I assume we will see it
again. I hope we see it again.
I fully intend to vote for it, because I do not think this is a
question of what place you put this in the process. The question is
whether this makes sense in the context of what we are about to embark
on this year as a body. The answer clearly is yes. It makes perfect
sense, and it makes perfect sense to do now, this minute. I wanted to
state that the Senator has done a service, I think, by offering this.
I hope my colleagues will look at the merits of this and say: Gee,
this makes a lot of sense. If we are going to put out a budget map
here, let us have a destination on the map that gets us to what all the
American people want--that is, a balanced budget.
I will frame it in a question. As I have understood the debate, is it
the understanding of the Senator from Nebraska that there seems to be a
fair amount, at least, of sympathy with this amendment, but some are
saying, Gee maybe we cannot vote for it because it is the wrong time?
Will the Senator once again explain, is there a better time anywhere he
knows of than to pass this at this moment?
[[Page S555]] (Mr. THOMAS assumed the Chair.)
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. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator from Nebraska
to yield one more moment, just for one additional question.
Mr. EXON. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. The prospect here of voting today and deciding not to
support this, as the Senator has said, will produce this same amendment
in the future. I am pleased to hear him say that.
I think all of us probably agree that a balanced budget--that is, a
zero balance--is not necessarily nirvana somewhere out there.
I did not used to think we should change the Constitution to do this,
as a matter of fact. But year after year after year of a budget that is
fundamentally out of balance with respect to operating budget deficits,
that cannot continue. That hurts this country. And I decided some years
ago, gee, I mean, we do not have much choice.
But we could change the Constitution at 2:15, 3 minutes from now, and
it will do nothing, nothing, to balance the budget. We will simply have
changed the Constitution to require a balanced budget, and then others
will have to find ways to achieve those ends.
I must also say to you that I would not care at all if we had a
budget deficit that was $300 billion this year if that budget deficit,
by its expenditure, had cured cancer, as an example. Spend $300 billion
you do not have and cure cancer. Is that a good investment? Your darn
right it is a good investment. It would not bother me a bit.
But the billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars, that we
are now spending that we do not have are not investments. They are
operating budget deficits, year after year, that cannot continue. If
this were an investment, it would be one thing. But it is not an
investment, it is the operating budget. And it is, in my judgment,
impeding this country's economy and opportunity.
So that is why I support what the Senator is doing. I hope, Mr.
President, the Senator will prevail today. If not, I hope the Senator
will tell us how soon he will be back to give us the opportunity to do
this once again.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, pursuant to the majority leader's
request, with the approval, I believe, of the Democratic leader, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate vote on or in relation to the motion
to waive the
[[Page S556]] Budget Act with respect to the Exon amendment at 2:30
today, with the time between now and 2:30 equally divided between
Senator Exon and Senator Grassley.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I do not object. I agree to the unanimous-
consent request offered by my colleague from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? If not, without objection,
it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I
ask that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from North Dakota
whatever time he desires.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
I have come to the floor to commend the Senator for what I think is
an excellent amendment, precisely the kind of amendment we ought to
consider and we ought to support today. Mr. President, the Senator from
Nebraska has offered an amendment which says simply and clearly and
powerfully, that if we are going to pass a balanced budget amendment to
the Constitution, something that I support, that we ought to match our
words and our deeds.
That is precisely what the Senator from Nebraska has put before this
body. Mr. President, that is what the underlying legislation is all
about. Matching words with deeds. Holding Congress accountable. Having
Congress follow the laws that it writes. Nothing could be more
important with respect to a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution than that we actually start to write a balanced budget.
Not just pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and then
do the same old thing and not start to actually balance the budget. The
easiest thing in the world is to pass a balanced budget amendment to
the Constitution and then do nothing to start balancing the budget. I
cannot think of anything that would be more destructive of public trust
than to engage in that kind of cruel public hoax. That is precisely
what could happen here.
We all know what is politically easy and what is politically hard.
What is politically easy is to stand up and say ``I'm for a balanced
budget;'' what is politically hard is to actually do the work of
balancing the budget. That is what is challenging. That is what is
difficult. That is what is politically hard to do.
The Senator from Nebraska says ``Yes, let's have a balanced budget
amendment; but beyond that, let's actually start to balance the
budget.'' What a novel idea. Mr. President, it is precisely what we
ought to do. That is exactly what we ought to do. I cannot think of
anything that would give this country more confidence in what we are
doing than that.
Now, Mr. President, one of the things I am concerned about as I watch
this debate is we talk about balancing the budget, but we rarely talk
about why we should balance the budget. It is not just because it makes
us feel good. It is not just because you should match what you spend
with what you take in. It is because balancing the budget has real
economic consequences that are positive for this country. It makes a
difference in the lives of people.
Mr. President, we got the evidence today of a package we passed 2
years ago doing something positive in the lives of people. Just today
we received news of what has happened with the unemployment rate in
this country. It has dropped to 5.4 percent, the lowest level in 4
years, and 3.5 million jobs were created in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
remaining 3 minutes belongs to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we might
extend the time by 10 minutes, to be equally divided.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield whatever time is remaining to me to
my colleague from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
As I was pointing out, 3.5 million jobs were created in 1994--3.5
million. I believe one of the key reasons is that a number of us had
the courage to vote for a budget package 2 years ago that reduced the
deficit by over $500 billion over the next 5 years. Because we did
that, because we cut spending, and, yes, raised taxes on the wealthiest
1 percent among us, the result was a reduced deficit. The result of
that was reduced interest rates. The result of that was renewed
economic growth in this country, increased job creation, and a much
stronger economy.
That is why we need to move toward a balanced budget, because it will
take pressure off of interest rates. It will allow this economy to
continue to grow. It will allow this country to get back on track. That
is why the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska is so important.
Mr. President, I thank, again, the Senator from Nebraska.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five and one-half minutes for the Senator from
Iowa and 1 minute and 14 seconds for the Senator from Nebraska
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on this
side.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back the time remaining on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive section 306 of the
Budget Act.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the
Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
McCain] are necessary absent.
Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden],
the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], the Senator from Arkansas
[Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the Senator from
Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings],
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Nebraska
[Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], and
the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is
absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is absent
because of Illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Vermont [Mr. Leahy] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 30, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]

YEAS--30

Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnston
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Simon

NAYS--53

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--17

Biden
Bond
Boxer
Bumpers
Ford
Gramm
Heflin
Hollings
Kennedy
[[Page S557]] Kerrey
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Nunn
Robb
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 30, the nays are 53.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska deals with a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee. It is
being offered to a bill that was not reported by that committee in
violation of section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment fails.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking consent to set aside
the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 7

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Bridgestone/
Firestone dispute)

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself, Mr.
Glenn, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Feingold
proposes an amendment numbered 7.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) Bridgestone/Firestone, a subsidiary of foreign owned
Bridgestone Corp., has recently announced its decision to
hire permanent replacement workers displacing more than 2,000
American workers;
(2) this action may result in the largest permanent
displacement of workers in over a decade:
(3) the practice of hiring permanent replacement workers is
devastating, not only to the replaced workers, but also to
their families and communities;
(4) the position of management of foreign owned
Bridgestone/Firestone appears to be that they cannot compete
with their American owned competitor, Goodyear, if they
provide wages, benefits, and conditions of employment
benefits patterned after those provided by Goodyear;
(5) hiring permanent replacement workers is illegal under
the laws of the parent company's own country; and
(6) most of the United States' major trading partners,
including Japan, Germany, France, and Canada, recognize that
using permanent replacements is bad business and bad public
policy.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) Bridgestone/Firestone should reconsider its decision to
hire permanent replacement workers and return to the
bargaining table and bargain in good faith with the United
Rubberworkers of America, the representative of their
employees; and
(2) the Clinton Administration, working through the
appropriate diplomatic channels and using the appropriate
trade negotiations, should impress upon the parent company's
home government the concern of the United States over this
matter and seek their assistance in getting Bridgestone/
Firestone to reconsider their decision.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator
Glenn, Senator Harkin, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Feingold, and
myself. And I believe I am willing to enter into a time agreement on
that. I am checking with Senator Daschle on my side on the time
agreement and I should know that very shortly.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SIMON. I will be pleased to yield.
Mr. BYRD. Before we will be able to enter into a time agreement, some
of us would like to know what the amendment does. We did not let the
clerk read it.
Mr. SIMON. I did not let the clerk read it but I will be happy to
explain the amendment.
Mr. BYRD. May I hear that before we are asked to enter into an
agreement?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
regarding a strike situation that we face in this country. Bridgestone/
Firestone is a company wholly owned by a Japanese corporation. They
bought Firestone, merged the two companies. They have had a strike on
since July. And back, I guess about a month ago, Senator Glenn and
Senator Harkin and Senator Moseley-Braun and several of us met with the
Japanese Ambassador and urged that they negotiate, that they sit down
and negotiate.
I, frankly, do not know, in terms of the dispute between labor and
management, which side is right. What I do know is that they ought to
sit down and negotiate. But the Bridgestone/Firestone has announced
they are going to fire all the strikers and permanently replace them.
That is--I have been doing some checking--we have had only two
precedents like that since the 1930's. We have had no striker
replacement law, as Western Europe and Canada and the other countries
do, but we have had a tradition that you do not do that. And this
resolution simply says to the corporation: Sit down and negotiate,
rather than just firing several thousand workers.
I would hope that we could adopt this resolution. My friend from Iowa
indicates that he has some concerns, otherwise we could adopt it by
voice vote. That is basically the situation.
Let me point out one other thing. This is a Japanese--wholly-owned
Japanese firm now. In Japan it would be illegal for them to do what
they are doing in Illinois, in Iowa, in Oklahoma, Ohio, and Indiana. My
hope is that this sense-of-the-Senate resolution could be adopted and
that we can move forward. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
sense-of-the-Senate amendment of my colleague, the senior Senator from
Illinois, [Mr. Simon], and to give some background on this issue. It is
something that has troubled us greatly and that I believe is a matter
that really boils down to good corporate citizenship.
Mr. President, some 4,000 members of the United Rubber Workers,
including 1,250 members of local 713 in Decatur, IL, have been
exercising their right to strike against the Bridgestone/Firestone
company which is, as Senator Simon indicated, a foreign-owned
corporation. The strike began when, after months of negotiations, the
company refused to accept a contract that was similar to the contract
the United Rubber Workers had negotiated with Goodyear, which is an
American company. Throughout the duration of the strike the United
Rubber Workers have maintained a willingness to bargain with
Bridgestone/Firestone to attempt to resolve their differences. In fact,
earlier this week the URW bargaining committee notified Bridgestone/
Firestone that it would be meeting with Federal mediators in an effort
to resume bargaining and to end the work stoppage.
Unfortunately, the company has not shown the same willingness to
negotiate in good faith. In fact, some 2 days ago the company informed
its workers that they will be permanently replaced as a result of this
ongoing dispute. A number of Senators and I, whose workers are affected
by this strike, have done everything we can, everything possible, to
try to help resolve this dispute. In fact, just this afternoon I called
on and had a conversation with some of our trade negotiators, to see to
it that these kinds of issues of the conduct, the corporate citizenship
of foreign companies doing business here in America, was an issue that
would be brought up in their trade discussions and negotiations in
future times. We will see how that plays out.
But the point is, without giving a long speech about this because I
understand there are others who want to speak to this issue, this
company is doing to American workers what American companies cannot do,
or have not done, to American workers, by and large. Senator Simon has
discovered one tiny precedent of similarity in one instance. But by and
large, in this industry, what is going on here is quite extraordinary.
While on the one hand we do not want to get in a situation in which
investment by foreign companies is discouraged--we want to encourage
investment, we want to encourage participation--we certainly want to
encourage positive relations with our
[[Page S558]] companies from whatever part of the world they may come,
the fact is that when one is doing business here in the United States
it is only appropriate and only a function of good corporate
citizenship that one does business in keeping with the values and the
tradition and the fair play that American workers, I think, have every
right to expect.
We do not have a striker replacement law in this country but we know
for a fact it is against the law to fire a worker for exercising the
right to strike. It is not against the law to permanently replace that
worker. But at the same time, to have permanent replacement resorted to
as a measure by corporate leadership in an instance in which it would
not happen if it were an American company, or has not happened in
certain similarly situated American companies, sours the atmosphere and
sets an unfortunate precedent that I hope the leadership of
Bridgestone/Firestone would take a good hard look at and reconsider.
Mr. President, with that I encourage my colleagues to support this
sense-of-the-Senate resolution and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to support the actions being taken
by Senator Simon. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Certainly we
would not be willing to vote today to do exactly the opposite and to
say no, we do not think there should be any more negotiations; no, we
think it should be final. Even Japanese law, it was pointed out here,
in the home country of Japan--this is a wholly-owned Japanese
corporation now--but the law in Japan would prevent them from doing
exactly what we are doing here, even though we have yet to put into
place any striker replacement legislation in this country.
So surely we do not go the opposite tack and say, ``No. We don't
think there should be any more negotiation.'' We do quite the opposite.
We say, ``Look, it is never too late.'' And while we cannot take sides
in this as U.S. Senators and come down on exactly what the final
solution would be, surely it is within our responsibility to our people
in our respective States and this country to say, ``Look, don't just
give up on this thing. At least sit down and talk about it some more.''
I know it has been a long discussion. They have had long negotiations.
But sometimes just when things look the blackest in the negotiation is
when real progress can be made.
I hope this is not just a negotiating ploy. I do not think it is. I
think Bridgestone/Firestone is serious about this, and that makes it
all the more incumbent upon us to take some action here on the Senate
floor.
So I had real hope after we met with the Japanese Ambassador that he
was going to use his good offices to do everything he possibly could.
Perhaps he did. I certainly will not say that he did not do everything
that he could possibly do. But what we are saying is, in the interest
of fairness to our workers and in the interest of even the company
adhering to what the Japanese law is, sit down again and let us see if
we cannot work this thing out before we go through the throes of seeing
some 2,000-plus American workers being tossed out permanently. I think
that would be too bad.
I want to compliment Senator Simon for taking the lead on this and am
glad to support his sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. I thank Senator Glenn.
Mr. President, let me just add one other point. In addition to the
labor-management factor here, I think the other factor is United
States-Japan relations. This is not the kind of thing that is going to
help relations between our two countries.
So I hope that, if we adopt this resolution--and I hope we do--that
the corporation would take another look at this. This is not good for
United States-Japan relations as well as not good for the future of
this corporation, Bridgestone/Firestone. The rubber workers have taken
the position they should have the same contract as they do with the
Firestone competitor, Goodyear. I do not know whether they are right or
wrong. That is not the point. All we say is sit down and negotiate and
see if this can be worked out.
Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I question the
presence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Order of Procedure

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
prior to a motion to table the Simon amendment be as follows: 5 minutes
under the control of myself, 20 minutes under the control of Senator
Simon; and, further, at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the
majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table
the Simon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. SIMON. I say to my colleague from Iowa, if he is going to yield
his time, I am willing to yield my time and proceed to a vote.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Except for Senator Kassebaum to speak a few moments, as
she put it, we will do that.
Mr. SIMON. I always welcome Senator Kassebaum's speech.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield such time as she might consume
to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], is
recognized.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I appreciate the
courtesy of the Senator from Illinois as well. As he knows, I have some
strong views on this issue that I would like to express. I can
certainly appreciate the points of view of the Senators from Illinois,
Senators Moseley-Braun and Simon. But I have to rise in strong
opposition to the resolution that has been offered by the Senator from
Illinois.
Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the resolution offered
by the Senator from Illinois. The Senator's resolution expresses the
sense of the Senate that Bridgestone/Firestone Tire Co. should not use
permanent replacements for workers on strike in a labor dispute in
Ohio, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Illinois.
Mr. President, we have been through this argument on the floor, and
it is well understood by most everyone here.
The Congressional Accountability Act passed the House of
Representatives on a unanimous vote 2 days ago, and now we are here on
a late Friday afternoon with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on an
enormously important issue that does not relate in any way to the
Congressional Accountability Act.
I know the Senator from Illinois is well-intentioned. But this is
neither the time nor the place for Congress to be considering anything
other than this very important bill which is before us--the
Congressional Accountability Act.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois is completely
extraneous from the matter at hand, and for that reason alone I believe
the Senate should table his amendment.
Not only is the amendment inappropriate and untimely, but it is also
wrong on the substance as well.
Just for a moment, if I may reiterate what we have talked about
before in the debate on this issue, Congress should not take sides in a
private labor dispute as this amendment clearly does. We should not
take sides in a private dispute.
Because we have many new Members in this body, I think it might be
helpful to provide a brief background on our Federal labor laws. It has
been established Federal labor law for over 50 years that labor has the
right to strike, and companies have the right to continue operating
during the strike. On rare occasions, this may require hiring permanent
replacements.
These competing rights, and the risks they entail, enable the parties
to settle the overwhelming number of labor disputes at the bargaining
table which is the way I believe strongly they should be resolved.
[[Page S559]] Without the ability to hire permanent replacements,
labor could strike at any time, for any reason, without any risk. It
really disrupts completely. I would argue that the balance is a
difficult one, but I think a fair balance.
The compelling nature of these arguments led the Senate to defeat
legislation--S. 55--during both the 102d and 103d Congress. S. 55 would
have prohibited employers from hiring permanent replacements during an
economic strike. So the law is clear the employers may hire permanent
replacements during economic strikes.
Mr. President, Congress established the private collective bargaining
system to facilitate the peaceful resolution of labor disputes. We
leave it to the parties to decide for themselves what a fair deal is.
As difficult as it may be--and each of us has had these disputes in
our own States and we wish we could do something that could bring it to
a resolution, but as sure as we start down that path, we will all
regret it and all the parties to those labor disputes will regret it as
well.
It is not for this body to decide whether Bridgestone is justified in
hiring permanent replacements during the course of their current labor
dispute. We are not the arbiters of labor disputes in the U.S. Senate,
and we do not judge the fairness of any of the terms of a particular
labor agreement.
Mr. President, it is improper for the Senate to single out one
company and attempt to influence a private labor dispute. Regardless of
the merits on either side, we do not negotiate collective bargaining
agreements in the Senate. There is a good reason for this.
We would be establishing a dangerous precedent if we approved this
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, because we would be opening ourselves
up to debating the merits of very single labor disputes. In fact, we
would see a virtual parade of labor and management groups coming to
Capitol Hill seeking to gain a bargaining advantage through
congressional action. We do not want to start that kind of precedent.
Mr. President, I am also perplexed by the language in the resolution
that compares the laws of the United States and Japan. The resolution
seems to suggest that there is something wrong with Bridgestone, a
Japanese-owned company, following the laws of the United States,
because using permanent replacements would be illegal in Japan.
Companies doing business in the United States are supposed to follow
our laws. We demand that they follow our laws, whether they are owned
by the Japanese or by Americans. So the fact that Japanese law does not
allow permanent replacements is totally irrelevant.
The irony, of course, is that often we complain that American
companies export jobs overseas. In this case, a Japanese company bought
an American company--Firestone--and invested billions of dollars in an
American company to make it financially viable. I think we want to
encourage that kind of investment.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me say in response to my colleague from
Kansas, that we are not passing the law on striker replacement. This is
simply a sense of the Senate stating they ought to sit down and work
these things out. We do have traditions of not hiring permanent
replacements for strikers. And as far as interfering in a labor-
management situation, we have passed a lot of resolutions on these,
including specific legislation. This is not legislation. We have, on at
least three occasions that I know of, passed legislation dictating what
is going to happen in railroad strikes, since I have been in the
Senate. And since my colleague from Kansas has been here longer, she
has probably voted for more than three of these.
This is only a sense-of-the-Senate resolution urging the two parties
to sit down and work things out. We do not take sides. We do not say
one side is right and one side is wrong. We do say that firing these
thousands of workers who are on strike is not the direction we think
they should go. I have participated in the striker replacement
legislation, and I think everyone here on the floor said we do not
think this is the way people should go, even though that ultimate right
should be there for employers.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SIMON. I yield, of course, to my colleague from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Is it not a fact that the parties are refusing to
negotiate or even discuss the contractual issues at this time?
Mr. SIMON. That is correct.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Is it not also a fact that this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution, which is not now legislation, simply calls on the
company to discuss the issues with its workers?
Mr. SIMON. And to negotiate, that is correct.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Is it not also a fact that the American company
with which this company is the competition has already reached closure
on the issues that are currently at issue here?
Mr. SIMON. That is correct.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Is it not also a fact that you have taken this
opportunity on this bill--and I understand the Senator from Kansas is
concerned about this coming in the middle of the Congressional
Accountability Act, and I think we are all concerned about that and
would like to see this legislation resolved. But at the same time,
given the enormity of the concern of the company and the workers, is it
not a fact that time is of the essence and this was an opportunity to
move on this issue in order to facilitate--or at least encourage--that
such discussions take place over the weekend?
Mr. SIMON. Absolutely. In terms of cluttering up this bill, as the
Senator from Kansas indicated, if she will indicate to me that she will
be happy to support this legislation if we introduce it independently
and not on this bill, I will be happy to withdraw it, and we will bring
it up independently.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may respond. I must say that I am
very sensitive to the concerns the Senator has with an industry that is
facing some real turmoil in his State and other States. I realize it is
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and it applies specifically to one
private company. When you mention the railroad strikes, just to draw a
distinction, that was a strike that affected the whole country and was
of national concern. Even then we were sensitive to intrusion by
Congress.
The reason I went over the striker replacement issue is because you
address it in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. In many ways I would
say I am sympathetic. But I do not think that we should address it here
in the United States Congress. It opens every other private labor-
management dispute to our wanting to try to address it from Washington
and intruding on what is a private bargaining position. That is my
concern. I thank the Senator from Illinois, even though I recognize
Senator Simon's and Senator Moseley-Braun's interest in the issue.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am a great believer in sitting down and
working things out. Any time anybody in this body wants to put up a
resolution for any corporation where there is a strike resolution,
encouraging both sides to sit down, I am willing to support it. I think
that is a sensible position for the U.S. Senate to take.
Let me add that I am willing to vote soon. I understand Senator
Harkin is on his way over here to speak. I hope we can just give him
another minute or two to get over here. I am sure he will speak
briefly, because I know some people are anxious to get out of here. I
do not want to hold anyone up. If no one else seeks the floor, I will
suggest the absence of a quorum for about 3 minutes. If Senator Harkin
is not here, we will move ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Senator
Kennedy added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Simon's interest in
encouraging the Bridgestone-Firestone management and labor to return to
the bargaining table.
[[Page S560]] Bridgestone-Firestone is the largest manufacturing
employer in Polk County. The recent developments surrounding this 6-
month strike are very unfortunate for all concerned. I am a strong
supporter of the collective bargaining process, and although companies
have the right to replace strikers during an economic strike, it is a
tragic decision for the workers and their families. It is not helpful
for our economy, and frankly, for that matter, the company.
I am deeply concerned about the workers and their families, and
therefore have written a letter to the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service urging them to redouble their efforts and find
possible alternatives to bring company and union officials together to
bring this dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. Others may want to do
the same.
However, as I have voted against all other amendments to the
congressional coverage bill, I will vote against this resolution as
well. The congressional coverage bill is not the appropriate vehicle.
Mr. SIMON. I am willing to yield back my time and move to a vote.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back the time on this side.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the
Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain],
and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] are necessarily absent.
Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden],
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], the Senator from California
[Mrs. Boxer], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from
Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the
Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
Hollings], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry],
the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], the Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. Lieberman], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], and the Senator
from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is
absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is absent
because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy]
would each vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 23, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--23

Akaka
Baucus
Bradley
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Glenn
Harkin
Inouye
Kohl
Lautenberg
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--21

Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bumpers
Campbell
Ford
Gramm
Heflin
Hollings
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Nunn
Robb
Rockefeller
Specter
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 7) was agreed
to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was unable to be on the floor prior to
the vote to join my colleague from Illinois on this debate on this
resolution. But I did want to take a couple minutes now to add my voice
in support of the resolution that Senator Simon offered. I was pleased
to be a cosponsor of it.
As Senator Simon said before the vote, what Bridgestone Corp., a
Japanese-owned corporation, is doing with our workers at the Firestone
plant in my State of Iowa would be illegal for them to do in their own
country. What they want to do with our workers would be illegal in
their own country.
Mr. President, I am very close to the Firestone plant in Des Moines,
IA. Many of my cousins work there. In the small town of 150 that I come
from, almost half the town had worked at Firestone at one time or
another. Many of my cousins work there. In fact, I spoke to one just
yesterday. He has worked there almost 20 years, has a couple of kids in
college, and has given the best years of his life to Firestone. Now
they are told that they can just go take a walk, that they do not have
a contract to operate under, and that they have to accede to what I
consider to be unconscionable terms that Bridgestone has put up.
I might also point out, Mr. President, and for the benefit of my
colleagues here, that the Bridgestone Corp. in Japan also has union
employees--Japanese union employees in Japan--and they make tires, just
as they do in America. The average annual wage of a Japanese union
employee in Japan working for Bridgestone is $52,500 a year. In the
United States, their average wage is $37,045 a year.
Yet, Bridgestone is telling our people in this country, our workers,
that they have to take less money. Is that based on productivity?
Hardly. In March of 1994, the workers at the Firestone plant in America
reached a new high of 80.5 pounds of rubber tire per man hour and set
an all-time record, and they did it with 600 fewer workers. So it is
not based on productivity. Bridgestone simply wants to ratchet down the
wages of our American workers, even much lower than what they pay their
own in Japan.
But most unconscionable, I think, is the kind of work schedule they
want to put them on. Understand this: The Bridgestone company has said
to the Firestone workers: ``We want you to work a 12-hour shift.''
There would be two 12-hour shifts a day at their plants. But then they
would work 3 days on a 12-hour shift, and they would have 2 days off.
Then they would work 2 days on a 12-hour shift and have 3 days off.
Then they would work 2 days on a 12-hour shift and have 2 days off.
Then they would come back around and work 2 days on, 3 days off. You
have to have a calculator to calculate when your days off will be.
You might be off one Saturday and not off on another Saturday for 3
weeks. Most of these people have spouses who work and kids in school;
they could never plan to be home with their families. And yet the
Bridgestone employees in Japan do not work those 12-hour days. They
work 8-hour shifts; three 8-hour shifts a day. They know exactly what
days they are going to have off.
But Bridgestone is telling our workers: ``Forget it; you can't plan
any time with your families. You are on this rotating shift of 12 hours
a day.'' And they are going to pay them less money.
So I just want to make these points, Mr. President, because I think
we ought to send a signal to Bridgestone Corp. that we just cannot
allow our workers in this country to be treated in that manner. We have
had a long tradition of collective bargaining in this country. With
what is happening now with the replacement of these workers, the right
of collective bargaining is a hollow right. The right of collective
bargaining takes with it the
[[Page S561]] right to be able to bargain with whatever power and
resources you have. The only power and resource that a worker has in
this country is to withhold his or her labor. They have no other
bargaining power.
And so if that power then becomes a hollow power; if, in fact, I do
exercise my legal right to go on strike and the company says, ``Fine,
you can do that; then, bang, I will replace you,'' then, A, there is no
real right to strike, and because there is no real right to strike and
withhold your labor then, B, there is no real right to collective
bargaining any longer in this country.
I said to the replacement workers that were being hired in Des
Moines: ``You may think you have a good job, but without a contract,
you may not have a job next year or next week or even tomorrow.'' In
fact, I have already been contacted by one of those replacement workers
who was just fired for the most scant reasons. He said: ``I came, I
thought I had a good job, and they told me I was fired.''
So what is happening to our workers in this country and what
Bridgestone is doing to our workers, as Senator Simon pointed out, is
illegal in Japan.
I say to Bridgestone/Firestone that this issue is far from over. The
Japanese Prime Minister is coming to this country next week to meet
with our President. I intend to take the opportunity, when he is here,
to take this floor to speak about this injustice by a Japanese
corporation.
Now, I am not blaming the Japanese Prime Minister for this. He may
not even know about it. But I want him to know about it. I want him to
know what that corporation is doing in this country.
I know the Japanese Prime Minister is interested in good relations
between Japan and America. I am, too. I do not want to join those who
are bashing Japan. They are a good, strong ally and a good friend of
ours. I respect them highly, and I like them. I spent a year and a half
of my life living in Japan. But this kind of action by this corporation
is unconscionable. I believe that the Government of Japan ought to be
looking into what this company is doing with their workers in this
country.
So I intend, as I said, Mr. President to take this floor next week
when the Prime Minister of Japan is here to once again talk about this
company and what it is doing so that he is not mistaken in any way, so
that he takes back with him the strong feelings that this Senator and I
believe the people I represent have about the gross injustice being
perpetrated on the Firestone workers in this country.
Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. SIMON. I wish to commend him for his statement, and I simply want
the officers of that corporation to know this vote today was just the
first salvo. This is not the end of the road. The Senator is talking
about when the Japanese Prime Minister is here. I do not know what
other opportunities we are going to have. All I know is what has
happened is wrong, wrong, wrong. We have to turn it around in some way.
I do not know whether the rubber workers are right in all their
requests. I do not know all the things that management has requested.
All I know is that the right way to settle this dispute is to sit down
and work it out between labor and management, not to hire workers
permanently to replace workers of those families the Senator is talking
about.
So I commend my colleague, and I look forward to working with him.
Mr. HARKIN. My colleague is absolutely right. In fact, the Department
of Labor has had the Federal Mediation Service working on this case for
quite some months. They have been working in good faith to try to
resolve these differences. They have been very close. There is not that
much separating the two parties. I think if Bridgestone/Firestone would
in good faith sit down and negotiate, they could reach an amicable
settlement of the strike.
Mr. SIMON. The Senator from Iowa is absolutely correct. It is
interesting that the former chief executive of the American operation
received awards for his labor-management relations and the improvement
of productivity that took place. Now, all of a sudden, with the change
in executives, things went downhill fast. We have to do what we can to
encourage the two sides to get together.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague. I have a letter to the editor of
the Des Moines Register written by a farmer who was commenting on this
strike, what Bridgestone was doing.
He said I went out and counted and that he counted his tractors,
trucks, wagons, combine, there were over 140 tires. He said that should
Bridgestone continue to refuse to negotiate, he would never buy a tire
made by them. I would like to ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
letter to the editor and several others be included in the record at
the conclusion of my statement.
I think that ought to be a signal to Bridgestone/Firestone. There are
other tires out there, and I know this Senator and probably a lot of
the workers in this country who drive automobiles are going to look
askance at Bridgestone/Firestone if they will not sit down and work
this thing out and will feel that maybe there are other tires they can
buy and maybe there ought to be a boycott against buying tires from
Bridgestone/Firestone if they are going to treat our people in this
manner.
There being no objection, the letters to the editor were ordered to
be printed in the Record, as follows:

The Register's Readers Say--A Tire Company's ``Assault'' on Union

The situation at Bridgestone/Firestone has been of great
concern to me since the strike began.
It is a continuation of the story family farmers and our
laboring friends have experienced since 1980 from those who
want cheap raw materials and labor to maximize their profits.
A quick inventory tells me that my tractor, trucks, wagons,
combine and cars roll on more than 140 tires. My vow to
Bridgestone/Firestone is that if this strike is not settled
within 30 days, I will never buy another tire made by them--
Joe Weisshaar, chairman, Iowa Farm Unity Coalition.
There are many ways to do violence. Twelve workers at
Bridgestone/Firestone were fired by the company three days
before Christmas as a response to what the company referred
to as ``acts of violence, threats and aggressive behavior.''
I do not condone physical violence and physical threats.
Most of us abhor such things as they occur in labor
confrontations. However, that is what company officials are
counting on in this situation as they commit their own brand
of violence by refusing to bargain in good faith for an end
to the strike. The company is using its financial might as a
club over the workers.
The management of Bridgestone/Firestone wants nothing less
than complete capitulation by the members of the United
Rubber Workers union. The union is trying to hang on to
benefits gained over the years in legitimate negotiating
processes.
It behooves the rest of us in the community to understand
that what is happening out on Second Avenue in Des Moines and
at the other Bridgestone/Firestone locations around the
country is an attempt to further erode the rights of workers
to maintain some control over their own lives, minds and
bodies rather than become the de facto property of the
company.
Do not be fooled by the actions of the management of
Bridgestone/Firestone. It is every bit as violent (and more
so) as any act of physical violence on the picket line in its
destructive effects on human life.--The Rev. Carlos C. Jayne,
Des Moines Area Urban Mission Council, The United Methodist
Church.
Bridgestone/Firestone's strategy to wear down the striking
tire workers is becoming more self-evident: undercut public
support by repeatedly making strikers look like the bad guys.
Three recent examples are instructive:
(1) In firing 12 union members, a company spokesman cited
``violence, threats, and aggressive behavior'' as the reason
for dismissal.
(2) Firestone's request for an injunction limiting the
number of picketers implied that strikers in groups larger
than two presented a danger to company employees.
(3) During a peaceful march, when a handful of strike
supporters (many from out of state) threw snowballs toward
the plant, the company and TV stations described the event as
a ``riot.'' This amounted to an absurd exaggeration. But the
message to viewers was ``These guys are dangerous.''
Since the strike began, I have visited the picket line 20
or 30 times and have spoken with maybe 100 striking tire
workers. I have yet to meet a single one who condones the
isolated acts of violence that have occurred on both sides of
the conflict.
In fact, given the financial and emotional hardships they
have suffered, the strikers deserve praise for the extent to
which they have remained peaceful and nonviolent.
Firestone's focus on violence may sell to the media, but it
distracts public attention from the real issue: Management
wants more concessions, while the union feels it's already
given up enough. Given the workers' solidarity and the
fairness of their position, I am convinced this strike will
end only when the company agrees to come to the
[[Page S562]] table and talk.--Ed Fallon, State
representative.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}