J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. The Senator from Nebraska seeks time off the amendment.

Mr. EXON. Maybe we could settle something right now. I am not sure that we should be in session during the important matter that is going to be taking place at the Washington Cathedral. I was just wondering if I might have the attention of my colleague. I am wondering if it might be better for us to recess during the time of the memorial service with the time being charged along the lines just outlined by the chairman of the committee. I just say let us take that under advisement for now. With that, if the Senator from Massachusetts could be recognized at this time as previously arranged.

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. EXON. If we are going to have any order at all, we will have to have that.

Mr. EXON. We will visit about it. I hope the Senator from Massachusetts could be recognized at this time for 15 minutes.

Mr. EXON. It is, and I yield back any time in opposition that we may have on this side.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am back to see if possibly we could at this time clear the two amendments agreed to earlier. Has the amendment by the Senator from North Carolina been offered? I am prepared to yield back time on the Levin amendment, which we will agree to by a voice vote. I likewise assume we will move forward with the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, which I assume has been cleared on both sides. I yield back the remainder of the time on the Levin amendment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for a vote on the Levin amendment that is now the pending amendment.

Mr. EXON. Did we adopt that?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment before the Senate be temporarily set aside so that we can entertain two amendments by previous agreement, the first to be offered by the Senator from Michigan, the second to be offered by the Senator from North Carolina. Both have been cleared, and we can move ahead on them. I would appreciate very much if the Chair would see fit to recognize the Senator from Michigan at this time for his statement and the introduction of the amendment.

Mr. EXON. I thank my good friend and colleague from the State of Michigan, Senator Levin, for the amendment that I had indicated earlier has been cleared on both sides. This is an important sense-of-the- Senate resolution, and I appreciate the cooperation we have had from Senator Levin and his staff on this matter. We are about ready to have proposed in behalf of Senator Helms from North Carolina an amendment that likewise has been cleared on both sides. Then we can move the adoption of those by voice vote. Awaiting the arrival of one Member on the Senate floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I withhold.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have agreed to this on this side. I have checked with our leader. I think this is the proper way to proceed.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. How much time does the Senator from Minnesota need?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming for initiating the discussion--this has been talked about a great deal today--and for now withdrawing the amendment. That does not mean we are not going to be revisiting things like this in the future, but in the interests of moving the budget process along it is best to delay the discussion. We have today and we have tomorrow night, which is the time the majority has indicated they would like to complete work on the budget. We are already way late on the budget. It was supposed to be acted upon earlier. So I hope we could move ahead in a brisker fashion than we have before. I would simply say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we are awaiting more amendments. If there were either a Democrat or Republican Senator seeking to offer an amendment right now, this Senator would yield. But I send out the call once again, we are going to have a crammed, packed day today without any votes. The votes will be stacked for tomorrow. But Tuesday is going to be one of those most, most difficult times. It appears to me, unless we can move in much quicker fashion than we have thus far, we are going to find ourselves tomorrow night into one of those situations where the Senate looks awfully bad. That is when we run out of the allotted time that has been yielded on the budget amendment, that is 25 hours on each side, and then we get ourselves into a situation where Members of the Senate insist upon offering additional amendments--and they have that right--but even though we just put up the amendment, there is no debate whatsoever. And then we immediately go to a rollcall vote. It always seems to me if historians would ever look at the U.S. Senate and address some of our worst, our unproductive moments, it would be that time that typically happens with the budget resolution, that is voting without debate, voting oftentimes without a majority of the Senate even having the slightest idea of what the amendment is designed to do. So this is the time to offer amendments. I hope on this Monday morning, before reckoning day Tuesday, we would get these amendments introduced. At the present time we already have 20 votes scheduled for tomorrow. Even if those were 10-minute votes, which all of them cannot be, we can see the difficult timeframe we are in. Also tomorrow, Tuesday, is going to be shortened by what I was advised recently, by the fact we will, most of us, will be going to a memorial ceremony at I believe 11 o'clock tomorrow morning at the National Cathedral as a result of the death of the late, great Admiral Boorda. So, that is going to take time out of our day tomorrow. I simply appeal to Senators on both sides of the aisle to come down now, offer your amendments, curtail as much debate time as we can so we can move ahead. Amendment No. 4008 There was an amendment introduced this morning by the Senator from Missouri that I would like to make some comments on in opposition. The pending business I make reference to is the amendment offered by Senator Ashcroft, amendment No. 4008. It sounds to me like deja vu all over again. While viewers of the Senate may have received the impression--let me repeat that--viewers of the Senate may have received the impression that we are trying to reduce the deficit here, it seems that the Senator from Missouri has another thing in mind altogether. He wants to revisit the voodoo economics of the early 1980's that got us into the fiscal mess that the United States finds itself in today. His amendment would cut taxes first, before we have done the hard work of cutting the deficit. This Senator is for cutting the deficit above everything else. This Senator, and many similarly situated, would like very much to reduce taxes. That is the ultimate goal of a politician these days. It is not a bad goal. But the thing we have to remember is that we cannot do everything at the same time if everyone is going in different directions. And I am afraid that is what is demonstrated above everything else, unfortunately, by the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. He has very specific ideas about where to cut taxes and I suppose that everyone favors tax cuts. But he is far less specific about how to come up with the money to pay for it. In what I heard of the Senator's speech, he did not say one word about where the money is coming from. So the arithmetic is simple. Cut taxes by $276 billion over the next 6 years--that is wonderful. That is what everybody is for. Who can be against that--unless you are sincere about cutting the deficit of the United States of America. I thought that was the No. 1 item of concern for Members on both sides of the aisle. Cutting taxes by $276 billion over the next 6 years, as suggested by the Senator from Missouri, sounds real good and it is a whopping tax cut. But the problem is, they look around to find the discretionary savings to pay for this at some later date. That is the kind of murky fiscal thinking that has got us into the situation we are trying to address today and have been trying to address for some months. Mr. President, I need to correct a few things that the Senator from Missouri said in his diatribe against government. That is another very popular thing to do. Cutting government and carrying on diatribes against how bad government is is really good politics, but is it good sense? The Senator from Missouri said many, many things against government. The Senator would have us believe that the 1993 budget bill is the cause of the tax burden on the middle-class citizens of America. Nothing--nothing, Mr. President--could be further from the truth, in reality. In reality, 98 percent of income taxpayers do not pay 1 more penny in taxes because of the 1993 tax bill. I wish we had the time to go back to listen to the attacks from that side of the aisle on the 1993 tax bill. It would be astonishing for people to read about the reasons that the people on that side of the aisle voted against the 1993 tax bill. The 1993 tax bill is the main reason for the fact that we have had 3 successive years of reductions in deficit of the Federal Government of the United States of America--something that has not happened since Hector was a pup. The fact of the matter is that, primarily as a result of that bill, we have reduced the annual deficit from the range of $300 billion down to an estimated $140 billion to $147 billion this year. The deficit has been cut by more than half. Millions of working families had their taxes cut because of the changes in the earned-income tax credit in the 1993 bill. Mr. President, there are seldom things that we do around here that are perfect. But it seems to me that at a time when we are trying desperately to put things together on both sides of the aisle to balance the budget by the year 2002 and return sanity to the financing of the Federal Government, the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri is the worst possible step that we could take. Senator Ashcroft's amendment is a budget buster, by any definition. Senator Ashcroft has stated that the cost of the proposal would be $276 billion over the next 6 years, over $45 billion annually. Democrats recognize that Social Security taxes present a burden to lower income taxpayers and have, as a result, strongly supported the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit was designed, in part, to offset these costs. Just so that we understand, the earned income tax credit is something that gives the very lowest income people of the United States of America a credit to try to get them up above the poverty line, get them out of welfare so that we will not have that welfare drain that is continuing to cause us problems. The Republican budget cuts eliminates that earned income tax credit for the poorest among us by $17 billion over the next 6 years. Last year's Republican budget would have actually increased taxes. It would have increased taxes on those lowest paid people in the United States, which amounts to about 7 million working families. This year's budget must include many of the same proposals. President Clinton, in his 1993 budget, lowered taxes on working families by increasing the earned income tax credit. That is designed to get people off welfare, get them to work, and have them contribute to society, as we would all like to have them do if they had an income above the poverty level. But I repeat, President Clinton's 1993 budget lowered taxes on these working families by increasing the earned income tax credit. In 1996, over 15 million families will receive a tax break as a result of that bill. In my State of Nebraska alone, over 78,000 families will receive a tax cut averaging about $650 for the year. I want to emphasize once again that those are the lowest paid people in the United States that we are trying to send a lifeline to lift them up by their bootstraps, if you will, Mr. President, to give them a chance to be what most of them would like to be--successful taxpaying citizens. So when we are talking about cutting Social Security taxes, I simply say that I would like to do that, too. I also say that the Democratic Party, under the leadership of President Clinton, has done just that in another form--the earned income tax credit. I am sure that amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri is good politics. But it is not good government. I yield the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. That seems very reasonable to me.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senator Kerrey to revise the boundary of the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge in western Nebraska. This bill, which passed the House on April 23 of this year, would remove 2,470 acres of land from the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge. This bill was created through the joint efforts of the community leaders of western Nebraska and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is indeed a great example of how government works best when Federal, State and local governments work together. The refuge, located just outside Scottsbluff, NE, was established in the early part of this century as a preserve and breeding ground for native waterfowl. The refuge is also home to a Bureau of Reclamation irrigation project. Over the years the refuge has been managed jointly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Fish and Wildlife Service managed the wildlife aspects of the refuge and the Bureau managed the recreation. In 1986, the Bureau turned over management of the recreational aspects to the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1990, a directive was issued that required the Fish and Wildlife Service to bring all areas of the refuge, including Lake Minatare, into compliance with Federal regulations. It soon became apparent to local residents that this directive essentially would prohibit all recreational and residential use of Lake Minatare, uses that had been commonplace under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. There was no doubt that this directive would have a significant impact on local tourism and the economy of the Scottsbluff area. Likewise, interest in maintaining the recreational use of the lake was very strong among local citizens. At the urging of local leaders, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to perform an environmental assessment of the refuge. At the end of their assessment, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the best course of action would be to end their jurisdiction over portions of the refuge that were no longer as effective as wildlife habitat as they once were and were really better suited for recreational use. I am pleased to report, Mr. President, that this bill has the overwhelming support of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I might also mention that my district office in Scottsbluff received numerous letters from local citizens in support of this effort. I am proud of the work of the citizens of western Nebraska on this issue and of the cooperation they received from the Fish and Wildlife Service. This effort is indeed a fine example of how the Federal Government and local citizens can and should work together to manage our Nation's wildlife areas to the benefit of everyone involved. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to quickly support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. We are not adjourning. We are going to get your amendment in.

Mr. EXON. May I ask a question? Is it necessary, I ask my chairman, to yield back additional time so we only have 8\1/2\ hours left? Was that included in that?

Mr. EXON. I thank my chairman. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senator Kerrey to revise the boundary of the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge in western Nebraska. This bill, which passed the House on April 23 of this year, would remove 2,470 acres of land from the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge. This bill was created through the joint efforts of the community leaders of western Nebraska and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is indeed a great example of how government works best when Federal, State and local governments work together. The refuge, located just outside Scottsbluff, NE, was established in the early part of this century as a preserve and breeding ground for native waterfowl. The refuge is also home to a Bureau of Reclamation irrigation project. Over the years the refuge has been managed jointly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Fish and Wildlife Service managed the wildlife aspects of the refuge and the Bureau managed the recreation. In 1986, the Bureau turned over management of the recreational aspects to the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1990, a directive was issued that required the Fish and Wildlife Service to bring all areas of the refuge, including Lake Minatare, into compliance with Federal regulations. It soon became apparent to local residents that this directive essentially would prohibit all recreational and residential use of Lake Minatare, uses that had been commonplace under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. There was no doubt that this directive would have a significant impact on local tourism and the economy of the Scottsbluff area. Likewise, interest in maintaining the recreational use of the lake was very strong among local citizens. At the urging of local leaders, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to perform an environmental assessment of the refuge. At the end of their assessment, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the best course of action would be to end their jurisdiction over portions of the refuge that were no longer as effective as wildlife habitat as they once were and were really better suited for recreational use. I am pleased to report, Mr. President, that this bill has the overwhelming support of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I might also mention that my district office in Scottsbluff received numerous letters from local citizens in support of this effort. I am proud of the work of the citizens of western Nebraska on this issue and of the cooperation they received from the Fish and Wildlife Service. This effort is indeed a fine example of how the Federal Government and local citizens can and should work together to manage our Nation's wildlife areas to the benefit of everyone involved. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to quickly support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. That has been agreed to.