J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I have not been advised, but I see the Senator from Wisconsin seeking recognition. Can he tell us about how much time he would like to have?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself what additional time off the bill that I may need. I want to drive home again how dire our circumstances are with the constraints of time. As I had announced earlier, we have 20 rollcall votes scheduled and more than 5 hours of voting time on Tuesday. If we start voting at 12 noon, we would be voting until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. In addition to that, we have an hour or two that will have to be taken out, obviously, for the memorial service for Admiral Boorda. In addition to that, we have the usual two caucuses, or conferences, of the two parties, which takes place at noon. I am also advised that sometime during the evening tomorrow, there is a dinner planned for Senator Simpson, one of our most distinguished Members, who is retiring from the Senate. So with that complicating factor, it makes good sense for Senators who can to now come to the floor and offer amendments. I see that, while I have been talking, my colleague from Texas has come to the floor, as I understand it, to offer an amendment. With that, I am pleased to yield the floor for the chance for the Senator from Texas to offer what I understand is an amendment.

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. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee who made a very excellent case on a very difficult problem. I happen to feel that this amendment should be accepted unanimously, and it might be. If not, I hope when we have a rollcall vote that we would recognize and agree with the Senator from Tennessee who has a lot of experience in the particular field that he partially cited in his remarks. I would like to ask the Senator from Tennessee if I might be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. EXON. Another thing, it seems to me we should realize and recognize it is one thing to ask Social Security beneficiaries to contribute more as a part of a general reform of the Social Security system, but it is another thing, another thing altogether, to get savings out of Social Security to help make room for maybe a tax cut.

Mr. EXON. I yield myself additional time off the resolution that is held in my name.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I should like to return and take time for the remarks I am about to make in opposition to the Gramm amendment that was offered a few moments ago. Mr. President, first, on the Gramm amendment sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I want to explain exactly what a sense-of-the-Senate resolution is, so that everyone outside the Senate knows what it is? A sense of the Senate merely means that the Senate is saying, without having any effect whatsoever of law, that this is probably something that we should do. Therefore, the sense-of-the-Senate proposition offered by the Senator from Texas is not binding, is not going to accomplish anything, but it might make some people feel good, and it may well be a good political base for the majority party in the U.S. Senate. It is not unlike the amendment previously offered in this regard by the Senator from Missouri that I have made some comments on. I happen to feel that while we can have differences of opinion on all of these things, I simply say that the world is not going to turn around, nor is any law going to turn around, by long debate, as if it were fundamental to the free enterprise system, or wasting time on sense-of-the Senate resolutions. That, in my view, does not make sense. Mr. President, the President's historic deficit reduction package asks the top 13 percent of Social Security recipients--only the top 13 percent of Social Security recipients--to pay taxes on those funds. Every penny of the revenue from this provision went to strengthen the Medicare trust fund. The Senator from Texas conveniently overlooked that when he said, quite cleverly, that not 1 penny of this tax on the highest 13 percent of the recipients in Social Security went back into the Social Security trust fund. That is true, but that is the trouble with debate oftentimes on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We are talking in half- truths, and half-truths confuse the American people. By and large, people who draw Social Security, and qualify to do so after having paid in, are in the Medicare trust fund. We have heard a great deal about Medicare's being insolvent and going broke. I said on the floor of the Senate last week that a lot of that was merely to scare senior citizens. Where would the Medicare trust fund be today if the President had not decided and the Congress had not acted to make the top 13 percent highest paid recipients of Social Security pay some tax since the funds go directly into their Medicare trust fund to help them out when they get sick. This whole debate is phony, especially at a time when the Republican majority is hammering, suggesting increased premium payments for Medicare, when the majority is cutting Medicare far more than is necessary, and at a time when the majority is ``doing in'' rural hospitals. At the same time, they are turning around and drawing up the 1993 tax bill as a means of a political attack during a very political year. I must say, for the information of the Senate, since the Republicans are bringing up the 1993 tax bill and saying how bad it was, that I think every reasonable person would agree that because of the 1993 tax bill, for the first time in modern history we have had a steady 3-year decline in the annual deficit from above $300 billion down to under $150 billion. That helps the senior citizens and that helps America. But here they are dragging up 1993 all over again. If they want to talk about 1993, we at the present time are going to produce some research, and if we are going to waste the time of this body while we are considering a very important matter of balancing the budget, bringing it into balance by the year 2002, I will take some time to talk about what some Members on that side of the aisle said about the 1993 tax bill. I have been handed some statements already, but I will save those for another time. If we are just going to be out here talking, talking, talking, talking about restoring cuts in Social Security taxes to the top 13 percent highest income recipients of Social Security, and if we are going to be talking about that and saying how important it is and how unfair it was for the President of the United States to do that, then I think, likewise, people who are even proposing this in the form of a sense of the Senate should come up and say, ``Where are they going to get the money?'' Where in the world are they going to get the money to do all of these things that they claim they want to do, which they are not doing with a meaningless, ineffective sense-of-the-Senate resolution? Is that being honest with the American people? So I simply say to my colleague from Texas, what he should do, if he is serious about this, is to say, ``Where is the money going to come from,'' because every time we have a Republican get up with these kinds of arguments, Mr. President, this logical question deserves an answer. Fine, we sure want to cut taxes, and we will go with you. Tell us where the money is going to come from to balance the budget by the year 2002, which I thought, and I am beginning to have second thoughts, was one of the main tenets of the Republicans' efforts. The 1993 tax bill that they are now attacking, once again, did not affect retirees who only rely on Social Security. Eighty-seven percent of Social Security recipients have not paid 1 penny more--let me repeat, 87 percent have not paid 1 penny more. Only the top 13 percent of Social Security recipients were affected by those provisions. Those beneficiaries live in households with an average net worth of over $1 million. Social Security benefits were first made subject to taxation in 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. Ronald Reagan's Social Security provision affected 69 percent of older Americans who have lower income. Howard Baker was the Senate Republican majority leader and Bob Dole was the chairman of the Finance Committee. When I am forced to go back and make statements like this, I say to myself, ``Jim Exon, you are doing the same thing that the Republicans are doing. You're talking about history to make political points.'' Therefore, Mr. President, I am going to get off that, I am going to heed my own advice, if they will simply let up on that side about offering amendments that make no sense, offering amendments that will make it impossible for us to balance the budget by the year 2002, at the very time they are talking about offering a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2002. With the attitude I am hearing from that side of the aisle, Mr. President, I wonder if the American people fully realize where they are trying to take us, and if they are sincere in what they are offering. Maybe it is all just politics. Mr. President, I yield the floor with an appeal once again that we can get this job done. We can balance the budget if we will be honest with each other. But I say we will never do it, Mr. President, if we are going to continue the type of diatribe that we are receiving on the floor of the Senate right now, this fiscal conservative will not be a part of. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I would be willing to consider changes to the COLA's, if they would be used as part of a Social Security overall reform package which we all know we are going to have to face. But I suggest we should not foreclose that next option and use it in the context that it is being advanced in this area at this time. Mr. President, I believe, and I hope others will believe, we will need a whole lot of savings to address the needs of the baby boom generation in the next century, especially with regard to Social Security and Medicare. I believe we would be better served if we reserved any savings from Social Security for legislation that will address that problem so that we can ensure that the burden is going to be shared fairly and equitably. In short, I am for honest changes in the cost-of-living adjustment. I am not for cuts in COLA's that are not a part of a major overhaul of the Social Security fund, which everyone agrees is not the case in the present legislation. Mr. President, I have concerns about the Breaux-Chafee centrist budget. And I also think there are some excellent things in there. I think it is unnecessary, though, to go after Medicare beneficiaries for the amount of savings that they have outlined. Once again, I will say in the spirit I started with, it seems to me the Breaux-Chafee group and the Democrats and the President are not far apart on those numbers. I think they can be worked out. Although it does shield those in the very lowest income brackets, vast numbers of Americans making less than $50,000 would see their share of the premium costs rise, as proposed, rise from 25 to 31 percent. The President's budget, I might say, maintains a 25-percent level and still ensures the solvency of the trust fund through the year 2005. Let us not forget, too, that Medicare beneficiaries already pay 21 percent of their income for health care expenses. We should not add to their burden now. In addition, by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 years of age--I am willing to look at that, but I want to look at both the upside and the downside. This amendment also denies Medicare benefits to a significant number of elderly Americans who have planned on that coverage in their retirement. Remember, most of the 65 and 66-year-olds are by no means affluent. As well, Mr. President, the tax cuts in the amendment are larger than those in the President's budget. Again I say--and it has been said by several Senators here on the floor--I wish we could put off all tax cuts of any kind until we are better assured that we will balance the budget by the year 2002. That is the way I would like to have it. But I think it is clear that there is such a drive for this, and there has been so much publicity about it that, notwithstanding the concerns of this Senator, it is obvious, realistically, that some tax cut will be included because the President is for it as well. In conclusion, I believe the amendment drafters need to keep working. They do not have to start all over again but I think they have to keep working with us. I simply say without the Breaux-Chafee group, or the Chafee-Breaux group, we probably would not have much of a chance to come up with a workable package. While I have some concerns about their proposal that I have outlined in an honest fashion tonight, I want to join with them in an effort to challenge and change and bring us around, and we can bring them around, maybe we can bring the Republicans around, to begin negotiations once again with the President at the White House. As we compare budgets, all of the budgets that are on the table, I still believe--even with its warts, and I think there are some warts in the President's budget, and I introduced and asked us to use that as the mark--I think the President's budget is the best standing alone of any that I have seen. Having said that, I realize and recognize and want to emphasize once again that the President wants to work together. He has met at the White House with the Chafee-Breaux group and he has told me that he was very much interested in their presence, their attitude, and what he interpreted as a very sincere effort to get something done. That is the bottom line. I say, let us keep working. But I, like the other Members of the Senate who have spoken on this tonight, feel this has been a very interesting, very challenging debate, and I am more optimistic than I was, when we started the debate on the budget resolution, of reaching some kind of compromise after the talks tonight than I was when we began this important exercise. I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Illinois. [From the Monthly Labor Review, May 1994] Exhibit 1 Experimental Price Index for Elderly Consumers (By Nathan Amble and Ken Stewart) (An experimental consumer price index for older Americans rose somewhat faster than each of two published BLS Consumer Price Indexes; as might be expected, expenditures for medical care accounted almost entirely for this difference) The Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures the average change in prices over time for a fixed market basket of goods and services for two population groups. The CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) represents the spending habits of about 80 percent of the population of the United States. The CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) is a subset of the CPI-U and represents about 32 percent of the total U.S. population. The 1987 amendments to the Older Americans Act of 1965 directed the BLS to develop an experimental index for a third population of consumers: those 62 years of age and older. In its 1988 report to Congress, the BLS observed that from December 1982 to December 1987, the experimental consumer price index for older Americans rose slightly faster than the CPI-U and CPI-W.\1\ (See table 1.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Charles C. Mason, ``An Analysis of the Rates of Inflation Affecting Older Americans Based on an Experimental Reweighted Consumer Price Index,'' report presented to Congress, June 1988. During the period from December 1982 through December 1987, the CPI-U rose 18.2 percent, the CPI-W increased 16.5 percent, and the experimental index for older Americans grew 19.5 percent. Over the 11-year period from December 1982 through December 1993, the CPI-U rose 49.4 percent, the CPI-W increased 46.2 percent, and the experimental CPI for older Americans grew 53.8 percent.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we yield back time on our side.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are now prepared to move ahead. I send two amendments to the desk that I earlier talked about and said they had been cleared. The first amendment is on behalf of Senator Baucus and Senator Burns of Montana. The second amendment is known as Senate Concurrent Resolution 57 and is introduced by Senator Hutchison, Senator Snowe, Senator Feinstein, Senator Mikulski, Senator Dole, and Senator Roth. I send these amendments to the desk and I ask for their immediate consideration. When the Chair asks for adoption of these amendments, I ask that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. I send the two amendments to the desk.

Mr. EXON. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there are two or three things I would like to, maybe, attempt to clear up. We have looked through the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming. It appears to me that the amendment, as we read it, from the Senator from Wyoming is, in effect, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that urges Government to use the most accurate possible information index available, as far as CPI allowances are concerned. We have surveyed our Members on this side, and there is generally wide agreement in this proposition, because it basically says we should do what is right and fair on this CPI matter. So if we can move things along, we are prepared, when someone is here, to agree, to offer to accept the amendment by the Senator from Wyoming. I just make that announcement. Amendment No. 4004 The second thing I would like to bring up a little bit now, just so we have a basic understanding on these things, is yesterday we made an agreement that all amendments had to be filed with the managers of the bill at a time certain last night. We received a unanimous consent agreement that be done. I certainly do not wish to be hard-nosed on this matter, but it appears to this side that the amendment recently sent to the desk by the Senator from Georgia was not on the list of amendments, at least not the one that we had, that was included in the unanimous consent last night. Under that situation, it would take unanimous consent for the Senator from Georgia to have his amendment considered. I would say, in all probability we might not object to a unanimous consent request in that regard, because we do not want to just arbitrarily shut people out, because sometime tomorrow we may have a situation where some Democrat inadvertently was overlooked with regard to a slot to offer what they consider to be a very important amendment. So I hope the majority will show us the same courtesy that we are now showing them, to recognize and realize that there may be times when it only makes good, common sense--and maybe to enhance the comity around here a little bit--we should realize and recognize that the best of man's plans sometimes go astray. I do not oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia. I have not made a decision on how I would vote on that, but I would simply say maybe we can work out some kind of an accommodation. At the proper time, we would like an explanation of how the Senator from Georgia made and obtained the right to offer his amendment without consultation with us, because it appears, at least, to be a violation of what we agreed to. But maybe we can work something out. So, simply saying, going back to the matter of the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming, we are prepared to accept that amendment if we can move things along this afternoon, which we are trying to do. I reserve the remainder of my time. Since I see no other Senators on the floor seeking recognition to speak at this time or to offer an amendment, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent the time of the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need off the resolution.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I agree with the statement made by the Senator from Georgia. We have agreed to accept his amendment, and, in turn, we have reached an agreement on the amendment that is at the desk that was discussed earlier today by Senator Murray from Washington, amendment No. 3992, which I call up at this time. If we can adopt both of these amendments, which I think have been cleared on both sides, then we are one step closer to being successful in finishing this debate, hopefully, sometime by Tuesday. So I call up the Murray amendment No. 3992. All time has been yielded back on both sides.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have just listened with keen interest to my colleague from New Mexico. I simply say that the remarks that he has just made is a typical case, if I have ever heard one, of constructing an imaginary, illusionary strawman and then tearing it to pieces. No one has advocated eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. No one that I know of has advocated elimination of the rollover or personal residence proposition that was alluded to by the Senator from New Mexico. No one has advocated eliminating charitable deductions. No, Mr. President. And I do not believe it contributes a great deal to the legitimate discussion of the budget with those kinds of gimmicks. I simply say that what we are doing here is trying to repair serious faults in the Republican budget. We did that last year in the Republican budget. The American people said, ``You are right.'' We are doing it in this budget, and I believe that the American people will say again that the Republicans are overdoing it. There is nothing wrong with various amendments that are being offered here that have been voted or will be voted down. There is nothing wrong with using the same proposition to finance some selective improvements in the Republican budget that we maintain are particularly demoralizing for education, of which we have heard a great deal about today from various Senators-- help for the needy of this country. So for the Senator from New Mexico to come in and cite a whole list of billions of dollars, then set up a straw-man to what we are trying to do and indicate that we are going to have to eliminate deductions of home mortgages, and so forth and so on, is just not accurate. I want to make sure everyone understands that is not the intended result of any of the amendments that have been offered for our side. Mr. President, to emphasize this a little bit more, let me simply say that there is a great deal of confusion today that has us very much concerned on this side as to the traps that are being laid down the line. It has been interesting to note that during the debate the Republicans have said time and time again that they have $122 billion in tax cuts in their budget. Yet, if one listens to the chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side, Congressman Kasich, he maintains that it is not $122 billion in tax cuts, primarily to benefit the wealthy, it is going to be $180 billion. Now, even people who throw big numbers around understand very clearly that there is a difference between a tax cut of $122 billion--only $122 billion, I say facetiously, in the discussion that the Republicans are carrying on here on the Senate floor--there is a lot of difference between $122 and $180 billion that the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side says is included in this budget. We are confident that there are some traps being laid. We are confident that we are going to be back eventually into a debate not unlike the one we had last year that the American people agreed with the Democrats on, and that is to balance the budget by the year 2002 but do not complicate that problem by a massive tax cut that basically is designed to benefit the wealthiest among us. I simply say, Mr. President, on page 3 of this year's budget resolution report it states that, in addition to the child tax credit, ``The committee's recommendation would accommodate further tax reform or tax reductions to be offset by the extension of expired tax provisions or corporate and business tax reforms.'' Let me read that again. In the Republican budget, it says, and I quote, there could be ``further tax reform * * * to be offset by extension of expired tax provisions or corporate and business tax reforms.'' That ``corporate and business tax reforms'' is just another way of talking about the tax loopholes, as we call them, for businesses. Certainly I think that changes in some of the tax loopholes are entirely in order, certainly not the ones cited in tearing down the strawman by the Senator from New Mexico. But I certainly say that I think all Americans would realize and recognize and salute us if we could do more to tear down the tax loopholes or corporate giveaways that are clearly in the Tax Code today that encourage corporations and businesses in America to locate jobs in Mexico or elsewhere and get a tax break for doing it. Those are the kinds of loopholes that we think demand closing. The part of the Republican budget that I have just referenced goes on to say, ``Such receipts''--corporate receipts, tax loopholes, call them what you will--``Such receipts should be used to offset other tax reform proposals such as estate tax reform, economic growth, fuel excise taxes, or other policies on a deficit neutral basis.'' That is a pretty typical case where the pot appears to be calling the kettle black. Last year's vetoed reconciliation bill, supported by virtually every Senate Republican, included approximately $26 billion in revenue increases for corporate and other reforms. President Clinton has proposed nearly $40 billion for corporate reforms in his balanced budget submission to the Congress. Although the proposals are not identical, the Republicans and the Democrats agree that significant revenue can be raised in these areas without touching all of the strawman that has been built up and torn down in what we have heard in the Chamber this afternoon. The committee report to this budget, on pages 63-67, describes expenditures in our Tax Code that would lose hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue over a 5-year period. In that context, the Republican proposals, as well, I might add in all honesty, as those of President Clinton, are modest efforts to reduce tax loopholes to eliminate corporate welfare and to make our own tax laws more fair for all Americans. Mr. President, our amendment ensures that these additional receipts will be used to lessen the cuts that otherwise would be viewed as fair by some and unfair by others. But in any event, to use that means rather than help pay for additional tax breaks for the wealthy, which I think we will eventually see emerge with great interest. I now suggest that we yield to the Senator from Rhode Island under the previous unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend. Amendment No. 3990

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from New Mexico, and I certainly appreciate and thank my friend from Nevada for his patience.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, to accommodate the Senator from Rhode Island, I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my remarks, which will not be extensive, I be allowed to yield 5 minutes off of the time in opposition to the amendment No. 4002, the Lott amendment, to the Senator from Rhode Island, which would be only 5 minutes.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there are two additional amendments that I understand have been cleared. I thought they had been cleared. I have just been notified they have not necessarily been cleared. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally to each side.

Mr. EXON. I yield our time on this side. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3994 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of budgetary savings in the mandatory spending area)

Mr. EXON. We are willing to accept the amendment, Mr. President. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

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