J. Exon

Mr. EXON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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, we have two additional amendments that have been cleared on both sides. I believe that the Senator from Washington is on his way to the floor to clear both of these. I will just simply state that the two amendments that we have agreed to clear are one offered by Senator Snowe and Senator Feinstein to Senate Concurrent Resolution 57, and the other offered by the two Senators from the State of Montana, Senator Baucus and Senator Burns, to Senate Concurrent Resolution 57. Both of these have been cleared on both sides. When the Senator from Washington arrives, I believe it will be for him to ask for the unanimous consent. When that happens, we will get these passed. Following that, I hope that, with the usual procedures of moving from one side to the other, that the Senator from North Dakota will be recognized for the purpose of making a statement and/or the possibility of offering an amendment, as soon as we have cleared these two amendments. Mr. President, in view of the fact that we are temporarily held up on clearing these two amendments, I yield 5 minutes off the bill to the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. EXON. I yield 1 additional minute.

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

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. Mr. President, at the present time I have talked with the chairman of the committee. There are two amendments that we are prepared to accept, one from that side and one from this side. At the present time the staff is presenting those amendments to the Senator from New Mexico. I believe he has them now. I believe the chairman of the committee is prepared to offer these two amendments, one from each side, sense-of- the-Senate amendments that we are ready to accept. Amendment No. 3993 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on funding to assist youth at risk)

Mr. EXON. I thank my colleague.

Mr. EXON. I guess what you are saying is you do not object to remarks by the Senator from Nevada or the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Washington, in that order, is that right?

Mr. EXON. I suggest, Mr. President, then to accommodate everybody as well as we can, the Senator from Washington be recognized at this time as per previous agreement and then the Senator from Nevada would follow in that order.

Mr. EXON. Could I interrupt the Senator from Nevada for just a moment? I wonder if he will yield to the two leaders of the bill without losing his right to the floor. We are making some good progress. We have two amendments, one from the Republican side and one from the Democratic side, that we are prepared to accept at this time, if we could interrupt the Senator?

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. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes of his time?

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

Mr. EXON. I would simply say that the Senator from Washington is not seeking any additional time, as I understand it, on these two amendments. She is following with an amendment. She would like to go next under the order. I am wondering if possibly, to move things along, the Senator from Nevada could maybe shorten his remarks and then maybe come back later on this afternoon, if he is going to be available. We are trying to accommodate a whole group of people, as the Senator knows. All that I am saying is we thought we were about ready to proceed under the schedule with the amendment to be offered and remarks by the Senator from Washington. I am wondering if the Senator from Nevada might be able to accommodate us some on this.

Mr. EXON. I see. In other words, basically what the Senator is saying, trying to expedite this, he will not be offering the amendment that we had scheduled for him to talk on this afternoon?

Mr. EXON. We appreciate everybody's cooperation. Sometimes cooperation--the Senator from Washington, as I understood it, was scheduled to talk around noon. Has that been moved up?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from North Dakota for his excellent remarks. His statement with regard to the savings that are talked about in discretionary programs is something that I intend to follow up on in my closing remarks. I will just say at this time that I have been here on the floor since this debate began. I have heard the same things over and over and over again--the Republicans seem to think if they say something enough times, it is true. They have said on many occasions that the President's budget does not balance in the year 2002. I do not know how many times I have refuted that point, and noted that the Republican- appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office says that the President's budget does balance in the year 2002. The same CBO office says that the Republican plan balances in the year 2002. So if the Republicans are trying to impeach the written word of their own appointed CBO office, then they impeach the source of their balanced budget as well. Why can we not be realistic? Both programs are estimated--and I use the word ``estimated'' with emphasis--by the Congressional Budget Office as reaching balance. I have heard another myth that is repeated over and over and over again and that is with regard to the terrible backloading, as alleged by the Senator from Wyoming. I refer to the chart behind me once again. We have had it out here before. I am going to drag this chart out every time I hear on that side of the aisle that there is backloading going on. This chart has been here before, but the red line on that chart is the President's backloading and the blue line on that chart is the GOP backloading. The years are below, and the numbers are up there. So suffice it to say, it is not accurate, nor is it fair, nor does it contribute to the debate for me to get up and say, ``Oh, boy, there's all kinds of backloading in that GOP budget.''