J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have one or two speakers scheduled to come. I will make a few comments before recognizing those who indicated they would like to speak on this subject. Let me say that the debate has been very interesting and very challenging. I will simply say that I hope all Senators will realize and recognize that this is a very key amendment that we must defeat if we are going to truly balance the budget and not try to fool the American people. Time and time again, it has been said that we cannot have a tax cut and balance the budget, too. I reference once again the fact that I was hearing the same story on the floor of the Senate in the early 1980's when a massive tax cut was proposed at the same time the President of the United States was going to balance the budget in 4 years. Now, I think the President of the United States at that time was just not well informed. I happen to think that the numbers simply will not add up. I think most realistic people will say, while it would be nice--this Senator and everyone on this side and certainly everyone on that side would like to have the opportunity to provide a tax cut--the overriding problem in America today is the deficit. Certainly, this Senator would be the first one to join the bandwagon for a tax cut that was targeted at middle-income America. Certainly, the $500 credit for school-age children would be one that I would be attracted to. I have to say, as a fiscal conservative, and I think no one can question that, as one who voted for the balanced budget amendment, the last big vote we had in the Senate with regard to who wants to get things done, I simply say that I believe the measure being offered by the Senator from Texas, which is an incorporation of Speaker Gingrich's crown jewel of America, as far as the Contract With America is concerned, is simply unrealistic. I hope very much it will be defeated.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the junior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. EXON. Thirty seconds. If I give you another minute, there will not be enough. Thirty seconds.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, what I am hearing in the Senate today is almost word for word what I heard in the early 1980's: Give the people a tax cut and do not worry about the deficit. We are for tax cuts, too, but only after we get our deficit under control. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. EXON. I appreciate those remarks by Senator Domenici. We are prepared to cooperate as he has outlined. If I understand it correctly, we are now moving back and forth, and we are now prepared to listen to the beginning of the debate on what I understand is called the Gramm amendment. We are prepared for that if the Chair is.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, let me take a moment and thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, with whom I have worked for a long, long time. I have saluted him during this debate before and I do so again now. I also want to take a moment to compliment my very dear friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia, for his outstandingly considerate and thoughtful remarks. I just hope that the Senate will be wise enough to recognize and realize that someone with the wisdom, dedication and the evenhandedness that has been part and parcel of Senator Byrd's lengthy and very distinguished career would give us pause for consideration. I think sometimes we get carried away, and I can think back and make talks on several measures that have been introduced in the U.S. Senate to solve the deficit problem. I voted against most of them because I did not think they held water. I simply say that there are many concerns that we have on both sides of the aisle. Some of the sharp debate we have had on this measure is a very legitimate process of the consideration--the debate and deliberations that the U.S. Senate has been known for a long time. As a personal aside, let me say that I have often said with my experience in politics, the great reward has been the people that I have met and have been associated with that would have never come my way had I not been chosen by the great people of the State of Nebraska to represent them as Governor and then as a U.S. Senator. One of the finest things that has happened to this Senator, with all of the outstanding people that I have met and been associated with and worked with, Senator Byrd has always been a pillar of what I think a U.S. Senator should be all about. And I think the remarks that he just gave demonstrate better than I could have said it how important he has been and remains as a Member of this body. I thank my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have spent a lot of time discussing the basic unfairness of the tax cut proposed by some Members on the other side of the aisle. The American people are wise to Republican tax shenanigans that benefit the wealthiest in this Nation. The amendment that has just been offered by the Senator from Texas embraces the unworkable and unrealistic tax cut described by Speaker Gingrich as, ``The heart and soul, the crown jewel of the Contract With America.'' It is a phony jewel at best and a very deceptive one, I hasten to suggest. The plain fact is that we cannot afford a tax cut, and there should not be one in this budget if we are going to balance the budget. Our primary goal, the goal that the American people overwhelmingly endorse, should be to reduce the deficit. A tax cut like the one in the House Contract With America would only add to the problem by forcing us to make even deeper and more painful spending cuts. Poll after poll has shown that voters want Congress to get the Nation's fiscal house in order by balancing the budget, not by cutting taxes. Mr. President, we have just spent the majority of Friday and Monday talking about the draconian impact of the Republican budget cuts. Those cuts are in Medicare, and lower income beneficiaries are all going to suffer. We also talked about Medicare cuts and the cuts to education, the cuts to the EITC program, the cuts to veterans programs, and the cuts to agriculture. But no matter how the deficit is eliminated, the fact is that achieving balance is an extraordinarily difficult and painful task. It requires more than $1 trillion in spending cuts--cuts that have a real impact on real people. Adding tax cuts to the mix would only ensure that the pain goes even deeper. And in this budget that translates to even harsher treatment for our seniors, our schools and education, our children, and the least well off in our society. There has also been a great deal of talk in this Chamber especially about the so-called economic bonus that will magically occur if this budget is enacted. According to CBO, it would be possible for a total of some $170 billion over the next 7 years and balloon to $356 billion over 10 years if those figures work out--if those figures work out. The bonus has become the financing source for the tax cuts being advocated by our friends on the other side of the aisle. If this bonus does occur--and I think that point is very debatable--I submit there are many better purposes to which it could and should be put. In fact, the driving force behind the Democratic amendments center on this very issue. The question is very simple: Should any economic bonus be reserved for tax cuts for the best off in our society or should it be used to soften the blows of some of the extraordinarily harsh cuts that will be meted out under the plan? Our position is very simple: we cannot afford a tax cut. It makes the job of [[Page S7164]] balancing the budget just that much more difficult and disproportionately unfair. Furthermore, in the event that an economic bonus or surplus should accrue as a result of the painful choices that are being made, this bonus should be used to lessen the pain of those cuts rather than a tax cut and thus better assuring a realistic balanced budget by a day certain. That is where we stand, Mr. President, and that is where the American people stand, too. That is where realistic and reasonable people stand. I certainly strongly recommend that we disapprove the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield a maximum of 45 minutes to my great friend and colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, off the minority side's time allotted.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, has all time has expired?

Mr. EXON. I thought the Senator has yielded back. He has not yielded back? I am sorry.

Mr. EXON. If I understand it correctly, we have finished debate and under the previous agreement we will have the vote on this at some succeeding time, is that correct?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, has all time expired?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank him for his patience, and I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305 of that act for the purposes of the pending Bradley amendment.

Mr. EXON. There is no objection on this side, and just so I understand what the Senator is suggesting, the Senator from New Mexico will move to waive, we will object to that and then we will limit debate to 10 minutes on this side and 10 minutes on that side on that motion to waive; is that correct?

Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. EXON. I cannot either. I have not cleared it on this side. But we have to provide some leadership if we are going to allow any time at all to the whole stack of amendments that the Senator and I know are waiting on each side.

Mr. EXON. Following up on this, it is pretty obvious we are coming down to crunch time. I am just going to make the suggestion now without asking for any commitment now of the chairman of the Budget Committee. It seems to me that after the Gramm amendment is offered, which I understand will be the next one up--and I am not trying to limit debate on that--I would suggest that we at least consider getting a unanimous- consent agreement on both sides that after the Gramm amendment all amendments to follow would be limited to some timeframe, I do not know, half an hour, 15 minutes, equally divided, or something of that nature, and possibly eliminate second-degree amendments. Otherwise, we are going to run into a real train wreck tomorrow about noon. I just make the suggestion if we could consider contemplating after the Gramm amendment to enter into a unanimous-consent agreement on all amendments that would follow.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am, therefore, pleased to recognize the Senator from New Jersey. Would he please indicate to me about how much time he thinks would be necessary?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, thank you. I simply say that as we open this very important day, it will be a very long day on the budget resolution. I would simply say that as usual at this particular time we have an inordinate number of amendments that have been suggested from Members on both sides of the aisle. I simply say that we very likely--if we are going to finish this up tomorrow some time, which we must, given the time constraints that we are under--are going to have to have some give and take today. We will have to begin the process very early today of trying to come to some specific time agreements. With the large number of amendments that we have to offer, we obviously are heading for one of those traditional situations that we do on the budget resolution where a great number of amendments to the bill are going to be offered and we are not going to have time to debate those. Under the rules, all amendments that are offered can be voted on if a rollcall vote is ordered, which indicates to me very clearly that tomorrow afternoon sometime we are going to have a great number--and I mean a great number, maybe 2 to 3 hours--of successive votes on many amendments that will not have been thoroughly discussed or debated at all in the U.S. Senate. Therefore, I would hope that we could all conserve time as best we can. Last night, the Senate completed debate on an amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware, on that side of the aisle. Under the usual procedures, the next amendment would be offered from someone on this side of the aisle. I see Senator Bradley is here to offer an appropriate amendment that had been scheduled for some time. Depending on what the acting majority leader would like to do, we are prepared to offer the amendment that had been scheduled to be offered by the Senator from New Jersey, unless there is intervening business.