J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are going to be finishing I believe debate very shortly. The distinguished Senator from Texas I know has some remarks. I know of no other speakers seeking recognition on this side. I have been advised likewise by the Senator from Texas. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I yield whatever time is needed to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need. I wish to first thank my friend from Nebraska for his comments on the budget, and also the excellent comments just made by my friend and colleague from the State of Illinois for keeping these things in proper perspective, which we are trying to do. I appreciate very much the constructive, thoughtful remarks by my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from Nesbraska. I hope that we can continue to move forward. As I said when I started out the debate this noon, I think possibly we could still work out a bipartisanship approach to this. I certainly hope and encourage all to keep an open mind as best we can. I would just like to finish up the first day of debate, which I think generally has been an informative one, by emphasizing once again the very hard hit that the Medicare cuts proposed in the budget that I think must be alleviated as we have maintained all day long. I would like to read a letter into the record from the Nebraska Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. This letter was written to me by a man that I have known for a long time, Mr. Harlan Heald. Harlan is the President of the organization known as the Nebraska Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. I think his letter, which is not a very long one, really sets up the major concerns that all of us who have, and rural areas in our States should be particularly concerned about. The letter is dated May 10. It is addressed to me. He said: On behalf of the 94 acute care hospitals in Nebraska, I wish to call your attention to a serious potential problem. Clearly, the United States must work its way out of debt. To do that, Federal spending must be cut. It is my understanding that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman's mark is set at an overall reduction of $1.5 trillion by the year 2002. I further understand that in order to achieve a savings of that magnitude, Medicare is targeted for $256 billion reduction in spending over the same seven-year period. Here's the problem. For fiscal year 1993 (FY '93) (the most current completed year), Nebraska hospitals had a net operating margin of -7.5 percent for care rendered to Medicare recipients. Based upon the Chairman's mark for Medicare spending, in the year 2000 Nebraska hospitals would have a net operating margin of -23 percent for Medicare patients. This figure is expected to improve by the year 2002 to a net operating margin loss of only 14.5 percent, because the reductions are ``front loaded.'' Putting this into financial terms, in FY '93 Nebraska hospitals lost $383 per case caring for Medicare patients. Based upon the Chairman's mark, in the year 2000 they would lose on average $1,339 per case and in 2002 they would lose $983 per case caring for Medicare patients. This is all compounded by the fact that Nebraska is a state with a higher proportion of elderly citizens in its population. How can hospitals respond to the cuts of this magnitude? Hospitals are caught in a catch-22. They can: (1) shift more costs to the private sector--this is no longer a viable option in today's managed care environment; (2) slash wages and lay-off employees; (3) cut back on the scope of services provided--all of which threatens the quality of care, will close rural hospitals and restrict access. It is a lose-lose situation for community hospitals. Reimbursement reductions of this magnitude in a state with a disproportionate share of the elderly population, a state in which Medicare patients account for 60 to 70 percent of hospital admissions, clearly threatens the health care system upon which all of us depend. Medicare needs to be fixed. There is an opportunity for Congress to change Medicare, but the change must be driven by sound health care policy, not budgetary or political imperatives. The Senate Budget Committee's proposed Medicare reductions would crush Nebraska hospitals. As always, Nebraska's hospitals look to your leadership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Pennsylvania that the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, be recognized on this side for 20 minutes, and then we will continue the usual process of going back and forth. I do not know who is scheduled. Senator Lott will be scheduled after that for 15 minutes. Following the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Lott will be recognized for 15 minutes. Following that, Senator Bumpers on this side will be recognized for 20 minutes. And then, if there is a speaker on that side, they will be next following Senator Bumpers on this side, and Senator Kerrey will be recognized after that for 15 minutes.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, to begin with, I first want to salute once again, as I have in the past, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for all of the work that went into the production of this Republican budget. I commend him, too, for making the type of hard choices that are necessary if we are to balance the unified budget by the year 2002. Most of us on this side of the aisle share the goal of a balanced budget. It is an article of faith, I suggest, for this Senator. I have a long history of fighting for responsible budgets. Our dedication to fiscal responsibility, therefore, cuts across party lines. We are willing to work with the Republican majority to shape a budget that will reach balance on a unified basis by 2002. I hope we can come together to fashion out of the Domenici initiative a true bipartisan compromise. I will outline today, and during the budget debate to follow, some fundamental concerns that I feel must be addressed. Of course, none of this will be easy. To a Senator, we know the enormous challenges that lie ahead. All of us must recognize that we have to make some tough choices, and this Senate has demonstrated in the past I am willing to do that. But no person or party has all of the answers. We should seek to build a consensus on balancing the budget. Brute force is not the answer. We cannot be dictated to or ignored. Minority rights and views must be recognized and weighed. House Budget Committee Chairman Kasich recently said, and I quote, ``Democrats have no standing to say anything about what we are doing in the House and the Senate.'' This brash rhetoric does not serve the process well. Whatever they do in the House certainly has no place in the Senate. Earlier this year, I held out the hope for a bipartisan budget. However, we parted ways on key issues, such as tax cuts and the distribution of spending cuts. Soon after, the trench warfare really began. The Republican majority in the Budget Committee took a combative crouch during our markup. Their budget was carved in stone and we in the minority could not remove one period or comma. Not a single number could be changed, even in the smallest amount. That is not the approach to take if we truly desire to work together to produce a unified balanced budget. On numerous occasions, I have offered a hand of friendship and an invitation to reason on the budget. My purpose is not to thwart the Republican budget, but rather to recast some of its priorities to better reflect our Nation's needs. My purpose is to make recommendations and offer amendments which I believe will make the cuts fairer and evenly distributed. My purpose is to put some balance in this budget. During the next 50 hours, we will hear a lot about this budget. This budget, once shrouded in secrecy, has been in full view for a little more than a week. As it was unveiled, the budget was attended by the usual fanfare: the grand statements of vision, the quotes from Thomas Jefferson. That day, we heard a lot of promises, too. As we sat down to mark up the budget, those promises kept cropping up again and again and again. As we started to peel away layer after layer of the budget, many of the promises did not jibe with the numbers I saw. The Republicans promised to make dogged choices over and over again, but tax cuts are the tail that wags this budget. The Republicans promised to protect the elderly but asked for a king's ransom in Medicare cuts to foot the tax cuts. The Republicans promised a brighter future for our Nation but cast a bleak shadow upon rural America and our children. Although there have been protests to the contrary, there is a tax cut tucked away in this Republican budget. No one should be fooled by the mirrors that are used to hide this fact. It has been thinly disguised as a $170 billion contingent fund, but it is a tax cut nevertheless. In fact, this could be the mother lode of tax cuts for the wealthy. And what the Republicans do not tell the American people is that the $170 billion tax cut could balloon to $356 billion over 10 years. The budget before us does not dictate what tax cuts are forthcoming, but we know what is being discussed by the other side of the aisle. The news is not comforting. For example, more than half of the tax breaks in the House-passed Contract With America tax bill benefit those families with incomes of over $100,000. That is the top 12 percent of the income distribution, and even if we disregard Republican plans to increase taxes for those eligible to receive the earned income tax credit, families with incomes below $10,000 would get an average tax cut of $20. Compare that, if you will, with families with incomes over $200,000 stand to receive a $11,266 tax cut bonanza. That is wrong. True enough, the Senate Budget Committee adopted a nonbinding sense- of-the Congress amendment sponsored by Senator Boxer that states that 90 percent of any tax cut should go to the middle class. But no one should be fooled into believing that the plans of the majority have changed. Senate proponents of tax cuts have publicly stated their support of the House-passed tax provisions in the Contract With America. If ever there was a Contract on America, this is it. One Senator has vowed that he will offer a tax cut amendment on the Senate floor, and it will not be limited to the middle class. The tax cut centerpiece of the Republican budget is fueled by cuts in Medicare. The Medicare reductions in the Republican mark total $256 billion over the next 7 years. That is the largest Medicare cut in history. This is the single most important part of the Republican plan. This is the key to the entire deal. This is the cornerstone of the Republican budget, and we intend to change it. Yet, it comes without a single specific proposal beyond the formation of a commission. On this point, there is no plan. On the largest, most significant part of the Republican budget, there is not plan--period. Although we have no details, it is clear that at least half the cuts will fall on beneficiaries. The only Medicare cut publicly supported by Chairman Domenici would increase the part B premium to 31.5 percent of program costs, adding nearly $500 a year to out-of-pocket payments by the year 2002. By the year 2002, the average beneficiary will pay $900 more a year in out-of-pocket health care expenses. These cuts will have a devastating impact on the most vulnerable citizens: our frail, our sick, our poor, our seniors. Republicans promised, too, that their budget would protect Social Security. But the GOP Medicare cuts will require the elderly on fixed incomes to use most, if not all, of their Social Security COLA to pay for health care. For the one-in-four who rely on Social Security for their entire income, this is an enormous hardship. Cuts in providers are often passed along to other payers, as we know from the past and as we know from the debate that we had last year in an attempt to revise the whole health care system. I would point out that if only one-third of these cuts were shifted to other payers, businesses, and families would be forced to pay a hidden tax of $40 to $50 billion between now and 2002. Provider cuts would have a particularly devastating impact on rural areas. Nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries live in rural America where there may be a single hospital serving an entire country or more. Significant cuts in Medicare could increase the number of hospitals in rural areas that will be forced to close. Since rural hospitals are often the largest employer in their communities, pulling the plug on these hospitals will result in job loss and, most important and devastating, physicians leaving these communities. Cuts in Medicaid would also cause the elderly to suffer severe and needless pain. Nearly 67 percent of Medicaid spending is for the elderly and disabled. The Republicans cut Medicaid by $175 billion over 7 years, or 30 percent by the seventh year. More than 800,000 elderly and disabled people are likely to lose coverage under this proposal. Between 5 and 7 million children could tumble through the safety net. And half of the children is also the only major Federal source of funding for long-term care, serving 1.6 million people in nursing homes in 1993, while 1.1 million people receive home health care. While the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid are onerous, I am also extremely troubled by the new 20-percent cut in mandatory agriculture spending contained in the Republican budget. It is a harvest of shame for rural America. Agriculture has become a scapegoat for our inability to balance the budget. You have heard all the fictions. Agriculture programs drive the deficit. Agriculture gets a free ride. Agriculture makes no contribution to balancing the budget. The truth is in shorter supply. The real deficit problem does not lie in agriculture. We should give credit where credit is due A hard look at the projected growth of entitlement spending from 1993 to 1999 demonstrates that agriculture spending shrinks while most of the other programs show substantial growth. In fact, after a peak in 1986, agriculture spending has declined substantially. The Congressional Budget Office projects that total costs for farm price support programs run by the Commodity Credit Corporation will decline from the $26 billion high-water mark in 1986 to less than $8 billion by the year 2000. This is due primarily to program reforms, including those enacted as part of the 1993 deficit reduction package. Over the next 5 years, agriculture commodity program spending is projected to decline from $10.3 billion in 1996 to $7.8 billion in the year 2000. As a percentage of total Federal outlays, Commodity Credit Corporation outlays have declined from a peak 2.4 percent in the late 1950's to a projected four-tenths of 1 percent by the late 1990's. In spite of this downward trend, this budget contains an additional 20-percent hit on agriculture. Let me repeat that. In spite of this downward trend, this budget contains an additional 20 percent hit on agriculture. The effect of that cut is startling in its magnitude. It pulls the rug out from under rural America. To reach such a number, the Agriculture Committee will need to take draconian action, such as increasing unpaid base acreage from 15 percent to approximately 35 percent. If that happens, I suggest that we are going to see a flight of our farmers in the United States of America. Moreover, these cuts will strangle our ability to craft a rational farm bill this year. When added to the deep Medicare cuts that will close rural hospitals, I am deeply concerned that this budget will sound the death knell for any semblance of quality existence for rural America. To partially address this, I offered an amendment to reduce by $8 billion the scheduled $12 billion cut in government agriculture programs during the budget markup. My amendment was defeated on straight-line, never-swerving, solid-Republican volley of noes--no to agriculture and no to rural America. The cuts in the Republican budget go deep and far afield to finance the tax cut. Funding for income security programs is cut $118 billion over 7 years. Food stamps and other nutrition programs are cut by $30 billion over 7 years. Some 17 percent of households receiving food stamps have elderly members. The Republicans also take a chainsaw to the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit helps keep working families off of welfare and assists middle-class families who have sudden losses of income. If the chairman's mark, however, is enacted into law, the earned income tax credit will be cut by $21 billion over 7 years. The Republicans say they will shield the Veterans Administration's medical system from cuts. This is not a shield I would want to stand behind. The Republican budget increases the veterans' contribution for GI bill education benefits. It increases the copayment for prescription drugs for higher income individuals. Let us be clear. By funding the VA's medical system at the 1995 level for the next 7 years, the Republicans are dramatically cutting access to health care services for veterans all over this country. During markup, Democratic Senators on the committee made numerous attempts to soften the blow upon Medicare and other programs critical to working American families. We stated that any fiscal bonus that may accrue from balancing the budget should not be spent on tax cuts. Rather, this money could go a long way to alleviate some of the hardship that would be imposed by the cuts in the Republican budget, or to further reduce the deficit. Democratic Senator after Democratic Senator offered amendments to get our priorities straight and put this budget back on track. Let me stress--let me stress, Mr. President--that not a single Democratic amendment would have resulted in an unbalanced budget in 2002. I will go through the entire list of Democratic amendments. But let me give my colleagues a flavor of what the Republicans found so hard to swallow. We tried to get an agreement to use the tax cut bonus to ease the cuts on Medicare, Medicaid, education, agriculture, and the earned income tax credit. We tried to eliminate the millionaire expatriate tax loophole. That is the one that allows those who have benefited most from our country to avoid millions in taxes by renouncing their American citizenship. We would have used those revenues to hire more officers for community policing and to offset the cuts in veterans programs and the earned income tax credit. We stood up for impact aid educational programs. We tried to prevent children eligible for Medicaid from losing their coverage. Not a one of these amendments passed. It is a sad commentary on our times that during the markup of the Republican budget, we did not have a bipartisan approach toward a common goal. We recognize that doing so will take painful, but necessary cuts and we are willing to call for the sacrifices that will be necessary. They will hurt and they will be painful. It is not the goal, but the distribution of the cuts in this resolution that is so troubling to this Senator and those on this side of the aisle. At a time when so many Americans are being asked to sacrifice to balance the Federal budget, I cannot and will not condone a budget that contains a tax cut that is a sop to the wealthiest among us. I cannot support a budget that makes misguided cuts in Medicare and other programs that improve the lives of millions of American families merely to underwrite this extravagance. I cannot support a budget that would lay waste to rural America and its fragile economy. In closing, let me say that it is my hope that during the upcoming debate on the Senate floor, my Republican colleagues will give serious and due consideration to the amendments that will be offered to alleviate the unfair distribution of those cuts, and to reverse the course on the tax cut. Then, and only then, will we have a budget that can be supported, not only by Democrats and Republicans, but all of us here working together on the common problem that has been so well enunciated by the chairman of the Budget Committee: the ever-increasing deficit and the ever- increasing national debt. We want the American people to know and understand that we want to cooperate and will cooperate in a means to the end, but it must be done in a different fashion than has been detailed in the Republican budget. If we can do that, then we will have a budget that is whole. We will have a budget that could lead to an eventual reconciliation bill that I could support and authorize an appropriations bill that would follow, that I could recommend to the President that he sign and not veto. Yes, Mr. President, the Republican majority should realize that they may have the 51 votes to pass their bills, but they do not have, nor will they ever muster, in my opinion, the 67 votes to override a veto. I respectfully suggest that this is the time to start on the road to compromise and the road to reason so that we can come out of this debate on a course of bipartisanship on the budget that we are going to pass. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. That would be satisfactory.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think we have been moving along quite well in total cooperation. I believe Senator Abraham would be next under the usual ruling. I have several Senators on this side who have been waiting and are not asking for any other consideration other than some time. I ask unanimous consent that we would now go to Senator Abraham, and following him, we would go to Senator Rockefeller, who wants 12 minutes, followed by Senator Kennedy, who wants 15 minutes. Is that agreeable so that we could have everybody know the flow?

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I would like to take a moment on my time to congratulate my friend and colleague from the State of Washington. Here is a teacher, a mother, someone that is really dedicated to the cause that we are trying to espouse on this side of the aisle. I thank her for her excellent remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from California, who spoke before him, for their excellent presentations and the direct way that they tell what we are trying to do to be constructive on this side of the aisle. I very much appreciated the dedicated work of both of them on the Budget Committee. They have been extremely helpful, very helpful in the markup process. I thank them for their excellent remarks to set the record straight about the constructive posture we are trying to take on this side of the aisle. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from the great State of Wisconsin.

Mr. EXON. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in answer to my good friend and colleague from the State of Iowa, ``Where's theirs? Where's theirs?''--I assume we are going to be hearing that over and over again--``Where's theirs?'' was enunciated by this Senator in the remarks I made in opening this debate. What we are trying to do, I advise my friend and colleague and oftentimes associate, is to simply say that we are offering a series of amendments to the Republican budget that has been offered, frankly, in a spirit of cooperation. We will be doing here essentially the same thing that we did in the budget markup. And that is simply to reach out the hand of friendship and understanding and hopefully reach some kind of a bipartisan compromise by not rejecting the budget offered by the chairman of the Budget Committee. But, as I said in my opening remarks, I salute the hard work that had been done. ``Where's theirs,'' it should be understood very clearly by the Senator from Iowa and everyone else, that ``Where's theirs?'' is simply the situation that we are trying to recognize that in some instances you have done a good job. And ``Where's theirs?'' is that in good faith we are trying to get you on that side of the aisle to quit knocking down and rejecting every suggestion that we have made. And I think that anyone who looked at the amendments that we offered would have had to say that at least they were in good faith and debatable. Basically what we did, time after time on a whole series of amendments, was to say, we believe that there are some good, overall parameters offered by Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, in his mark. But we happen to feel that some of the cuts on veterans programs, on Medicare, on Medicaid, and others that we have announced and enumerated--and I talked about most of them in my opening remarks--simply take money out of the money that is reserved for the tax cut that is clearly indicated in the budget in the House of Representatives and the $170 billion that is in the Domenici mark and reserved only for tax cuts. What we are saying is, why can we not reason together? Why can you not give up on the tax cut, that you want to help out and cut down to some extent, a considerable extent, the hit that we think is being unfairly taken by Medicare, Medicaid, by farm programs, by taking away earned-income tax credit, by the cuts in education and others? We just say, give us a little bit. Maybe we can go along. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Susan Ross, a Presidential management intern, and Nancy Harris, a J.J. Pickle Fellow, be granted floor privileges and be permitted to remain on the Senate floor during consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. EXON. I certainly agree to that. I ask after Senator Bennett, could we have Senator Murray recognized for 15 minutes?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Since there is a time deadline of 1 p.m., I would like to ask my friend from Washington whether or not there could be general agreement on the passage of an amendment that he and I have worked out with regard to product liability that I think has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. We have been trying to find an appropriate time to do that. If possible, I think we can do it in 2 or 3 minutes if we can get unanimous-consent and if that is the will of my friend from Washington, the manager of the bill.

Mr. EXON. I thought it had been cleared.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will comply with the wishes of my colleagues.

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor and leading Democratic advocate for the Dole amendment to limit punitive damage awards in civil liability cases. As a former small business person, I understand the need for businesses to plan for contingent liabilities. The litigation explosion since the 1970's when I left the private sector and entered public life has made the job of running a small business more difficult today than it was when my wife and I started our own successful small business. The Dole amendment will restore some degree of certainty to business, personal and charitable risk management and great Nation. Punitive damages are a wild card in today's legal system. These awards are unpredictable, unrelated to the level of harm caused by a defendant and potentially they are unlimited. A particular injury, a particular lawyer, and a particular jurisdiction can mean a big recovery for the plaintiff and his lawyer and the end of business for the unlucky defendant. The real cost of the current system is not only measured in the number of punitive awards won, but also the legal cost of defending against such suits, as well as the increased insurance and product costs for all Americans. Certainly, no one wants to create a legal system which will encourage wrongdoing or careless behavior. The problem is that the relationship between punitive damage awards and safe behavior is not proven. One could argue that the current punitive damages system creates a bounty for the litigators to hunt for the right combination of facts, law, jury, and injury. This uncertainty has led honest business people to settle even unworthy cases in order to avoid risking a spin at litigation and the roulette wheel mentality that goes with it. The greatest expense of the current uncertainty is the contempt it generates from average citizens. They hear about unexplainable cases involving cups of hot coffee, or spilled milk shakes and their faith in the legal system is shaken. Our hallowed courts could some day take on the image of a legal casino. A handful of States, including the State of Nebraska, do not even permit punitive damages. In the State of Nebraska the total absence of punitive damages has not created an unsafe environment or careless manufacturers or increased wrongful conduct. What the State of Nebraska does have are insurance rates which are more affordable to all citizens. Under the Dole amendment, States which want to keep punitive damages can continue to have such a system, if that is their will. In those States, punitive damages would simply need to be related to the actual compensatory damages suffered by an injured party. Nothing in this amendment would require States to adopt punitive damage systems. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor and support the Dole amendment. To those who predict the end of American jurisprudence, I say come to Nebraska, Washington, or other States where punitive damages are not part of the State's legal system. You will see a high quality of life, affordable cost of living, and court systems a little less jammed with frivolous lawsuits. Although not as dramatic as the course chosen by the State of Nebraska, I am confident that the Dole amendment is a step in the right direction to restore a degree of confidence and predictability to our legal system. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Washington for yielding. I yield any remaining time of the 7 minutes originally allotted to this Senator.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will not take a great deal of time this morning, but I wanted to reiterate my strong opposition to the sale of the Power Marketing Administrations. I've made similar points with the Director of the OMB. And I sat to discuss this matter with the President. We seem to go through this exercise just about every year, regardless of who is in the White House or who controls Congress. Until someone can show me some real benefits of privatization, I will continue to oppose the sale of the PMA's. The Power Marketing Administration's deliver a critically important service to a large portion of the Nation. They are an example of what's right with Government. It seems ironic and very ill advised that they should be put on the auction block and I will not stand for any wholesale dismantling of the PMA system.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to repeal an obscurely worded provision in the 1986 Tax Reform Act which makes fundraising proceeds from games of chance conducted by nonprofit organizations subject to the unrelated business income tax [UBIT]. The 1986 change was effective for all States except North Dakota, which received a special exception from the rule. The effect of the change is that nonprofit groups must pay taxes on these proceeds at the corporate income tax rate. In Nebraska, various churches, charities, veterans groups, and other nonprofit organizations use pull tab lottery cards for fundraising. Locally, these cards are known as pickle cards because they were often held for sale in old, large pickle jars. Pickle card fundraising in Nebraska is limited under State law only to nonprofit organizations. The problem with the 1986 change was that it was so obscure that many nonprofit groups had no knowledge of the new requirement to pay the added tax until 1990. Most, if not all, of the Nebraska nonprofit organizations conducting games of chance had a rude awakening when the Internal Revenue Service informed them of the back taxes they owed along with interest and penalties. Most of these nonprofit groups are relatively small and they spend the funds raised by gaming each year. You can imagine their shock when they learned that they owed in some cases tens of thousands of dollars for a tax that they did not realize must be paid. In addition to the strain this puts on their finances, the IRS is now challenging the not-for-profits status of at least one Nebraska group based on the amount of funds raised through charitable gaming. Over 200 Nebraska charities have been affected by this confusing change in our law and my inconsistent enforcement by the IRS. I know that this has also been a problem in the past in other States, including Maryland and Minnesota. The funds that these nonprofit organizations raise are used to support charitable causes and community services. The intention of the unrelated business income tax, enacted in 1950, is to eliminate the competitive advantage of certain tax-exempt organizations that engage in business in direct competition with taxable entities. In Nebraska, these nonprofits are not competing with private companies because, by Nebraska statute, only nonprofit organizations can raise money by selling pickle cards. I believe the solution to this problem is to eliminate the 1986 change, as the bill I am introducing today would do. This legislation would restore fairness and sensibility to our Tax Code and help to ensure that nonprofit organizations are able to continue to provide essential services and support in our communities.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question? want to get this unanimous-consent request as quickly as possible, but I will be glad to yield to the Senator.

Mr. EXON. Do I understand from the Senator from Mississippi that finally, at long last, the two leaders are working and are, according to the information that he has, about to come on the floor to outline some unanimous-consent type of agreement that will move the process ahead?

Mr. EXON. I was about ready to try to get the amendment before us set aside for the purpose of calling up an amendment that I first presented at the desk way back last week, sometime Friday. I had it ready Wednesday, almost a week ago, and have been trying to accommodate everybody else. But there does not seem to be much accommodation. But I guess I can wait for another 10 minutes to see whether or not we can bring some reality out of the morass that we seem to be in from the standpoint of procedure in the Senate as of now.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I object.