J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I would say to the majority leader and other Senators on both sides of the aisle that it is not the intention of this Senator to cause any unnecessary delay. I think every Senator should be protected with his or her right to offer any amendments that they think are in order. I do happen to think this is an important piece of legislation. morning with regard to eliminating the mandates on the States with regard to funding of rape and incest that I talked about and ever since that time there seemed to be one roadblock or another to bringing this up. I had stood aside and said I just want to place this in the flow of business somewhere along the line. So I would certainly ask the majority leader to recognize the rights of the Senator from Nebraska, with the other amendments that the Senator said were being considered, as to whether or not the Senator was going to pull down the bill. I hope that maybe we could get together with some kind of a unanimous-consent agreement to protect the rights of every Member of this body and still expedite the process, which I assume is what the Senator, the majority leader would like to have. In other words, there may be some filibuster, minifilibuster, call it what you want. I have no objection to that. I would think though that if we are going to be able to have the recess we had scheduled for this weekend, we are all going to have to recognize there is going to have to be some give and take somewhere along the line on this. And if there are reasons why filibusters are going to be mounted, maybe we could reach a time agreement to expedite the cloture process after a reasonable time of debate and not have the 3-day rule. Basically, if we get into a 3-day rule with regard to a filibuster, it is pretty clear that we are not going to be able to finish this bill by the end of the week. And I share some of the concerns that the majority leader has, while I will fight, as I always have, for the rights of Senators on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments as they are entitled to under the rules. I am just wondering. My question of the majority leader is, has there been a meeting recently between the majority leader and the minority leader with regard to the proposition of trying to come to some finite number of amendments, agree to a time limit on those; that if filibusters come up, we possibly could have an agreement that we would have expedited procedures where cloture could be recognized the same day, it could be considered the same day as a cloture motion would be filed, something to move this process along? Primarily, I think it is important that we do the business of the Senate, work our will and then let the rules apply as to whether or not we are going to pass this piece of legislation. I recognize the frustration of the majority leader, although I question whether it is wise to have foreign aid funds be added to this measure on top of all of the other consternation that obviously and justifiably surrounds this very important piece of legislation. But we have to move ahead. My question is: Has there been a recent meeting between the two leaders to see if something could not be worked out to scale down the number of amendments and at least get some unanimous consent agreements as to how much time we are going to spend on each amendment?

Mr. EXON. I thank the leader.

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, if I could get the clarification of the procedures that we are undertaking, the Senator from Nebraska sought recognition a few moments ago.

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, and I am not certain I will object----

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

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator from Kansas yield without losing his right to the floor for a question?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Rail Investment Act of 1995. This legislation will ensure that America's rail infrastructure continues to meet the needs of the Nation. This bill is an update version of S. 2002 which the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved last year and combines several important Amtrak, the reauthorization of the Local Rail Freight Assistance Program and other rail initiatives of critical importance to a number of Members of the Senate. The bill before the Senate takes into account the cost-saving measures taken by the Amtrak Board and includes new provisions to help Amtrak generate more nontax revenues through advertising, concessions and intermodal coordination with America's bus companies. I know that this legislation is a starting place and not a finishing place. Many painful choices regarding Amtrak are just around the bend. With a few modifications, however, it is where the Senate left off last year. As the former chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I am proud of the work we did last year. I have updated the effort to reflect the new political and financial realities which face both Amtrak and this body. The Senate Commerce Committee held a very good hearing on Amtrak and it is clear to me that there continues to be strong bipartisan support for a national passenger rail system. I look forward to working with both the new chairman of the full committee and the subcommittee to assure that Amtrak has a future. The key features of the Rail Investment Act include: First, an addition to the Amtrak mission statement that Amtrak should treat all passengers with respect, courtesy, and dignity and that Amtrak should manage its capital investment to provide world class service; Second, a study of proposed changes of the State-requested service program; Third, a renewal of the authorization for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program [NECIP]; Fourth, a technical amendment to settle a title problem for Reno, NV, rail properties; Fifth, the Missouri River Corridor Development Program to study the feasibility of service between Kansas City and Omaha, to authorize station projects and fund operation of new service in and around the States bordering the Missouri River; Sixth, a provision to assist Rhode Island with its double-stack freight service problems; Seventh, a provision which allows Amtrak to better manage its finances; Eighth, a provision to study D.C. to Bristol, VA, passenger rail service; Ninth, the addition of a passenger representative to the Amtrak Board of Directors; Tenth, a pilot program to generate more nontax revenues from advertising and concession sales; and Eleventh, a provision to authorize a rail project integral to service between Massachusetts and Maine; Twelfth, a continuation of the Amtrak labor management safety task force. The bill also includes the text of legislation I introduced with Senators Daschle, Pressler, Harkin, Conrad, Kerrey, and Dorgan last year to reauthorize the Local Rail Freight Assistance Program [LRFA] for $30 million each year. In addition, the LRFA Program is amended to give authorization for emergency appropriations, and to add explicit language to permit LRFA money to be used for crossing closures and upgrades. I urge my colleagues to endorse this much needed legislation.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment which I will formally introduce later on today or next week depending on flow of the business in the Senate. I filed the amendment at the desk. I will call it up later on during the consideration of the matters after we resume at 10 o'clock today per order of the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment which is intended to clarify Federal law regarding Federal funding for abortion. Essentially, this is a States rights issue. As my colleagues know, the Hyde amendment has long been in place to restrict the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions under Medicaid. Originally, the only exception was for when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. Congress passed a modification, one I had long supported, effective October 1, 1993, the result of acts of rape or incest. I believe that it was the intent of Congress that that modification be permissive and not mandatory on the States. The administration responded to the change in the Hyde amendment by issuing a directive dated December 28, 1993, sent to all of the States mandating that they pay for abortions resulting from rape and incest as well as involving the life of the mother. The administration, in my opinion, used a strained analysis to create such a mandate. It stretched the medically necessary justification covering the life of the mother to cover rape and incest, citing what it thought was congressional intent. The issue of payment for abortions to save the life of the mother has been basically settled. The issue of payment for abortion for rape and incest or other reasons has not. Numerous States are in the midst of that debate now. Prior to the administration's Medicaid directive, most States prohibited the use of public funds for abortion with the only exception being for the life of the mother, and that includes my home State of Nebraska. Only a handful of other States already paid for abortions that were the result of rape and incest. Now several States are under the threat of losing their Medicaid funding because they are balking at complying with the Federal directive. States have been forced into the position of implementing the directive, often in direct contradiction of their State law, or risk losing much-needed Medicaid funding or carry the argument into court. My amendment will give the States the option of using Federal funds for abortion in cases of rape and incest but will not mandate it as the administration and courts are doing as a result of a questionable interpretation of congressional intent. This language was adopted on this bill in full committee in the House, but was jettisoned by the Rules Committee. As we know, there is no comparable committee in the Senate, and any Senator has the right to generally bring any amendment on this floor. As a result, I offer this amendment which I believe will clarify the intent of Congress in this matter. This is also a matter of fundamental States rights and the debate should not be preempted by a Federal directive. Finally, here is an appropriate opportunity to clarify and limit the scope of a Federal mandate and to respect the role of States and their law. No lengthy debate is necessary. The issue is simple and straightforward. We make no changes in Federal law requiring States to fund abortions under Medicaid when the life of the mother is endangered. We would allow the States, at their discretion, to not fund abortions for rape and incest. At a proper time I will call up the amendment and urge its adoption. In addition, let me briefly say in the closing time allotted to me, Mr. President, that at a time when we are hailing the fact that very recently we eliminated by an overwhelming vote in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives the matter of mandates to the States, here is a clear case where we can put our votes where our voices have been in the past. Certainly, we all know that the States pay about 46 percent of all the Medicaid bills. It seems to me that this is a clear case that, if we are against mandates, if we are against continued funding required by the States without full compensation as a result of those laws by the Federal Government, that this is a case where I think we should return to what I believe was the intent of the Congress when we expanded the formally known Hyde amendment to allow States--but not directing them--to fund through Medicaid cases of rape and incest. I think that was a very important step in the right direction when they provided that, as I have long held. But it seems to me that the administration in this case has misinterpreted a principle, a principle which I thought was very appropriate. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I thank the Chair. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Nebraska has been allotted 5 minutes of morning business. Is that correct?

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague from West Virginia and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I commend the Senator for his thoughtful and timely amendment. Some of our colleagues talk a good game of deficit reduction. Yet, when it comes to taking action, they sometimes get cold feet. I would like to point out that, even though the distinguished Senator and I were on opposite sides of the fence when it came to the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto, we are, nevertheless, united when it comes to deficit reduction. We proved that in 1993 when we worked hand-in-hand to pass the largest deficit-reduction plan ever, and we prove it again today. I am proud to stand with my friend, Senator Byrd, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Herein lies a lesson for all of our colleagues. No party has a monopoly when it comes to deficit reduction. No individual has all of the answers. We can hold different views, but when it comes to specific spending cuts and real savings, we should be one body dedicated to a common cause--getting our fiscal house in order. Mr. President, in spite of the relentless drumbeat from the other side of Capitol Hill to cut taxes, the American people have their priorities in order. And I hope the House and the Senate will listen. Of course, they want lower taxes, but they want a balanced budget first. The American people are not selfish and certainly they are not foolish. They want to get Government spending under control. They know you cannot run with the rabbit and hunt with the hounds. They want to protect their children's and grandchildren's future. They certainly question the Contract With America when that contract goes so far as to deviate from common sense. The American people are willing to accept the sacrifice that comes with creditable deficit reduction. They are willing to accept the pain of deep spending cuts, but only if those cuts go toward balancing the budget, and not spending elsewhere in the form of tax decreases. The American people know you cannot have it both ways. There is the rub and there is the root to this frustration. I believe that the Byrd amendment takes head-on that proposition by saying that the savings that we made in this legislation will go for deficit reduction--deficit reduction--and nothing else. What confounds the American people are the complex rules that go along with our budget process. In the never-never world of the budget, a spending cut is not always a spending cut. It is like a lizard's tail that comes off in your hands. We cut program after program, but cuts often become new spending and the deficit continues to grow. The lizard grows another tail, and on and on and on we go. Mr. President, we could slash the space station. We could eliminate another 100,000 Federal jobs. We could cut every discretionary program by 10 percent. However, those savings mean nothing unless we make the cuts permanent and specifically apply them toward deficit reduction. I am convinced that is what the vast majority of the American people want, and I know that the Byrd amendment now before us does exactly that. Fortunately, the Senator from West Virginia is right on top of the issue. The emergency spending bill before the Senate today could be fertile ground for spending mischief. The appropriators propose to cut $13.5 billion and will spend $6.7 billion in relief for last year's earthquakes in California. But what about the difference? What about the difference, Mr. President, the $6.8 billion in supposed savings? Without the Senator's amendment that we have just referenced, that money could be spent elsewhere, and might be. But the Byrd amendment puts a lockbox around these savings and prohibits the money from being spent. The savings are dedicated solely to reducing the deficit. It is that clear, it is that simple, and it is that necessary. In fact, this is a safe within a safe. We need the extra safeguard because the bill before us deals with emergency spending which is not counted against the deficit. In the absence of a lockbox, the cuts made to pay for earthquake relief could be spent later this year on something entirely different. Adopt the Byrd amendment and eliminate that possibility. So, once again, I commend the Senator from West Virginia for offering this important amendment. Anyone who is serious about credible deficit reduction should support it. Some cynics may say that $6.8 billion is merely a drop in the bucket when it comes to the deficit that will grow to $299 billion by the year 2000, if we believe projections. However, the Byrd amendment demonstrates how we will reduce the deficit by making specific cuts in spending and locking away those savings for deficit reduction and for no other purpose. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia. It makes sense from every aspect, and I will be keenly disappointed unless the Senate recognizes the wisdom of this amendment and adopts it overwhelmingly. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. Just let me add a few brief words in salute to Howell Heflin--truly a son of the Old South who I think is of as much distinction as all of the other great southerners who have served in the U.S. Senate. He is far more than just a southern Senator. He is a U.S. Senator. from both myself and my wife, Pat, we came here together and we will be leaving together. When I think about things like that, Mr. President, I cannot tell you about anyone in this body that I think more exemplifies the term a true workhorse and not a show horse of the Senate. Mike and Howell Heflin have been close friends and associates of the Exons lo these many years. However, it is far more than just our personal relationship I have treasured. I have treasured also the professional working relationships we have had in the Senate. And I think when the rollcall of votes are summarized you will likely see that Howell Heflin and Jim Exon probably voted as close alike as any other Members of this body, which I know we have been very proud in serving. I wish to cite something personal about Howell Heflin that not very many people know. A few years ago I had an opportunity to lead a delegation to the Pacific area. Howell Heflin went along. We stopped in Guam for refueling en route to Manila, and there was to be a brief ceremony for Howell Heflin that I knew nothing about when we landed there. It was anything but a brief ceremony. It was obviously one of the most important ceremonies that the Island of Guam had had, I suppose, since the American forces drove out the Japanese from that island during the war in the Pacific. There was a big entourage of cars. I could not imagine what was going on. Finally, I began to get the feel of things. They wanted to take us out to the beach where the American marines landed when the United States of America started taking back that very important and strategic island. We went out to the beach, and we saw where they landed, the difficulty they had in landing there with the coral reefs that had not been researched very well obviously from a landing standpoint. We went to the museum out on the beach. This was all about Howell Heflin. When we went over to the beach itself, there was a small Navy band. There was a small tent with people from the Island of Guam who were there when the Americans landed. A very touching sight. There was a big sign out there that I shall never forget. It said, ``Welcome Back Our Liberating Hero, Lt. Howell Heflin.'' The mayor was there; the Governor was there; a little Navy band was there. They gave us a flag. And, of course, the big man of the moment was Howell Heflin. Because of all his other accomplishments, Howell Heflin, without very much fanfare--and I suspect maybe most of his colleagues in the Senate do not even know about it--early on he was one of those marines, Lt. Howell Heflin, who was part of the assault force of the Americans landing to take Guam from the Japanese. He was wounded in the initial assault and kept on fighting. He pointed out the hill to me where he took his second hit. He spent relatively little time there because he was evacuated to the United States where he spent considerable time in the hospital. This is a side of the proud Howell Heflin that I know. That is a side that I want his colleagues to know about and Americans to know about in addition to all his other outstanding accomplishments. He is one of those who serves his country in time of need, and we must never forget that. So to you, Howell, and to Mike, the best from Pat and I for our close association. And I point to people like you, Howell, as I have talked about before. One of the most wonderful things about being involved in politics--and I have been involved in it about the same amount of time as you--were it not for my involvement in politics there is not one chance in 2 trillion that I would have ever met Howell and Mike Heflin. Having met them, having known them, known of their stature, their character, having had them as friends, means a lot to one as you look back on your life and see what really has been important. I am not going to cite all of your accomplishments, Howell, because that has been done so very, very well by your friends and colleagues who have spoken before me in this Chamber in this regard today. I simply say that one of the great treasures of my life has been knowing you, seeing you serve with such distinction, knowing of the great gratitude of your fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle for the important role that you have played in the Senate, representing your great State so very, very well, but even more so by an excellent, outstanding individual who responded to duty early in life when you served in the Marines; saw and discharged your duties as well here in the Senate as you did in Guam. God bless and God keep you. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague from South Dakota, and my colleague and friend from Wyoming. I just made some pronouncements about the new Secretary of Agriculture about adjoining States. Here we are, adjoining States again. I am here with my senior colleague from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, and my new colleague from the western neighbor of the State of Nebraska. I congratulate both of them for the amendment that has been offered. The matter has been cleared on this side and we are prepared to go ahead and agree to the amendment, if that is the will of the chairman of the Commerce Committee?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to add my voice to the strong support that has been evident for a long time with the President's new nominee for the Secretary of Agriculture, former Congressman Dan Glickman, from my neighboring State of Kansas. Mr. President, much has been said about this dedicated, talented individual. I have heard statements made by Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on this side of the Agriculture Committee; by the majority leader, Senator Dole, who has, as he has indicated in his remarks on the floor a few moments ago, the record as the longest sitting member of the Agriculture Committee; and just a few moments ago by the minority leader, from my neighboring State to the north, South Dakota, the minority leader, Senator Daschle. They all summed up very, very well, the regard that the nominee had by those who know him the best. I have known him for a long, long time. I have worked with him on foreign policy ever since I have been in the U.S. Senate. He is one who thoroughly understands the farm programs, but more importantly, what an important part agriculture is to the overall economy of the United States of America. I remind all once again that, if it were not for the offsetting factor of exports of farm products, the balance of trade deficit that the United States has would skyrocket dramatically. Dan Glickman understands agriculture. He knows the serious situation that agriculture is facing today. I am delighted that the majority leader has called for the vote on tomorrow morning. I am anxious to begin working with the new Secretary of Agriculture because, as the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee, the new agricultural leader knows, the Agricultural Committee knows, the Appropriations Committee knows, that the actions that will take place in the Budget Committee in the near future are going to have a great deal to do with how successful the new Secretary of Agriculture will be in writing a workable farm program and policy. I have not been in a position, nor has he, during this waiting period which held up his assuming this new role in even a more timely fashion--it was not possible for me to sit down with him and talk specifics about what his recommendations will be with regard to the recommendations out of the Budget Committee for the total agricultural programs. Dan Glickman will do a great job. I will listen to his recommendations very carefully with regard to the farm program. Given the fact we are going to have to make some very, very hard choices on a whole series of issues if we are going to get ourselves on the road to a balanced budget by the year 2002--which I think obviously is the overwhelming goal of Members of the Congress on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses--it is, therefore, critically important we get Dan Glickman on board as soon as we make the confirmation tomorrow and as soon as the President goes through the formality, which I hope will follow almost instantaneously. Then Dan Glickman can take over fully the important function of Secretary of Agriculture of the United States of America and, for that matter, the Secretary of Agriculture for the whole free world. I urge as near a unanimous vote as possible. I would not be surprised if the vote of the Senate was unanimous tomorrow morning. I am looking forward to working with my great friend, Dan Glickman, who will be the new Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan. I think this is a very, very good amendment. It certainly does not cover all of the concerns I have in this area, but a considerable number of those concerns. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment, and once again I appreciate my colleague's attention to the details. I think the amendment makes the proposition, although I still have some concerns, much more palatable. I thank him for offering the amendment. I believe we are ready to act on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been listening with keen interest to the excellent remarks made by my great friend and colleague from West Virginia. I want to compliment him, once again, for being able to seize the key elements that tell the truth as it is. I am rising now principally to support the amendment that has been offered by the senior Senator from West Virginia and to address what he had to say about the history of the lack of fiscal management. I think it points out just how important the amendment he is offering tonight and why it belongs on the important piece of legislation before us. This amendment would strengthen and reinforce the pay-as-you-go requirements in the current budget law. support. If only we had something like this during those other times when we went down that rosy scenario road that the Senator from West Virginia outlined. I would like to take a few moments to discuss the logic of supporting the current law, which fits right in with the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, the current law requires the Government to account for annual appropriations spending separately from permanent changes in taxes and entitlements. It is unwise for the Government to use savings promised by budget process changes to pay for tax cuts or entitlement expansions, which, by their very nature, are permanent and require no additional congressional action. They, theoretically, are there forever. Under section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, annual caps on budget authority and outlays limit discretionary spending. Pay-as-you-go procedures in section 252 of the act control mandatory spending and taxes. The law setting forth these pay-as-you-go procedures does not, in any way, mention changes in the discretionary spending limits. The appropriations caps constrain the total amount of money that the Congress may appropriate. They do not, by themselves, spend money, nor can anyone know that they will save money until Congress has enacted every appropriations bill for the year in question. The Congressional Budget Office scores only actual appropriations, because they provide the actual authority to spend. Changes in the caps, on the other hand, do not yield immediate budgetary savings. If Congress reduces the caps, subsequent appropriations bills, later appropriations, after-the-fact appropriations are the ones that determine whether or not we live up to the goals that we have outlined. The amount saved would not be available. I emphasize that again, Mr. President. The amount saved would not be available to offset legislative changes in entitlements or taxes. The Congressional Budget Office thus believes that it cannot include cap reductions on the pay-as-you-go scorecard without a change in the law. Sound reasons for support of the structure of the law--that is important. That is sound reasoning. Congress appropriates spending, year by year, one year at a time. Entitlement spending and tax cuts, on the other hand, often go on and on and on forever unless Congress takes an affirmative action to trim them back. To rely on budget processes, changes that promise to constrain appropriations in future years to pay for tax cuts or entitlement expenses, is like buying an unaffordable new house based on the expectation that a person is going to get a substantial raise each and every year that follows. It might work. But then again, Mr. President, it might not. Most times, it has not worked. We should not base our Nation's fiscal policy on such promises and guesswork. Under the current law, rewards follow responsibility. The law holds appropriated spending responsible for breaches of the appropriation caps, and holds legislation under the jurisdiction of authorizing committees responsible for entitlement and tax law changes that do not pay for themselves. Allowing committees of the Congress other than the Appropriations Committee to get credit for reducing appropriation caps will encourage those committees to look to the appropriated spending rather than to themselves for deficit reduction. The law links deficit reduction burdens and benefits, and we should keep it that way. A few days ago, the House Budget Committee reported out a piece of legislation that would have allowed future reductions in appropriation caps to be counted to offset the tax cuts, those tax cuts that Senator Byrd outlined just a few moments ago. My concern is, what is to stop the House Budget Committee from including such a provision in the budget resolution that they may report next year? The amendment by the Senator from West Virginia would ensure--I repeat, Mr. President--the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia would ensure that they could not profit from such a provision that on its face is so phony. The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia would help to ensure that any savings achieved from lowering the appropriation caps would go to deficit reductions. We all know now and we all understand that that was the reason for the caps in the first instance, to try to bring sanity to the fiscal irresponsibility we have experienced for far too long. The appropriation caps under this bill would go to deficit reduction. I suggest that that is the way it should be. The amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia simply would make it more difficult to alter the existing law. He would preserve the pay-as-you-go procedure that has served Congress so well over the past few years, and make sure they are effective in the future. Mr. President, I urge Senators to support the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from Indiana outlining the procedures which are strictly in the order of what the agreement has been. Since I know of no person on the floor ready to offer an amendment, except possibly the Senator from Washington, I think it would not be out of order if we would proceed at this time if anybody wishes to offer amendments in order to receive priority before 10 o'clock. In lieu of that, I think it would be in order for statements to be made for whatever purposes. With that, I yield the floor, as I see my colleague from the State of Washington. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Let me see if I can begin to clear up some of the very legitimate questions that have been asked by the Senator from North Dakota and others. I believe, with all good intentions, there has been some confusion here. And that is the problem that occurs when we have something that comes up on Monday and, boom, a cloture motion is filed against it, then the we find the bill's language locked in concrete, chiseled in stone. Certainly, we have made some improvements on some problems in the Dole substitute. And some of the amendments that have been addressed here are likely to be accepted and to improve things. I want to go to the heart of the matter that has been brought up by the Senator from North Dakota. I think the problem is that there has been a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding on the bill itself. I refer to the Dole substitute bill, page 5, lines 1 through 6. ``The term `Item' means--(A) with respect to an appropriations measure''. And down below on line (B), ``with respect to an authorization measure.'' Now, many of the questions that the Senator from North Dakota phrased and were answered by our colleague from Indiana mixed back and forth the difference between appropriations and authorizations. I simply believe that--and I am not for a moment indicating that the Senator from Indiana is trying to mislead anyone at all--I just think there is a very legitimate difference of opinion. I suspect, when this is looked at in retrospect, most of the legal scholars will agree with the thrust being made by the Senator from North Dakota, which I think has not been fully appreciated. If I can, let me dwell on that a little further. The Dole substitute would require all appropriations items to be enrolled separately. Now, remember, that is enrolled separately. Among the items that it would require to be separately enrolled are appropriations for programs that many consider entitlements. Congress funds these entitlements through appropriations acts. With respect to these appropriated entitlements, the President will be able to veto not only new entitlements, but also the funding for our existing entitlement commitments. And I think we should make that abundantly clear and have an understanding of that. If we want to do that, fine.

Mr. EXON. Certainly.

Mr. EXON. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. And I have seen your list. It is right down the line.

Mr. EXON. Absolutely.

Mr. EXON. He cannot do it.