J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I say to my friend from North Dakota, again, I am not sure that that is the intent of the Dole substitute, but that is what the Dole substitute does.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Indiana. We are talking about fine legal points here that, unfortunately, may have to be decided by the courts at some time. But let me give you some examples about annual appropriations bills and the enrollment process that has to do with that. As the Senator from North Dakota has said, the President, under this bill, could veto the Commodity Credit Corporation fund, the Food Stamp Program, the Child Nutrition Program, the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, Federal unemployment benefits, Medicaid, Federal payments to railroad retirement, and a number of other programs under which individuals have legal rights to obtain benefits. With regard to these programs, the separate enrollment procedure--now we are going back to that dog in the manger again--the separate enrollment procedure would allow the President to veto the funding for our existing commitments. So the President could veto the funding, let us say, for Medicaid. I do not think he probably would, either, but it is a case in point, and only one. But what would the beneficiaries then do? Well, they, of course, would go to court and get an order getting the Government to pay their benefits. This money would then flow from the claims and judgments act. As a result, we would save no money whatsoever and indeed, probably spend much more on legal expenses. All that I think it points out is how poorly drawn this proposition is. It should be given much more consideration. Rather than rushing the Dole substitute through as a solution to all of our problems we should go to a simplified, direct procedure such as the Daschle amendment, which is S. 14. Both S. 4, and the enhanced rescission bill that the House of Representatives has already passed, are better drawn and preferable to the Dole substitute we are debating here. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. EXON. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia 3 minutes.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Let me sum up, if I might, in the remaining time. I will simply say, Mr. President, that although I did not support S. 4 in its original form--which was very much akin to what came over from the House of Representatives--I would be far more satisfied with S. 4 in its original form than with what has been put together in a hasty fashion, as demonstrated by the lengthy debate and many amendments that have been accepted with regard to the Dole substitute. I will simply say that I suspect that there are few times in the history of the Congress of the United States when the Congress of the United States is about to give, in rather shabby fashion, give away the prerogative to the President of the United States. Maybe if this passes, if the Dole amendment finally passes, we could clean it up in some legitimate way in the conference between the House and Senate. I simply say I cannot understand how any true conservative could want to give away, to the extent that the Dole substitute as originally proposed would give away the authority of the powers of the purse, to the President of the United States, whoever that President is. Let me sum up some of the advantages of the substitute offered by Senator Daschle, which is the original Domenici-Exon bill. Our substitute allows the President to veto part of an appropriation, giving the President added flexibility. Theirs does not. Our substitute allows the President to veto pork that is caused by colloquies on the floor and other mechanisms, including measures put in the conference report but not forwarded into the language in the statutes. Theirs does not. Our substitute has a clear, broad definition of tax loopholes that plainly covers all tax loopholes. The Dole substitute would allow the President to veto the existing obligation of appropriated entitlements, leading to legal challenges. The Dole substitute raises constitutional concerns that do not exist with regard to our substitute. And our substitute provides an orderly procedure. No 10,000 bills, no new burdens on the President or the Congress or the Members of the Congress who have to sign those bills, in contrast to the Dole substitute which would make a hash of the legislative process. In closing--and I ask for an additional 1 minute if necessary----

Mr. EXON. In closing, let me say that there are so many things that have not been considered. In a short period of time, we have come up with so many shortcomings. One of the most important, I think, was demonstrated by Senator Nunn when he talked about the action of the Senate not long ago with regard to the issue in Somalia. Here was a situation where we felt that Somalia should be put behind us. We put in an appropriation and we said that appropriation could be used, but the troops had to be removed by a specific date--let us say April 1, I do not remember what the date was. Under the Dole substitute, the President could have simply kept the money, vetoed out the April 1 date, and all of the outreach and control that legitimately is found in the legislative body would go out the window. I do not think that is what they intended, but that is what happens when you put together legislation in the fashion that this was put together. I hope we approve the Daschle substitute. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. I would certainly say, at least one of the principles in this--I understood there was a goal to conclude this today. But I believe Senator Byrd is absolutely correct that when he did not object earlier, the gentlemen's agreement was we would finish it this week. So I would say, despite any agreement that might have been entered into by the majority leader and minority leader, that did not receive unanimous consent and therefore would not be binding. Is that right?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, before we call for that, could we maybe make an agreement here on what we have left, I ask my friend?

Mr. EXON. According to my list, we have the amendment left by Senator Byrd, which we talked about a few moments ago. He reserves the right to call that up sometime today or tomorrow. We have the amendment offered by----

Mr. EXON. Is that right?

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I call for regular order with regard to the Levin amendment No. 406. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that this amendment addresses the enrollment restrictions and limitations. I notice the presence of the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, on the floor. I know that he wishes to address this amendment. I also note that the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Levin, is here, and I believe Senator Murkowski, who is a cosponsor, was here a moment ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. I request that be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. EXON. The Abraham amendment is being temporarily laid aside at the request of myself on behalf of Senator Byrd, who wishes to address it before it is voted on. I suspect that we will have a chance to voice vote that, but there has been a request on this side to address it before we proceed.

Mr. EXON. We will certainly tell the Senator from West Virginia what is taking place so that he will be fully advised. My conversations with him indicated that he may want to make some comments with regard to the amendment that is going to be discussed by our colleague from Utah. Also, the Senator from Arizona is correct. I believe very likely we could agree to the Abraham amendment that Senator Byrd wanted to talk on. I do not know what his position is. But he wants to talk on it. After we dispose in some fashion of the Hatch amendment, the only thing, as the Senator from Arizona said, that I know of is the Abraham amendment that Senator Byrd wishes to address, and the Byrd amendment itself. I think that indicates that we have moved in great fashion by working together in moving this. We are much further along than most of us thought we would be on Tuesday last.

Mr. EXON. Senator Abraham told me about one-half hour ago that he, by necessity, had to leave the Hill and would be back in about an hour, which I thought would be around 2 o'clock or something like that. He asked me to tell Senator Byrd that he was sorry that he had to leave. So we will pass along the information to Senator Byrd on the fact that Senator Abraham will be back around 2, and whether or not he wants to come up and talk about the next business, the amendment by the Senator from Utah, and we will see that all parties are properly advised. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, before my good friend and colleague leaves the floor--I know he has another matter--I just wanted to make a few brief comments. First, that I have had a very close relationship with the chairman of the Budget Committee for a long, long time. Although we do not always agree, we have a good working relationship that is going to carry through in the future. I hope to try to solve the mammoth problems that are going to be pushed off on the Budget Committee, and to help where the decisions have to be made. I have listened to the statements he made in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia. I listened very carefully to the quotes he made by the former CBO Director, Dr. Reischauer, who is no longer there. We have a new CBO Director now. I agree, I think, almost word for word, paragraph by paragraph, point by point, with everything the chairman of the Budget Committee said. Then why are we arguing? We are arguing because the chairman seems to feel that just because we have a policy that has existed in the past, that that is going to continue to be the policy in the future. Senator Byrd, I think, has no quarrel with what the Senator from New Mexico is saying. We have no quarrel with what Senator Domenici says he intends to do. Senator Byrd has a quarrel, and I have a quarrel, and I think you, Senator Domenici, have a quarrel with what is going on on the other side of the Hill. What we are trying to do--since this measure that is going to pass is going to be the law of the land--is to put into place, in law, once again now, provisions to tell the House of Representatives that we are not going to allow them to continue what they are doing, which is in violation of what Dr. Reischauer previously said. I think we all agree. I think what we are simply saying to my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is if you agree with Dr. Reischauer, then you agree with Senator Byrd. The only disagreement you seem to have is that it is redundant and it is not necessary. I would simply say that I really think this amendment is obviously necessary, given what is going on in the House of Representatives today in that Budget Committee. And we have a new director over there of the Congressional Budget Office. What is to stop the Budget Committee from telling the Congressional Budget Office to do differently in the budget resolution than what Dr. Reischauer had indicated earlier, as was extensively and accurately quoted by the chairman of the Budget Committee. I would simply say that I believe we are talking by each other as we do often times here in this body. As near as I can tell, Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Byrd, myself, and many others all agree. And if the only reason not to adopt the Byrd amendment is because it is redundant, then this is the time when redundancy is vitally important because of what is going on in the House of Representatives. The House's recent actions are anything but redundant with regard to what we have done in the past. All Senator Byrd is trying to do with this amendment--and I am surprised that there is opposition on the other side--is to say, let us keep doing business the same way we have done it in the past. Some people say you do not have to say that because it is redundant. Well, just look at what is going on in the House of Representatives today. They are making cuts in vital programs for infants and children and mothers and senior citizens, and all the underprivileged of the Nation, for the purpose of putting in a tax cut that benefits primarily the wealthiest citizens of this Nation. They are only going to be able to do that over there that we have followed in the past. What Senator Byrd is simply saying, I say to my colleagues on both sides of this aisle, is let us not fool ourselves again. Let us not go down that path that we did in the 1980's by charting new courses and going through rosy scenarios and inventing systems such as what--I have always called the laughable curve. I think it was really the Laffer curve, but I called it the laughable curve. The laughable curve in the 1980's is back with us once again under a different name. It is rosy scenario. It is changing the rules. All that Senator Byrd's amendment tries to do, and I think the chairman of the Budget Committee agrees with it, if I heard him correctly--and he is a very honest and honorable man--is let us leave things the way they are. In this very important new piece of legislation that in some form is going to become the law of the land let us say once again that we are not going to be carried off course, and that we are going to be using the cuts that we make to reduce the deficit and not to irresponsibly, irrationaly, and unreasonably make tax cuts that even the Senate committees run by Republicans on this side of the Capitol, indicate do not make sense. The Byrd amendment makes sense. It is in keeping with what I think is the feeling of my chairman, Senator Domenici of the Budget Committee. I cannot see why we are arguing about something that we seem to all agree with. If the only argument not to accept the Byrd amendment is that it is redundant, then it is the type of redundancy, Mr. President, that we need. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I understand that the Democratic leader would like to speak on this amendment.

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, under the unanimous-consent agreement, I understand the Senator from Nebraska has been allotted 5 minutes. I would like to take that 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will vote for final passage of the Dole line-item veto substitute. As my colleagues well know, I would have preferred another version of the legislation, namely S. 14, which I cosponsored with the distinguished Republican and Democratic leaders and the chairman of the Budget Committee. However, S. 14 was not meant to be. We had a vote earlier today to substitute S. 14 for the so-called Dole compromise. Unfortunately, S. 14's supporters, of which I am one, did not carry the day. All vote tallies aside, I still believe with all of my heart that S. 14 is a better bill. As one of its architects, I can say that it is a cleaner bill. It is constructed on sound footing. It is a simple bill without the unwieldy contraptions that complicate and weigh down the Dole substitute. It is a bill that can weather a constitutional challenge. Yet, I tell my colleagues today that I will vote for the Dole substitute. I will vote for it as our only chance to win a line-item veto. I will vote for it as a last resort to cut pork-barrel spending. Mr. President, I can support this bill because it is much improved over its original version. In spite of the haste and pressure to ram this legislation through this body, the Senate worked its will in a number of areas. Through the amendment process, we made this a better bill. We made it a bill that Senators from both sides of the aisle can support-- albeit reluctantly. I am pleased to see that many of the concepts that I proposed in S.14 have found their way into the Dole substitute. The bill now contains a sunset provision. It now addresses the critical areas of targeted tax benefits and entitlements. However, we are not yet in the winner's circle. We will have enormous hurdles to clear in conference. I hope they are not insurmountable. I hope that reason and bipartisanship can conspire to produce a conference report that the Senate can support, and as a Senate conferee one that I can support when we take the final action on this proposition when the conference report is returned to the Senate. In conclusion, this is not an enthusiastic vote I cast today. I have listened with great interest to my colleagues who oppose this bill. I share many of their concerns. I share many of their suspicions. I am still leery of the cumbersome separate enrollment process that was tossed into the pot at the last minute. I wish we could have had a thorough hearing on it. Separate enrollment could turn into the dreaded hydra of which Senator Byrd warns. There are also serious constitutional considerations which I believe could haunt us for years to come. Fortunately, we now revisit this legislation in 5 years. But, Mr. President, I will vote for this bill because it's our only hope for a line-item veto. There is a certain irony not lost on this Senator. Just as the President often has to accept the bad with the good in a critical spending bill, so must I accept the bad with the good in this bill. Mr. President, I wish we did not need a line-item veto at all. I wish Congress had the raw courage to make the sound fiscal decisions that would make this bill unnecessary. But a rising deficit and a nearly $5 trillion debt underscores the necessity of this legislation. No, this bill will not balance the budget. No, this bill will not eradicate the national debt. No, this bill will not solve all of our problems with a wave of the hand. No, this legislation is not perfect, but it is one important step to blot out the red ink. It is one important step to put an end to out-of-control spending that is bleeding future generations dry. It is one important step to change the Nation's wasteful spending habits. And that is how we will solve our Nation's fiscal ills--one step at a time. I ask my colleagues to join with me today and take this first crucial step. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in order to conserve time as much as possible and since we have only 10 minutes left, I will be glad to interrupt my remarks to accommodate any Senator with regard to bringing up a measure before 10. If not, I thought I would make some statements that I have with regard to the matter that we will be going into controlled time on at 10 o'clock. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Daschle substitute and urge my colleagues to support it as well. Earlier this year I joined with Senator Domenici in introducing S. 14, which then enjoyed the support of the majority leader, the minority leader, and, of course, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. I believed then and I continue to believe now that S. 14, or a similarly crafted bill, would be the best course of action. S. 14 is now effectively before the Senate in the form of the Daschle amendment. As Senators know all too well, passing a line-item veto is only the beginning and not the end of the debate. We will need to go to conference with the other body, which has already passed a line-item veto bill in the form of an enhanced rescission bill quite similar to S. 4. The facts are, the Daschle substitute essentially is S. 14 and certainly is, in my view, far superior to the Dole substitute proposal that is before the body. Unlike the Dole proposal, it was not crafted in a matter of a day or two. Unlike the Dole proposal, it has seen the light of day and was not devised primarily as a means to obtain party unity. In fact, S. 14 enjoyed bipartisan support from the very beginning, and it thus represents the middle ground in this very important debate. In my statement yesterday, I outlined some of the concerns that I have with the Dole substitute. These concerns remain today. Those of you who may have been listening last night heard an excellent presentation from Senator Levin about the difficulties that will be faced by the cutting and slicing of the bills that will be required by the Dole proposal. Although it may sound rational on paper, we do not know how it will work in reality. No Senator should vote on these proposals without hearing or reading Senator Nunn's Senate speech of last night. We all know Sam Nunn, his integrity, his courtesy, his understanding of the issues. And we should at least listen to him. In addition, the Dole proposal raises serious constitutional questions. There are scholars who come out on each side of the issue, yet no one can deny that the question will not be fully resolved until the proposal is reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I have long supported the idea of giving our President the line-item veto power. We should do so in a manner that will most likely stand the test of constitutionality. I have been in the Senate for over 16 years, and this is the closest we have come yet to actually passing a line- item veto. We should do the job right. Mr. President, we should do so in a way that effectively covers special tax breaks and tax loopholes. We have to look at all of the pieces of our budget if we are going to solve deficits of over $200 billion annually, feeding the national debt that is rapidly rising, which is now at or near $5 trillion. The Daschle amendment will address tax loopholes and will assure that tax giveaways receive the same scrutiny as pork in our appropriations bills. By covering more of the budget, the Daschle substitute will be a more effective tool to help our President bring some fiscal sanity to the Government. The Daschle substitute will allow the President to scale back on appropriations, while the Dole substitute does not. Yesterday I talked about the dilemma that the President faces in signing a bill that on the whole is good but includes some bad parts. The same view would apply to individual amounts as well. I have found the Dole substitute to be an honest proposal that merits serious consideration. It took a step in the right direction by including some special tax provisions. I am pleased that the majority accepted my lockbox amendment. The Dole bill includes a sunset provision and will require Congress to review the bill in the year 2000. In many ways the Dole substitute, as amended, comes a long ways toward S. 14. Yet I remain disappointed by the process which has been followed to bring the Dole substitute to the floor. Bipartisan cooperation was cast aside in the name of party unity. Such action is an ill wind for future cooperation in the U.S. Senate. The Daschle substitute is a reasonable and responsible solution to pork-barrel spending. The Dole proposal, with all of its questions, remains at best a shot in the dark. It might hit the mark. It might not. The Daschle substitute will work. Once again, I urge its adoption. Amendment No. 348 to Amendment No. 347

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

Mr. EXON. I missed that. I think that is agreed to also. We are pretty close.

Mr. EXON. And as far as I know, that is all I have on my list. Does the Senator have anything else?