J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Indiana, the floor manager, for his help on this. Mr. President, I believe we have made really good progress. Last night and so far today, we have either adopted or tabled seven amendments. The majority has inquired with regard to three amendments on their side, and we are attempting to work those out. Beyond that, I think that there are in the neighborhood of only 8 or 10 amendments left that I know of here. So that is excellent progress. I would simply take this opportunity to once again state what I stated this morning. And after my statement this morning, we had some good cooperation. So I would simply alert all Senators to the fact that we are now moving very, very aggressively and very, very quickly. I urge Senators who have amendments that are outstanding or, if there are any--hopefully, there are not--if there are any we do not know about, I think this would be an excellent time for Senators to come to the floor and offer any amendments that any Senator on either side of the aisle has on the measure before us so we can keep the momentum going and not get slowed down to where we sag back into situations that we have been in before on bills where we think we are moving and all at once we slow down and seemingly never get started up again. So I certainly urge any Senator, this is a very, very good time to come forward with the 8 or 10 amendments that we believe are serious amendments that are pending. This would be a good time to move on them. Certainly, it is not a time to go to third reading, but this is a time I think for everybody to understand that, with a little cooperation, we can stay away from any consideration of a cloture vote. As far as I know, the cloture vote has not been vitiated yet, has it?

Mr. EXON. I am advised that the majority leader has not vitiated the cloture vote. That is currently scheduled, I believe, for 5 p.m. I believe we will not need that if the feeling of the majority leader is that we are making sufficient progress. But that is a possibility. So since it is now about 3:22, this would be a excellent time for someone to come over and offer an amendment. I would be very glad to have someone show up. I have been advised I was wrong on the 5 o'clock time. The 5 o'clock time was to have been for 1 hour of debate and the vote was scheduled to be at 6 o'clock, as presently scheduled. We hope somewhere along the line in the next hour or so we might have a chance of going to the majority leader and having that vitiated. But I think it all depends. The first thing the majority leader is going to ask is, ``Well, how are you coming along?'' I suspect my friend from Indiana would agree with that. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I think we can assure the Senator that it is the Exon lockbox amendment.

Mr. EXON. With that, I would like to call up that amendment for a vote at this time. We have finished debate on the amendment. I believe it has been cleared on each side.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for an excellent amendment, well presented. I am very pleased that it has been accepted on the other side. We are moving along very well now. As I understand it, from conversations I have just had with the Senator from Indiana, the manager of the bill on the other side of the aisle, the lockbox amendment that I presented last night has now been cleared on each side. What is the pending business, Mr. President?

Mr. EXON. Please proceed. I was not aware that this had been cleared now. I have no objection.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senator from Michigan has brought up this particular amendment, which we would like to take a further look at. Senator Byrd is a recognized constitutional scholar, as he demonstrated, I think, very vividly yesterday, and I am sure he will have some questions or comments on this. I would simply like to say, though, that I am particularly happy that this has been brought up, because it allows me to raise some questions as to why in the world, with all of the other problems that we have had over the years in enacting some kind of an enhanced rescission or expedited rescission or line-item veto--call it what you will, we all know what we are talking about--why in the world are we bringing up matters that I think are extraneous, that I think are not necessary. I think this whole enrollment proposition is ludicrous from the standpoint that I believe, as much as anything else, it could cause us a great deal of difficulty with regard to the courts. I still do not understand why, all of the sudden, after S. 4 and S. 14, the two mainline bills in this regard were considered and introduced in the Senate, hearings held on them in the Budget Committee, in the Governmental Affairs Committee, and talk back and forth about which should be advanced and which should not be and in what form--at least in the Budget Committee a number of amendments were offered on a whole series of issues--but never once to my knowledge in any of the committees of the Congress of the United States this year did we ever touch on or think about this enrollment mechanism that has come out of nowhere to be one of the central parts of the bill finally introduced by the majority leader and, as near as I can tell, endorsed and backed by all 54 Members of the Senate on the Republican side of the aisle. I would simply also point out that this enrollment mechanism, regardless of its merits or lack thereof, can be agreed by all to be cumbersome, to be laborious, and I do not see the need for it. Certainly, the House of Representatives did not think this was important. We, in the U.S. Senate, did not think it was important when we introduced S. 4 and S. 14 and had all those hearings. It was not in the Contract With America, as far as I know. And those who wrote and signed the Contract With America, of which the line-item veto or enhanced rescissions or expedited rescissions, call it what you will, they did not think it was important. It comes over to the U.S. Senate and out of the blue comes this very difficult system that I thought that my friend from Indiana did a pretty good job of trying to explain yesterday. He went to the enrolling clerk. And he said he can do this with computers and it is going to be very easy to do. Basically, again, I am not a constitutional scholar, I am not even a lawyer, but I listened with great interest to the presentation of one who is, Senator Byrd. When I was listening to Senator Byrd yesterday, I thought, you know, thank God for the people of West Virginia sending us a man of the talent and the intellect with regard to the constitutional problems that might come up. Basically, it seems to me, if you pass a bill in the U.S. Senate and then you present that to the President of the United States in a different form, at least you are asking for some problems from the courts. It might well be that the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Michigan might clarify that somewhat. I would be very much interested in what Senator Byrd and others that have studied this from a constitutional standpoint might feel about it. Suffice it to say, it seems to me, Madam President, that the fact that we seem to be somewhat concerned about this, at least some on that side of the aisle must be somewhat concerned because they have talked about it a great deal, and now we have an amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan that tries to clarify it a little bit more, why clarify it? Why do we not pass the measure before us, which is termed the majority leader's bill or the revision of S. 4? Why do we not pass it and go back to the simple, direct, and understandable form that we had in this regard in S. 4, in S. 14, and in the measure that came over from the House of Representatives? Why do we not go back to that which I do not believe anybody has any objection to if they are for this? I would think that Senator McCain, the original proponent of S. 4, would feel that he had thought this through quite carefully. I suspect that Senator Domenici and this Senator, who combined as original cosponsors of S. 14 and thought about it, we thought that the more simple form with regard to how this was presented to the President would be in the line-item form that Senator Thurmond talked about that he used as Governor, as this Senator has talked about from the time that I have served as Governor of Nebraska. I do not know why that kind of a form and process is not good if we are going to pass some kind of a line-item veto or, once again, call it what you will. So I simply say that I thank my distinguished friend from Michigan for advancing this thought. But it gave this Senator an opportunity to say, why are we going through all these exercises in futility, when it would seem to me that the main sponsors of the amendment that was offered by the majority leader should recognize it would be to the good of all of us who would like to see some type of a line-item veto passed to go back to a sounder footing that I think we would have both from the standpoint of expediting the process challenged constitutionally on this particular item, and go back to the way line-item vetoes have generally been handled in the past without some of these special, complicated enrollment procedures that have been thrown into this measure at the last minute for reasons that I do not begin to understand? With that, I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I just remind my colleague that the Presiding Officer still has the right to decide the floor. Madam President, I have been listening with great interest to my friend and colleague from Indiana. I would remind him that before he and many other people came to the Senate, former Senator Quayle, former Vice President Quayle, and this Senator, were up appealing on the floor of the U.S. Senate along the same identical lines that the Senator from Indiana just mentioned. I listened very much to his remarks in response to the suggestion that I had made, but maybe he did not understand what I was talking about. There is nothing wrong in using computers to try to ferret out so that all--including Members of the House, Members of the Senate, the President pro tempore of the Senate, who has to sign each one of these measures, the Speaker of the House--so that he or she is fully informed, and the President of the United States, so that they are fully informed. So we are not against the use of computers to furnish information and break down the figure. There is nothing wrong with that. Much of the excellent remarks that were just made by my colleague from Indiana emphasized the need for a line- call it what you will. So I do not think that is the debate that I was trying to enter into, nor do I believe that is the intent of the amendment offered, that we are now on, by the Senator from Michigan. What we are talking about is whether or not it is wise to use the enrollment procedure that has come out of the blue. I agree with my friend from Indiana. This is new. It has not been talked about before. It has been suggested by Senator Hollings, it has been suggested by Senator Biden, as I understand it, and possibly others. But it was just one suggestion that was made somewhere down the line. I happen to believe that the House of Representatives, which studied this matter, did not feel that the bill was unworkable unless we used the enrollment process that suddenly has been instigated here as a key part. I do not believe that the Budget Committee or the other committee of jurisdiction that considered this matter felt that the measures that were advanced were inoperative or had not been thought through because we did not come through this magical enrollment procedure. I will simply say that most of the remarks that the Senator from Indiana made were with regard to the merits and why we need a line-item veto of some type. He did not, I think, adequately address the concerns that I was trying to bring up with regard to this enrollment process that I think could cause us some serious constitutional problems, those of us who are now for and have been for a line-item veto of some type for a long, long time. So I simply want to focus, if it was not understood, on the concerns of this Senator with regard to this cumbersome procedure to carry out the line-item veto. For the life of me, I have not been able to understand yet how the President pro tempore and the Speaker and the President can carry out their duties by signing something that is on a computer. There is nothing wrong with using a computer to make sure that everybody knows what every item is from 1 cent to trillions of dollars. But I do not believe that that particular enrollment process is the key to success at all. In fact, I think that kind of a process, as I say once again, could cause us some considerable difficulties in the courts. No one knows how they would decide that. I simply wanted to make it clear, Madam President, that I was not in conflict with what the Senator from Indiana said with regard to the necessity for a line-item veto. I am trying to focus on the fact that I believe that the enrollment process is also causing some concern to Senators on that side of the aisle, as evidenced by the fact that the Senator from Michigan must have some concerns about it or he would not be in here offering his amendment. So I simply warn and would like to have some consideration given to why can we not pass a cleaner, simpler, more direct line-item veto, a la what was sent to us by the House, a la what was incorporated in S. 4, what was incorporated in S. 14? I do not believe that all of the people that touched those different propositions had not thought through the process to the point that all is forsaken unless somehow we accept this concept that has been brought into this body for the first time, as I know it, under the present consideration of a line-item veto or something akin to it in this current session of the Congress. I happen to think that it is ill-advised to go that far, but the majority has a right to work its will. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Ohio for offering the amendment. The amendment provides for a process for periodically assessing the effects of tax loopholes and requires that all new loopholes have sunset provisions. As I understand it, the language of his amendment has been negotiated, it has been agreed to on both sides. I urge its adoption at this time.

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. the record show that the pending Abraham amendment was set aside in order to consider the Glenn amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the Abraham amendment be set aside.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Michigan. This amendment only makes good sense. It would keep rescissions and cancellations of spending from being transmitted to the Presidents as separate items. Thus it would make it more difficult for the President to veto items that help to reduce the deficit. As well, the amendment would ensure that limitations on spending stay together with the spending provisions that they limit. To do otherwise would allow the kind of nonsensical divisions of items that the Senator from Michigan so eloquently described yesterday evening. I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to join in voting for it when it does come to a vote. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I wish to make some brief remarks with regard to support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan, but at this time I yield the floor because I believe Senator Byrd would like to make some remarks not on the matter at hand.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to compliment my friend and great colleague from the State of Georgia. I think that all Members who have known and worked with Sam Nunn know that he is historically one of the most thoughtful Members of our body, and I think that that statement would be agreed to by most people on either side of the aisle. Senator Nunn, unfortunately, brought forth his carefully thought out, well-researched speech tonight to a U.S. Senate where only four Members were on the floor. It was after it had been announced that we would have no more votes. Therefore, as of this moment there are many people outside of the U.S. Senate who know much more about the reasoned arguments made by the Senator from Georgia than is known by most U.S. Senators. For the most part, I suspect that as usual, when we announce there are no more votes, there are not a large number of Senators in their offices listening to the debate, as is frequently the case. I just wish that every Senator would read the statements made by the Senator from Georgia tonight, tomorrow. I do not know how much press we will pick up on the statements made by the Senator from Georgia. I am looking in the press gallery and I see one person, maybe somebody else is hiding up there. I suppose that maybe some of the press may be watching on television, but unfortunately the tremendously throughtful remarks of the Senator from Georgia which were critical of what we are trying to do here may fall on deaf ears. I have been closely associated with him for the 16 years that I have been here. I sit next to him on the Armed Services Committee. I simply know that Sam Nunn takes the time and effort to do the research as he has done on this measure. I hope it will give some pause and some consideration to those that may not have studied the proposition, clearly, as much as Mr. Nunn of Georgia. I think that the Senator from Georgia clearly was not trying to pick on anyone. Clearly, he was not trying to destroy anything. Clearly, as is his nature, Sam Nunn was saying to Members, ``Stop, look, and listen before you leap at the proposal offered by the majority leader, without hearing any discussion.'' What Senator Nunn brought out are some shortcomings in the measure that I think we should take a look at. There might not be total agreement on every point that Senator Nunn made. But I notice that during his discussion, the main argument that was made, some of the salient points he was making, was an amendment to the Dole substitute that was not in the Dole substitute, probably never had been thought of by those who put the Dole substitute together. In fact, they were offered by the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin. I just hope, therefore, that we would not jump to a conclusion that Sam Nunn does not care. I think no one could say that with any great understanding. No one has said that yet. I think that Sam Nunn has made a very excellent point. I think he summed it up best by saying he supported the substitute amendment that is basically S. 14, the Domenici-Exon proposal that has been made, and will be offered by the democratic leader in just a few moments. We will have an opportunity to vote on that. It has been said that Senator Domenici no longer supports the Domenici-Exon proposal. Well, that might be. But I believe that after listening to the remarks by a man whom Senator Domenici has stood with time after time after time on many matters, including matters to try and straighten out the fiscal policies of the United States of America, I am not sure that Senator Domenici would dismiss out of hand the Domenici-Exon proposal. A commitment has been made by the Republicans meeting in caucus and everything necessary was done to get the commitment of 54 solid votes--at least on cloture, and I assume 54 votes for the measure. But perhaps my colleagues have listened to some of the debate that has been going on, if we would listen to Sam Nunn, if we would reflect on the thoughtful comments that have been made by Senator Byrd, whom most would recognize as a scholar and a historian and certainly a very well read and accepted critic and expert on the Constitution, we can still correct ourselves. I hope that at least with the actions that have taken place today we would take another look at the Democratic leader's proposal that is back to Domenici-Exon--maybe it is only the Exon amendment now, but I still think it is a good amendment, worthy of consideration. I would also add that I think it is very clear Senator Nunn was supportive of either Domenici-Exon, which was S. 14, and prefers S. 4, which was the McCain amendment to the separate enrollment substitute. I listened very carefully to Senator Nunn, and while Senator Nunn clearly favored the Domenici-Exon S. 14, he clearly indicated that the McCain S. 4 was far superior, far, far superior to the substitute amendment that was offered by the majority leader. So I think Sam Nunn, as usual, was trying to say let us stop and think about this. This new gimmick that I have criticized and Senator Byrd has criticized and others have criticized, known as the enrollment procedure, is an absolute disaster, if people will stop and take a look at it, they will see it is a disaster for lots of reasons. I do not think there is any question but that if we incorporate the enrolling clerk in this measure we will open ourselves up to a challenge by the courts that might sink a line-item veto that this Senator has been working on for a long, long time--as I said earlier, prior to the time that many people came here. I believe one of the first times that I remember doing anything about this was in consort with then Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana. Dan Quayle, of course, was later the Vice President of the United States. I simply say it is not fair, in my opinion, since I know something about the Mattingly amendment, to say that the Mattingly amendment was essentially the same thing as the enrollment today. The Mattingly amendment clearly called for a division by section and paragraph. In contrast, the Dole substitute amendment calls for a division by section, paragraph, allocation, or suballocation. The Dole amendment calls for far greater detail than the Mattingly amendment, and therein lies some of the concern, and I think legitimate concern, offered by our distinguished colleague from Georgia. One other point or two. It has been said that, oh, the House of Representatives would never go for anything like Domenici-Exon, and maybe now just Exon, about to become Daschle-Exon--call it what you will, they would never H.R. 4600 passed July 14, 1994, on a vote of 342 to 69 in the House of Representatives was essentially the Domenici-Exon bill, the Exon bill, the Daschle-Exon bill, the bill that Senator Nunn recommends that we take a look at. That happened last year. Now, it is true that there has been a change in the makeup of the House of Representatives since that time but not enough of a change to make that much difference in the vote that I have just outlined. I just hope that we could also understand--and I congratulate my friend from Arizona. It is true that he has been here time and time again trying to point out pork barrel spending. I salute him for that, and many, many times I have been with him, and I think that I have cosponsored some of these measures with him. And he said but he has not gotten anywhere, and that is why you have to have more than a majority vote as provided in the bill that I will refer to as S. 14 so I will not have to mention all those names over and over again. Well, I can understand his frustration and I share in that frustration. I would simply say to Members of the Senate that S. 14 does not call for one Member of the Senate--and as big and as important as we sometimes think we are, to begin to wield the same influence and the spotlight as the President. We do not have the bully pulpit of the President of the United States. So I think I should assure all that if the President of the United States under S. 14 would highlight, would veto, call something pork and send it back over here, with that kind of a spotlight shining on it, rather than the spotlight of only one or two or three Senators spotlighting it. It would be well known around the United States of America, and I daresay that with the spotlight of the President of the United States exercising a veto as in S. 14, I do not think there would be the courage or lack thereof in this Chamber or the House of Representatives to override it as easily as they have in the past. I would simply say, Mr. President, in closing that we can still have a good line-item veto, but I share and have spoken previously on what Senator Nunn outlined again tonight. Some of the things that Senator Nunn outlined would be a disaster for the United States of America. Here a measure came forth out of a Republican caucus without any consultation with Democrats, without any hearings, without ever being discussed in the committees let alone holding hearings. It is brought forth, it has been draped in a mantle of gold that cannot be touched because, if you touch it, you scratch it, and if you scratch it, you destroy it. I do not think that is a very good way to legislate in the United States of America. There is a better way, and the better way that I hope we will take another look at is in the form of the amendment that the Democratic leader will be introducing tonight. I do not think the Democratic leader is going to say this is sacrosanct. I do not think the Democratic leader is going to say that there can be no changes made in it. I believe the Democratic leader will outline something tonight that I hope we will further discuss tomorrow and invite the Republicans in to see if we can come up with something that is more workable, that overcomes the constitutional objections that Senator Byrd, a constitutional expert, has outlined; to overcome the objections and concerns that have been highlighted by the Senator from Georgia. We can work it out. I think there is no pride in authorship. We are trying to pass a line-item veto that, as best as we can fashion it, can reduce unnecessary pork-barrel spending. I think that is what the Republicans want to do, and I think that is what the Democrats want to do. But I, for one, have been raising concerns about the process, concerns about the majority leader and his actions of bringing forth this that had never been discussed with the Democrats, never had any hearings held on it, and immediately to file a cloture petition on it. That is a railroading type of thing that I think does not bode well for what is generally considered to be the most deliberative body in the world. Now, rather than being accused of being too deliberative and too talkative, I yield the floor and hope, if there is no one seeking recognition, the Democratic leader could rise to introduce the bill that he is going to introduce, and call it what you will. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit the use of cuts in the appropriation caps to pay for tax cuts. The Senator from West Virginia has asked me to call up this amendment to ensure that it will qualify for consideration under the unanimous consent agreement governing consideration of the main proposition before us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that now that this has been called up, the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on another matter, on behalf of the senior Senator the clerk has at the desk, and ask for its report.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am going to be very brief because we have been at it a long time today, and I am sure that I am not going to score very many points at this time of the night and we will start again tomorrow. I would just like to briefly sum up if I can. Although it has not been mentioned in the lengthy debate tonight, I believe that any objective Republicans, if we can find one up in this Chamber this time of night, would probably concede that the Senator from Nebraska has been one of those with a pretty strong career of voting for line-item veto matters in this Chamber. So all of us cannot be accused of being Johnny-come-latelies. What has happened in the past, though, is not nearly as important as what we are doing here tonight. And I would simply say that Senator Nunn in a remarkable, well thought out speech, that could in no way could be considered a partisan statement at all, outlined some concerns. Regardless of the intent of the Dole amendment--and it may be described correctly as what came out of a meeting of the Republican caucus, this was the product that came out of it--that does not necessarily guarantee the product is not faulty and probably should receive some further corrections. I wish to thank my colleagues on that side of the aisle who on more than one occasion today have agreed to amendments that I thought were absolutely critical and essential, and we have had them to come our way. I hope they would agree we are trying to be constructive and not destructive in trying to fashion something in the form of a line-item veto that would be as safe as it possibly could be from a court challenge that I am certain will follow if we eventually pass the Dole substitute amendment. I happen to feel that with the comments again tonight about the constitutionality problem and the operational problems manifold outlined by Senator Nunn, many of which I think had obviously not been considered when this product was put together, we must continue to reason together if we can and keep this as nonpartisan as possible and try and pass a piece of legislation that is not going to be thrown out by the courts. If that happens, it will not be an exercise, indeed, in futility. And since I have indicated I have had more than my share of futility on this very matter time and time again before with many of the key able players in this line-item veto we are talking about tonight, I just hope we can get something done rather than one more exercise in futility and disappointment. That is why I appeal, I appeal once again to let us reason together and not stick by the basic principle that what came out of the Republican caucus--because I think the Republicans would even admit it--just because it came out of a Republican caucus of the majority party in the Senate is a guarantee it is perfect. Let me appeal once again, Mr. President, that on tomorrow when the sun comes up, as it will, when we will be back here again, let us see if debate and reason and sound statements on the floor of the Senate mean something and they are not going to be automatically shunted aside on a strictly party line Republican vote, 54 people marching in lockstep because the product which came out of their caucus is somehow sacrosanct and must not be tampered with. Amendment No. 350 to Amendment No. 347 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of savings achieved through lowering the discretionary spending caps to offset revenue decreases subject to pay-as-you-go requirements)

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 373, which the clerk has at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Arizona. I appreciate his cooperation. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. There is no objection here.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I will be glad to debate the amendment without calling up the amendment now. I would simply say I think most of the debate has been covered on this matter.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed as if in morning business for a short period of time to accommodate the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend and colleague from the State of Wisconsin. Let me just make a brief statement in support of the amendment he is offering. The numbers speak for themselves, I suggest. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the tax cuts in the so-called Contract With America will worsen the deficit by over $700 billion over the next 10 years. Added to that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that we will need to cut spending by $1.2 trillion to balance the budget over the next 7 years. What this means is that if we want to cut taxes as proposed in the Contract With America, we will have to make some pretty dramatic additional cuts in spending. My position is that I am all for tax cuts but we have to cut the deficit first, then consider what we can do, if anything, about tax cuts. I thank my friend from Wisconsin. I think it is a good amendment.