[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 149 (Friday, September 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S14125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2770

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to tell my colleagues who may be 
watching these proceedings where we are and why we are where we are.
  I offered an amendment some while ago, about half hour ago. We 
intended to offer a second-degree amendment to it to slightly modify 
it. We intended to get a vote on it. At that point, the Senate was put 
into a quorum call. Since that time, two noncontroversial amendments 
have been adopted. Except for this morning business, the Senate has 
been in a quorum call.
  I wanted to use this 5 minutes to explain what this amendment was and 
why I am offering it and why there is no intent at all to delay the 
proceedings of the Senate today. I understand we want to finish this 
appropriations bill. I think we can do that quickly. On my amendment I 
would agree to a very short time limit. I told the chairman of the 
committee I would agree to a half hour time limit, if necessary. So we 
can finish this bill quickly.
  My amendment does something very simple. Because the Finance 
Committee in the Senate next week will deal with Medicare and Medicaid, 
and because we have proposals on the table for substantial cuts in 
Medicare, proposals that were included in the budget that call for a 
very substantial tax cut, my amended is an amended amendment to try to 
send the sense of the Senate to the Finance Committee about priorities. 
I suggest if there is a tax cut coming out of the Senate Finance 
Committee --and I do not think we ought to cut taxes at this point; we 
ought to keep our eye on the goal of reducing the Federal deficit. 
Cutting taxes may be popular but, in my judgment, it ought to be 
discussed after we have managed to balance the Federal budget. My 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment is that if there is a tax cut that comes 
out of the Finance Committee, it be limited to those making $100,000 a 
year or less. And by limiting the tax cut to those making under 
$100,000 a year, the savings could be used to reduce the cut that is 
anticipated in Medicare. It is a very simple amendment with respect to 
priorities.
  I know people here will grit their teeth because of this amendment. 
But the reason there is the requirement to offer it is that the 
minority will have very little opportunity in the Senate Finance 
Committee; they are not involved in writing the bill. I am not 
complaining about that. That is the way the system works. The majority 
won, they control, they write the legislation.
  But we have an opportunity, it seems to me, to try to express 
ourselves on priorities. The priority here is the juxtaposition between 
tax cuts and the cut in Medicare. I hope very much that if there is to 
be a tax cut, it be a tax cut that is focused on those who earn less 
than $100,000 a year. I was on a television program two mornings ago 
with a member of the majority party. The member of the majority party 
said, ``Look, our tax cut is a family tax cut. It is going to go to 
working families, modest-income families.'' I said, ``Then we will give 
you chance to vote on it. As a matter of priorities, let us decide that 
is what we are going to do.'' That is what my amendment does. When we 
tried to second-degree it, of course, there was an objection to the 
amendment being considered as read and, therefore, we were not able to 
offer the second degree, and the Senate was put into a quorum call.
  I say to the chair that I have no intention of holding this bill up. 
But this amendment is not going to go away either. You can second-
degree this amendment and do it three or four times, and I will offer 
it again as a second degree to something else, because I believe we 
ought to have the right to vote on this. So it is not going to go away. 
We can dispose of it very quickly. I will agree to a time limit. I have 
no intention of impeding the working of the Senate this afternoon. I 
hope very much that you will allow us the opportunity at an early time 
here to vote on an amendment of this type.
  Again, as I said, I think we should finish this bill this afternoon. 
The timeliness of this amendment is--the Senate Finance Committee 
begins work on this next week. I have no choice, really, but to offer 
this at this point. It is not a breach of any agreement or a breach of 
understanding by anybody. It is not an attempt to stretch out the time. 
It is about priorities in this country, and these are important 
priorities which I will speak on at a point in time when the 
opportunity exists for debate on the amendment itself.

                          ____________________