[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5150-S5157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 8 minutes, and 
the Senator from Nebraska has 2 minutes 55 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  We have heard a lot of straw men set up by opponents on the other 
side. We have heard about all kinds of horrible cuts that would come if 
we get a responsible budget number for welfare. This body should know 
that the $53 billion cut, which we propose in this amendment to include 
in reconciliation instructions, is equivalent to the $53 billion cut 
that was passed by an 87-vote majority in this body when we debated 
welfare previously.
  Now, there could have been as many as 13 Members of the body that did 
not like what was in that welfare bill. But I can assure you, with 87 
Members of this body voting for welfare reform, the horrible, tragic 
things that we hear about that could happen if we have to achieve 
reconciliation savings of $53 billion in welfare are so much smoke and 
mirrors. What we are concerned about in the numbers is assuring that 
veterans health care does not take an impossible hit, a $12.9 billion 
reduction. There is no way that one can work out.
  My colleague from California, who has argued so eloquently for the 
veterans and has talked about them, did not propose any changes when 
she voted for the amendment that would slash Veterans' Administration 
spending by almost $13 billion in the Budget Committee. The Senator 
from Minnesota had said we should not worry about the cuts in veterans. 
We just cannot adopt a budget number that is consistent with the 
previous welfare reform that 87 Members of this body, on a bipartisan 
vote, supported when we first passed welfare reform.
  Mr. President, budgets are about setting reasonable expectations for 
Government so that we can carry out our functions in a responsible 
manner and not continue to add to the deficit. All of the horror 
stories, all of the very difficult and compelling cases that were cited 
are not the ones that would be hit by the budget reconciliation 
proposal that this amendment contains.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. How much time is left on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes for the majority, and 2 minutes 
55 seconds on the Democratic side.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the 
comments of the distinguished chairman of the VA--HUD and Independent 
Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. 
He does a tremendous job. I have watched him through the years. He is 
attentive, he does his homework, he is impressive, and he gets quite 
involved in every way and in every issue in a most positive way.
  What has been curious to me, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, is the remarkable behavior of the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, Jesse Brown. He is continually distancing himself and the VA 
from the President's budget. I understand he testified early last month 
before the House Veterans' Affairs Committee that he ``felt the 
President's budget would be devastating for veterans.''
  Later in the month, April 24, the Secretary appeared before the 
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I chair, and which I 
oversee as chairman. In response to a question from my friend, Senator 
Craig of Idaho, the Secretary stated that the VA budget described in a 
document submitted to the Congress--over the signature of the President 
and entitled ``Budget of the United States of America''--does not 
represent the policy of the President.
  I ask, whose policy does it represent? Did an employee of the 
Government Printing Office change the numbers for the proposed VA 
budget on his or her own, making the President of the United States and 
the Congress the victims of some wild practical joke? Did some cyber 
surfer hack his way into the White House computer system and change the 
numbers? Did somebody forge the signature of the President of the 
United States on a document submitted to the Congress in his name? My 
Heavens, we may have a real scandal here on our hands.
  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs told the committee that VA's future 
medical budget will be subject to annual renegotiation by the 
President. He tells us he has received the President's assurances that 
the budget numbers are not binding. Well, that makes quite a puzzle.
  The President of the United States has proclaimed to the American 
people that he will balance the budget in 7 years. His plan, like any 
budget, includes difficult decisions allocating limited resources 
between many worthwhile programs.
  But, according to the Secretary's testimony, the President does not 
stand behind the parts of that plan relating to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  There are only 2 ways the President can deliver on his commitment to 
Secretary Brown. He can increase the VA spending by abandoning the goal 
of the balanced budget. But the President has made a commitment to the 
American people to present a balanced budget. We have heard that 
discussion for several hours. So I am sure that he would not take that 
course. Or, in the alternative, the President could increase the VA's 
budget by reducing the budget of other programs.

[[Page S5151]]

  Does that mean the President has a secret plan to cut non-VA 
discretionary spending programs in order to fund increases in veterans' 
health care? I am sure he does not, Mr. President, because his budget 
also represents a funding promise made to the beneficiaries of non-VA 
programs.
  Mr. President, the veterans' health care budget proposed by the 
President--when examined through the lens created by the statements of 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs--presents the Senate with a 
remarkable mystery.
  Veterans may wonder upon which rock the Senate should build their 
future, Mr. President--the budget proposed by the President? Or 
Secretary Brown's hopes that those budget numbers will be changed? That 
is what he said.
  Mr. President, on April 24, Secretary Brown testified that, since 
1980, VA's medical care funding has increased 20 percent--after 
adjusting for inflation. The resolution reported to the Senate by the 
Committee on the Budget builds on that rock.
  So I submit to America's veterans--and to the Senate--that a generous 
history of increasing funding, combined with already-identified 
proposals for more cost-effective operation of the VA Health Care 
Administration, are much firmer rock upon which to build for the future 
than the administration's budget--a budget Secretary Brown tells us the 
President has already repudiated.
  That, I think, is a most extraordinary thing.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Who yields time? The Senator from 
Nebraska has 2 minutes 47 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, when I introduced the President's budget 
this morning, I indicated that there were several features of the 
President's budget that I wish to change and would attempt to make 
changes in. One of those certainly was the fact that the Veterans 
Affairs allocation under the President's budget was not one that those 
of us on this side of the aisle were satisfied with. So I thank the 
Senator from Missouri, who has brought up this matter.
  We recall during the deliberations of the Budget Committee that it 
was something we wished to correct also. We may have some differences 
of opinion on where the money should come from to do the correction. 
But I simply say that I think we all agree that a correction has to be 
made.
  This is one of the things I had in mind--without spelling them out--
when I said I am for the President's budget, with some changes. This is 
one of them. I want to say that I am offering an amendment that will 
precede the vote on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, along 
the same lines. I am taking the money from a different source. 
Regardless of where the money comes from, it is something that will 
probably have 100 votes for to make a correction in this particular 
area.
  However, after we finish this debate, as agreed to previously, I will 
offer my amendment and we will vote on that first. It essentially does 
the same thing as the Senator from Missouri does, but it takes the 
money to fund it from a different source. We will not need to go into 
that in any great detail now. We might talk about that when I offer my 
amendment.
  I want to correct one thing before we finish debate on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Missouri. We may be wrong, Mr. President, 
but I would simply note that we feel--I state this for the Record--if 
corrections are necessary by the offer of the Senator from Missouri, we 
will certainly cooperate in trying to offer an amendment. We feel that 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri attempts to increase 
spending for veterans, which is a worthy cause. We agree with that. His 
amendment raises the functional category for veterans. Unfortunately, 
the amendment as drawn, in our view, would not increase discretionary 
spending, which I think the Senator from Missouri wants to do; that is, 
the discretionary spending limits and the appropriations caps as it 
affects that.
  So, in reality, it is our view that the Senator's amendment would 
merely cut income security and leave the discretionary spending levels 
just the same as in the President's budget. I am sure that is not his 
intent. I am just making that suggestion. Is that something that the 
Senator has agreed with? Should we correct it? If so, in fairness, we 
would like to give time to do it. If we are not reading this right, 
please tell us so. I want to call it to the Senator's attention in the 
interest of fairness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 36 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I guess I had better talk rapidly.
  We have raised the caps in the amendment in the copy we have. We 
would be happy to have staff be sure we are talking about the right 
numbers. The fact remains that both sides agree that we cannot cut, as 
the President has proposed, spending on the Veterans' Administration.
  I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee for 
his kind comments. We will have more to say about veterans affairs and 
the credibility of the President's budget on the next vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside to permit the introduction of an amendment by the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee and that the amendment so set aside be 
placed second in the order for votes at the end of debate on the 
amendment by the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the regular order the amendment is set 
aside, the amendment by Senator Bond is the second in order, and we now 
turn to the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska with 1 hour equally 
divided.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.
  I yield myself what time I may need, and there will probably be 
others to speak on this.


                Amendment No. 3973 to Amendment No. 3965

     (Purpose. To cut corporate welfare to fund veterans' benefits)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3973 to amendment No. 3965.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the pending amendment:
       On page 2, line 9, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 2, line 10, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 2, line 11, increase the amount by $1,920,000,000.
       On page 2, line 12, increase the amount by $3,033,000,000.
       On page 2, line 13, increase the amount by $3,124,000,000.
       On page 2, line 14, increase the amount by $2,187,000,000.
       On page 2, line 18, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 2, line 19, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 2, line 20, increase the amount by $1,920,000.
       On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $3,033,000,000.
       On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $3,124,000,000.
       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $2,187,000,000.
       On page 33, line 5, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 33, line 6, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 33, line 12, increase the amount by $907,000,000.
       On page 33, line 13, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 33, line 19, increase the amount by $2,256,000,000.
       On page 33, line 20, increase the amount by $1,920,000,000.
       On page 34, line 1, increase the amount by $3,621,000,000.
       On page 34, line 2, increase the amount by $3,033,000,000.
       On page 34, line 8, increase the amount by $1,708,000,000.
       On page 34, line 9, increase the amount by $1,552,000,000.
       On page 40, line 23, increase the amount by $1,594,000,000.
       On page 40, line 24, increase the amount by $1,572,000,000.
       On page 41, line 5, increase the amount by $2,355,000,000.
       On page 41, line 6, increase the amount by $2,187,000,000.

[[Page S5152]]

       On page 47, line 10, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 47, line 11, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 47, line 13, increase the amount by $907,000,000.
       On page 47, line 14, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 47, line 16, increase the amount by $2,256,000,000.
       On page 47, line 17, increase the amount by $1,920,000,000.
       On page 47, line 19, increase the amount by $3,621,000,000.
       On page 47, line 20, increase the amount by $3,033,000,000.
       On page 47, line 22, increase the amount by $3,302,000,000.
       On page 47, line 23, increase the amount by $3,124,000,000.
       On page 48, line 2, increase the amount by $2,355,000,000.
       On page 48, line 3, increase the amount by $2,187,000,000.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before I start my formal remarks, let me 
straighten out any misunderstanding.
  Were we not furnished a copy of the amendment. Is that what I 
understand? I am just trying to make sure that we know where we are 
coming from.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we will be happy to show the distinguished 
chairman. I am sure it is there.
  Mr. BOND. If it is there, that is all I need to know. We were 
concerned it might not be.
  You made a change. You made a change in the copy of the amendment 
after it was given to us. Is that the mixup? The best guess is that we 
were not furnished the final copy of the amendment. It is no big deal. 
The fact is it is in there. That is what I wanted.
  Can you give us a copy of yours?
  Mr. EXON. Yes. We will give a copy of the amendment to the majority. 
It does the same thing.
  Mr. President, this amendment addresses the veterans proposition 
also. This amendment does much of the same as that intended to be done 
by the Senator from Missouri. It adds back to veterans the source of 
funds in the same amount. However, the Senator from Missouri cuts 
welfare to make up the difference. My proposal would cut corporate 
welfare. It is this Senator's belief that the majority turns too 
quickly to reducing projected spending on means-tested programs that go 
to the heart of the needs of the most needy in our society. Some of 
that was brought up during debate on the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Missouri.
  Some may believe that we are all too eager to cut the neediest 
programs that we have--those so-called means-tested programs.
  I am simply saying, while I consider it a must to better fund the 
veterans programs almost exactly as the Senator from Missouri has 
suggested, let us cut corporate welfare to pay for this and keep our 
reduction in the unnecessary spending under control.
  We have had a good debate, I think, on veterans affairs. We do not 
need to extend the debate for any lengthy period of time because I 
think we would just be repeating ourselves over and over again. What we 
come down to, therefore, is that the amendment before the body is the 
amendment which we will vote on prior to voting on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Missouri.
  At this time, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment presently 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I simply say, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my 
time and recognize any of my colleagues who wish to speak in behalf of 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to be able to enter into a 
debate on this. But I am still waiting to see what it is the amendment 
does. I know it deals with veterans. But I am a bit at a loss to know 
how we should debate it when we do not have the amendment before us. I 
have been in some difficult situations, but this is probably one of the 
toughest ones.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to.
  Mr. EXON. We have the only copy we had of this at the desk. We are 
making a copy for you. I think the Senator from Missouri is probably 
justified in wanting to see the amendment. The amendment does exactly 
what I said it would do; that is, to have the same figures that you 
have proposed but rather than take the money to make up the difference 
out of welfare as we know it, we take it out of corporate welfare. But, 
once again, in the interest of fairness, I suggest that we temporarily 
stand in recess until a copy can be made and delivered to the majority 
and give them whatever reasonable time they want.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest we do not need to go into recess. 
I would make my friend an offer. If he will just tell us what he means 
by cutting corporate welfare, maybe we can carry out the debate, 
because I would trust his characterization. I would ask the Senator 
from Nebraska, does he mean he is raising taxes? Could he be a little 
more specific about the things we are doing?
  Mr. EXON. The Senator, certainly as a member of the Budget Committee, 
knows full well what I am talking about with regard to corporate 
welfare. These are moves that we have made over the years that have 
been prominently under discussion for the last year with regard to the 
budget negotiations between the Congress and the White House.
  If the Senator will refer to the material that I think he now has, 
page 3 of this year's Republican budget resolution states that in 
addition to the child tax credit, and I quote, ``The committee 
recommendation would accommodate further tax reform or tax reductions 
to be offset by the extension of expired tax provisions of corporate 
and business tax reform.''
  It continues, ``Such receipts could be used to offset other tax 
reform proposals such as estate tax reform, economic growth, fuel 
excise taxes or other policies on a deficit-neutral basis.''
  To outline this further, last year's vetoed reconciliation bill, 
supported by virtually every Senate Republican, included approximately 
$26 billion in revenue increases for corporate and other reforms.
  That is what I am talking about. President Clinton has proposed 
nearly $40 billion in corporate reforms in his balanced budget 
submission to the Congress. Although the proposals are not identical, 
Republicans and Democrats agree that revenue can be raised from this 
category which is customarily referred to, as I think the Senator from 
Missouri knows, as corporate welfare.
  The committee report to this budget, on page 63-67, describes 
expenditures in our Tax Code that lose hundreds of billions of revenue 
over a 5-year period. In that context, the Republican proposal as well 
as those of President Clinton are modest efforts to reduce loopholes 
that have allowed corporations to benefit.
  That is what corporate welfare is all about. It eliminates corporate 
welfare to the extent that it is necessary to adequately fund the 
veterans programs at essentially the same figures that both you and I 
would like to see. Another way of saying this: What it does is make our 
tax laws fair for all Americans.

  I am not surprised that the first words out of the mouth of the 
Senator from Missouri were, ``Are you going to raise taxes?'' If 
cutting corporate welfare, which I think the corporations are not 
entitled to during a time when we are strapped for money, if that is 
raising taxes, call it raising taxes. I think closing unfair corporate 
loopholes to take care of the needs of our veterans is far better than 
taking it away from what I referred to earlier, from the general 
welfare fund that goes essentially to the neediest among us.
  I would simply say that these are modest efforts, modest loophole 
closings. Our amendment ensures that additional receipts from closing 
corporate loopholes will be used to lessen the cuts on the veterans 
rather than apply it to help pay for additional tax breaks for the 
wealthy, which I basically feel is in the mind of the Republican 
budgetmakers some time down the line.
  In any event, whether that is true or not, all that the Exon 
amendment does is to return to the welfare funds the amount that the 
Senator from Missouri and others are proposing. And we

[[Page S5153]]

think that is good. We are simply saying that rather than to subtract 
this from welfare, the neediest among us, let us take the necessary 
funds from corporate welfare that we all know has drawn far beyond due 
bounds in recent years.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I yield myself such time as I may require.
  We obviously are getting some basic philosophical differences here. 
My distinguished friend from Nebraska has accused us of reflexively 
turning to means-tested entitlements.
  What we have done, Mr. President, in fact, is to turn to failed 
programs and say it is time to reform them. The President himself has 
said it is time to end welfare as we know it. That is why 87 Members of 
this body, Democrats and Republicans, said we need to reform welfare. 
The system is not serving the people it is supposed to serve--the 
taxpayers who fund it, the communities that see its impact, or the 
future generations who hope that we could help people get out of 
welfare and into productive employment. What we are saying is it is 
time to reform these programs. We are going to keep saying that because 
I think the overwhelming body of American citizens knows that welfare 
needs to be reformed.
  By the same token, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
reflexively turn to tax increases. If it moves, tax it. We are talking 
about an amendment to the budget presented on behalf of the President 
by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.
  Let me point out that that bill already has $36 billion in new taxes 
in extenders. It raises $36 billion in extending taxes. It has $54 
billion in other loophole closings. They have already got $90 billion 
of tax increases. And the distinguished ranking member of the Budget 
Committee says, let us just hit them with another $13 billion of taxes.
  Now, Mr. President, I thought that maybe our friends would have 
learned something when President Clinton proposed and they voted for 
the significant tax increases of 1993. I have cited before on this 
floor the studies have shown that raising taxes in the way that was 
done in 1993 did not generate the kinds of revenue expected because it 
discouraged economic activity. It has slowed economic activity, 
economic growth and jobs in this country, and we have no less of an 
authority than the President himself, who said at a reception attended 
by people, I guess, whose taxes he had raised markedly in Texas, that 
he raised taxes too much.
  We agreed with him at the time. Unfortunately, he just did not see it 
our way until later on. Now we want to take a $90 billion gross tax 
increase here and add another $13 billion to it. Certainly, our budget 
provides for changes in the mix of taxation if we need it. That can be 
done right now.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee will offer a bill that may 
raise some taxes and lower others and shift the mix of taxes. But when 
we talk about the total burden of taxation, that is one of the problems 
which is causing our country to slow down, jobs not to be created, and 
as we get into a debate on the President's budget the one argument I 
have not heard made about it is that it does not raise enough taxes. 
But that is really what the amendment by the Senator from Nebraska 
would do. Are we really in trouble because we do not tax enough? I 
don't think so, Mr. President.

  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote for the 
amendment which will follow it.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. It may well be we can shorten down the time. We have been 
trying to move this ahead, move forward.
  I did not realize we would be getting into a rehash of what we did 2 
years ago with the President's budget. Once again, the Senator from 
Missouri is certainly entitled to his position. He indicates that the 
budget that we passed 2 years ago, the President's budget, has hurt 
jobs creation, has been devastating to the country. Evidently, from 
what he said, it has hurt employment.
  The facts of the matter are that those same things were said in one 
form or another by those on that side of the aisle during the debate, 
and we passed that proposition with all Democrats supporting that to 
get it by, without a single Republican vote in either the House of 
Representatives or the U.S. Senate. The facts of the matter are, as we 
explained yesterday, that primarily because of that, coupled with the 
excellent leadership of President Bill Clinton, this Nation has been on 
a steady, logical growth pattern in all areas.
  I remember hearing people on that side of the aisle who attacked that 
budget at the time saying it would be devastating to the economy of the 
United States of America, that we would never recover if we passed 
this. We have more than recovered, we have had one of the most 
astonishing periods of growth in American economy since that was passed 
that we have ever seen.
  At the same time, coupled with that tax increase package and coupled 
with the economic growth that we have had under the direction of the 
Clinton administration, we have seen a dramatic drop, 3 years in a row, 
of the deficit of the United States of America, from basically $300 
billion a year, now down to $147 billion.
  I did not know we were going to get into a debate all over again on 
that measure that I voted for, and would vote for again, because I 
thought it was the right thing to do. In addition to being the right 
thing to do, we would not be in a position here in the Congress this 
year, nor would we have been in a position last year, to work toward a 
balanced budget, were it not for the fact that the Democrats, under the 
leadership of Bill Clinton, reduced dramatically the deficit which has 
spurred growth in the United States of America.

  So if anyone wishes to take me on for what I did wrong 2 years ago, I 
am willing to do that because the facts of growth in the economy speak 
for themselves. I do not generally say how the stock market goes is how 
America goes, but certainly that is one factor in our economy that we 
need to look at. I suggest to all that since the development of that 
sound package by all Democratic votes and not one Republican vote in 
the House or the Senate, we have seen the stock market break every 
record that it ever established before.
  The people are happy with it. It has reduced the deficit. It has 
gotten us to the place where we have a chance--although it is still a 
tough task--to balance the budget by the year 2002. Were it not for 
that particular measure that is now being criticized--in my opinion 
irresponsibly once again--we would not be in the shape we are in today 
of reaching for a goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002, which 
is something this Senator and many like me have fought for ever since I 
have been here.
  I yield 5 minutes, or whatever time he needs, to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. This is one of those 
debates, as I listen to it, that I think causes people who are watching 
from outside the beltway to just shake their heads, because they have 
to wonder what is this all about? I must say, unless you are a green 
eyeshade type and spend all of your time poring over the subaccounts of 
the Federal Government, it is a little confusing.
  I think one of the things that perhaps has been lost in this 
discussion is that if we are looking at a comparison between the 
various budgets on domestic discretionary spending--and that is, after 
all, the pool of money from which veterans benefits are drawn and all 
of the other discretionary spending elements of the Federal budget--the 
reality is, the Republican budget over 6 years cuts $296 billion, the 
President's budget, $229 billion, so the cuts in discretionary spending 
in the Republican budget are substantially greater than the cuts in the 
President's budget.
  The issue has been raised, what are the subtotals? When you 
distribute those reductions, when you distribute them among all the 
functions in domestic discretionary spending, how do

[[Page S5154]]

veterans come out? I think one of the things that has been lost in this 
debate is that these functional totals are not binding. They are not 
binding. That is the way the budget process works. There is no 
requirement that the committees of jurisdiction abide by that 
functional subtotal.

  I ask my colleague from Nebraska, is that not the case? As the 
ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, is it not the case that 
these functional subtotals are not binding?
  Mr. EXON. I would certainly emphasize that the Senator from North 
Dakota is so right. I am so glad he has pointed that out.
  Mr. CONRAD. So, we get lost here in the details, but the overarching 
truth is the Republican budget, over 6 years, cuts $296 billion out of 
domestic discretionary spending. The pool of money for domestic 
discretionary spending is reduced by $296 billion. The President's 
budget reduces it by $229 billion over 6 years. I point out the 
centrist budget, which a bipartisan group of Senators, Republicans and 
Democrats, have agreed to, is $179 billion over 6 years.
  Frankly, I would say both the Republican budget and the President's 
budget have unrealistic reductions in domestic discretionary spending. 
They are unlikely to ever occur. One of the reasons is, in both of 
those budgets, that the overall pool of money available for domestic 
discretionary spending is so sharply reduced that future Congresses are 
unlikely to adhere to the spending path outlined in either one of those 
budgets.
  The fact is, the bipartisan group, which has tried to put together a 
budget alternative that would really have some prospects of actually 
holding course, holding to the course set for a 7-year period, has 
lower domestic discretionary savings than either of the other budgets. 
It is also true the President has less in the way of domestic 
discretionary savings than the Republican budget has. So if people are 
really concerned about veterans or any other subcategory of the budget, 
and they are comparing the President's budget and the Republican 
budget, the President's budget is more adequate, has less reductions 
over a 6-year period, or a 7-year period, than does the Republican 
budget.
  So if you are concerned about veterans or if you are concerned about 
education or you are concerned about all of the other elements that are 
part of domestic discretionary spending, the President's budget is 
superior to the Republican budget.
  The fact is, these functional subtotals that are the concern of the 
amendment of the Senator from Missouri are not binding. Those are the 
rules we work on around here. Those totals are not binding.
  Somehow I think we are missing the point. We have bogged down in the 
details in an attempt to score partisan political points. 
Unfortunately, that is what is happening around here more and more. We 
have not gotten into what is the heart of the debate and the 
discussion, what is the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter 
is, all of us need to move toward a balanced budget. We need to do that 
because we are on a course that cannot be sustained.
  The Entitlements Commission told us last year if we stay on the 
current course, we are going to have an 82 percent tax rate in this 
country, or a one-third cut in all benefits. That is the harsh reality 
of what we confront. And all of these budgets--all of them--are 
reducing domestic discretionary spending, they are reducing every other 
element of the Federal budget from what current law provides in an 
attempt to move towards fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. President, I will just say in conclusion, I hope my colleagues 
will remember, the reality is, the President's budget has less 
reductions in domestic discretionary spending than does the Republican 
budget. That is just a fact. And the second fact that is important to 
remember is these functional subtotals that are the subject of debate 
here are not binding in any event. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call on my distinguished friend, how many 
minutes?
  Mr. THOMAS. Five minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute first and just say, 
I thank the Senator from North Dakota. He has been a great champion for 
reforming entitlements. He and I agree entitlements need to be 
reformed.
  My amendment proposes reforms in the entitlement programs. The 
amendment of my friend from Nebraska, Senator Exon, adds another $13 
billion in tax increases. And in looking at the extensive list on page 
153 and 154 of tax increases that are already included in the 
President's recommendation, I am puzzled where they find another $13 
billion. But that is the argument: Do we reform entitlements or raise 
taxes?

  I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is the first time that I have spoken 
on the budget. I am not on the Budget Committee, I am not an 
appropriator, but I, obviously, am very interested in this process, 
perhaps more interested in it as it pertains to the policy direction it 
would take than specifically in the dollars.
  The budget is a document that has more impact than simply spending. 
The budget document is one that gives us some direction in terms of 
where we go. It gives us some direction in terms of philosophy. Do you 
want more Government or would you have less?
  I have to tell you that I believe the people in Wyoming think the 
Federal Government ought to be less expensive, ought to be smaller, we 
ought to spend less. It has to do with balancing the budget, and it is 
interesting to listen to those who have worked so hard through the 
years: ``Balance the budget.''
  Have you ever heard anyone rise who did not want to balance the 
budget? I do not think so. It has not been balanced for 25 years. I 
begin to wonder if all this rhetoric has been so meaningful. But in any 
event, we need to balance the budget. It is morally and fiscally 
responsible to do that.
  It is a philosophical question if you want to balance the budget. We 
hear a lot of talk about how we moved the deficit down. How did we do 
that? By the largest tax increase in the history of this country. I do 
not happen to think that is the proper way to do that. I think we ought 
to reduce spending.
  Of course, whenever you talk about reducing spending, somebody says, 
``No, I don't want to reduce it there, I want to reduce it there. I 
want to reduce it for you, not for me.'' I understand that. When the 
average family spends 40 percent of their income in total taxes, that 
is an excessive amount. So we need to talk about that, and we need to 
take a look at our goals and see if this really, really does it.
  I agree with the Senator from North Dakota that maybe we get bogged 
down entirely with all these details, which somebody has to do. But for 
most of us, it is a direction, a philosophy, it is where we are going, 
and the budget has something to do with that, a great deal to do with 
that.
  I was very involved in our budget in the Wyoming Legislature. It was 
much smaller, much easier, same principle. One of the differences was 
we had a constitutional amendment that said we had to balance the 
budget. We could not spend more than we took in. What an idea.

  So we talk about that Washington has never spent more on bureaucracy 
than it does now--this administration--never spent less in real dollars 
on defense since World War II. The tax burden has never been higher 
than it is now. Americans will pay half a trillion dollars more in 
taxes because of our tax increase.
  I am concerned as well about the backloading. Now I hear, ``Well, we 
all backload.'' That is true. But the fact is that the Clinton budget 
backloads much more than the other one, 66 percent of the savings in 
the last 2 years.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. No, this is the first time I have talked. I would like a 
chance to do that. Thank you.
  So it is backloaded, and no one can argue with that. It is there and 
perhaps none of it should be backloaded. Of course, it will be when you 
reduce so much this year, it builds up, and I understand that. But we 
have to make some tough decisions if we are going to do that, and that 
is what it is about.
  Raising taxes--as I understand, the Clinton budget takes out $97 
billion in taxes, puts back 60, a net reduction of

[[Page S5155]]

$37 billion. That is really not much of a bite; not much of a bite for 
a country that pays that much in taxes.
  The Republican budget, on the other hand, is about 122, I believe; 
$500 credit for children. That is a pretty good idea, I think. 
Permanent; age 18. We do not start with three.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate that, Mr. President. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. How much time does the Senator wish?
  Mr. CONRAD. One minute.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would just like to say to my colleague 
from Wyoming, I am disturbed by backloading, too, but the reality is 
the Republican plan has 64 percent of its savings in the last 2 years. 
So this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Both of them 
have 82 percent of their savings in the last 3 years. They are both 
backloaded.
  So to come and criticize the President's plan when your own plan does 
exactly the same thing is a little misleading.
  Let me just say----
  Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I think if we were going to be direct with each other, we 
would acknowledge both plans are backloaded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 16 minutes, and 
the Senator from Nebraska has 10 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from North Dakota for 
his excellent remarks. His statement with regard to the savings that 
are talked about in discretionary programs is something that I intend 
to follow up on in my closing remarks.
  I will just say at this time that I have been here on the floor since 
this debate began. I have heard the same things over and over and over 
again--the Republicans seem to think if they say something enough 
times, it is true. They have said on many occasions that the 
President's budget does not balance in the year 2002. I do not know how 
many times I have refuted that point, and noted that the Republican-
appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office says that the 
President's budget does balance in the year 2002.
  The same CBO office says that the Republican plan balances in the 
year 2002. So if the Republicans are trying to impeach the written word 
of their own appointed CBO office, then they impeach the source of 
their balanced budget as well.
  Why can we not be realistic? Both programs are estimated--and I use 
the word ``estimated'' with emphasis--by the Congressional Budget 
Office as reaching balance.
  I have heard another myth that is repeated over and over and over 
again and that is with regard to the terrible backloading, as alleged 
by the Senator from Wyoming.
  I refer to the chart behind me once again. We have had it out here 
before. I am going to drag this chart out every time I hear on that 
side of the aisle that there is backloading going on.
  This chart has been here before, but the red line on that chart is 
the President's backloading and the blue line on that chart is the GOP 
backloading. The years are below, and the numbers are up there.
  So suffice it to say, it is not accurate, nor is it fair, nor does it 
contribute to the debate for me to get up and say, ``Oh, boy, there's 
all kinds of backloading in that GOP budget.''
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. EXON. I will not yield.
  I would be fearful that the Republicans would bring out something 
like this and show me that what they are accusing the Democrats of 
doing is what the Republicans are doing. Essentially they are one and 
the same.
  I simply say that I will reserve the remainder of my time for my 
closing statement. But I just wish that we could keep our debates on 
something that is realistic, without going overboard and saying things 
over and over again, things that I do not know how many times I 
refuted. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before yielding to the Senator from 
Washington, I just want a point of clarification with my distinguished 
friend from Nebraska.
  Does that chart show the President's numbers with or without the 
automatic trigger?
  Mr. EXON. The automatic trigger, we went through that earlier, did we 
not?
  Mr. BOND. That chart, does it show it with or without the automatic 
trigger?
  Mr. EXON. Once again I say, whether it triggers or not, this is an 
honest chart on honest numbers that has been verified by the CBO.
  Are you indicating there is something tricky about these numbers?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the CBO said the only way the President's 
numbers get to a balance in 2002 is if an automatic trigger clicks in 
and cuts 10 percent of discretionary spending in 2001 and 18 percent in 
2002. I am simply asking whether that chart--and I did not prepare the 
chart--does that chart present the President's number assuming no 
trigger or assuming a trigger? Which way is it?

  Mr. EXON. I have been advised this is the chart with the figures in 
it. If I find out differently, I will correct it for the Record.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my good friend from Nebraska. That is all I wanted 
to ask, because we have, as he indicated, I think on a bipartisan 
basis, voted overwhelmingly that we do not want the trigger. We have 
said, no trigger. We do not want a meat ax.
  So the only difference between the President's budget and the 
Republicans' budget is that the President's budget, by CBO numbers, 
does not now get to balance--without the trigger, it does not get to 
balance. Ours does. With that, I will yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in my few minutes, I will make three 
points. The first point is to agree with my colleague, the Senator from 
Nebraska, by the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, the 
President's budget does indeed balance in the year 2002. It does, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, because of an automatic 
set of tax increases and spending cuts in the years 2001 and 2002, if 
the Congressional Budget Office's projections of spending and of the 
economy are correct.
  In fact, Mr. President, the President's budget would balance if the 
Congressional Budget Office showed half a trillion dollars' difference 
between now and the year 2000 with automatic huge tax increases and 
spending cuts in the years thereafter.
  If you put in such a trigger, the balance is automatic. The real 
point is that in the real world, using the same set of figures, it will 
not reach balance unless that trigger is pulled. We have just voted 
against the trigger.
  The second point I would like to make is with respect to the debate 
right now on two amendments in front of us. Those two amendments each 
say that we should not reduce veterans benefits in the way that the 
President's budget indicates they will be reduced, a little increase in 
the first couple of years, then a huge reduction thereafter.
  The difference is the classical difference between the parties. 
Republicans restore those veterans benefits by welfare reform. 
Democrats restore them by tax hikes, tax hikes sufficient so that the 
President's very modest tax reductions in his budget become a net tax 
increase over the period of time covered by this budget.
  That is a classical difference. People can decide, would they rather 
support our veterans with welfare reform or would they rather support 
them with tax hikes? I think that is a relatively simple question.
  But, Mr. President, my third point is that I am not sure of the total 
relevance either of the debate on triggers that the Senator from 
Nebraska has

[[Page S5156]]

spoken of, or even of the two amendments with which we are going to 
engage now. It is at this point I want to compliment and support the 
remarks of my Democratic colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, 
who points out that there is a superior way of going toward either of 
the proposals that are on the floor here right now, one which I believe 
we will debate early next week, the first proposal in several years 
that is in fact bipartisan in nature, the one that most decisively 
deals with a reform of entitlement programs, that makes them more 
realistically affordable by the people of the United States and, 
therefore, is more reasonable with respect to the amount of money that 
we have to spend on education and the environment and law enforcement 
and national parks and the myriad of other year-to-year 
responsibilities of this body.
  So in that respect the Senator from North Dakota is right. I have the 
privilege to work with him. We will later on in this debate be 
presenting that budget.
  I believe the Republican budget much superior and much more honest to 
the one that is before us right now, and I intend ultimately to vote 
for it if that is the last vote before us. But I believe the one worked 
out by this bipartisan group to be markedly superior to any of the 
others that have been presented this year.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Let me yield myself up to 5 minutes to also speak on the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, as I look at this amendment that is before the Senate 
offered by the Senator from Nebraska in response to the previous 
amendment from the Senator from Missouri, once again I am struck by the 
approach that is being taken with regard to the President's budget. I 
talked several times about the President's budget during the course of 
this debate and tried to point out the extent to which the claims the 
budget includes relief for America's taxpayers are exaggerated.
  Once again we see the approach being taken to make sure taxpayers end 
up with less. The President's budget claims initially it will provide 
Americans with $99 billion in tax relief. When you include the various 
so-called corporate loopholes and other increased revenues involved 
with the President's budget, the net tax relief drops to $36 billion. 
Then, when you terminate the various tax cuts as triggered in the year 
2000, it reduces total tax relief between the year 1996 and the year 
2002 to $6 billion approximately.
  Mr. President, $6 billion works out to about $1 billion a year, or 
250 million Americans working out to $4 per American per year in the 
budget that the President is offering. That is not a lot of tax relief 
by my standards. I think it would not be seen that way by the American 
people.
  Here comes yet another wrinkle. An amendment that would further 
change the bottom line on taxes with regard to this budget. Indeed, by 
increasing the revenue side of this equation by an additional $13 
billion, we now eliminate all of the tax relief contained in the 
President's budget and instead have turned the President's budget, 
should this amendment pass, into one which would have a net tax 
increase of $7 billion. I cannot imagine that is the approach the 
American people want us to take, to actually increase, on a net basis, 
the taxes we burden them with.
  Some will argue that these taxes would somehow fall on the 
corporations, the big companies, and so on. I question that, Mr. 
President. It seems to me the big taxpaying entities have discovered a 
lot of ways to pass along the taxes to the average working families in 
America. Indeed, during the recent debate about the gas tax repeal, we 
were told that the 4 cent repeal would never get to the consumers 
because the intermediate-stage corporations would somehow find a way to 
pocket the dollars for themselves. If that is true for the gas tax, it 
will certainly be true for this tax. If this increase is put into our 
budget, we will again see the actual people paying for it, the hard-
working families of our country.
  I have to stand in support of what the Senator from Washington just 
said, complimenting the Senator from Missouri for his amendment and 
urging its support and urging our colleagues to oppose an increase in 
taxes as would be contained in the amendment being offered by the 
Senator from Nebraska.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I simply say to my 
colleague on the other side with respect to the Senator's amendment, 
you can close a tax loophole and not raise taxes on any Americans. As a 
member of the Finance Committee, I have been trying for some time to 
deal with the question of the fact that 73 percent of the foreign 
corporations doing business in the United States do not pay a penny of 
taxes here.
  The question is, how can that be? How do they avoid paying taxes in 
the United States when they are obviously doing very well here?
  Mr. President, the reason is, we have a scheme called transfer 
pricing in the international tax system that allows corporations to put 
their taxes or their profits where there are no taxes. Foreign 
corporations who are in here competing with American corporations have 
been taking advantage of this loophole in a very significant way to 
avoid paying any taxes here. That is not only unfair to U.S. taxpayers, 
that is unfair to U.S. companies who are expected to compete with the 
foreign enterprise that escapes and avoids tax responsibility, that an 
American-based corporation cannot escape and avoid.
  I say that my colleague from Nebraska has come up with a very 
reasonable way to take care of the needs of our veterans by closing a 
tax loophole. Now, some of our friends on the other side have never 
seen a tax loophole they do not like. They have never seen a tax 
loophole they do not endorse.
  There is absolutely no reason to allow foreign corporations to do 
business in this country and not pay any taxes here. It is not fair, 
not only to U.S. taxpayers, it is not fair to American corporations 
with whom they compete.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time we have 
and how much time Senator Exon has?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 6 minutes remaining, and the 
Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, without using that time, might I 
exchange with Senator Exon about where we are going next. If we use our 
6 minutes and you use your 4 minutes, are we ready to vote in the 
sequence that we heretofore agreed to?
  Mr. EXON. We are ready. That sequence, just to set the record 
straight, we would vote on the Exon amendment first and the amendment 
from the Senator from Missouri second. And I believe, if I remember 
correctly, the first vote would be a 15-minute vote, and the second 
vote, I believe it was stipulated by the Senator from New Mexico, is to 
be 10 minutes. Is that the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Mr. President, first, I want to congratulate 
Senator Bond on his amendment and Senator Exon on his amendment, 
because we are going to have an opportunity here, in about 12 minutes, 
to vote on 2 proposals.
  There could be nothing closer to reflecting the difference between 
the 2 parties than these two amendments. So, make no bones about it, we 
will first vote on a Democrat amendment, which will increase taxes, no 
matter what you call it. You increase taxes to pay for appropriated 
accounts that are cut, which they are finally admitting in cutting this 
budget--that is, the veterans of this country. So the first vote is 
going to be: Do you want to raise taxes to spend more money? The second 
vote is going to be a Republican vote, and it will be very simple: Do 
you want to increase spending for veterans by cutting spending 
someplace else?
  We say, yes. We say, the American people are not interested in 
raising taxes. We already raised taxes 2 years ago, which was the 
largest tax increase in history. The President has, in his budget, $90 
billion, under the rubric of ``corporate welfare''--but it is $90 
billion. Senator Exon says that $90 billion is not enough to do what we 
want to do. We want $13 billion more because

[[Page S5157]]

we caught them with the reality that they are reducing the level of 
expenditures for the veterans of this country by at least $13 billion, 
decimating our commitment to the veterans.
  As our President is prone to say, we do not want to violate our 
values. Our values are very simple: Protect the veterans of America. 
Live up to your commitment. We do not want to violate that value. But I 
will suggest that the reality of it now is that the President violates 
that value. But he almost got away with it, with nobody understanding 
it--except for this amendment today, which clearly now says it, and 
even the Democrats understand. They understand veterans is cut enough 
that they want to raise taxes to pay for it.
  Now, they were not saying they were cutting veterans just 4 or 5 days 
ago because, obviously, they just wanted to say Republicans were 
cutting programs to get to balance. There is a nice little gimmick. The 
President called it a ``trigger.'' The problem is that the trigger 
would not work on the floor, because if you have to use CBO economics, 
and not the President's choice of economics, then you have to pull the 
trigger, and they did that and they put a giant plug in their budget. 
That plug, so everybody will know, is a big whopping plug. It is $32 
billion in tax cuts that have to be sunsetted. So we raise taxes $32 
billion after having cut them. That is the first thing in the plug. We 
add Medicare cuts of $13 billion, and the President adds spectrum fees 
of $6 billion. This is kind of the cornucopia of solving budget 
problems. Spectrum fee. Mr. President, $38 billion is in the budget. 
This says $6.6 billion more to get to the balance of the President and 
the balance the distinguished minority manager put before the Senate.
  And then is the big ticket item: discretionary cuts of $67 billion 
are in this new plug. Pull the trigger and expose the reality and there 
sits a plug, without which you cannot balance the budget. And $67 
billion of that is in the discretionary programs, such as veterans. And 
we are trying to fix veterans with this amendment. We do it very 
simply, very simply. We say, we think veterans ought to get this $13 
billion because we have a high value on our relationship to veterans. 
We think the welfare program of the country could be reduced by $13 
billion to pay for it. Reduce welfare and turn it into workfare. And 
even at that, we have not reduced welfare to the extent that the 
bipartisan welfare reform that cleared this place would have.
  So, in summary, we have now exposed the reality of the President's 
budget. We have exposed the reality of it. He did not want anybody to 
know that, to really get to balance, we needed $124 billion, and we now 
have that before the Senate--a piece of it before us. Do you want to 
increase taxes to take care of our veterans? Or do you want to reduce 
welfare to take care of our veterans?

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Will Rogers once said, ``It's not what he 
knows that bothers me; it's what he says he knows for sure that just 
ain't so.''
  Two points: No. 1, the President's budget proposes more in 
discretionary spending than the Republican budget. There is no debate 
about that, and there is no amount of bluster on this floor that can 
change that.
  No. 2, this is not about tax increases. The fact is, if this is a 
song with unlimited verses--tax increases, I guess--we spend $2.2 
billion to pay companies to shut their American plants and move them 
overseas. How about shutting that down and using the money in a 
constructive way? Two men from Florida did a study that says we lose 
$40 billion a year by foreign corporations doing business in America 
that do not pay taxes here, and 73 percent of the foreign corporations 
doing business in America pay zero taxes.
  To close tax loopholes is somehow increasing taxes? No. We are 
talking about big, fat, juicy tax breaks for some of the biggest 
enterprises in the world, and we are talking about closing them. Is 
there anything wrong with that? I do not think so.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 1 minute to acknowledge the departure of a truly great American.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this time not 
be charged to either side, as we have been doing all afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

                          ____________________