[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9341-S9344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           GOOD ECONOMIC NEWS

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me take a couple of minutes to comment 
on something else, and that is the economic news that was announced 
today, which I personally am very proud of, as I think every Member of 
this Congress can be, and this administration can be proud of the news.
  I know when I look at my own State of Louisiana, Louisiana's 
unemployment in 1992 was 8.2 percent; 8.2 percent of the people in my 
State did not have a job. Today, the unemployment rate is 6.9 percent, 
a substantial drop.
  In 1992, the growth rate in this country was 2.7 percent, and the 
deficit stood at $290 billion. Today's growth rate figures of 4.2 
percent is incredible progress, and we should be proud of it. 
Hopefully, we are moving in the right direction with regard to the 
Federal deficit.
  In 1992, we looked at a Federal deficit that had staggered up to $290 
billion. Today's figures we are estimating are somewhere between $115 
billion and $130 billion--still too high, but real progress.
  I was interested in just this week--and these are not just figures 
that apply in Washington. A lot of people back home say, ``Well, some 
Department in Washington issued figures I don't really understand.'' 
The hometown paper in New Orleans has a special report just this week 
on the economy in my State of Louisiana. It shows what we are talking 
about on the floor today, about this good economic news in Washington 
is good economic news throughout the United States of America.
  This is a special in the Times-Picayune in New Orleans. It says in 
comparison:

       A decade ago, the economic world as New Orleans knew it 
     seemed over. The oil boom that had turned into the oil 
     slowdown was now the oil bust.
       Almost before anyone knew what had happened, tens of 
     thousands of jobs had disappeared from the local economy. . .
       Fast forward to 1996. Traffic is bustling--

  On all of our roads and highways:

       Houses in prime neighborhoods seemingly sell in seconds. 
     Banks are cheerfully advertising their services or rates. The 
     oil and gas business looks pretty good.
       Residential building contracts in New Orleans, Baton Rouge 
     and statewide are up through June from a year ago 11 percent 
     for this area, 29 percent for the State.
       Get the picture?
       ``Fundamentally, the State's economy is in great shape,'' 
     said Hibernia Corp. President Stephen Hansell.

  What I am trying to point out is that this is good news in my State 
and, I daresay, in the other 49 States as well.
  I was interested in how the article concluded:

       The Federal Government didn't manufacture it.

  And they talk about other things that didn't have anything to do with 
it. I want to make the point that I think the actions here in 
Washington did, in fact, have something to do with it. I think the 1993 
Deficit Reduction Act had something to do with this.
  Many of my colleagues said this is going to destroy the economy of 
America; this Deficit Reduction Act is a terrible thing. The news today 
is that the results are in and the news is good news. The tough things 
that we had to do in 1993 to get this country back on a course of 
economic recovery have worked, and there should be celebration in the 
Congress for recognizing that something that was very difficult to do, 
in fact, was done.
  The deficit went from $290 billion to $115 billion to $130 billion. I 
say to the writers of this editorial that that had something to do with 
that economic boom.
  That meant that there was more money for private citizens, more money 
for the private economy to be able to borrow, to invest, to expand 
their businesses and to create jobs. That had a direct effect on the 
news today in my State and other States that things are on the right 
track, the economy is strong, that more jobs are being created. And it 
just cannot happen by accident.
  Some of the tough things we had to face when we voted for the 1993 
Deficit Reduction Act in fact was very much a part of the economic 
recovery that we are seeing in Louisiana and the other 49 States. So I 
think we can all be proud to say that Government does sometimes do the 
right thing, even though at the time we do it there may be a great deal 
of questioning whether it is the right thing. Today the results are in 
and it was the right thing to do. And we will continue to do that.
  I think that we, as Democrats, can be proud of our activity in that 
area. I feel very strongly that we, as Democrats, can still promote 
economic growth by tax cuts that are paid for, the bipartisan group 
Chafee-Breaux, so-called, promoted a capital gains tax cut that was 
paid for. I think that is very important. We should continue to 
consider tax cuts for the economic growth. But we ought to make sure 
they are paid for, that they do not increase the deficit. A tax cut 
that merely increases the deficit may be easy to pass but it is bad 
economic policy.
  So I think that we should move forward with tax cuts of which I do 
support. The President has supported tax cuts. The $10,000 tuition tax 
deduction is one. The penalty-free withdrawals from individual 
retirement accounts for educational expenses is another good economic 
policy that will be paid for. There is the HOPE scholarship tax cut, 
$1,500, again, which is a move in the right direction. So I think that 
we as Democrats can be proud of the results that are in today, and 
continue to look at new ideas in terms of tax cuts that are paid for to 
promote economic growth and development in this country. Mr. President, 
I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to do 
what is necessary to promote the economic growth that we now see in the 
United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, per a previous agreement that I understand 
has been entered into, at this time I would like to set aside 1 hour of 
the 5 hours allowed to this side of the aisle on the debate on the 
welfare conference report to talk about some other economic matters 
that several Members on this side of the aisle, including this Senator, 
would like to address. So if it is convenient and agreeable to those on 
that side of the aisle, we would like to proceed in that fashion at 
this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator that the 
Democrats are in control of time between 12 and 1 o'clock under the 
current order that is under discussion.
  Mr. EXON. How much time has been consumed on the economic debate up 
until now?
  Mr. CONRAD. None.
  Mr. EXON. How much of the 1 hour has been used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Twenty-two minutes. Then I would like to ask that the 
remainder of that time proceed, and if

[[Page S9342]]

necessary, although we hope it will not be necessary, to accommodate 
those who wish to speak on this subject, I may ask unanimous consent 
for a few additional minutes after the time expires. I would like to 
advise those on that side of that fact.
  I believe the Senator from North Dakota was seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  This morning the Commerce Department delivered extremely good news on 
the Nation's economy. The Commerce Department reports that the economy 
grew at a rate of 4.2 percent in the second quarter.
  Mr. President, these figures confirm that the economy under President 
Clinton is strong, it is growing, and it is creating jobs. We all 
recall what the economy was like before this administration came into 
office. In 1991 the economy was in recession. By 1992 the budget 
deficit had ballooned to $290 billion. America was in trouble.
  Then President Clinton came into office. He offered a bold plan of 
deficit reduction to strengthen the Nation's economy. That plan passed 
by the Democratic Congress has delivered superb results. And today we 
can report on what has happened.
  In August 1993, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President 
enacted into law a historic deficit-reduction plan. That plan was 
designed to reduce the deficit by $500 billion over 5 years. Unlike any 
other deficit-reduction plan that we have seen since I have been here, 
that plan delivered on its promise.
  Mr. President, we recall very well what our friends on the other side 
of the aisle said during that historic debate. They said that the 
economic plan passed by the Democratic Congress and supported by the 
Democratic President would crater the economy.
  I can remember so well the Republican majority leader standing at his 
desk telling us that if we enacted that plan there would be economic 
ruination. He was wrong. But he was not alone in being wrong. Virtually 
every Member on the other side asserted that if we passed this bold 
economic plan to reduce the deficit and strengthen the economy it would 
do just the reverse. They said--and they said repeatedly--if we passed 
that plan the deficit would go up, not down, that economic growth would 
be reduced, not increased, that joblessness would multiply.
  Mr. President, they were wrong. They were dead wrong. And now we can 
look at the record to see precisely what has happened.
  Former Senator Dole said, ``President Clinton knows * * * the 
American people know that the plan does not tackle the deficit head-
on.'' Mr. Dole was wrong.
  Representative Armey, now the majority leader in the House of 
Representatives said, ``The impact on job creation is going to be 
devastating.'' Mr. Armey was wrong. He was dead wrong.
  Senator Gramm of Texas said this: ``I want to predict here tonight if 
we adopt this bill, the American economy is going to get weaker, not 
stronger. The deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is 
today, and not lower.'' Senator Gramm of Texas was wrong. He was dead 
wrong.
  Mr. President, all we have to do is look at the record. Let us start 
with the testimony of the head of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan, 
before the Senate Banking Committee about the economic plan to reduce 
the deficit. It was supported by the President and passed by Democrats 
in Congress.
  Mr. Greenspan said about the deficit reduction in President Clinton's 
1993 economic plan--and I quote--``an unquestioned factor in 
contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred 
thereafter.''
  That is not a spokesman for the Democratic party. That is the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, talking about 
what the Clinton economic plan has meant to this country.
  Just to be certain no one forgets what has happened, with respect to 
the record on deficit reduction, let's look at this chart, which shows 
the Reagan record, the Bush record, and the Clinton record on deficit 
reduction.
  President Reagan came into office in 1981. The deficit stood at just 
under $80 billion. Under his economic plan that passed the Congress--we 
recall the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987--he got 
his economic plan passed, and what happened? The deficit skyrocketed. 
It just about tripled under President Reagan's economic plan. Then we 
saw some reduction as steps were taken to rein in the increasing budget 
deficit.
  Then President Bush took over. President Bush saw the deficit go, on 
his watch, from $153 billion a year to $290 billion in 1992. The 
deficit was out of control.
  President Clinton came in, in 1993. And each year of his 
administration the deficit has been reduced, and reduced significantly, 
from $290 billion in the last year of the Bush administration to $130 
billion estimated this year.
  In fact, the deficit may come in at less than $120 billion this year. 
The deficit has been cut more than half during the Clinton 
administration. It is directly attributable to the plan that we passed, 
the economic plan that we passed, in 1993.
  The President also, when he was running for President, promised he 
would produce with his economic plan 8 million new jobs in the 4 years 
of his first term. We can now look at the record. The President has 
done better than he promised. Instead of 8 million new jobs, the 
economy under his economic plan, a plan passed by the Democratic 
Congress, has produced 10 million new jobs. The President has done a 
superb job of running this Nation's economy.
  Not only has the job creation record of this administration been 
outstanding, the economic growth we now see has also been much better 
than previous administrations. Mr. President, if we look at private 
sector economic growth in the Clinton years, we see it is averaging 
over 3.1 percent. In fact, with the news this morning, we now know it 
has averaged 3.2 percent. That is in comparison to private sector 
economic growth in the Bush years of 1.3 percent--a dramatic 
improvement in economic growth in the private sector in this country 
under the Clinton economic plan.
  It does not stop there. There is more good news. The misery index--
that is something we have talked a lot about in the past. That is a 
calculation of the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation. The 
misery index is at its lowest level since 1968. What a remarkable 
economic record this administration has to take to the American people.
  It does not stop there. There is more good news. The unemployment 
rate in December of 1992 was 7.3 percent. In June 1996, the 
unemployment rate has declined to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate 
has been below 6 percent for 22 consecutive months. This chart shows 
what we have seen in terms of the reduction in unemployed people in 
America from a rate of 7.3 percent when President Clinton came into 
office to 5.3 percent today--about a 30-percent reduction in 
unemployment.
  Mr. President, it is clear, the economic game plan that President 
Clinton put before this Congress, that was passed without any help from 
Republican Members, has led to a superb result, a dramatic reduction in 
the deficit, a dramatic increase in jobs, a dramatic increase in 
economic growth, a significant reduction in the misery index, the 
lowest level since 1968.
  Mr. President, the good news does not stop there, either. If we look 
at real business fixed investment, again we see the record from 1985 to 
1996, and we see the real business fixed investment, as a result of the 
Clinton economic plan, has taken off like a scalded cat, the largest 
increase in business fixed investment in over 30 years. This is truly a 
remarkable economic record.
  I have to remind our friends on the other side of the aisle, when we 
put this plan into place, they predicted it would be nothing but bad 
news. They said it would crater the economy, it would increase the 
deficit. They said it would reduce all of the things that we want to 
see increase, and increase all the things we want to see reduced. They 
were wrong. They were dead wrong.
  This economic plan, a plan that was passed without a single 
Republican vote, has produced remarkable results--by some measures, the 
strongest economy in 30 years. This is a record of economic success 
that should not be interrupted.
  Mr. President, I think the record is clear. The Clinton 
administration has

[[Page S9343]]

delivered on its economic promises. In fact, it has exceeded its 
promises on economic performance. That is one significant reason this 
President ought to be continued in office.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator have left on 
the 1 hour?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I need about 10 minutes, but we may end up 
in a discussion, so we may take a couple of Members' time and combine 
it, and we may not need quite as much.

  Mr. EXON. Since I have several other requests, I yield 7 minutes to 
the Senator from Connecticut. I have to do that or we will run right 
out of time.
  Mr. DODD. I understand. Maybe because we used more time on the 
welfare debate and we did not start this discussion until about 12:20, 
we might be able to get an extension.
  Mr. EXON. I suggested that.
  Mr. DODD. Let me commend my colleague from North Dakota for his 
comments and observations--I see both my colleagues from North Dakota 
here--in talking about this news this morning.
  This is great news. Obviously, when you have the gross domestic 
product growing at an annual rate of 4.2 percent, the strongest growth 
rate in 2 years, that is very, very good news for jobs, security, and 
opportunity for virtually every person in this country.
  Certainly all of us, regardless of party, I presume, would be 
celebrating this magnificent news that portends well for this country 
as we, in the remaining years of this decade, get ready to enter the 
new century.
  My colleague from North Dakota points out what the situation was like 
3\1/2\ years ago. There are many people here who will count on the 
American people having a short memory, that they will forget how things 
were 36 months ago, what we were living under in this country, where we 
had unemployment rates of 7 percent. Those were the identifiable rates. 
I argue it was much higher than 7 percent in many parts of the country. 
The job growth rate, 36 months ago or a little more than that, was at 
its lowest level since the Great Depression. The Federal deficit was 
hovering around $300 billion a year, $290 to $300 billion. The dollar 
was at the highest level in American history. That was the situation a 
little more than 36 months ago.
  Where are we today? A gross domestic product growth rate of 4.2 
percent, unemployment a little above 5 percent across the country, 10 
million new jobs created in a little over 36 months, the deficit at its 
lowest level in almost a generation. Back in 1992, the President said, 
``I will cut it in half in 4 years.'' Even the President was wrong. It 
has been a 60 percent reduction in the deficit rate in the last little 
more than 36 months. Private sector job growth has soared, soared in 
the last number of months.
  I point out, if I can, the deficit reduction numbers on this chart, 
which highlight a major issue. We have made a herculean effort over the 
last several years to reduce this deficit.
  As my colleague from North Dakota points out, we did not have a 
single vote on the other side in the deficit reduction plan, not a 
single vote in either body--the House of Representatives or the 
Senate--in support of our deficit reduction plan in 1993. Yet we now 
see what has happened. In 1980, the annual deficit was at $74 billion; 
between 1981 and 1992, the annual deficit rate climbed to almost $300 
billion. In around 36 months we have taken that $290 billion figure and 
reduced it to $117 billion. In fact, this very number of $117 billion 
would be zero were it not for just the deficit that we accumulated 
between 1981 and 1992.
  And let me say this. We would be in balance today, were it not for 
the debt run up by the previous two Presidents. Just the interest 
payments on the debt accumulated in those 12 years has created this 
$117 billion figure. For the first time in many years, we now find 
ourselves where receipts of the Federal Government exceed our 
expenditures but for interest on the debt that was accumulated in those 
years. It is a tremendous accomplishment, a tremendous accomplishment. 
It is really the linchpin, I think, in what has occurred in other 
economic areas, how the markets are reacting, how Main Street is 
reacting, the fact we have been able to create the kind of growth we 
have seen.
  We have had 4 years of deficit reduction. You have to go back to 
1840, more than a century ago, a century and a half ago, when we had 
four consecutive years of deficit reduction. Miraculously, it has 
happened because a lot of people cast some courageous votes.
  In fact, the opposition, the Republicans, tried to shut down the 
Government twice over deficit reduction. I raise all of that because, 
next week, I am told, we are going to have a proposal made by the other 
side--presumably by the presumptive candidate for the Republican 
nomination--that will call for tax cuts of roughly $600 billion. I 
suspect most of them are going to benefit the more affluent in our 
country and are going to blow a $600 billion hole in the progress we've 
made on deficit reduction.
  What was all the talk about in this previous Congress if not deficit 
reduction? With 10 weeks to go before election day, all of a sudden we 
get this suggestion of a $600 billion tax cut coming along, and many 
people are warning the candidate and others that you would create real 
havoc in the economy if that were adopted. It is certainly going to 
make it almost impossible for us to reach the goals that I believed we 
were all committed to achieving here over the next several years. Of 
course, where is the savings going to come from in this $600 billion 
tax cut that will be proposed?
  It is almost as if we are treating the public like they are fools. 
Does anybody believe, with 10 or 11 weeks to go before election day, 
with a $600 billion tax proposal, that it isn't totally motivated by 
trying to bring some life to a moribund campaign and do so by 
jeopardizing the economic gains we have made? I think most people are 
going to see through that. What is tragic about it is that we have 
Candidate Bob Dole contrasted with Senator and Chairman Bob Dole. If 
Bob Dole were sitting in the U.S. Senate or were chairman of the 
Finance Committee, he would ridicule the idea. He would rightly see it 
as unraveling agreements that we have already achieved to try to 
balance the budget in 7 years. In fact, all the proposals on 
constitutional amendments to achieve a balanced budget would appear to 
be nothing more than a lot of rhetoric.
  We are being told how these tax breaks may be paid for. One report 
says that, of the $600 billion in tax cuts, $240 billion would be 
coming from offsets in increased tax revenues resulting from increased 
growth--$240 billion is coming from increased revenues from increased 
growth. Boy, that is a rosy scenario, if I ever heard one. The same 
people who proposed this insisted a year or so ago that we use 
conservative economic growth numbers when we start trying to make up 
for this. Where does the other $360 billion come from if you are going 
to pay for this tax cut you are talking about? Well, stop me if this 
sounds familiar to you, but if last year is any indication, it is going 
to come from Medicaid, education, Medicare, and the environment. That 
is what they tried last time around. One analysis has a $313 billion 
cut coming in the Medicare program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the Senator 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will ask my colleague to engage on this 
point. I am very concerned. I hope that cooler heads will prevail in 
this campaign season and that suggestions like this will be put in the 
trash bin where they belong, at a time when we are moving forward and 
achieving deficit reduction numbers, the economy is growing, the gross 
domestic product numbers and the unemployment levels are moving in the 
right direction.
  This is a time to come together. Nobody expects perfection here. Our 
Republican friends made a huge mistake in their predictions about the 
1993 budget reduction efforts. All of us have made mistakes. So why not 
admit you made a mistake? It was a bad vote. You should have supported 
it, and you did not. Collectively, we have come together and the 
country is moving in the right direction.
  I hope we won't destroy what has been a very significant effort over 
the last number of months to move the country in the proper direction 
by reducing this deficit, resulting, I believe,

[[Page S9344]]

in the kind of gross domestic product growth numbers that we are seeing 
here today, the unemployment numbers that are moving us in the right 
direction. This is not a time to try to pander to the American public 
with the suggestion of massive tax cuts for the affluent, paid for by 
rosy economic figures that are unrealistic and cuts in the very 
programs we have fought to defend.

  Mr. President, I would love to be proven wrong. I would be delighted 
if next week came and went and all the talk about these wild schemes--
wild schemes--to try to breathe life into a campaign by jeopardizing 
the American economy and the direction we are going, was shelved and we 
got back to a more rational, thoughtful approach on how to continue the 
kind of economic growth numbers we have seen here this morning and 
offer some real promise to the American people.
  With that, Mr. President, I will yield whatever time remains to my 
colleagues from Nebraska or North Dakota.
  Mr. EXON. How much time does the Senator from Nebraska have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from North 
Dakota, followed by 5 minutes for this Senator from Nebraska and 4 
minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Does the Senator from Nebraska intend to try to get 
additional time? We had talked about an hour, and we were not able to 
start because they were talking about welfare reform.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I do not see the Republican leader on the 
floor at this time. I will try to get that time. If people want more 
time, I will be glad to yield. We are trying to be very fair with the 
time. Everybody would like to have lots of time, but I only have 14 
minutes remaining as of now. I am conserving that as best I can.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we had talked about trying to have a block 
of time to talk about the economy. The reason we wanted to do that is 
because this is very important. This is the question that most people 
in this country ask themselves, and families reflect on this: Is this 
country moving in the right direction or the wrong direction? Are we on 
the right track, or are we on the wrong road? Those are the questions 
people ask.
  We are not here suggesting that everything is wonderful in America. 
We have a country that faces a lot of challenges. There is no question 
about that. But we have a country that has gone through an immediate 
past period causing significant problems, requiring significant 
remedies, but a country that has begun to address those things head-on.
  I want to take us back just a bit to a new President that came to 
town, who said, ``I have a new idea. I have consulted with a man named 
Laffer, an economist, who has a new graph and curve, the Laffer 
curve.'' The Laffer curve says that, if you give folks at the upper end 
of the income brackets big tax cuts, you actually collect more money 
because it will filter down and everybody at the bottom will get damp. 
That is trickle-down economics. So there were big, big tax cuts given, 
especially to the people at the top. The result was that we ran into 
massive deficits, unparalleled in the history of this country--massive 
budget deficits. The rich got richer, the people at the top, during 
that period. The top 1 percent of Americans had a 66-percent increase 
in their financial wealth just from 1983 to 1989. The bottom 80 percent 
lost 3 percent of their wealth. So some people did very well--just the 
top 1 percent. But almost all the rest of the people did not do well at 
all under this circumstance.
  Well, we had a new President come to town again in 1992. He started 
in January 1993. He recognized immediately that we faced an enormously 
serious problem. This country was not going to grow and was not going 
to realize its potential unless we dealt head-on with this deficit 
problem. We had a vote here in the U.S. Senate on a deficit reduction 
plan. I voted for it. I told the people I represented why I voted for 
it, why I thought it was important for this country. I have never 
apologized for voting for it. I felt it was the right thing to do. Was 
it a good political thing to do? No, not at all.
  There were some people who sat in these chairs who lost their seats 
in the Senate over that vote. They had the courage to stand up and say, 
``Count me in. I want to address this deficit. I want to suggest that 
we take the medicine necessary to do this.''
  So the deficit began to come down. We did not get one vote on the 
other side of the aisle. We got a lot of claims on the other side of 
the aisle. I see the Senator from Texas is here to visit with us today. 
I recall his claim. His claim was it is going to lead directly to a 
recession. But it was not just him. Many others did the same thing. 
``The sky is going to fall in. There is going to be a big recession.'' 
What happened was the deficit fell.
  This is what happened to the deficit under President Reagan, under 
President Bush, and why he did not win reelection, by the way. That 
line was still going up; and the deficit under President Clinton. He 
understood that, unless we tackled this problem, this country could not 
realize its economic potential.
  Are we done tackling this problem? No. But this has been a success 
because we had more jobs and more economic growth.
  What was the news this morning? The news was in the last quarter this 
country grew at 4.2 percent of economic growth, a very robust rate. The 
fact is this economy is still growing. Why? Because we are doing the 
right things. We are not perfect, but we are at least doing the right 
things.
  I want to mention one additional point. It is important. We have 
another plan by a guy who wants to be President next January. He has a 
new plan--across-the-board massive tax cuts, which, of course, will 
benefit the high-income people and cause a hemorrhaging of a new 
Federal deficit. That is the new plan. At least it has a new title.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. May I have 1 more minute?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has remaining the time between now 
and 1 o'clock.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator's generosity.
  The plan for across-the-board tax reductions that they would 
implement next January, which would increase the deficit, is augmented 
by what they are doing with the midnight oil right now. For the last 
couple of nights they were in the back room and are going to bring a 
bill to the floor of the Senate in a matter of hours, I assume, that 
has this in it: opening another tax loophole, several hundred millions 
of dollars. Amway has been asking for it. So they get it.
  Who is going to get the brandnew tax loophole of $300 million? That 
is the solution coming from the other side of the aisle. How do you fix 
what is wrong in America? Increase the deficits by cutting taxes for 
upper income folks and do secret deals in the back room to bring to the 
floor of the Senate something that exports American jobs and gives new 
tax breaks to big corporations that do not need it.
  I yield the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________