J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my colleague from the State of Arizona. I will simply say to him that everything that I had just said in my statement in this regard is totally accurate, to the best of my knowledge. With regard to his counterarguments that this is going to help the President of the United States, the President of the United States says he does not need help. ``Thanks, but no thanks.'' The President of the United States is simply saying that the timing of this amendment is so outlandish, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, that it has the chance of doing a great deal of harm and little, if any, enhanced possibilities of success at Geneva. I will certainly say to my friend from Arizona that I am very willing to try and work with him in the future when the time might or might not be right to do some of the things that he says his amendment is designed to do. But I must tell him that the White House, the negotiators at Geneva, most if not all of the experts in this area that I know of and have worked with over the years, feel that his is an especially ill-timed amendment, notwithstanding his intentions. I, therefore, simply say to him that I am not in a position at this time to agree to any time certain for a time limit or a time certain for a vote on this matter on the defense authorization bill that is before us, and certainly it is not possible for me to make any commitments at this time as to some date certain in the future as to when I might agree to allow that to happen, other than to say I think the Senator from Arizona knows that this Senator is totally approachable, intends to be reasonable, and understands the other person's point of view. I try very hard to walk in another's shoes, see both sides of the debate. I will not walk in the shoes of those that are trying to push ahead on this amendment that this Senator feels, and other Senators like me on both sides of the aisle feel, that this amendment at this time is a disaster from the standpoint of trying to reach a comprehensive test ban treaty at Geneva that I think is essential for the future of mankind. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will make some remarks with regard to the matter at hand, and the general feeling that I have with regard to the bill. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Did my colleague from South Carolina wish to make some kind of a point? I have been recognized. I would be glad to yield to him.

Mr. EXON. The Senator from South Carolina had a question for the Senator from North Dakota.

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

Mr. EXON. All the Senator from Nebraska is attempting to do is move things along. If an agreement is reached with regard to a time agreement, I will certainly yield to the managers of the bill and the Senator from North Dakota to make that statement. In the meantime, I would like to proceed with the statement I have regarding the bill. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is a very, very dear friend of mine. He does an excellent job and has as long as this Senator has been in the U.S. Senate. He works very well with Senator Nunn, the ranking member of the committee. They have worked very hard on this defense authorization bill that this Senator supported when it came out of the Armed Services Committee. But at that time I sent a first signal that I would be attempting to make some changes to improve the bill in several areas that I thought needed attention. I will simply say to my good friend from South Carolina, that he has made noble efforts in the committee. We had thorough discussion on a lot of these issues that we are going to be taking up in the form of amendments now that the bill is on the floor, which I think is entirely proper. What this Senator has been attempting to do since this bill came out of the authorization committee, and as late as this morning--as referenced by my distinguished friend and colleague from Virginia, we met with the Secretary of Defense--what I am trying to do is, as much as possible, make this defense authorization bill vetoproof. In other words, if we can accommodate some of the wishes of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense and others, that have key roles to play in what happens to the authorization bill that we will eventually pass here, it is to make it as acceptable as possible to reach some compromises on several things where I think there should be compromises, make it somewhat more acceptable to the Clinton administration, and then we will have accomplished something rather than passing a defense authorization bill that will end up dead in the water in the form of a veto. So the comments that I am now about to make are designed, as best I can design them, to try to reach a compromise, a compromise, if you will, up front in the process of the Senate working its will on the defense authorization bill, and hopefully have a bill that will mean something. Mr. President, the defense authorization bill before the Senate is a rather rare piece of legislation, one might say. It is one of the few spending or authorization bills for the next year receiving a sizable increase--I repeat, a sizable increase--above the administration's request. To be specific, at $267 billion, the 1997 defense authorization bill dwarfs--dwarfs--Mr. President, any other discretionary spending program in the Federal budget. Like an out of shape prizefighter, it enters the ring $13 billion overweight from the position of the President of the United States. Having been overfed by the majority of the Senate Armed Services Committee--and I hope we can at least partially correct that--the quarter of a trillion-dollar defense bill before the Senate is not just $13 billion above the Pentagon's proposed budget, it is $1.7 billion in excess of the originally passed budget resolution, and $4.1 billion more than the 1996 defense spending bill. At a quarter of a trillion dollars, the 1997 defense authorization bill is flush, with $13 billion in unrequested spending authority, much of which adds unnecessarily to our national debt, while adding, in the opinion of this Senator, little or nothing to our national defense. The 1997 defense authorization bill should be termed the ``wish list'' bill. It is so much so that every service official and regional military commander that appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the bill was asked by the members of the majority a question, and certainly Federal managers of domestic programs have frequently heard that recently, and it is going to be driven home again during this debate. This was the question that was asked of these various military officials: ``If you were given additional funds above the budget request, how would you spend it?'' Let me repeat that. Can you imagine a military person sitting before the Armed Service Committee and they are asked a question, ``If you were given additional funds above the budget request, how would you spend it?'' What kind of a reply would you expect? To no one's surprise, when blank checks were enticingly dangled before the witness, the replies were as prompt as they were lengthy. No military leader worth his salt, under such a scenario, could not find something that he could use. Of the $13 billion added to the President's defense budget request, $11.4 billion, or nearly $9 out of every $10 added, went toward procurement and research and development programs. But approximately $2 billion of the add-on dollars proposed in the Pentagon's wish list is not even part of the Pentagon's own budget plan for the next 5 years, and certainly it is not, nor has it been previously, projected. What is more, a similar portion of the $13 billion committee add-on is neither part of the long-range budget, nor any armed services wish list, including the wish lists that are included in this proposal. In other words, the Armed Services Committee did not even get enough requests, after dangling that enticing proposition before the witnesses, to add up to the billions that we are spending. In other words, nearly $4.6 billion of the $13 billion-plus-up to the Pentagon's outyear budget plan, or a part of the services' wish list. It is something that came through the fat-feeding program in the Armed Services Committee. In my opinion, it is vital that the American public understand this important distinction between several options: One, what the President proposed in his budget for defense spending. Two, what the Pentagon says it needs to provide for our national defense. Three, what the military witnesses wish they could have after having the proposition dangled in front of them. Four, what level of funding the committee ultimately approved. Such a wish-list approach to defense budgeting is not responsible, in this Senator's opinion, and stands out as a glaring exception to the manner in which painful cuts have been levied against domestic budget accounts. Nor is the end product of $13 million in additional defense spending justified and, certainly not, Mr. President, in order to do what we are trying to do in these times, when we are supposedly being prudently fiscal, to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. A cursory look at the defense authorization bill before the Senate indicates that a rising budget tide floats all boats. Among the largest beneficiaries of the committee's blank check wish list in the budget includes these items: An $856 million increase in the proposed ballistic missile defense spending, which has just been debated to some extent on the floor of the Senate preceding my remarks; a $760 million increase in the National Guard and Reserve equipment; a $750 million increase in DDG-51 destroyer funding; a $701 million increase in new attack submarine funding; a $700 million increase in military construction and housing funding; a $351 million increase in V-22 aircraft funding; and a $341 million increase in F-16 and F-18 funding for 10 unrequested aircraft. These increased spending levels are only a downpayment--I emphasize once again, Mr. President, the funding levels I have just cited are only a downpayment for future spending that will confound budget-making in the years to come. Mr. President, at a minimum, the spending level included in the defense authorization bill should be reduced by $1.7 billion to be brought into conformance with the budget resolution so as to eliminate hollow budget authority in the bill. But the Senate should not stop there. We should question the need for the remaining $11 billion increase and whether this extraordinary increase is needed to properly defend the national security interest of the United States. Perhaps the starting point for reduction in spending authority contained in this bill should begin at $4.6 billion, the sum total of weapon add-ons and program increases not requested in the service wish lists, or contained in the Pentagon's long-range budget plan. At a later point during the consideration of this bill, I will propose an amendment along with Senators Bingaman, Kohl, Levin, and Wellstone, to reduce the top-line defense spending figure by a modest $4 billion. This represents a full $600 million less, Mr. President, than the $4.6 billion in unsupported, unjustified, and unwise spending authority. In essence, the Exon amendment would retain $9 billion in defense spending authority over and above the President's request. Now, let me repeat that. The Exon amendment would retain $9 billion in defense spending authority above and added on top of what the President has suggested. If the Exon amendment is agreed to by the Senate, our Nation would still be spending $155 million more in 1997 than in 1996. I would have more to say about this amendment when it is offered. One of the most questionable of the committee add-ons, in the opinion of this Senator, is $856 million for missile defense programs--most notably, the $300 million add-on for a national missile defense system. The Senator for North Dakota has an amendment before the Senate at this time, which has been debated for the last hour and a half. I also intend to support that, and I have included that in the numbers that I have presented and will be presenting later in the form of an Exon amendment, with several important cosponsors. Earlier this month, the Senate debated the wisdom of the Dole star wars proposal to pursue a crash program to field a continental missile defense system by the year 2003. It was pointed out then that the threat does not and will not exist in the near term to justify such a proposition. In the longer term, all of us are continuing to look at various types of missile defenses that we may need in the long term. Furthermore, the Dole star wars bill as presently drafted would cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, anywhere from between $31 and $60 billion. So the $300 million plus that we are talking about now would grow to $31 billion to $60 billion just to deploy, and perhaps another $10 billion on top of that to operate. The committee's $350 million increase is an initial downpayment; $350 million may not sound like a whole lot of money. But that is a downpayment, if you will, on a multibillion dollar program most likely, at a minimum, in the range of $50 billion between now and the year 2002. Downpayments are easy, as the average American family knows. But in this case this is a system that I urge the Senate to delete as wasteful expenditures even though there may be some arguments and some people sincerely feel that we should move faster than the Pentagon and the experts in the field tell us we should in this area. As was the case in last year's authorization bill, there are language provisions in the 1997 defense authorization bill which are unwise and may prove to be a problem down the road in getting this bill signed by the White House. This is something that I opened my remarks on by saying that I was trying to steer this bill into something that is workable and not another knockdown, dragout between the Congress and the President. Mr. President, two provisions in particular stand out as being questionable forays by the majority of the Senate Armed Services Committee into the area of foreign policy, and each could possibly jeopardize bilateral efforts between the United States and Russia to lower our nuclear inventories in a balanced and accountable fashion. One provision ultimately interprets the ABM Treaty demarcation between long-range and short-range missile defenses at a time when our nations are negotiating this very issue right now. The second language provision that I have concerns about is with regard to changing the bilateral Antiballistic Missile Treaty to a multilateral treaty that includes several of the independent states of the former Soviet Union. This is a major concern of the President of the United States. And, unless this language is corrected, I think we stand a high chance of a veto. The majority's insistence that such multilateralization of the treaty would constitute a substantive change in requiring reratification by the Senate is equally meddlesome on the part of the committee. As President Clinton stated in his April 8 letter to the Armed Services Committee chairman, Strom Thurmond, he has strong objections to this matter for very valid reasons, in the opinion of this Senator. He said in that letter: ``Refusing to recognize Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan as coequal successors to the Soviet Union with regard to the ABM Treaty would undermine our own interests in seeing that these countries carry out their obligations as successors to the Soviet Union under other arms control treaties, such as START I--and START II and others--and the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty,'' which is very important. Mr. President, to summarize, this year's defense authorization bill is a marked improvement over last year's bill. I have saluted the committee for its action on that in the opening of these remarks. Yet, changes must be made, in the opinion of this Senator, to reduce unjustified spending increases and delete intrusive foreign policy language before I can enthusiastically support this bill. However, I would say, Mr. President, that overall I congratulate Senator Thurmond, my friend, colleague, and chairman of the committee, for other than some of the shortcomings that I see. I salute him for a very well- balanced bill in several other areas. I appreciate the consideration, the cooperation, and the understanding. For those of us who tried to make some changes in the committee, the chairman of the committee did not agree with us, but as usual he gave us every opportunity to make our point. We in turn supported the bill as it came out of committee with the clear understanding to the chairman that we would be making some changes on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. EXON. How much?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have three other speakers who wanted 5 minutes each, including the leader. At this point, Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from West Virginia for the kind remarks that he made about this individual with regard to the budget. He is a real stalwart. I have enjoyed working very much with Senator Byrd over the years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the Republican budget, prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee, be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in view of the fact that we have roughly 10 minutes left--as I understand it, we are planning to vote at noon, I ask the Senator from Washington.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in order to expedite the proceedings, I ask unanimous consent that the final 10 to 12 minutes, whatever time is left on the Democratic side, be reserved for use between 11:40 and 11:55 this morning.

Mr. EXON. Yes, if the Senator wants that. I agree to amend the unanimous consent request as suggested by the Senator from Washington.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON. I withhold. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question? We certainly want to accommodate all parties as best we can. We had earlier assumed that we would have a vote at 12. Is that still the intention?

Mr. EXON. Therefore, as I understand it, we have 10 minutes left and we are to use that 10 minutes under the unanimous consent from 11:40 to 11:50, and then you, the majority, would have the last 10 minutes, is that the understanding?

Mr. EXON. We have no objection to that whatever. I thank my colleague from New Mexico. All these years we have worked on the committee together we have had an exceptionally fine relationship. He has always been kind and understanding before he was in the leadership position, and he has been even more kind and more understanding since he has been my chairman of the Budget Committee. I thank him for his fine remarks.

Mr. EXON. We have no objection.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as I understand the situation now, under the previous unanimous-consent request, we have 10 minutes equally divided on each side remaining before the vote. We have about 16 minutes, 17 minutes before noon, according to my clock. I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote at noon be extended to 3 minutes past noon so that the previous unanimous consent request can be abided with regard to time allotted by each side.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing how the deficit in this budget increases because of its tax breaks be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we wrap up the debate on the budget conference report, I would like to make a few final observations, if I might. If last year was the Republicans' winter of discontent, this is their spring of missed opportunities. I know the Republicans wanted to hit one out of the ballpark with this budget, but what they did reminds me more of the Red Sox's Bill Buckner in the infamous 6th game of the 1986 World Series. That is when he let Mookie Wilson's grounder roll through his legs. The Mets rallied and eventually won the series. That was a missed opportunity on a grand scale; so is this budget. There was a chance--granted a small one--to craft a compromise on a balanced budget this year. To his credit, the President has repeatedly offered to come back to the bargaining table. As he has pointed out, at the very least, we could have agreed on the common savings in both the Republican and the Democratic plans. But the Republicans rebuffed the President, and now we are saddled with this GOP budget retread. It still has too many reductions in Medicare--reductions that are not necessary to maintain the solvency of the trust fund. As much as the Republicans bridle at the suggestion, the size of the tax breaks always has and still does determine the size of the Medicare reductions. The Medicaid provisions still jeopardize the guarantees to health for our most vulnerable citizens. The cuts to education and the environment are still too severe, and they got worse in this conference report. So much time has passed since we first saw this Republican budget 18 months ago, and so little has really changed. We can see from this same tired budget that the majority's cupboard is bare; they are bereft of new ideas. This conference report is just a sorry addendum to last year's budget fiasco. I think we all know it, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. In closing, Mr. President, let me thank all of the members of the Budget Committee on both sides, of which the distinguished presider of the Chair is one. On my side of the aisle, I have had nothing but cooperation from all the Democrats on the Budget Committee, and I particularly thank all of them for all of their efforts. I want to take just a moment, if I can, to thank Bill Dauster, who heads up our great staff on this side of the committee. We worked well with the other side and staff as well. I simply say, while we do not agree on this budget, there has been a lot of good-faith effort and good intentions to try to work this out the best we could. I am sorry that we do not have a better product. I reserve any balance of my time that I have. May I inquire of the Chair, do I have any time left of my 5 minutes?

Mr. EXON. How much?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, although we have had very great difficulty this morning in coming to an agreement in breaking it, that those who are scheduled to make speeches at this time, to call to their attention time is running out. I will suggest at this time the absence of a quorum, and that the first 3 minutes of the quorum would be charged equally to the time remaining on both sides. I withdraw my request. The chairman of the committee has arrived on the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have 1 minute remaining. I will stay within that 1 minute. I thank my Democratic leader, my good friend from the neighboring State of South Dakota for his kind remarks. I thank the chairman of my committee for all that he has done over the years. This is my last part in managing a budget resolution. I simply say in leaving, while I am not satisfied with what we have done and while I will be involved, I am sure, in the months to come this year in trying to bring some resolution to the remaining differences, I want to say it has been a thrill and an honor to work with so many outstanding people on both sides of the aisle. I only wish my friends on the Republican side could have been a little bit more understanding. But I simply say we have, in the last 3 years, cut the deficit from about $300 billion to about $140 billion. We are on the road to the right course. We should not give up.