J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. EXON. I appreciate your kind remarks, and I yield 5 hours to the Senator from California.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to briefly thank my dear friend and colleague from California. I said earlier that she is a valuable member of the Budget Committee, and her earlier training over on the House side has served her and us well. She is very consistent and tender, one who becomes involved in the details of the budget process. It has been a great pleasure for me to see this relatively new Senator come in and take her place as a very influential member of the Budget Committee. I thank her for her kind remarks.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from California is a very valuable member of the Budget Committee. We had saved some time for her. I request we move back to the budget resolution, and I yield up to 8 minutes to the Senator from California, or whatever time she needs.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have additional speakers that will be seeking recognition. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally charged to each side.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need. I start out by thanking my friend from Delaware for the excellent remarks that he has made on the budget in general. Once again, I listened with keen interest to the very solid presentation that he has made. Mr. President, yesterday the Director of the OMB, Dr. Alice Rivlin, sent a letter laying out the administration's objections to the budget resolution conference report that we are now discussing. Dr. Rivlin provided a very good analysis of the budget and its many failings. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now move off of the budget temporarily and return to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I will yield whatever time she needs from our time.

Mr. EXON. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts whatever time he needs off of our 5 hours.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his excellent statement. There will be time tomorrow if he wishes to get into the Medicare matter. We discussed that to some extent already, and I think we should be discussing it further. There will be some time tomorrow, and I would be delighted to yield whatever time the Senator from Massachusetts wishes. I will shortly yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Illinois who has been waiting patiently. However, I want to elaborate a little bit on what the Senator from Massachusetts has been saying about projected growth costs featuring education. The same thing is true with Medicare, and the same thing is true with Medicaid. We have been bamboozled around here, I say to my friend from Massachusetts and my friend from Illinois. We have been bamboozled by the statements that an increase is a decrease only in the Nation's Capital. What we are talking about here are not increases in education funding, net, or increases in Medicare funding, net. What we are talking about is trying to disguise the honest dollar amount that keeps the level of the programs where they are today. Yet there has been a hue and cry across the Nation that the Republican budget does not cut Medicare, it provides more money for Medicare. It does provide more money for Medicare. The facts are it does not provide enough money to meet the real needs of the increased population, the longevity of senior citizens and more and more people who will rely on Medicare. You can see it is not a cut in real dollars, but it is a cut in real needs and what the real costs will be for people who are depending on it. Therefore, it is a cut. We get all tied up with semantics around here. Let me point this out. I had made reference earlier, Madam President, to the fact that Medicare costs were going to outstrip what the Republican budget provides for Medicare. An example: The projected rate of growth in private-sector health care costs over the period that we are talking about would be 7.1 percent per person. Yet the Republican budget on a per-person basis allows Medicare spending to grow only by 4.7 percent. Now, the difference between the projected costs and the Republican budget is 34 percent. Yet the Republicans are saying their increase is reasonable and provides more money. Plainly, Medicare spending will not be keeping up with inflation in the Republican budget when you consider what the inflation is going to be in the private sector and how many more people are going to have to come into this program. We are being bamboozled here, and the American public know that, even if the U.S. Senate majority does not want to address it. I say also that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee attributes the steep reductions in planned Medicare spending in his budget to an effort to save Medicare. He neglects to note that the Republicans sought to reduce Medicare spending by $270 billion even before last year's Medicare trustees' report came out. He also neglects to mention that the President's budget guarantees the solvency of the Medicare trust fund through the year 2005, without making the deep reductions planned in Medicare spending. To back that up, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of May 9, 1996, addressed to myself, the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. EXON. I drive home the point that the President is looking at this realistically and should not be put down for that effort. One more thing, and then I will yield to my friend from Illinois. The chairman of the committee complains about how steep the cuts in domestic discretionary programs are in the President's budget. Yes, it is true the President does achieve substantial savings from discretionary spending, but the President still maintains these domestic investments at a rate of $60 billion higher than the Republican budget in the year 2002. If the chairman believes that the President's cuts are steep, then the chairman would also have to agree that the cuts that he is endorsing in his particular budget are absolutely fatal. The difference between the two budgets is that the Republican budget also cuts taxes so much more. The $122 billion that the chairman mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg. The real iceberg is much larger than that. The chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Kasich, promises $180 billion in tax breaks. The chairman promised, ``We would have our own tax cut that we originally said we would have--that there will be a capital gains tax, that there will be a full child tax credit * * * and there will be a host of other tax relief measures.'' Who is kidding whom? I simply say that to keep honest, we have to be reasonable. We have to recognize if you are going to provide massive tax cuts primarily to benefit the wealthiest among us, something in the budget is going to have to pay for it. That is essentially why, along with the other details, that we will continue to oppose this Republican budget. I yield 15 minutes to my friend and colleague from Illinois.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I am not sure we have any more speakers. We may have some more. I note that Senator Grassley is waiting. I have talked with him, and he is not going to talk on the budget per se. I simply inquire of the Republican side, are there any other speakers on the budget? Senator Grassley has another subject he would like to address as in morning business. Senator Smith is on the floor. Is he here to talk about the budget or another matter?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. We understand that you will have 7 minutes for other matters, and then we will yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, is that correct?

Mr. EXON. We agree with that.

Mr. EXON. With the understanding, I might say, that the Senator from Massachusetts has been very patient. I scheduled him at 4:30, the best I could.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need off of our 5 hours. I believe it is the first time charged to us. We are now proceeding as I understand it with debate on the conference report on the budget.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are on the final leg of this Republican budget's journey, and it is a fruitless one. It does not lead our Nation to any new horizons. It blazes no new paths. It offers no compromise to break the budget deadlock. This Republican budget makes a beeline, it pains me to say, to another dead end. Dead ends are becoming an all-too-familiar haunt for my Republican colleagues if they want to move ahead to something that is workable. Thanks to their intransigence and their extremist budget, that is where we spent most of last year. And it looks as though we will waste another session of Congress trying to back out of yet another dead end. The majority has held the Senate hostage for almost 2 years with basically the same budget. Perhaps they are hoping that the Stockholm syndrome will set in and Democrats will start identifying with their captors. They are wrong. Our will and our vision are strong. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee did his best to repair the damage from last year's budget debacle. I compliment him for the fine job he did. In the hopes of attracting some unsuspecting buyers, the 1997 Republican budget has been spruced up in places. But if this budget were a house, it would still be condemned as unfit. It is still out of touch with mainstream America and I suggest that it should be rejected. All of the efforts of the Republican majority to portray their budget as a moderate one are in vain. The Republican majority have done a superb job to airbrush their budget, but the American people can see the real thing--warts and all. It retains the same unflattering profile as its predecessor: unnecessary reductions in Medicare and Medicaid paying for tax breaks for the wealthy. This is in fact the Newt Gingrich Budget. The agenda has included a $50-billion-plus rehash of star wars that not even the Pentagon wants. And we have frittered away precious time reconsidering the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have consistently voted for the balanced budget amendment, but could not cast my vote for it this time because the Republicans fouled the fiscal nest with senseless and in my opinion, irresponsible tax cuts if we are going to balance the budget fairly. I am baffled by the inconsistency. It is enough to give a prudent man pause. One moment the Republicans bring back to the floor the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, the next he resurrects discredited supply-side economics with tax breaks that could turn into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. President, all of this is a great concern to this Senator who has been trying to be bipartisan in my approach to the concerns that all of us have. I had hoped that we could have used the good will engendered by the majority leader's departure to pass something meaningful for the American people. I ask with all sincerity, ``What has happened to the priorities that matter most to American families?'' What happened to the minimum wage? What happened to the modest health insurance reform package that passed the Senate 100 to zero? What happened to welfare reform? And the big question, we should be asking today, what happened to a balanced budget that all Americans could support? One bill after another has been shackled to failed Republican dogma. This rehashed budget is a prime example. It is part and parcel of the Republican strategy of no-work and all-political-play. Like ancient Gaul, the Republicans divided their budget reconciliation bill into three parts. They wanted to ram through--I emphasize ram through--their failed and stale political agenda and confront the President at every turn of this crooked legislative road. Worst of all, two of these baby reconciliation bills will be devoted largely to cutting taxes--an act that will worsen the deficit without any sense of being responsible or reasonable. We are already seeing the House voodoo work its way in this conference report. At least the Senate language required that all the entitlement spending reductions be enacted into law before--I emphasize before--we considered the tax breaks. The House, not surpisingly, shamelessly tossed that requirement out the window and the Senate concurred in conference. What a fiscal sham all of this is. The first reconciliation bill contains Medicaid, welfare, and tax breaks. Yes. Mr. President and tax breaks. So much for performing deficit reduction before doling out the tax breaks. So much for fiscal conservatism. The first reconciliation bill will reduce the deficit by just $2 billion, if it reduces the deficit at all. This is as plain as the light of day. The majority now want to eliminate the Medicaid guarantee of meaningful health care benefits for 18 million children, 6 million disabled Americans, millions of nursing home residents, 36 million people in all, to fund their tax breaks. The conferees assume a net tax cut of $122 billion, yet Chairman Kasich maintains that the cuts will be as large as $180 billion. You can look but you will not find a single specific mention of closing tax loopholes or of ending corporate tax giveaways. The same budget that eagerly reduces funding for our Medicare and Medicaid Programs cannot find the courage to call upon the special interests to assume any of the burden of balancing the budget. By contrast, President Clinton has proposed that $40 billion be raised from corporate reform and loophole- closers, money that keeps the President's tax cut within reason. This Senator would prefer no tax cut at all until we truly balance the budget. Experience also shows that once the tax-break game begins, the bidding keeps increasing with no thought to the consequences. Chairman Domenici says that the Finance Committee can use tax increases to offset additional tax breaks, and he is well aware that $35 billion is readily available simply by extending three excise taxes. But that won't be enough to satisfy their tax cut appetite and I predict that, like last year, the Republicans will soon be proposing to raid pension funds for working families to pay for the tax breaks that primarily benefit those earning above $100,000 a year. Fiscal insanity is galloping through this Chamber, and we do not have enough votes, unfortunately, to rein it in. One thing that has not changed in the conference report are the deep reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. The Republican budget would reduce Medicare spending growth per-beneficiary far below projected private- sector growth rates. It would diminish quality and access to health care for millions of middle-class Americans. Doctors and hospitals will be able to charge seniors for the entire balance of the charges above the Medicare payment. The Republican majority may assert that premiums are not going up, but they cannot make the same claim about seniors' out-of-pocket expenses, and that is where, primarily, the seniors are going to be hit. The $123 billion reduction of Medicare hospital insurance spending will devastate rural and some urban hospitals as well. The Republicans assert that it is necessary to preserve the solvency of the trust fund through 2006. That is bending the truth to fit their agenda. Funny, is it not, if that is humor, that the net tax breaks--at $122 billion--are almost exactly equal to the cuts in Medicare part A--at $123 billion? President Clinton's budget proposal extends the life of the trust fund without such deep reductions. The Republican-appointed CBO Director has certified that the administration's proposals would extend the life of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund until 2005. And if the recent alarm over the date of insolvency tells us anything, it is not that we should reduce Medicare more to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. That is truly Medi-Scare. The trustees' report is a call for the majority to come back to the bargaining table to work with the President on an acceptable compromise plan that is within reach with just a little effort. And what about Medicaid? Instead of attempting to reform Medicaid in a manner that would be acceptable to mainstream America, the Republican majority put a hard edge to their proposal. I believe you would take a whole nation by surprise if you told them that Republican Medicaid reform might mean that middle-class, working American families might have to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets for nursing home care for a loved one. Or that millions of low-income children might have their health care jeopardized. In other words, reform means conform to their way of thinking, even if it means taking out a second mortgage on your home to pay for nursing home care for a sick or elderly parent. With a $72 billion reduction in Medicaid from projected spending, combined with a block grant approach, that may well be the scenario. I would like to conclude my remarks with an observation on this and the previous Republican budgets. I am reminded of an old print I once saw. It showed a man on a horse-drawn sleigh being chased by a pack of wolves. With the horses galloping as fast as they can, the driver is tossing out everything that is in the sleigh. If he does not lighten the load, the wolves will catch him. A pack of hungry wolves focuses the mind wonderfully on what is truly important. So should this debate on balancing the budget. The problem with Republican budget after Republican budget is that they will not give up on what is not important. What is important to the American people--and they have said it time after time, is balancing the budget and balancing it fairly. They would far rather jettison the tax breaks but maintain a first-rate health care system, and balance the budget than run the risk of deficits in the years ahead, eating into the future of their children. But my Republican colleagues cling to the tax breaks--the tax breaks that fuel the reductions in Medicare and Medicaid and divide our great Nation. That is why they and this budget will ultimately fail. And that is not only a tragedy for the departing majority leader but for the American people as well. It is sad to have to conclude on this note, but this is clearly a failed budget. Once it passes, as it will, we will be starting over again on what we went through last year--meeting after meeting, crisis after crisis, and not a workable budget that can be supported by the President, by the minority in both the House and the Senate, and certainly not by the American people. When, oh, when, will they learn? Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. We have no objection.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. We have no objection.

Mr. EXON. I say to my friend and colleague from New Mexico, the Senator on this side has been trying to accommodate Democratic Senators who wanted to speak on the budget. I had a Senator scheduled for 4:30. I set him back to 5 o'clock. I thought we had agreed, and I used time in the 1 hour, for salutes to Senator Dole. All I am saying is it is very difficult for me to schedule speakers on the matter at hand if we keep setting these things back. I wish to accommodate all Senators. When you accommodate one Senator, you ``disaccommodate'' someone else. How many speakers do we have that wish to speak on the Dole matter?

Mr. EXON. That would be Wednesday. If we do not vote then, we vote when?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object. Is it the Senator's intention that we would go to the budget then at 3:30? Is that the plan?