J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Go ahead.

Mr. EXON. Let me respond to the Senator from my perspective, and I cannot speak for the majority. We are now considering the Abraham amendment. We will vote on that. If this unanimous consent request is agreed to--and if I agree to it, I must say--immediately following that, we would be up for consideration of an amendment from the Democratic side. I have indicated to my friend from California that she would be first up with her amendment. So I will simply say, after the vote, you would, as far as I am concerned, be recognized to offer your amendment. If it is possible-- obviously it is not between now and the scheduled vote at 8:30--I would certainly recommend to Chairman Domenici that we proceed with the order which would allow you to follow the vote.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, could I add one thing that I think should be driven home? If we are going to expedite this process, we are going to have to have people who are on the list to come and offer their amendments on Friday, or on Monday and not leave here tonight and assume that they are home free until sometime on Tuesday because, if we all do that, then Tuesday is going to be a much worse day than it is destined to be in any event. So I hope people listened to what Senator Domenici said and be here tomorrow to offer amendments, and not just assume, and then everybody flock in here as they usually do at 2:30 on Tuesday afternoon and say, ``Why can't I have 2 hours on my amendment?'' It will not be.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be necessary. I wish to make a few comments about the situation here at hand. I want to take people to Nebraska, which is a very typical State in the Midwest part of our great country. It is very typical from the standpoint of being a substantial rural State with lots of rural, small communities and is also typical of the Great Plains States and some of the other States of the Union. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of my colleague from West Virginia. I am a cosponsor of that amendment. The Medicare reductions in this budget are too large and are not required to balance the budget and extend the life of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund through at least the year 2005. I am particularly concerned about the deep and disproportionate cuts that will be borne by hospitals, particularly rural hospitals. The Senate Budget Committee said its $170 billion in reductions and spending growth would include a $123 billion reduction in Medicare part A. This will threaten the quality and the financial viability of hospitals, particularly the rural and inner-city hospitals. Previous Republican budgets slowed the rate of growth in hospital payments, but under this year's plan the Congress may need to adopt policies that would actually reduce payments, not simply reduce the rate of increase in these payments. Under any definition, that represents a true cut in spending. So we will not have to get into all that argument that we continually get into about what is a cut. What I am talking about is it appears to me from some of the other information that I will furnish the Senate during these remarks that what we are threatened with is a real cut. That means less dollars, less dollars and cents than last year, and by any definition that is a cut. I recently received a letter from Harlan Heald that I will read. Harlan Heald is an acquaintance of many, many years way back to the time when I was Governor of Nebraska, and if there is a Mr. Rural Hospital in Nebraska, it is Mr. Heald. Mr. Heald is President of the Nebraska Association of Hospital and Health Systems. They are not a political organization. They are an organization that devotes time, talent and effort to represent the people who provide hospital services in rural Nebraska primarily. According to Mr. Heald's analysis, a reduction of $50 billion would have a devastating impact on Nebraska hospitals. Mr. Heald writes, and I quote: Sixty-five rural hospitals would lose $69.1 million over 7 years and 12 large rural hospitals would lose $100 million. Thirty out of Nebraska's 65 small rural hospitals would lose money in providing care. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that the full text of Mr. Heald's letter be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, after I read that letter, because there are so many interesting factual and true statements in it, not from a political standpoint but from what the Republican effort and the Republican bill will do to rural Nebraska. If it is going to do something to rural Nebraska, it is going to do it to rural North Dakota and rural South Dakota and rural Kansas, and rural Oklahoma, and every rural State in the United States of America. These are the consequences of the $50 billion reduction over 7 years. What would be the impact then of a $123 billion reduction over 6 years that we are now faced with? A loss of this magnitude in a State where Medicare patients account for 60 to 70 percent of hospital admissions clearly threatens the health care system on which all of us depend. Several hospitals in my State are teetering on the brink of insolvency while we are here talking about the bankruptcy of Medicare. This latest Republican proposal will very likely drive them over the edge. Mr. President, I wish to read from the letter that I have just referenced. This letter is dated May 14, 1996, addressed to me. Dear Senator Exon: I have reviewed a summary of the current fiscal year 1997 House and Senate Budget Committee proposal with respect to the Medicare Program. On behalf of the 94 acute care hospitals in Nebraska, I wish to call your attention to a very serious potential problem. While it appears that the overall Medicare budget reductions of $158 billion are roughly the same as those in the last Republican proposal in January, the budget committees have significantly altered the allocation of reductions within the program, reducing part A spending by $123 billion versus the $77.5 billion proposed in January. We have been told on numerous occasions that the reductions are not cuts-- This is not in the letter. I just want to add here, how many times have we heard that here? Back to the letter. but are reductions in the rate of spending over a 6-year period. The current budget resolution includes lower budget reductions in part B of Medicare, while the reductions in part A have been significantly increased since the January proposal. The larger Medicare Part A reductions in the current proposal means hospitals will experience actual reductions in payments--not merely a reduction in the rate of payment increase. We are talking about real cuts here. I am away from the letter. We are talking about real cuts here, when every time we talk about cuts, people stand up and say, Oh, only in Washington, DC, is an increase a cut. I have always said we must legislate to real needs, what the costs are going to be. Another editorial comment before I go on with reading this letter from an expert on the subject in Nebraska, and that, Mr. President, is simply this: I am convinced that the reductions in the amount for real needs that the Republicans have been espousing are below the projected costs and rises in health care over the next 6 years. Putting that another way, what I am saying is that the Republicans have been saying, ``Oh, well, this is not a cut, this is just a slowing down of the growth.'' Time and time again that has been used on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Mr. Heald brings us back to reality by saying what I indicated when I first started talking on this subject, that these cuts are not simply a reduction in the growth. They are cuts, dollars and cents, below what hospitals have received before. Back to the letter: Although I have not received enough detail to permit me to make an analysis of the impact of the proposed reduction in Medicaid Part A spending, I do have information from an earlier proposal last fall that looked at Part A reductions of about $50 billion out of the total reductions over a seven-year period. Although it is a ``crude'' approximation, the impact on Nebraska hospitals looks like this: Sixty-five small rural hospitals would lose an aggregate of $69.1 million during the seven-year period of 1996 to 2002. Twelve large rural hospitals would lose a total of $100.4 million, and 11 metropolitan (Lincoln and Omaha) hospitals would lose $337.4 million, during the seven-year period. Note--In 1994, 30 hospitals out of Nebraska's 65 small rural hospitals lost money providing care. Let me repeat that: In 1994, 30 hospitals out of Nebraska's 65 small rural hospitals lost money providing care. Again, this is based on a Part A reduction of about $50 billion over a 7-year period. I hate to think what these numbers might resemble under the current proposal with Medicare Part A targeted for a $123 billion hit. Reimbursement reductions of this magnitude in a state with a disproportionate share of the elderly population, a state in which Medicare patients account for 60 to 70 percent of hospital admissions, clearly threatens the health care system upon which all of us depend. Medicare needs to be fixed. There is an opportunity for Congress to change Medicare, but the change must be driven by sound health care policy, not budgetary or political imperatives. The proposed Medicare reductions would crush Nebraska hospitals. As always, Nebraska hospitals look to your leadership. Mr. President, I also would like to read a letter from the following groups: The American Association of Eye and Ear Hospitals, the American Hospital Association, the American Osteopathic Healthcare Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, Catholic Health Association, Federation of American Health Systems, InterHealth, National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, and Premier. This letter is dated May 10, and it is addressed by those organizations I just read, to the Honorable William Roth, chairman, Committee on Finance. Dear Chairman Roth: The undersigned organizations representing hospitals and health care systems have reviewed the Fiscal Year 1997 House and Senate Budget Committee proposal, particularly with respect to Medicare and Medicaid programs. While it appears that the overall Medicare budget reductions of $167 billion are roughly the same as those in the Republican offer in January, the Budget Committees have significantly changed the allocation of reductions within the program. The letter goes on and essentially makes the same exact points made by the letter that I read, by Harlan Heald. So the professionals know what is going on. We know what is going on here. I must continue to make the point that Nebraska is not unique in this. But if you have a hospital, because of the aging population in rural areas of America in toto, where 60 to 70 percent, and some places higher, have their beds dedicated to people who are eligible and receive Medicare, and for many of them that is the only health care system available to them, and you compare that with a hospital, for example in Lincoln or Omaha or other more metropolitan areas that have their patients coming in only about 20 to 25 percent seniors, you quickly understand that what we are doing here is socking it right between the eyes of the rural hospitals in the United States of America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent both of the letters I have referenced be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, now that all time has been yielded, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside temporarily the Rockefeller amendment and proceed with the next amendment that I understand under the agreement would be the one to be offered by the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I understand at this time we are trying to reach a unanimous consent agreement to have a vote at 8:30. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. This timing is getting rather complicated. Senator Kerry is making a special trip back from Boston and will be in Pittsburgh then he has to go back. He told me he would be here hopefully between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock. He will be very strapped for time to meet the connection. I simply say as nearly as possible I hope we can accommodate Senator Kerry when he shows up, maybe put him before or after. I did not know about Senator Murray.

Mr. EXON

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. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in keeping with what we have done several times today, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the Senator from Georgia be recognized for appropriate remarks on the tragedy that faced all of us today, especially the U.S. Navy.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. If the Senator will withhold for a minute so we can talk about time here, a lot of people have asked me when we are going to vote. I simply say--and I have not had a report from the Senator yet this morning--that we have about 34 amendments that Democrats are intending to offer. We asked last night that they try and advise us, and your side advise you, what amendments we have. We are trying to complete this effort by tomorrow night. We are certainly going to have to have some discipline somewhere along the line to get that done. I would like to ask, first, about how many amendments do you see on your side, or do you know about at the present time? When we have that, we will add that to the 34 that we have here and multiply that out by the number of hours that each one of those amendments are entitled to. Then we will begin to see the difficult task we are going to have by trying to finish this by tomorrow night. The second question I want to ask to move this debate along is this. Last night, Senators on both sides suggested that we put off this debate until this morning and not have a vote before noon. I am wondering if we could possibly get an agreement that we would try and balance out time so that we could have a vote in the vicinity of noon today on this matter. Is that a feasible proposal? Does the Senator think that might move things along?

Mr. EXON. That is a good sign.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. There is no objection on this side, Mr. President.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond to the remarks and comments of my friend and colleague from Tennessee. Could I see that chart that he just had there about the trust fund going broke? Mr. President, here is one of the things that I am most concerned about. I think we all recognize that we have a problem, and we all are trying to work together to solve it. I do not think it is particularly helpful for us to show on television charts that scare the devil out of the senior citizens of America. The Medicare fund is not going to go broke. Everybody knows it is not going to go broke because the Congress, whatever it has to do, is going to step in and stop it. The fact of the matter is that while we keep criticizing what the President of the United States has done, as I demonstrated by charts earlier on today--listening to people on the floor of the U.S. Senate that have recently come into the Congress, you would think they are the only ones who have any expertise or knowledge on how to balance the Federal budget--as I showed vividly with charts this morning, it was the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, who has come on board and at the urging of some of us who have been fiscal conservatives for a long, long time and very much concerned about the skyrocketing budget deficits annualized at about $300 billion, Bill Clinton is the one who has reversed that course. For the first time since man's mind runneth to the contrary, we have seen a dramatic turnaround in the annual deficits of the United States of America. I only say, once again, that all of these things that are being thrown around by those on that side of the aisle who fought without a single Republican vote against the deficit reduction proposal advanced by the President of the United States and supported by Democrats was the only time in 30 years that we have had a turnaround in the annual deficits. When I see people talking about the trust fund going broke, unfortunately, I feel it is a means of scaring senior citizens. I tell the senior citizens that the fund is not going to go broke. Of all the criticisms that have been made about how bad and how gimmickry the President of the United States is with his proposal, I cite once again, and, if necessary, I will read it once again. Let me repeat what June O'Neill said on May 9, 1996, in a letter to me after I made a request for her, June O'Neill, the Republican appointee as head of the Congressional Budget Office that we all look to as a guiding light today and the umpire, if you will, on disputes between the political parties. She said, ``Under the law, the trust fund is projected to become insolvent by 2002.'' So we agree with that part. But when we talk about going busted, that is something else--going bankrupt, projected to go bankrupt. June O'Neill goes on to say that the Congressional Budget Office, which, I say again, is run by the Republicans--it has a director who makes these decisions after listening to staff that are Republicans-- June O'Neill says in that May 9 letter to me, ``The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the administration's proposal would postpone this date,'' or the date when it could be in some trouble, ``to the year 2005.'' I simply say, Mr. President, it is not necessary for us to talk about this going broke and indicate that the Democrats and the President of the United States are doing nothing about it when that is not the case. The Senator complains about backloading, about backloading in the President's budget. Take a look at the Republican budget. It is like the kettle calling the teapot black. There is little difference with regard to the backloading in either the Democratic plan or the Republican plan, and we should be honest about it and not mislead the American people. It seems to me you would have to agree that under my calculations, both budgets, both the Democratic budget of the President and the Republican budget, achieve exactly the same amount of deficit reduction--82 percent of it in the last 3 years. Let me repeat that. You hear this talk about backloading. Backloading means that you do not make the cuts upfront now. You wait until the 6th and 7th year of the budget. So that is after Bill Clinton will have finished his second 4-year term as President of the United States or that is after our good friend, Senator Bob Dole, would finish his first 4 years as President of the United States. But both are guilty of the same thing. And I wish to lay down the marker now, that when you hear about backloading, it is a plague on both of our houses. Mr. President, 82 percent of the deficit reduction or savings in both the President's plan and the Republican plan is in the last 3 years. So I simply say that there is probably little to be gained if you want to talk honestly about who is the worst backloader. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I yield myself whatever time is necessary off of my time. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to my friend and colleague, and as near as I can tell, when he uses charts to show how we are falsely trying to take credit for reducing the annual deficit, and giving that credit where I think it logically belongs, to President Bill Clinton, I simply say, well, it is tomfoolery. I also suggest, regardless of the charts and percentages that we talk about, one of the reasons that we are making significant progress is the fact that under President Bill Clinton we are having a good economy, a growing economy, the stock market reaching record proportions. I simply say, at least I hope my Republican colleagues would agree that we should give President Clinton the credit that he deserves for the good economic news, the growing economy without inflation that we are experiencing under the leadership of Bill Clinton. I would hate to think what the Republicans would be saying if we were here debating this resolution at a time when the economy was not going well, if the confidence of Americans was not as healthy as it is. I am sure that under those conditions my Republican colleagues would not be blaming President Clinton for those downturns. That is facetious and at best it is an understatement. One other thing on Medicare. The Republicans always seem to keep moving the goalposts. Last year, how many times did we hear, ``Mr. President, just give us a balanced budget that will be scored and balanced by CBO, and we can come to an agreement.'' The President did that at the urging of myself and others who thought that his earlier budget proposal last year was not sound. He made dramatic changes. He changed many things, all for the good. Finally, believe it or not, we got CBO to approve a budget plan that the President had offered. Then, rather than sealing the agreement that they had made--if you could come to a balanced budget agreement certified by CBO, we could get together--they started moving the goal post. On Medicare, the Republicans always seem to be moving the goal post once again. All last year, the Republicans called for preserving the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund. All year, time and time again, that is what they wanted. Now, Mr. President, now that the President has come up with a plan, certified again by the Republican appointee, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, they are moving the goal post. They said 2005 is not enough, we have to go beyond that. It is like they are moving the budget, and every time we meet their goal and reach their goal line, they move the goal post. That may be political. I think it is. At least, it seems to me, it is not realistic. I simply say, as somewhat of a football expert, Nebraska could not possibly have won two national championships if we moved the goal post every time we got close to the goal line. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. EXON. If we can take that 4 hours and get it down to 1 or 1\1/2\, that is our goal.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague from New Mexico for his most kind remarks. I appreciate them more than he knows. When I came here 18 years ago, I sought a seat on the Budget Committee and was granted one. I have served on the Budget Committee the entire time I have been here. One of the stalwarts on that committee on the other side of the aisle, whom I got to know initially very well that first year on the Budget Committee, was Pete Domenici. What he has just said means a great deal, and I thank Senator Domenici for that. I have the highest respect for his ability and his integrity, and I appreciate what he said about my support. I feel the same way about the Senator from New Mexico. We do not always agree, and we cannot in this body. Sometimes it may be difficult for people who do not understand the U.S. Senate to recognize and realize that we can disagree on policy, we can disagree on numbers, and we can speak very forcefully about that. That is the process. But as far as personal esteem is concerned, there is no one in the U.S. Senate whom I hold in more high personal esteem than I do my chairman, the Republican Member, and the excellent floor manager of the measure before us. So in spite of what is said after that, I certainly want Senator Domenici to know, as he already knows, that we are good friends, who have high regard for each other personally. And in the difficult tasks that face the Nation, here is where we come to some disagreement as to how to reach the proper end that we both are seeking. As Senator Domenici has said, Mr. President, this is the last budget resolution that I shall manage on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I remember well my first budget resolution 18 years ago. It was in the spring of 1979, and our dear and late colleague, Senator Ed Muskie of Maine, was the chairman of the Budget Committee, and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Henry Bellmon, was the ranking minority member. The projected deficit for fiscal year 1980 was less than $20 billion. It does not seem possible, but that is what it was. I had high hopes, as a freshman Senator, that we would see the end of deficit spending. I said so in my first speech. But those hopes were dashed, Mr. President, during the Reagan-Bush years when deficits were piled upon deficits. President Reagan's Office of Management and Budget Director, David Stockman--in case he has been forgotten--later described that period of time under Reagan-Bush as ``fiscal carnage.'' The fiscal carnage that took place at that time is what we are attempting to deal with here today, as we were last year. Four years ago, President Clinton began the arduous task of drawing a narrowing circle on the deficit, and he succeeded beyond all expectations, with no help, Mr. President, from those on that side of the aisle. I will simply cite the difficulties that we are in and how we are going to get out of them, and the significant contribution that President Clinton has made to the possibility of balancing the budget by the year 2002. The graph that I have behind me here is entitled ``Budget Deficits, CBO Estimates.'' These are Congressional Budget Office estimates of where they were going. You will see the year 1980 to the year 2000 across the bottom of the chart, and the billions of dollars in deficits on the left side. If you will notice, halfway up the chart, before the dotted lines start, is where President Bill Clinton came into office. At that time, you will notice that the annual deficits were about $300 billion a year. I would like to make a point here that I think all too many Americans do not fully appreciate or grasp. They hear ``deficits,'' they hear ``national debt,'' and all too often I think the difference between the two becomes blurred. So, once again, for the Record, let me state that the deficits we talk about are the annual shortfalls where we spend in Government more than we take in. The annual deficits were running wild. I just stated in my opening remarks that when I was here in my first year, we were facing an annual deficit of $20 billion. When Bill Clinton became President of the United States, we were facing annual deficits not of $20 billion but of $300 billion. I hear attacks again and again that are not factual, indicating that the President of the United States is not sincere, that he is trying to use smoke and mirrors. The smoke and mirrors in this chart shows what has happened. This bottom line is that President Bill Clinton--without help from or even one vote on that side of the aisle in the U.S. Senate or over in the House of Representatives--has driven that $300 billion deficit down. That is the annual deficit as opposed to the trillion- dollar, multitrillion-dollar debt of the United States of America. That is something that I think people overlook. At the end of each year when the deficit is $20 billion, as it was when I came here, or up to $300 billion when Bill Clinton came here as President of the United States, those deficits at the end of each and every year are piled upon, and we start all over at the end of each year. Those deficits magically go away, I guess. What we do is pile them onto the national debt, which has risen since I came here--before the Reagan-Bush years from under $1 trillion; today, to over $5 trillion--and are going up even under the projections of the Republicans to at least $6 trillion, before we balance the budget, hopefully by the year 2002. The point I want to make again, Mr. President, is that when Bill Clinton became President of the United States we were running deficits of $300 billion. Notice the lower line where they have come down now to where the Congressional Budget Office projects they will be under $150 billion next year. Bill Clinton, therefore, is not even given credit by those on that side of the aisle for more than cutting in half the annual deficits of the United States of America. That is a remarkable achievement. But you do not hear much about it from that side of the aisle. The lower part of this President's budget takes the budget down to balance by the year 2002 as opposed to what the Congressional Budget Office projections said they would be on that up line before Bill Clinton--BBC, Before Bill Clinton. I submit for the Record that I do not think anyone can refute it, that unless we had followed the fiscal responsibility of Bill Clinton when he became President of the United States that has more than cut the annual deficits in half, we would not be standing here today pretending, or hoping, that we could balance the budget by the year 2002 because we would have been way up here on the upper part of this chart. And had we continued to follow the policies that those on the other side of the aisle, evidently by their votes, wanted to follow we would not be standing here today talking about reaching balance in 2002. Before Bill Clinton, BBC, we were in deep trouble, and we are still in very deep trouble. But unless Bill Clinton had taken a stand and unless the Democrats, by a tie, or one vote, had the courage to stand up and say, ``We have to stop it,'' we would not be in a position today, even under the Republican proposal to balance the budget by the year 2002. So let us give Bill Clinton at least some credit. We thought, Mr. President, that we had a chance last year to build on the President's success. Under his leadership, we would have reduced our Federal deficit to use some other figure by a projected $846 billion through fiscal year 1998. We had a rare opportunity to balance the budget last year, but that opportunity was squandered by the radical right. Here we are yet with another year and with yet another Republican budget that does not fairly do what this Senator and most on this side of the aisle and most of the American people want to do: balance the budget in a fair and equitable manner. During the opening remarks by my friend and colleague from New Mexico, and I think I can quote the manager of the bill correctly, he said the President claims that he will balance the budget. But he indicated in his remarks that it was fictional. Let me say, Mr. President, that all during that debate that followed the budget last year and the failure of the Republicans even to meet with the President to work out a proposition, it is clear to see where the responsibility lies. Despite the claims, despite the statements, June O'Neill, the Republican-appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office, testified in front of the Budget Committee, and I quote June O'Neill: ``The President's budget proposals and policies, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, would balance the budget by the year 2002.'' Let me repeat that again. Contrary to what you have heard, contrary to what you are going to hear, the Republican-appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office says the President's budget policies will balance the budget by the year 2002. Mr. President, we also heard a great deal so far today--and I am sure that we will hear more about it in the future--that the President of the United States is not being honest with regard to the Medicare trust fund. Mr. President, I cite a letter, and hereby request it be printed in the Record of May 9, 1996, from June O'Neill, the Republican- appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office, to me, the Honorable James Exon, ranking member, Committee on the Budget: Dear Senator: At your request, the Congressional Budget Office has examined the effects of the administration's budgetary proposals on the hospital insurance trust fund. Under current law, the hospital insurance trust fund is projected to become insolvent by the year 2001. CBO estimates that the administration's proposal would postpone this date to the year 2005. Enough is enough is enough. I do not think we accomplish a great deal by plotting against other people's motives when the leader of the CBO has certified that the President is being honest and that the President and his administration are being straightforward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I just referenced be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON. Here we are, Mr. President, with yet another Republican budget. But after 18 months of extremism and demagoguery, after two shutdowns and a threat of a dozen more, I must say that I expected something better. True--and I congratulate and thank my friend from New Mexico--true, there is some degree of dulling the knife's edge from last year's disastrous Republican budget proposal that was not appreciated by the vast majority of the people of the United States once they understood it. But I ask, is this latest Republican budget kinder? Is it a gentler budget than the Republicans had promised the American people? I think not. Yes, it is somewhat better, I would say, than last year. Primarily that is possible because the Congressional Budget Office in the estimating of what is going to happen in the future has come up with a healthier economic growth than they had previously. I thank Senator Domenici and the Republicans for wisely using that to alleviate some of the hit that many Americans not as fortunate as the rest of us would have taken. We hear time and time again about how the Republicans are going to spend more money on these programs than in the past. You have heard already and you will hear more about the fact that the Republicans are spending more money than in the past, especially with regard to Medicare programs. Yet the facts are that the additional money the Republicans are saying they are going to spend, therefore saying, piously, that it is not a cut, even though the rate of increase that the Republicans are proposing for the average Medicare recipient is less than the projected increased costs of health care for the public at large will not be sufficient for the seniors that need Medicare. So another way of saying it, oh, yes, they are providing more money but they are not providing the money that seniors need for Medicare, if you look at the projections of what the increased costs will be for the public at large. One need only go in this area to the materials issued on May 8 by the House Budget Committee and the joint House-Senate press conference that followed. You will see the same venomous policy and skewed priorities that were proposed in last year's budget included in this new Republican budget, although I hasten to add it is an improvement over last year. The direct student loan program would be eliminated. The Goals 2000 Program would be terminated. That is a key educational function. The earned income tax credit would be slashed by $17 billion, $7 billion above what the bipartisan Governors found was acceptable. So that there will be no misunderstanding, the earned income tax credit was first proposed, I believe, by President Ford, and the earned income tax credit is designed for the very lowest of the low-paid people of the United States of America. It is designed to get them out of poverty by giving them an earned income tax credit. It was a Ford- Republican proposal that we Democrats in a bipartisan fashion recognized was good, and we have taken up the mantle. They, the other side of the aisle, are devastating that earned income tax credit that goes right to the heart and throat of many people living near that economic edge. The programs that they advocate also eliminate the Department of Commerce, and Energy would be either eliminated or deep sixed to the place where they could not function. Even the slightly better off Senate Republican budget cuts $65 billion more in discretionary spending than the President's plan, and discretionary spending is something that we all agree now is a major concern for the future welfare of America. I suppose this warms the cold hearts of Speaker Gingrich and Mr. Armey and the Republican freshman class over on the other side of the Hill, but it is of little consolation to the American people who had expected moderation and imagination and teamwork. I say to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, I compliment his leadership on that side of the aisle in many areas, and I listened with great interest and had a tendency to stand up and applaud when Senator Domenici was talking about the need to make changes in the immigration policy. I happen to agree that we have gone way too far and allowed way too many people into the United States of America. Not all of the immigrants but far too many are coming in here to take advantage of our safety net that is already overcrowded, and we are not doing a very good job of maintaining it. We cannot have immigrants coming into this country primarily to take advantage of our safety net. I hope and think my friend from New Mexico appreciates the fact that during the recent debate on this measure, this particular Senator voted almost without exception with the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], the leader of the effort. I think we will find that we did not do everything we wanted to do, but I think we made some good strides under the excellent leadership primarily of Senator Simpson and, of course, on our side Senator Kennedy. Immigration is still a major problem and causes us great difficulty when we try to come up with what is the right thing to do. Once again, I compliment Senator Domenici for his leadership in this area and in many others. Yet we are faced with those in our party and he on his side in his party among many who feel that some kind of compromise is something bad. Compromise is the only way we have to bring 100 dedicated, strong- willed people into some kind of coalition so that we can get things done. I must say that I look at this budget resolution, Mr. President, that this budget resolution, while some improvement over the last, still fails in many ways. Most of all, this budget fails the American people. I do not think putting frosting over a bad cake makes it any better. It still divides our great country when we should be striving to unite it. It still casts blight when we should be providing shade and comfort for the elderly, the disabled and especially our children. It still extracts the most from those who have the least when we should be asking for a fair and shared sacrifice. This is where President Clinton's budget succeeds. That is why I will be offering to use the Clinton budget, which balances the budget by the year 2002 as certified by the Republican appointee to the Congressional Budget Office. This is where the Republican budget, in my view, fails the test of fairness. The Republican budget promises many things. As far as I can see, the Republican budget may achieve balance. I agree that it would achieve balance, as does the President's budget, in the year that they claim it will. But at what cost to the American people under the Republican budget? What sacrifices, many of them unfair in the view of this Senator, are we going to make? As far as the rest of the loud promises are concerned, they are gusty winds of propaganda. This Republican budget delivers least when it promises to do most. The Republican majority would like Americans to believe that they are saving Medicare for future generations. ``Preserve and protect,'' was their poster-tested public relations slogan. But when $167 billion--I repeat, Mr. President, when $167 billion is lopped off the projected spending for Medicare over the next 6 years, $50 billion more than in the President's budget, I am not so sure it will be the same first-class health care system that exists today. It is this first-class system--and it is a first-class system--more than just a trust fund that we are trying to protect and preserve. Despite the attacks from the other side, I cite back once again to the letter that I received from June O'Neill, the Republican-appointed CBO chief, that the President is right in his projections. The Republican budget would reduce Medicare spending growth per beneficiary far below--far below the projected private sector growth rate. I mentioned this earlier. It is right to say we are increasing the spending, but if we are increasing the spending for Medicare less than the cost of health care delivery in the private sector, then that is not an increase. I am very fearful that what the Republicans are doing here will, without question, diminish the quality and the 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. Hear this again. Under the proposal, the Republican proposal that they claim is fair and reasonable, doctors and hospitals would be able to charge seniors for the entire balance of the charges above the Medicare payment. The danger here, and Americans should understand it, and they will not have the wool pulled over their eyes-- is the Republican majority may assert----

Mr. EXON. And I am sure you would agree.

Mr. EXON. I think it should be a foregone conclusion that whatever the procedure, that you on that side and myself on this side will make the final determination of what will be the order of filing amendments. Certainly you have every right to recognize Senator Grassley for the first remarks on that side. What I have indicated is when our time comes, it is very likely that the first action on this side will be the offering of the President's budget as a substitute. I just want to alert you to that.

Mr. EXON. That is my present plan, although we have not locked in anything.

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as a matter of fairness, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. No. I was just going to try and get embodied in an agreement what we had arranged for. The Senator from Delaware would like 3 or 4 minutes on another subject. I would like time likewise. Then we had general agreement that we would go to Senator Grassley with his amendment. We have all agreed to that, and I would just like to suggest it.