J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield whatever time is needed off of our time to the Senator from Maryland.

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.

Mr. EXON. OK. I will follow the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I just want to emphasize what the Budget Committee chairman has said. There is great determination, especially on that side, to complete action this week on this budget. Whether or not that is going to be possible, we run over into Saturday or Sunday, as was indicated to me as a possibility by the chairman of the committee, I simply emphasize if people could get their amendments to us, as he has indicated, by noon tomorrow so that we would know at least preliminarily where we are on these things, then we can possibly allot and cut down some time on some of these things to expedite the proceedings which I think we all would like to do. So I endorse the statement that was made by the chairman of the committee and thank him for his cooperation.

Mr. EXON

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. I will yield at conclusion of my remarks. The Republican majority may assert that premiums are not going up, but they cannot make the same claim about seniors' out-of-pocket expenses to pay their medical bills. The $123 billion reduction in the growth of the Medicare hospital insurance spending will particularly devastate rural and urban hospitals. The Republicans assert that it is necessary to preserve the solvency of the trust fund through the year 2006. Not true, Mr. President. President Clinton's budget proposal extends the life of the trust fund without such deep reductions as the Republicans are proposing. The Republican-appointed CBO Director has certified, and I say this again, that the administration's proposal would extend the life of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund until the year 2005. What about Medicaid? What about Medicaid reform? Reform was the Republican rallying cry, but instead of attempting to reform Medicaid in a manner that would be acceptable to mainstream America, the Republican majority paddled up one of their right-wing tributaries and came out with something new. I believe you would take the whole Nation by surprise if you told them that the 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 their loved ones, or that millions of low-income children might have their health care jeopardized, or that enforcement of nursing home standards might not be as vigilant as it is today. 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 the projected spending combined with a block grant approach, that may well be the scenario. In closing, I want to talk for a moment about tax breaks. My colleagues know that I oppose all tax breaks until we get the deficit under control. But, of course, that is not going to prevail. This is just one conservative Senator's opinion, that we should not be talking about tax breaks until we get the budget finally and completely under control. But that is not the way it is going to be, because this is a political year. It is not easy to say ``no'' to tax cuts. It is a painful, unpopular vote. But that is what we should be doing, in the opinion of this conservative Democratic Senator. This year the Senate Republicans claim a net tax cut of $122 billion. This figure is going to be talked about a great deal during this debate. But let me repeat that. This year the Senate Republicans claim a net tax cut of $122 billion. But no one should be fooled into believing that the Republicans intend to limit their tax breaks merely to that. The gross cuts will be much larger. The House Budget Committee and its chairman boast that this budget will provide at least $180 billion in permanent new tax relief. There is something amiss here. The Republicans are certifying and claiming that they have only $122 billion in tax cuts in the Senate proposal and yet those who consulted with the Republicans in the Senate, their counterparts over in the House of Representatives, claim that the same numbers will add up to $180 billion in tax cuts, and have said so publicly. There is something wrong. Their budget also provides for a list of tax cuts that could include nearly every item included in last year's totally failed budget that was rejected by the President and rejected by the American people. Just so no one has forgotten, the tax cuts in that bill would have gone primarily to the wealthiest Americans. So much for the little guy in a Republican proposed budget. I provide this side-by-side comparison for a good reason. I ask my colleagues to remember what happened last year. The Senate Republican budget had $170 billion in tax breaks and the House Republican budget lavished even more at $347 billion in tax breaks, largely for the wealthy. In the end, the conferees agreed to $245 billion in tax breaks. So experience tells us to be wary of Republican promises of how much or how little tax breaks will be, and who in the end will benefit from them. The Republican budget also does not call upon special interests, who assume few if any of the burdens of balancing our budget. While President Clinton has proposed that $40 billion--$40 billion be raised from corporate reform and loophole closing, the Republican budget lists no savings from these categories. When I mentioned that President Clinton has proposed $40 billion be raised from corporate tax giveaways and reforms and loophole closings, I only say, referring back to the chart I have in back of me that I referenced earlier, the President, Bill Clinton, knows what he is doing with regard to being a fiscal leader. Having said that, I must admit that I would not have stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and said that a year ago in January when the President sent his group down here to explain to us on the Budget Committee his budget for last year. At the time, I said it was a bad budget, I did not support it, I would not support it. But through the influence of Senators like myself and others, we have helped Bill Clinton make the firm decisions that he made to accomplish the goal of reducing the annual deficit from $300 billion when he took office down to $150 billion. The President is now on the right course. I did not salute him when he came up with a budget last year that I did not think made any sense. I salute him for what he has done now. He is on the right course. The figures prove that he is on the right course. Let us get behind the President and support him. Chairman Domenici made it clear, however, that the tax increases can be used by and maybe increased by the Finance Committee to offset additional tax breaks. If the past is any guide, the Republicans will soon be proposing to raid the pension funds for working families to pay for tax breaks that will primarily benefit those earning over $100,000 a year. I do not believe, Mr. President, that my friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, wants that. But he has to deal with some people on the other side of the Hill who plainly want that, and the Republicans in the Senate need and have to have the cooperation and the support for their Republican counterparts on the other side of the Hill. I simply say that there is an alternative. There is an alternative to this rehashed and repackaged Republican budget. It is the President's budget. In my 18 years in the Senate, this is the first Presidential budget of either a Republican President or a Democratic President that this Senator has supported, and I support it in the form that is submitted. Not that I agree with all of it, and I hope that if we were using the President's mark, the President's budget, we would adopt some changes. But from the standpoint of starting and setting up something to amend, we would be far better off to work from the President's budget with some flaws than the Republican proposal with many, many, many more flaws. The President's budget reflects his values and the priorities. It makes difficult choices, but it makes them fairly. It balances fiscal responsibility with caring and compassion for our seniors, the young and the neediest among us. At the appropriate time--sometime today--I will offer the President's budget as a substitute for the Republican budget that is presently before us. There is a clear distinction between these two budgets, a distinction that is not lost on the American people. We should have the opportunity to debate and vote on these two distinct visions for the future of our Nation, and we will. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying to the chairman of the Budget Committee, once again, that I know he had a very difficult time putting this budget resolution together, and I suspect he would be the first to admit that there are some things in here that he is not enthusiastic about. But, once again, the art of being a leader in the U.S. Senate, regardless of which side of the aisle you are on, has to take into consideration what you can do, what you can accomplish, building a coalition. Certainly, in this case, the Senator from New Mexico has built a coalition of what most of the Republicans would like to see. I join with my chairman and thank him for mentioning the fact that Senator Breaux and Senator Chafee, and several of our comrades on both sides of the aisle, have come up with a budget that is worthy of some consideration. Likewise, there are some parts of that budget that I do not agree with, but at least it is something that we should take a hard look at and possibly, in the end, incorporate some of those concepts and those ideas of those thoughtful Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who are trying, in my opinion, to be helpful. I had hoped one day in my Senate career I would be able to say to my good friend, for whom I have said before I have high respect and admiration, that I support his budget. Unfortunately, that day has not come. But I really enjoy working with him, and I hope that the debate that follows will be as factual as possible, will be as short as possible, and, once again, I tell him that I will try in every way I can to cooperate with him, as I did in the committee, not to have this go on and on and on. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, May 9, 1996. Hon. J. James Exon, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: At your request, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has examined the effects of the Administration's budgetary proposals on the Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund. Under current law, the HI trust fund is projected to become insolvent in 2001. CBO estimates that the Administration's proposals would postpone this date to 2005. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Mr. DOMENICI 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. No. The Senator is welcome to.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend, the chairman of the committee, for his remarks and outline. Generally speaking, I do not know that I have any serious reservations. I think the chairman of the committee has basically stated what should be the procedure. I have a caveat to that that I will mention in just a moment. I simply say that I agree that even though we have 25 hours on each side--and while you have not said that, I understand the intent is the 25 hours on your side would be controlled by the majority leader or his designee, which would normally be you, and the same thing would be true on our side with the minority leader and myself as the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. Is that the way? Would we follow usual procedures in that regard?

Mr. EXON. I see no reason why we should not head for, and very likely can, finish this by Friday late, if not sooner. I say to my friend, in the 4 hours set aside for economic discussions, I do not anticipate we would use all of our 2 hours on this side, although no one ever knows what happens for sure in the U.S. Senate. I simply say, as I listened to the opening remarks from the chairman of the committee, if he felt we would likely only have amendments to the Republican measure today, I had intended at a very early time to offer the President's budget, which we offered very early in the procedure in the committee, as you will remember, and we would not agree in advance to any extensive delay in our desire to offer the President's budget, which very likely would be the first action on this side. And so I would like to advise the leader of that.

Mr. EXON. We will follow the same procedure here.

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

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

Mr. EXON. May I inquire further along those lines. If, after the opening statements by the managers, and we are into the 4-hour period that has just been referenced by the leader of the committee, we jointly agree or should jointly agree to yield back any remaining time--in other words, suppose we have an hour on each side or an hour on that side and half an hour on this side, whatever it is, we can hopefully work to expedite the procedures----

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. 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

Mr. EXON. What the Senator is saying is that although you have used more time than we have, you want to divide the remainder of the time equally?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, could I pose a question now so we could establish this? This is the first amendment that is being offered. Do we have time agreements on amendments? I remember in the opening remarks, the chairman of the committee indicated some time limits on the amendments. For the information of this Senator and the Senate as a whole, will the Chair please indicate how much time is allotted to the amendment, the first degree? I assume that timeframe would continue unless we get unanimous consent at some future time to change it. What is the agreement on time limits?

Mr. EXON. I object.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend for yielding. Everybody wants to know about when we are going to vote. As far as I am concerned, it looks like we can vote shortly after or about 6:45. I am going to take 5 or 6 minutes, whatever additional time I need, after the 1 minute allotted to me by my friend from Iowa, and I yield myself the time off the bill. I have been listening in total amazement to the statements that have been made here. First, I want to say in answer to the statement that had been made by the chairman of the committee early on that the committee of jurisdiction for authorization, the Armed Services Committee, already voted 21 to 0 for the change that we are suggesting here now. I speak for myself and several other members of the Armed Services Committee who voted 21 to 0 for the bill, because we thought basically it was a pretty good bill, but just before that vote was taken, this Senator and others indicated that they would be offering some amendments on the floor, including amendments with regard to the level of funding over the President's mark. That is what I am doing now. I have heard in total amazement here General Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who put his seal of approval on the President's budget, being quoted tonight as if you would think General Shalikashvili was for the increase. He is not. He is not for the increase. These Senators that have been up on the floor saying, ``Well, the military says they need it.'' You show me a military man worth his salt, and you go to him and say, ``You know, what more could you use?'' I would be shocked and disappointed if such a military man would not say, ``Well, I want this and this and this and this.'' The facts are, the President's budget has the stamp of approval of General Shalikashvili, the other members of the Joint Chiefs, and the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. All of these comments that I have heard on the floor would lead one to believe that this is a group of people who were trying to destroy our national defense. The amendment that I am cosponsoring with my friend from Iowa is being attacked exactly as was the Exon-Grassley amendment 2 years ago. The same type of phraseology, the same type of wording--``devastating national defense.'' I simply say that if you believe the President of the United States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Joint Chiefs themselves, and the Pentagon would put their stamp of approval on a level of defense spending outlined in the President's budget that was not sufficient, then you are indirectly accusing them of destroying the national defense of the United States of America, if you listen to some of these people on the floor tonight. I think too much of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Joint Chiefs to think they would put their stamp of approval on something just to kowtow to the President of the United States. I think they are better, I think they are bigger men than that. I simply say, any time you want to spend more money for defense and call in some military people and say, ``If you had more money, how would you use it?'' of course, they would come up with something. I would be surprised if they did not. I simply say, also, that you would think that Senator Grassley's amendment, cosponsored by myself and others, was a further cut in defense. It is an increase of $3 billion. It is an increase of $3 billion over what was recommended by the Pentagon. But you have people on this floor who are so expert, who have sacrificed themselves to be in Israel and were saved by a Patriot missile. You know, it is a little too much for this Senator, who has stood stalwart for defense spending ever since I have been here. So what we are doing with the Grassley amendment is to provide $3 billion more than the Pentagon and the President said was needed. These people who are criticizing this amendment have decided on their own that they are the experts, that they are the ones who know how much money we should spend for defense, regardless of what the Pentagon and the Commander in Chief says. They want an $11 billion increase. The Grassley amendment says, ``All right. We don't think that much is necessary. Some of us would like to go down to what the Pentagon says is needed, but we'll go along with the $3 billion increase.'' But that is not enough, evidently, by what I have heard here tonight. I also heard statements--the Senator from Texas, for example, complained that if the Grassley amendment is adopted, military personnel would not get their 3 percent pay increase, as I understand it. The fact of the matter is, that is not accurate. The facts are that the 3 percent increase to the military personnel is included in the President's budget. The Grassley amendment provides $3 billion over and above that. I simply say that I never have been very much impressed by a group of Senators getting together saying they know more about everything, the needs of the national defense, than even the Pentagon. I want to make it clear once again that the Pentagon agreed to and gave a stamp of approval to the President's budget. It is only these people, who I know are well-intentioned--and I know of their good intentions--that have said, ``No. That's terribly wrong. It will destroy our national defense. So arbitrarily we have come up with $11 billion more that we need for this.'' I would rather trust the real military leaders and experts in the Pentagon. But I am willing to say, OK, let us add $3 billion. I have heard here tonight that if the Grassley amendment is not defeated, it will end all of the work that is being done on Star Wars or a version of it. I would simply point out that all of the Star Wars technology that has been paraded out here in speeches tonight would lead one to believe that Star Wars, or a version of it, would not go ahead if the Grassley amendment is adopted. But the increases that the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House National Security Committee approved above the President's request were only $300 million and $330 million, respectively. Senator Grassley and I are adding $3 billion. So everything that these people who are out here attacking the Grassley amendment as ending the star wars research is not true. We can do everything they want to do because their requests are only about $300 million in 1997 above the President's request. We could do all of what they want to do, have all the Patriots we need to protect Senators who are in Israel with the $3 billion. We could spend the $300 million that they want for Star Wars for this year and still have $2.7 billion on top of that. I simply say, Mr. President, there is room for argument on all of these things. But there is not room, I do not think, to conclude that others are in bad faith. It is wrong to say that General Shalikashvili does not support this budget, because he does. Senator Grassley and Senator Exon are saying, ``OK, we give you some leeway. We'll add $3 billion on top of what the Pentagon said is needed. That should be enough.'' I urge the support of the Grassley amendment. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time if we have any left and proceed to go to a vote.

Mr. EXON. That is all right.

Mr. EXON

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. Mr. President, my few remarks about my friend Bob Dole and his announcement today will be devoid of any political motivations whatsoever. Bob Dole has been a friend of mine ever since I came into the Senate. We have differed frequently on many issues, but we have been together on many issues. The announcement today that we heard about this morning came as a considerable shock to this Senator because whatever the future holds, the Senate in my view has lost a tremendously dedicated individual, a talented leader on the Republican side of the aisle, a man I never hesitated a moment in going to on any subject. He has always been fair to this Senator. We have clashed from time to time on issues. But fairness and confidence and being a very capable Senator and a Senate leader has been the hallmark of Bob Dole. I simply say that we will miss him very much in the U.S. Senate, and I would have preferred that he not take the additional step that he announced today with regard to resigning from the Senate. I recognize that in running for President of the United States, it was most difficult to be here, to be a leader. However, I thought the announcement that I read in the papers this morning with regard to Senator Dole, recognizing that he could not do justice to his Presidential race and be a full-time leader of the Senate and the suggestion that he turn this over to other Members of the Republican majority, seemed to make sense to me. But, for whatever reason, Bob Dole has made the decision that I think he had to make. I only thank him for the friendship. I will value the few remaining weeks, week or two or three, that I will have the privilege of serving together with him in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.