J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I intend to be here until this discussion is over. I was going to ask a question of my colleague from Florida, if I could, before he leaves the floor? Will he yield for a question, with the understanding he is not losing the right to the floor?

Mr. EXON. Even if it comes to that, you have not looked beyond that to see whether or not it would remain balanced in the year following, or the year following that, or the year following that? After 7 years?

Mr. EXON. I simply say to my friend from Florida, I hope that works out that way. But all of the figures I have seen indicate just the opposite, and we may have some more information on that in detail form in the near future. I simply point out to all that this magnificent exercise that we are going through should be better understood by all for what it is right now. The reason that I am worried about the outyears is that the present Republican plan is so heavily loaded with regard to the cuts in spending that are necessary to balance the budget in the 6th and 7th years--and that happens to be a situation where, under the Republican plan, 60 percent of the cuts, 60 percent of the reduction in spending that will have to be made to meet that 7-year balanced budget, is done in year 6 and year 7. That is a pretty heavy load in years 6 and 7. That is called back loading. Backloading is one of the concerns that I have about the whole proposition. But while we are backloading, where we are going, if this deal materializes, we are going to have 60 percent of the cuts made in the year 6 and in the year 7. So the first 5 years are not so bad. Katie bar the door when you come to those last 2 years. Then on top of that, Mr. President, at the same time is when the cost of the $242 billion tax cut kicks in. That is also backloaded into this program, and there the major portion of the money necessary to pay for that $242 billion tax cut comes in the 7th year and then really escalates in year 8 and year 9 and year 10. What I am saying is that, while I hope this works out, there are lots of problems ahead as we move forward. And we have to be realistic. I would simply say that I will be here while the rest of this discussion is going on. I was very pleased with the report from the majority leader and the Democratic leader that things now seem to be moving. But, unfortunately, I thought things were moving when we were starting detailed specific negotiations for tomorrow afternoon. It might be wise if we would all be quiet, you know, tone down our rhetoric at a time when we hope our leaders can come to some kind of an agreement and not be here on the floor making pontifical statements, that we have every right to do, but that I do not believe is going to contribute very much to the bipartisan effort that is going to have to be made to come up with a balanced budget in 7 years using the Congressional Budget Office scoring. There is going to have to be a lot of give and take. And certainly the leadership, which is undertaking those negotiations at the White House, is going to be under enough stress and strain without us on the floor of the Senate trying to take partisan shots one against the other. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe 15 minutes of time has been allotted to the Senator from Nebraska under the unanimous-consent request. Is that correct?

Mr. EXON. I will take that time at this moment. Mr. President, if the average American was to read the 1996 Defense Authorization Act conference report now before the Senate, he or she might believe that there was a mistake in the printing of the bill's title. The content of the conference agreement, the rhetoric in the report, and the pork add-ons contained in the legislation are more in keeping with the cold war environment of 1986, not the post-cold-war world of 1996. I voted against the Senate version of the authorization bill earlier this year based on my belief that the $7 billion increase in spending authority contained in the bill was extravagant and that the bill's spending priorities and legislative restrictions were harmful, yes harmful, to our national security interests. I am dismayed to report that the conference report is even more objectionable on these counts than the Senate-passed version. As a result, I will vote against the National Defense authorization conference report for the first time in my 17 years as a U.S. Senator, a decision I do not come to lightly. With very little participation solicited from the minority, the majority in the Senate and House have finally reached an agreement on a bill that will be greeted with cheers from the multibillion-dollar defense corporations in America. At a time when much of the Federal Government has run out of money and is shut down, at a time when the Congress is cutting domestic programs to the bone and the majority party is trying to push through an unwise $245 billion tax cut, we are considering a bill that adds $7.1 billion to the defense budget that the President did not ask for and our military leaders do not want. This bill writes checks for unneeded weapons systems that will have defense corporations popping champagne corks around the country. Christmas has indeed come early for these multibillion-dollar corporations, and their gifts are beyond their wildest hopes. I implore every American that is asked to do with less this coming year due to the Republican budget-cutting ax to keep in mind the following glittering, gilded ornaments hung with care by the majority on the defense corporate tree: $700 million in unrequested funds for an accelerated star wars program, a mere down payment on a system which has already cost the American taxpayers $35 billion and will likely cost another $48 billion to build; $493 million in unrequested funds to restart the B-2 bomber program beyond the 20 planes already bought, again a mere down payment on a $30 billion procurement plan; $23 million in unrequested funds for 4 additional medium range army aircraft; $76 million in unrequested funds for Longbow helicopter modifications; $140 million in unrequested funds for Kiowa helicopter modifications; $32 million in unrequested funds for ground support avionics; $37 million in unrequested funds to buy 750 additional Hellfire missiles; $36 million in unrequested funds to buy 450 additional Javelin missiles; $43 million in unrequested funds to buy 1,500 additional MLRS missiles; $50 million in unrequested funds to buy MLRS launchers; $18 million in unrequested funds to buy 29 additional Army tactical missiles; $14 million in unrequested funds to buy Army tracked vehicles; $82 million in unrequested funds to buy Howitzers; $34 million in unrequested funds for improved Army recovery vehicles $110 million in unrequested funds for M-1 modifications; $44 million in unrequested funds for Army regional maintenance training sites; $29 million in unrequested funds to buy 10,000 additional machine guns; $33 million in unrequested funds to buy 2,100 additional grenade launchers; $14 million in unrequested funds to buy 28,000 additional M-16 rifles; $50 million in unrequested funds for small caliber ammunition; $47 million in unrequested funds for mortar ammunition; $80 million in unrequested funds for tank ammunition; $33 million in unrequested funds for artillery ammunition; $30 million in unrequested funds for mines; $49 million in unrequested funds for ammunition production support; $327 million in unrequested funds to buy Army trucks; $136 million in unrequested funds for Army communications; $81 million in unrequested funds to buy 4 additional AV-8 Harrier planes; $213 million in unrequested funds to buy 6 additional F-18 planes; $65 million in unrequested funds to buy 6 additional Sea Cobra helicopters; $45 million in unrequested funds to buy 17 additional T-39 trainer aircraft; $165 million in unrequested funds for EA-6 modifications; $42 million in unrequested funds for F-14 modifications; $32 million in unrequested funds for P-3 modifications; $30 million in unrequested funds for ECM modifications; $40 million in unrequested funds to buy 45 additional Harpoon missiles; $49 million in unrequested funds for Tomahawk missile modifications; $30 million in unrequested funds for Navy support equipment; $1.4 billion in unrequested funds to buy a LHD-1 assault ship; $974 million in unrequested funds to buy a LPD-17 amphibious ship; $430 million in unrequested funds for Navy ammunition; $15 million in unrequested funds for C-3 countermeasures; $14 million in unrequested funds for Satcom ship terminals; $17 million in unrequested funds for sonobuoys; $30 million in unrequested funds for intelligence support equipment; $34 million in unrequested for Marine Corps training devices; $361 million in unrequested funds for F-15 Advance procurement and modifications; $159 million in unrequested funds for F-16 procurement; $133 million in unrequested funds to buy 3 WC-130 aircraft; $96 million in unrequested funds for C-135 modifications; $63 million in unrequested funds for Air Force aircraft modifications; $40 million in unrequested funds to buy 100 additional GBU-15 missiles; $38 million in unrequested funds to buy 54 additional Have Nap missiles; $15 million in unrequested funds to 100 additional cruise missiles; $344 million in unrequested funds for Air Force ammunition; $20 million in unrequested funds for Cyclone class ships; $17 million in unrequested funds for 2 additional special operations craft; $777 million in unrequested National Guard and Reserve equipment specifically ear-marked for weapons systems such as 10 new C-139 aircraft and 2 new C-26 operational aircraft. The list I have just recited is a lengthy one indeed, but it only scratches the surface; there are dozens of other programs where the majority has increased the administration's request and provided money for programs the Pentagon has said they do not need while cutting programs it says it does need. The decorations that the majority have hung on the corporate tree are numerous and expensive. Defense lobbyists have had a banner year to be sure. In addition to the $7 billion in unjustified spending, this conference report contains a number of provisions which will make for a profitable 1996 for some of the biggest American corporations, including: A taxpayer-financed loan program to export weapons to the third world; An earmarked noncompetitive ship maintenance contract for a specific shipyard; Numerous earmarked Energy Department projects and programs; Authorization allowing a waiver of research and development funds owed the Government by defense contractors; and Costly buy-American requirements which will drive up the cost to taxpayers of future procurements. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this Defense authorization is not forward looking, it is backward looking. If the Senate had to meet truth-in-advertising requirements, the clerk would be obliged to change the year ``1996''on the cover of this report to ``1986.'' However, the cold war flavor of this bill goes beyond the inflated, parochial spending I have discussed up to this point. The legislative requirements of the conference report are equally extreme. The most troublesome is the missile defense language that commits our Nation to deploying a national missile defense system within the next 8 years at a likely cost of $48 billion against a threat that does not and will not exist. The son of star wars system mandated in this bill would be ineffective against terrorist threats, abrogate the ABM Treaty and likely take with it Russian implementation of START I and START II, not to mention endangering prospects of ratifying next year the chemical weapons convention and a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. With logic right out of Lewis Carroll's ``Alice in Wonderland,'' the majority wants the American taxpayer to spend $48 billion to defend against a threat which does not exist, the very course of action which will prompt the Russians to renege on their commitment to destroy two- thirds of their nuclear weapons, thereby reviving the threat that never would have existed had we not pursued the system in the first place. As that famous cartoon Bayou Alligator might have said: ``We have met the enemy and he is us.'' In closing, Mr. President, I would just like to offer at this time for printing at the conclusion of my remarks an article that appeared in the Sunday Washington Post of December 17.

Mr. EXON. I would just comment briefly on the fact that this starts out ``Off to a bad Start II. In both the United States and Russia, Hopes for Strategic Arms Pact Are Fading.'' It goes on to describe the delays that we have caused. The concern of the Russians that we are about to break the ABM Treaty was one of the causes I suggest for the return of the Communist Party to a measure of strength in the elections over the last week, because they are feeding on the situation that we do not care and we are going to break out of the ABM Treaty. In conclusion then, Mr. President, the Clinton administration has said that it would veto this bill if it reaches his desk. I support the President in this decision and believe that the Senate should save him the trouble by defeating this conference report. The American taxpayer cannot afford this expensive gilded Christmas tree of unneeded weapons and corporate earmarks. Likewise, the American national security interests can ill-afford this self-defeating policy embodied in this bill, forcing us back to the chill of the cold war. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back any time remaining assigned to this Senator. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Dec. 17, 1995] Off to a Bad START II (By Rodney W. Jones and Yuri K. Nazarkin) After months of delay, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moved last week to bring the START II treaty up for a vote on the Senate floor. The pact would reduce U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons to 70 percent of Cold War levels and also eliminate land-based multiple-warhead missiles, the most threatening of Russia's weapons. Unfortunately, while a favorable Senate vote on the treaty is virtually assured, ratification of the pact by Russia has become increasingly uncertain in recent months. As Russians go to the polls today, many will be voting for politicians who question whether START II is still in Russia's best interest. The prime cause of Russian second thoughts, according to parliamentarians and defense experts in Moscow, is the Republican-led effort that began this summer to mandate the deployment of a multi-site strategic anti-ballistic missile, or ABM, system by the year 2003. This system was called for originally in the Senate version of the defense authorization bill and endorsed last week by a House- Senate conference committee. Yet it would violate the 1972 ABM Treaty, which for more than two decades has helped curtail a costly buildup of defensive nuclear weapons and countervailing offensive weapons. It first became clear that START II was in serious trouble last month when parliamentary leaders in Moscow who had supported START II hearings in July concluded that a ratification vote in the waning months of 1995 would fail. To avoid a foreign policy crisis over a negative vote, they postponed further action on the treaty. Regrettably, the prospect for unconditional Russian ratification of START II next year is no more promising. Following today's election, the State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, is expected to be even more critical of START II and of the United States than its predecessor. Russian political parties and factions opposed to the treaty will probably gain seats at the expense of the reformist and democratic parties that generally support it. President Boris Yeltsin's poor health and the growth of assertive nationalism in Russia further clouds START II's chances. Even the Russian military leadership, which had steadfastly supported START II, shows signs of cooling toward the treaty in the wake of U.S. congressional action threatening the ABM Treaty. The Russian military fears the United States' real intent is to gain strategic superiority over Russia. The Russian military dismisses as preposterous U.S. assertions that the legislation is aimed at protecting American soil from the threat of a handful of long-range missiles from North Korea and other small countries. In effect, Russian military leaders argue, the United States would be deploying new defense missiles just as Russian was completing the reduction of its offensive missiles under START II's requirements. Russian would be more vulnerable and the United States less so. Ivan Rybkin, the Duma speaker, expressed the growing disenchantment with START II in the newspaper Nezavissimaya Gazeta on Nov. 5: ``We cannot be bothered any longer, given this situation that propels plans for NATO enlargement and reveals our U.S. congressional colleagues' intentions to begin a process that threatens the ABM Treaty--the cornerstone of the existing arms control regime.'' Russian misgivings about START II haven't come overnight. Initially Yeltsin and the Russian military leadership firmly believed that START II was in Russia's interest. They recognized benefits for Russia--the fact that START II's deep reductions would enhance stability, reduce future defense costs, ensure formal strategic parity with the United States and contribute to long-term cooperation between the two powers. The Clinton administration also worked to alleviate Russian uneasiness over U.S. national missile defense activities. But the ABM developments of late have changed Russian feelings toward START II. If Clinton vetoes the defense authorization bill as he has promised, a direct conflict over the ABM Treaty will be avoided. Congressional direction of the U.S. military might then be provided exclusively in the defense appropraitons bill. That legislation, which the president approved earlier this month, says nothing about deploying an ABM system. This silence, however, is unlikely to assuage Russian concerns, since Russian must worry that the ABM issue will return in the next congressional session. Moreover, the appropriations bill mandates completion of the Navy's ``Upper Tier'' system, a defense initiative to produce shorter-range missiles that Russia also finds objectionable because of its potential for use against long-range weapons. Russian arms control experts are also troubled by the thinking of some U.S. lawmakers who believe that the AMB Treaty is an obsolete Cold War measure. The Russians point out that if the ABM Treaty is to be revised in light of the post-Cold War situation, they see it as equally reasonable to amend and adapt the START treaties. After all, they argue, the cumbersome and intrusive START verification provisions were elaborated in a climate of mutual suspicion and mistrust and were based on worst-case scenarios about the other side's intentions. These Russian critics suggest that Moscow's obligations under START II are largely irrelevant to current realities. The Russians are required by the treaty to alter the structure of their strategic triad by 2003. This will entail sizable expenditures both to eliminate all multiple-warhead land-based ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and to replace them with single warhead missiles. Given the current U.S.-Russian partnership, Russian START II critics argue, such measures are not essential to the strategic security of both nations and should be open to revision. The Russians are completely uninterested in negotiating amendments to fundamental provisions of the ABM Treaty. This apparently was well understood by those pushing the antiballistic missile initiative in Congress, for they also included the possible alternative of U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Russia might consider changes to the ABM Treaty-- but only along with parallel changes in START II. Would this be acceptable to U.S. officials, legislators and 1996 Republican presidential candidates? Renegotiating current nuclear treaties with the purpose of adapting them to new realities--as instruments for regulating the nuclear forces of both nations--would mean embarking on a long and formidable process. If the United States is not prepared to enter such a process, yet withdraws from the ABM Treaty or takes steps in that direction, if would mean the end of START II--the end of real, dramatic reductions in the numbers of the world's most destructive weapons. Is it still possible to resuscitate START II in Russia? Right now, it seems unlikely. If Clinton vetoes the defense authorization, with its ABM mandate, the prospects for saving START II would improve, but only slightly. Russian opponents of START II may now insist on delaying Russian ratification until the results of the 1996 U.S. presidential (and congressional) elections can be evaluated. Repairing the growing damage to U.S.-Russian relations and U.S. interests in nuclear threat reduction will become steadily more difficult unless Congress revives the tradition of bipartisan statesmanship on nuclear weapons issues that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War. Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. It probably was 1987 and 1988 because in that time we did control both Houses, not 1986. I have no further comments, and if we are ready to close, I am ready to close.

Mr. EXON. I do not remember the reasons for that, but 1986, of course, we had a Republican-controlled Senate, and I would not want to blame them for that.

Mr. EXON. In other words, what you are saying, it was a Democratically controlled House and Senate that did that?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would not be on the floor tonight, and had not intended to be on the floor tonight, until I saw a bevy of Republicans coming on the floor to try and beat up on the President, in particular, and the Democratic Party in general. When I heard that, I have responsibilities as the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee, and I decided to stay here and hear what is going on. The Senator from Washington made several statements that I would like to take issue with. One thing that the Senator from Washington requested was that if I was concerned about the back-loading on the Republican budget plan, where 60 percent of the savings in the Republican budget plan to balance the budget are put off until the sixth and seventh year, did I have any suggestions as to how we could eliminate that. Well, I sure do. If we would eliminate the $242 billion tax cut that basically benefits the wealthiest among us, for the most part, that would be one way we could alleviate that. I would also like to comment briefly on the several statements made on the floor by those on that side of the aisle regarding the President of the United States breaking his agreement with regard to the continuing resolution that we worked out 2 weeks ago, I guess it was. I was there. I was part of that agreement. The President has not broken his word. The President of the United States said that he would accept a 7-year plan to balance the budget. And he has had a pretty good record as President, because under President Clinton, we have had 3 straight years of reduction in the deficit of the budget of the United States of America. That is the first time that has happened since Harry Truman. So this President has had some experience in fiscal responsibility. The President has said in that agreement that he would agree to balance in 7 years, and that we would accept Congressional Budget Office numbers, with the understanding that CBO would review those numbers with the Office of Management and Budget and outside experts to make sure that their projections were as nearly accurate as possible. He also said the other condition of making that agreement was the fact that we wish the Republicans to enter into discussions with us to protect programs that the Democratic Party has worked long and hard to protect--Medicare, Medicaid, educational programs, veterans benefits, agriculture, and others. We did not feel that, rushing to judgment, the Republicans had lived up to their part of that agreement. So, therefore, I think that there can be legitimate differences of opinion. And because that was worded in that manner, I think almost anyone could have interpreted that particular agreement as they wanted to. It has been mentioned by my friend from Nevada that--and we are talking about the appropriations bills--if the President would just sign the appropriations bills, that would alleviate some of the problems. The appropriations bill should have been passed by the Republican-controlled Congress by October 1, 1995, when the new year began. Here we are in December, just passing appropriations bills--it is very late, almost 90 days late-- and then we say to the President of the United States that because it is so late, because we are so late getting these to you, of course, you cannot veto them. That would be unfair. We have also heard said that the President had shut down the Government. He has not. The President of the United States, through the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, made offer after offer, which the Republicans rejected, regarding a continuing resolution that would not have been necessary to have 1 day of shutdown. So I do not think it is fair to blame the President of the United States for that. I am happy to say that I think, given the circumstances, we are now making some progress, as Senator Dole and Senator Daschle earlier indicated on the floor. I am not sure that we accomplish a great deal with partisan bickering over something that we have placed, for their deliberation, consultation, and hope of resolving, in the hands of the President of the United States, the majority leader, Robert Dole; the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich; the Democratic leader in the House, Congressman Gephardt; and our own Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate. Those five individuals have heavy, heavy responsibilities, and they have very serious differences of opinion on a whole series of subjects. I just hope that we can in good faith work with them and not bicker, at least until after we hear what their results and recommendations are. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. EXON. Did I understand the Senator to say--what year was it-- 1987?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Mississippi for his offer. I will take 5 minutes allotted in morning business, and then I will be glad to join others on my trek home, if that is satisfactory with the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. An inquiry of the Chair. I assume we are in morning business. Is that correct?

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, passage of a wonderful, gifted and true Christian gentleman, former Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson, has left another void in our society and great sadness to this friend of his. My wonderful wife, Pat and I always felt Dick Halverson was one of God's greatest gifts to us and our spiritual well-being. He never let us down, and he always built us up. The Christian glow of Chaplain Halverson, like a strobe light in the dark or a beacon in the storm and fog, shone brightly always and will everlastingly. Few have attained or maintained the mission of what obviously was God's wisdom and compassion in creating and sending forth among us poor sinners this giant workman for faith and good. I knew him well years before he was called upon to be the spiritual leader of the Senate. Way back in the early 1970's, when I first met this man, I correctly sensed, when he came to Nebraska to lead us in a Governors' Christian retreat, his devotion and his unique ability to spread our Maker's message of peace and love and understanding. While he is gone from us in this life, and we will miss him, the light and glow of Richard Halverson does not even flicker. It is brighter than ever. For this wonderful man, who has been taken from us and from his family, we issue condolences to that great family of Richard Halverson, but we commit to continue his gentle but most effective teachings that he has left all of us for the betterment of mankind. God bless my brother, Richard Halverson. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I was listening with great interest to the goings on the Senate floor. I have been involved in all of the meetings that have been held, both the joint meetings with the conferees to try and come up with a role, and I have been involved in many meetings on the Democratic side. In 5 minutes I am going back to another meeting. We, the Democrats in the House and the Senate, will try once again to come up with something that would get the Government back working again. I bear my share of the responsibility for what I think is the totally ridiculous position we find ourselves in. Grown men and women, here at 6:30 or so on a Friday evening, with the Government ready to shut down in another 5 hours, and we are quibbling. We cannot even get through a continuing resolution just offered by the minority leader to keep the Government going for a few days. They turned that down. You heard the objection by the majority leader to the Democratic leader's reasonable offer. How could any reasonable person object to keeping the Government going for another 3 or 4 days? I do not think this is the proudest moment in the history of the U.S. Senate. We all have to bear our share of the responsibility for that failure. When I have been hearing all of these remarks about the President of the United States not being sincere, not making a legitimate offer, Madam President, I will not dignify that kind of talk with a lengthy statement except to say that I do not agree at all with that kind of rhetoric. I say, Madam President, in conclusion, that if those on the other side of the aisle are suggesting that we get real, then I suggest that they get real by coming up front with what we all know has to be the major ``give'' to reach a balanced budget in 7 years, and that is the ridiculous, outlandish tax cut that basically affects the wealthiest among us in America, $245 billion worth that is the centerpiece, I suggest, of the Republican balanced budget amendment. The main reason that the President of the United States properly vetoed the reconciliation bill which would have allowed that--how anybody on the Republican side of the aisle can in good conscience stand up and criticize us for not being real when they are insisting on the centerpiece of their whole budget, unfortunately which is the $245 billion tax cut basically weighted to the wealthiest people in the United States of America. Until they come off of that in a realistic fashion, we are not going to bend. Fortunately, we have the President of the United States on our side with a veto pen. Maybe I should stand corrected, Madam President. I just said they have a $245 billion tax cut that basically goes to protect the wealthiest among us. I stand corrected. It is $242 billion, because in all good conscience the Republican conferees came to that meeting today and they agreed to cut $5 billion--a total of $5 billion out of a $245 billion tax break for the wealthiest among us, and they claim that we are not being reasonable. I simply say, Madam President, while I am not particularly proud of what is going on in the U.S. Senate tonight, and for the life of me I cannot understand how reasonable people with legitimate differences of opinion on how we reach the balanced budget cannot agree to a continuing resolution to keep the Government running while we continue the frustrating process of trying to come up with a balanced budget. Madam President, there is no way that the Democrats can, should, or will give up our insistence of at least a measure of protection for the Medicare recipients and the Medicaid recipients. The latter, I point out, is not welfare, it is health care. Most or all of the billions of dollars that we spend in the Medicaid Program, over half of it goes to the senior citizens, the oldest and frailest among us who are lying in beds, many of them never getting out of beds, in our nursing homes. The Republicans are making draconian cuts in that program. Like it or not, we will not have it. We will not put up with it. We are willing to compromise, but we will not move until they get realistic on eliminating that gross $242 billion tax cut for the wealthiest among us and the American people know and the American people by a vast majority stand with us, even though we stand in the minority. I remind all in closing, Madam President, this Senator has been for a balanced budget for a long, long time, worked hard for it. I voted for the Republican constitutional amendment to balance a budget in 7 years. My credentials are pretty hard to argue with. I simply say that I, once again, emphasize that I am not particularly proud of what we are doing on either side of the aisle this Friday night on December 15. I simply say that if you are looking for someone to blame, we Democrats are willing to take our share of the blame when and if the people on the other side of the aisle would get off their kick which is the centerpiece of their budget proposal to throw away $242 billion in a tax break on the rich while savaging Medicare and Medicaid and other social programs that we think are very important. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Several of us have been waiting a long, long time. Maybe we can get some agreement so I can keep my schedule. Nobody can keep schedules these days because of what is going on. If I could be recognized following the vote for 12 minutes, I would be glad to cooperate. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. EXON. If the majority leader will yield for a question to try and straighten this matter out. The vote is scheduled at 12:30. Is there a time scheduled for the second vote?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Put me on.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank very much my colleague from Idaho. I thank him for his keen perception in this whole area. I was very proud to follow his leadership earlier this year in the mandates area where we had required that of States for far too long. But I know that he has played a very keen part in crafting this measure, which I think is fair and reasonable, workable, and eliminates much of the consternation and expense, in many cases unnecessarily expensive procedures. So I thank him and the full committee for the excellent job they did. It was a pleasure working with the Senator.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995. I am particularly pleased to see this legislation come before the Senate after the disappointment of last year when we were unable to come to an agreement. I have been involved in this debate for a long time. Back in January of this year I wrote a letter to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, urging the Senator to focus the committee's attention once again on this important piece of legislation. I thought we had a good bill last year. But, Mr. President, I believe this year's bill is even better. And I thank Senator Chafee and others associated with him for their efforts. This year we are able to craft a bipartisan bill which improves our Nation's drinking water law in several important and meaningful ways. Communities throughout the United States, including many in Nebraska, have had a difficult time complying with current law. As we all know, unnecessary and heavy-handed mandates have cost our Nation, especially the small communities, very dearly. This bill recognizes that the needs of small communities are different from those of large communities. The bill combines flexibility with a good dose of common sense by allowing smaller communities to find the best way to protect their water quality. This bill gives new authority to the States in determining what contaminants pose the greatest risk to their communities and empowers States to direct their resources toward monitoring those contaminants rather than those that pose a trivial risk to their communities, removes excessive Federal regulation and keeps our Nation's drinking water safe. I am proud of the work that Senator Kerrey and I and others have done on this legislation. I believe that the bill that we have crafted strikes a fair balance by recognizing the need to protect our drinking water but also allowing States flexibility in determining how best to protect this valuable and very vital resource. Mr. President, in closing, I wish to emphasize once again my thanks for the leadership of Senator Chafee and others associated with him on the committee for their very successful job. And I hope that the Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995 will shortly become the law of the land. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, now that we are about where we were at 3 o'clock this afternoon, maybe we will be successful at this time. I think we are ready to pass this bill if the Chair would see fit to recognize the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.