J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, those who are watching the debate on television might wonder why it was that it took us so long to get to this point. Actually, this Senator had sought recognition, the Senator from Arkansas was about to seek recognition, when we were suddenly cut off with the quorum call. I am glad that the Republicans have come back and seen the light to allow us at least to discuss a proposition that is very vital to America. As I understand it, we are awaiting the offer by Newt Gingrich from the House of Representatives. It would be a continuing resolution to some time in the future, maybe 10 days, maybe 15 days, and stripped of all other extraneous matters except--I underline except--the proposition that we would have a balanced budget by 7 years using CBO's estimates. That is exactly what was proposed to us yesterday during a conference that I was a part of. I will simply say to you, Mr. President, that this Senator is for balancing the budget in 7 years. I voted for a constitutional amendment to do that. The record of this Senator in fighting for control of spending in the United States and getting our budget under control is very clear, if not legendary. I would simply say, if we accept the continuing resolution that the Republicans have come up with, I would simply compliment them and compliment them and compliment them for the fact, after we have been pounding this podium now for almost a month, that they have finally conceded that they are not going to insist on making cuts in the Medicare proposals. At least that would be a major victory for us. And I salute them for finally recognizing the failure of their ways in that regard. However, I would say, Mr. President, that if we accept the continuing resolution, then that continuing resolution is essentially what the Republicans offered to us yesterday, which was rejected by the administration and, I suspect, will be strenuously objected to by the majority of the Democrats. This is a shell game that is going on because, if we accept this continuing resolution, had we Democrats and the White House accepted yesterday this same offer that was offered to us in the daylong negotiations, we would essentially be locking in the Republican budget that they are trying to force down our throat and that of the American people. They would essentially have guaranteed the $245 billion tax break for the wealthy. They would essentially guarantee a dramatic cut in the projected spending of Medicare. They would continue the unfairness that is part and parcel of their budget. What this continuing resolution is, as I understand it, is another clever means--another clever means--of trying to fool the American people. I emphasize that this Senator is for a balanced budget in 7 years. And as the Democratic leader on the Budget Committee, I am fashioning such a program that I will offer at an appropriate time. But I am not about to sign on, and I hope none of the Democrats will, and enough of the Republicans--to stop it. If they do not, the President will veto it, in any event. I want to explain what they are doing. They are trying to put into law in the continuing resolution the basic unfairness of the budget that they are proposing. I would also point out, Mr. President, that all during the so-called budget deliberation, the Democrats have not been involved. I am a member of a conference with the House of Representatives on four matters: the debt ceiling; debt rescission bill that we hope to receive sometime tonight that they want us to vote on even before we see the numbers; the matter of the line-item veto, which I joined with the Republicans in getting passed, but after we passed it they wanted to make sure that this President did not have a line-item veto until they got their unfair budget bill passed; and I am also a conferee on the defense authorization bill, which is a very, very important matter. I would simply say that in all of these matters, Mr. President, I am a conferee, but I have not even been conferenced by the Republicans. They have gone behind closed doors, shut out the minority Democrats, done what they want, stamped ``Republican fairness'' on it, and sent it on its merry way. Mr. President, there is so much wrong with the procedures that are going on in the U.S. Senate today that I am ashamed, and I would best describe it as ``a swamp.'' It is not part of the deliberative body that this body has been known for for a long, long time. To sum up as best as I have ever seen it summed up was an editorial in U.S. News & World Report, that of November 13, 1995, by David Gergen. I am going to read that, Mr. President, because I think it puts all this in proper perspective. It exposes this once and for all by David Gergen, who is now an editor at large with the U.S. News & World Report, but is better known as a very prominent Republican who served with great distinction in the White House under President Ronald Reagan. Here is what he has to say in the editorial of the date I mentioned: The GOP's ``Fairness Doctrine'' Give credit where ample credit is due: True to their campaign promises, Republicans in Congress are forcing the country toward a balanced budget. Only once since the Eisenhower presidency has the nation written its ledgers in black ink. Now, doing what Democrats would not, the new GOP majorities are trying to restore a habit of self-discipline. But in the eagerness to satisfy one principle, fiscal responsibility, the Republicans would ask the country to abandon another, equally vital, principle--fair play. This is a false, cruel choice we should not make. When George Bush and then Bill Clinton achieved large deficit reductions, we pursued the idea of ``shared sacrifice.'' Not this time. Instead, Congress now seems intent on imposing new burdens upon the poor, the elderly and vulnerable children while, incredibly, delivering a windfall for the wealthy. Proposals passed by the House and Senate would rip gaping holes in the nation's social safety net, already low by standards of advanced nations and once considered sacrosanct. Consider how much Congress would extract from projecting spending for key social programs over the next seven years: $169 billion from Medicaid, $102 billion from welfare, $27 billion from food assistance, $133 million from Head Start, at least $23 billion from the earned income tax credit--a program enacted in the 1970s that Ronald Reagan called ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.'' This assault doesn't even count the $270 billion reduction in projected spending for Medicare that is frightening senior citizens and could further squeeze public hospitals. Nor does it include the possible elimination of federal standards for nursing homes--standards signed into law by Reagan to stop rip-offs of the elderly. Now consider how our more fortunate citizens make out under these proposals: Left largely unscathed are billions in subsidies, tax loopholes and credits for corporations. Left largely untouched are many sacred cows--such as the mortgage interest deduction--that benefit middle- and upper- income groups. And for sweeteners, Congress would throw in $245 billion of tax cuts (especially wrongheaded because well-to-do Americans aren't seeking them while hard-pressed Americans won't qualify for them). U.S. News reported last week that internal studies by the executive branch estimate that the lowest 20 percent of the population would lose more income under these spending cuts than the rest of the population combined. At the other end, the highest 20 percent would gain more from the tax cuts than everyone else combined. Republicans are probably right that these estimates, coming from Democrats, are skewed. But no one disputes the basic contention that the burdens and benefits are lopsided. In a nation dividing dangerously into haves and have-nots, this is neither wise nor just. Arguments advanced by proponents simply aren't persuasive. States will take over many of the social programs, it is said, and will make the poor whole. Huh? Who believes that in this climate state legislatures will raise taxes to help poor kids? Many of these social programs are broken, it is said, so they must be overhauled. True, there are many abuses, but we should protect the truly needy while we punish the greedy. Sometime tomorrow, it is said, balancing the budget will help everyone in the younger generation. True, but why shouldn't we all share the same sacrifices today? Ronald Reagan is often invoked as the patron saint of this revolution. How soon we forget that as president, Reagan insisted that seven key programs in the safety net--Head Start, Medicare, Social Security, veterans, Supplemental Security Income, school lunches and summer jobs for youth-- would not be touched; now, six of those seven are under the knife. Reagan believed, as he said in his memorable address accepting his party's nomination in 1980, that ``we have to move forward, but we're not going to leave anyone behind.'' That sentiment should guide upcoming budget negotiations between Congress and the White House. It expresses America's true spirit. We know that government must be changed and respect Republicans for trying when Democrats would not. But Americans also believe in another grand tradition--fair play. What we are going to be voting on tonight is another Republican trick. It is not fair play. I hope that the debate will follow, and I hope that we will be allowed to offer some amendments by the Democrats that will be fair. I yield the remainder of my time, half of it to the Senator from Arkansas and the other half to the Senator from California. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

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

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

Mr. EXON. I object.

Mr. EXON. I object.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend for that explanation, and I thank him for yielding time to straighten this out to make sure I understood what I thought I understood. After listening to the Senator, I think that he has given me a satisfactory explanation of the legitimate concern in this Senator's mind.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend. I have been following this debate with great and keen interest, and I have listened to the ``Nightline'' program last night that featured Senator Boxer and Senator Smith. I have listened to the debate this morning as much as I could. After the remarks just made by my great friend and colleague from Vermont, it leads me to ask this question which is troubling to this Senator. I have heard lots of remarks about people's experience in this regard in this Chamber. I do not know that I am a champion, but for 25 straight years I have been privileged to represent my constituents in high public office, and during that 25 years the matter of abortion keeps coming up again and again and again, and here we are again. It is one of these things that troubles America today. I am not sure that regardless of where you fall on the pro-life or pro-choice spectrum, anyone is always totally comfortable with their position. But we have to make these decisions, and therefore I think this is a very important vote. As a father of three and a grandfather of eight, I have had some experience with regard to family and to family values that I hold very, very dear. From the very beginning on abortion, I have held, rightly or wrongly, that I was not in support of abortion except to save the life of the mother--underline that, save the life of the mother--or in promptly reported cases of rape or incest. Now, a lot of people disagree with me, but at least that has been my position from the beginning all the way through these 25 years. What I come back to is the matter of conscience that I am very much dedicated to. So I ask this question of my friend and colleague from New Hampshire with regard to the saving the life of a mother. I have heard the Senator from New Hampshire say on numerous occasions that if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, under the procedures that we are debating right now, there are provisions in the bill that would allow the doctor to proceed even with this late-term abortion, call it what you will, the doctor could do that if the doctor was convinced that this was the only procedure that would likely save the life of the mother if, indeed, the life of the mother was in danger. [[Page S 16782]] Would the Senator from New Hampshire please explain to me if I have this correctly interpreted because it will be a key factor in the way I vote on this matter.

Mr. EXON. If I might interrupt then, if I understand what the Senator is saying, since for all practical purposes under the procedure outlined the birth has already taken place and therefore the mother's life could not be more in danger by allowing the head to emerge into the world--in other words, at this particular point it is not a test of whether or not the mother's life is in danger?

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there is a great deal of rhetoric going on today about where the Nation is going with regard to the balanced budget that this Senator supported for a long, long time. I remind the Senate it was this Senator who voted with the near majority to reach the required number of votes for setting a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I have been known as a conservative Democrat for a long, long time, who has been against the wild-eyed spending that has engulfed our Nation for far too long. I stand ready with Senators on both sides of the aisle to march forward if we can, in a bipartisan fashion, not dictated by the budget resolution that was passed in the Senate. The first thing I would like to do is address some of the talk that is going on today, talk I am very fearful is impinging upon the basic tenets of our Government. It seems to me the majority of Republicans in the Senate and the majority of Republicans in the House, at least their leadership, are now, unfortunately, working their way to try and thwart the rightful duties guaranteed under the Constitution to the President with regard to the veto process. This is all centered now around the extension of the debt ceiling. I think it is time, now, we strip aside the facade that the Republicans have fashioned about their objections to raising the debt limit. If you examine the Republican bill and reasonably add up the numbers, you discover the necessity by the Republicans to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, from its present $4.9 trillion to $6.7 trillion by the year 2002. This is the best kept secret in Washington. It is necessary for them to raise the debt ceiling to help accommodate their $245 billion tax break for the wealthy and cover the ever-increasing interest costs resulting therefrom. It is significant to note that in the Republican bill, they are increasing in the short term the National debt by $600 billion in the years 1996 to 1997. Since this is the Republican's clearly needed goal, why do they refuse to do it now--to avert the threat of a train wreck? Such action, if it were taken by the Republicans, would avert playing Russian roulette with the economy and would avert the cloud on the economy that would be caused. Clearly, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, it would result possibly in closing down Government and defaulting on Uncle Sam's obligations for the first time in its history in not issuing Social Security checks. Mr. President, this is wrong. The process that the Republican leadership in the House and Senate are on right now in this regard is wrong from every standpoint, as I see it. I am sure that the Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate will pass the conference report. I am just as sure that President Clinton will veto that bill, and he would be right to do so. The Republicans do not have the votes to override a Presidential veto. And I am glad they do not. We will eventually have to sit down and start crafting a workable budget together. I pledge cooperation, but not capitulation. To that end, all should know where this Senator stands and where many other Senators stand who want a balanced budget. Playing games with the debt ceiling is not a yearly casino night at the local men's club. The Republicans should not be gambling with the full faith and credit of the United States. These budget negotiations are delicate, and they will take time. At the very least, we should extend the debt ceiling into early next year. The same is true with the next continuing resolution. We should not be taking hostages in these negotiations. Second, we cannot, and will not, accept the Republican's current level of reductions in projected Medicare and Medicaid requirements. These are extreme, and they are excessive. They must be pared back if there is any hope of winning Democratic approval. The same is true with tax breaks for the rich and the tax increases for working families eligible for the earned-income tax credit. Deny it as much as you want, but there is a relationship between the size of the tax breaks for the wealthy and the Medicare expenditures. The tax breaks have to be scaled back and targeted more toward middle-income Americans. There are, of course, many others areas that will be on my list, particularly with regard to rural America which has been mauled in this budget. But I wanted to give you at least what I believe is the starting point for a balanced budget that will win bipartisan congressional support and the signature of the President of the United States. I say to my colleagues on the other side, instead of trying to see who will blink first, why do not we try to see eye to eye on a few of these issues? That is what the American people want. That is what they deserve. I stand ready to be of assistance to anyone on either side of the aisle in coming together where both sides are going to have to give, and give on issues that they feel very strongly about. It is in the interest of the United States of America, though, to get away from this Russian roulette that we are now headed toward, obviously with regard to the debt ceiling extension. Mr. President, I say again, come, let us reason together. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to briefly address the shocking loss to the world caused by the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, the beloved Prime Minister of our friend, the State of Israel. I have heard several of my colleagues' remarks on the sadness of this moment, the terrible loss that we feel here in the United States and the terrible situation that is going on inside the State of Israel today; people obviously in dismay and disbelief. This is a very, very sad event. I have listened with great interest this morning to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. I simply say he said everything so well, I think it will suffice to say that I wish to associate myself with the remarks by Senator Wellstone on the floor of the Senate earlier today. He summed it up so very, very well that I cannot add to it. Those of us who had our lives touched by Prime Minister Rabin, those of us who knew him, those of us who were with him, those of us who listened to his sound advice with regard to world leadership for peace over the years, feel a terrible loss. Our hearts go out to his family, to his constituents in the State of Israel, where he led so courageously and so bravely. A true warrior of peace has been struck down. We all should recognize [[Page S 16730]] and realize this is a time, possibly, to have this terrible loss solidify the drive for peace in the Middle East.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 5 minutes or a short period of time thereafter, and under that unanimous- consent request the 12:30 hour for recess be set aside temporarily, so that I might finish my remarks.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. Once order is restored in the Senate, I would like to yield 30 seconds on our side to the Senator from Kansas for remarks that I understand she has to make on this measure.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I simply say I share the concerns expressed by my colleague from Florida. I think, if we will check the Record, we will find very clearly that the Roth amendment--that is the subject of concern, and I think legitimately so, of the Senator from Florida and others--was supposedly the first amendment we were going to take up when we started this process of voting yesterday. It was laid aside. We were advised late last evening, sometime before midnight, that the measure would be presented to us so we could study it overnight. I remind all it was a rather short night. We still have not received it. I have not received it. Maybe it is in the process of being delivered to us at this time. Here, it seems to me, we have to exercise some discipline. All day yesterday, this Senator, along with my colleague, the chairman of the committee, kept telling Senators you have to be here to offer your amendments. We cannot run the U.S. Senate for the benefit of every other Senator, regardless of their station in life and regardless of what office they are running for. It seems to me, if we are going to move this process along, we are going to have to institute a policy that, if the Senator on the list that has been published now for about 24 hours is not here to offer the amendment, then I suggest the amendment should be set aside and disposed of and not considered. We have to exercise some discipline on everyone. I simply say I hope I can see the Finance Committee amendment. But in the meantime, I am at the mercy of the majority, and I simply ask my colleague if he could not join with me--and I think he will--to try to exercise some discipline on both sides of the aisle, not only with regard to the time constraints that we must maintain, but, also, we cannot move ahead unless Senators put the priority I think is necessary and that we should expect for them to be here to offer their amendments in a timely fashion, if for no other reason than out of consideration for the other Members of the body.

Mr. EXON. I appreciate that very much. That is very good news.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from West Virginia.

Mr. EXON. If I could have the attention of the Senator from Kansas. The Senator from Kansas, I yield her 30 seconds off of our time on the Kennedy amendment. I apologize. We are going to the Kerry amendment at this time.

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, may I interject a few statements?

Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to Senator Kerry.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I raise a point of order against the amendment offered by the Senator as not being germane.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the amendment offered by the Senator on the basis it is not germane.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, it is our turn to offer an amendment. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey 30 seconds for the purpose of explaining and introducing his motion. Motion to Commit

Mr. EXON. Senator Kennedy has an amendment that we would like to bring up at this time, so I yield him the 30 seconds to explain his amendment.