J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I see the majority leader in the Chamber. Is he seeking recognition?

Mr. EXON. I yield back the remainder of our time. I thought Senator Rockefeller was finished.

Mr. EXON. Has all time expired?

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, the yeas and nays are being requested. Again, I want to make it clear that would not preclude us from making a point of order before the vote is taken. That is correct?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. EXON. If I might just add some editorial comment here, the problem that we have is that at 9 o'clock this morning I was in the first meeting. We have been meeting and talking and advising and cajoling now going on almost 12 hours. The point I make is that I think it is time we start voting. I simply say that the delaying tactics thus far are just cutting down the time that I think we would like to use on this side of the aisle on several very key, very important amendments. I am not saying that the amendment being offered by the Senator from Michigan is not an important one. It probably is. But compared with the many amendments we have ready to offer and want to vote on this side--another way of saying this, I am very much disturbed by the fact we are continuing to use up the time. We only have a total of 20 hours to debate the most far-reaching reconciliation bill, maybe the most far-reaching bill that has ever been presented to the U.S. Senate, when you consider all of its implications. I recognize we may be playing by the rules but the rules in this particular instance might not be fair. I appeal once again as one who has worked on this all day long, I wish we could start voting up or down on the important amendments. I do not believe that we should or could under the dictates of the 20-hour maximum limit, that we should be taking an hour on each side to debate the amendment that is being offered by the Senator from Michigan. It may be something, when I know more, that I will fully vote for. I think time is wasting and I wanted to make that point. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from the State of California for a very excellent statement, and, as usual, she puts it into perspective so we can all understand it. I think the personal remark that she made with regard to her husband should set the tone of understanding that I think is very lacking on the budget reconciliation document that we have been addressing and that I addressed along similar lines this morning. Mr. President, I would simply like to say that, subject to their recognition by the Chair, I yield 10 minutes, first to the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, and followed by that 10 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas and, following that 5 minutes, to the Senator from Alabama from our time.

Mr. EXON. Will the Budget Committee chairman yield for a further question?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in order of their recognition by the Chair in this order, I wish to allocate the time remaining with 8 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, followed by 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, and then 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico. I yield myself 3 minutes at this time. All day long, Mr. President, we have had Republicans beating up on the President of the United States. I simply say that today the President announced that the year-end budget deficit was 160-some billions of dollars. That is the lowest deficit we have had for a long, long time in the United States of America. I simply say to those who have been in this body now not a full year, none of them can hardly take any credit for the deficit going down dramatically under the leadership of the President of the United States. While we all tend to beat up on the President of the United States once in a while, I think it is well to note that under his leadership and under his direction, under his determination, and in the policies that he has fostered, he has put his political muscles where his mouth is, and the deficit has come down dramatically. I simply say that the last time we had a deficit this low was way back in 1989 at $153 billion. The intervening years it has been $221 billion, $270 billion, $290 billion, $255 billion, $203 billion, and so forth. I simply say, Mr. President, that once again the President of the United States should be saluted for at least bringing the deficit down into the $160-billion range. I want to get that for the record because there have been so many brick bats thrown at the President of the United States today. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, I would like to make a clarification on this, if I might, and I do not think we have a difference of opinion on this. It is the desire of the majority to move as quickly as we can into the amendment process, and as Senator Domenici knows--and I suspect he has told the majority leader--we are working to try to cut these down to move this proposition along. However, since we are limited to 10 hours each, as I understand the unanimous-consent request that has just been offered by the majority leader, there would be 1 hour off of the Republican 10 hours, if we agree to this, and a half an hour on our side, which would mean that you are giving up an hour; we are giving up a half an hour of our 10. Is that right?

Mr. EXON. Agreed.

Mr. EXON. Let us not press it at this time.

Mr. EXON. No, no.

Mr. EXON. For clarification of all, I was advised the chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senator Roth, the chairman of the Finance Committee, would be speaking, as I understand it, during part of the 1 hour that the Senator has reserved. As a result of that, I have alerted Senator Moynihan, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, and basically I would simply say that the opening remarks beginning on this side would be essentially 15 minutes for myself and 15 minutes for the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, which I think will basically take up most of the half hour. Then it is up to the Senator to allot the time on that side. Is the chairman suggesting that he would like to have me proceed with my opening statement at this time?

Mr. EXON. Yes. And I would ask unanimous consent that this housekeeping work not be charged to either side.

Mr. EXON. It sounds reasonable. Are you suggesting the timeframe of 11:20?

Mr. EXON. Yes.

Mr. EXON. Yes.

Mr. EXON. And more votes.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague. I want to continue to work together. We have sharp differences on these things, but I think over the period of time for the 18 years that we have served on the committee together we have been accommodating to each other. I think that is the desire. I will simply say that the chairman of the committee has indicated that people on that side are very much concerned about how we proceed on this. That is true on this side. Unfortunately, with the time constraints that we have, with the mammoth bill we have before us, the Senator from Nebraska is going to have to be an unpopular traffic cop, trying to direct traffic to say no, since we do not have time. But at this time I yield myself 15 minutes, and ask that I be notified if I exceed that time. Mr. President, there was a marriage on Monday, a marriage that did not quite make the wedding notices. As my colleagues know, the Republican majority on the Budget Committee generously provided $224 to $245 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and wedded it officially to the $270 billion in Medicare cuts. The seniors of America paid for that wedding, and they will pay and pay and pay again over the years. The Congressional Budget Office issued the marriage license. In an October 20 letter to me, CBO Director O'Neill wrote that without the drastic cuts in Medicare, the tax break for the wealthy would not have been possible. I ask unanimous consent that her letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON. The happy couple of tax breaks and Medicare cuts are now before the Senate in the form of the reconciliation bill. They are asking for our blessing. We should not give it. This marriage should be annulled. Had the question been asked, ``Is there anyone present who objects to the joining of these two, speak now or forever hold your peace?'' I would have objected. Mr. President, it has been almost 4 months since the Senate passed the conference report on the budget resolution which begat this reconciliation bill, a bill that has now grown to grotesque proportions. This reconciliation bill was created behind closed doors. It is the first of the illegitimate births of this union. By comparison, it makes ``Rosemary's Baby'' look like a dream child. They brought it out into the light of the day for the first time at midday last Friday. There were no hearings on Medicare. There were no hearings on Medicaid. There were no hearings on the cuts of the earned income tax credit. There were no hearings on the cuts in education. There were no hearings on how this budget cuts a huge swath like a tornado through rural America. Last Friday, during the markup of this reconciliation bill, I asked if we could not hear from just four witnesses who could describe how this Republican budget would do great violence to their lives. I asked for an hour. That is just 1 minute for each $4.5 billion in Medicare cuts. But my offer was spurned. Why the hurry, Mr. President? Why is the majority so breathless about sealing the deal on this budget? Why are they now moving in convoy fashion to pass this bill? The great pitcher, Satchel Paige, might have had the answer. He once said, ``Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you.'' Something is gaining on the Republicans. They are hearing footsteps. They are hearing the American people gaining on them. More and more Americans are finding out what is in this monstrous bill. And they feel deceived and betrayed. Mr. President, I will speak in a moment about the particulars of this reconciliation bill and the terrible hardships that it inflicts. But I would like to take a moment to discuss what I believe is the large picture here. When we get into these debates about budget resolutions and budget reconciliation bills, Senators can all too easily lose sight--lose sight--of the ordinary Americans. The stage overshadows the people on it. In this same vein, my colleagues on the other side cannot see beyond the gesture of the moment. They cannot see beyond the scaffolding they have erected in this reconciliation bill. They cannot see the people that they will harm. They cannot see the Nation that they are tearing apart. This Republican budget does not speak to the American values that I know and the ones that I cherish, values that I see every day in my fellow Nebraskans. The greatest of these values are shared sacrifice, fairness, and compassion for our neighbors. That is the social fabric that runs through our great Nation. But this Republican budget is tugging at every thread to unravel it. In spite of the inflated rhetoric, the Republican budget reached a shallow bottom in no time at all. Some have called it social Darwinism at its shabby worst, I say, where citizens are pitted against citizens, young against the old, rural Americans against urban Americans. Last week Speaker Gingrich feigned that he wants no class warfare. What nonsense. It is this bill that fires the first shot of class warfare. It is this bill that goes to war against the working people on behalf of the wealthy. Mr. President, the more this budget is exposed to the sunlight, the more we are finding that this is not the right key to open a complicated problem which we all agree is necessary--balancing the budget. I am one of the few Senators who has actually balanced budgets and used the line-item veto to do it. I did it for 8 years as Governor of Nebraska. But I say to my colleagues today, this Republican budget is not the way to do it. Tax breaks for the wealthy are writ large all over this reconciliation bill. Tax breaks for the wealthy have riveted the attention of the Republicans to the exclusion of everything else. Tax breaks for the wealthy have established primacy over time-honored commitments to provide a safety net for our fellow citizens. Medicare became the most convenient laboratory for conducting these tax breaks. The Republican Medicare plan cuts the program three times more than necessary to keep it solvent through the year 2006, just to pay the freight for the tax breaks. The Republican reconciliation bill doubles the premiums under part B Medicare. It doubles the deductibles under part B. It increases the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, all for the tax breaks. And on October 2, in an editorial in the New York Times, the Times states, and I quote: Right now, Medicare makes up less than 12 percent of the Federal budget. But Medicare cuts account for more than twice that percentage of the lower spending in the Republican approved budgets over the next 7 years. Not withstanding Mr. Gingrich's appeal, the facts clearly demonstrate that health programs for the elderly are bearing a disproportionate share of the austerity pushed by the Republicans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial that I have referenced in the New York Times be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the shocking truth is that more than 88 percent of the Republican mandatory cuts come from means-tested programs, those which serve predominantly low- and moderate-income Americans, and from Medicare, where three-quarters of the beneficiaries have annual incomes under $25,000. A Joint Economic Committee study also concluded that the poorest fifth of Americans would shoulder fully half of the proposed program cuts, for an average loss of nearly $2,500 per family in the year 2002. There are no breaks for these folks in this Republican bag of tricks. The Republicans trumpet that their tax breaks will benefit all Americans, especially the middle class. The truth, however, sounds a different note, and it is definitely sour. Last week, the Joint Committee on Taxation confessed that families making up to $30,000 a year--and that is about half of all taxpayers-- would actually see their taxes go up under the Republican tax plan. Yes, Mr. President, their taxes would go up. They would pay more for increased Medicare premiums and deductibles. They would pay more for new student loan fees. They would pay more for higher taxes on State and local employees. They would pay more for higher contributions for GI bill benefits. What about the other side of the gilded reconciliation bill? The Treasury Department estimates that nearly half--nearly half--of the Senate's tax breaks would go to 12 percent of the American families making $100,000 a year or more. The New York Times also said, and I quote: The Republicans are rushing through Congress the greatest attempt in modern history to reward the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Earlier in my statement, I mentioned that the Republicans are not only pitting young against old and rich against the middle class, but our rural areas against urban industrialized centers throughout the many States of our great land. This Republican reconciliation bill is a cruel joke, above everything else, upon rural America. More than 9 million rural Americans will pay higher out-of-pocket costs for second-class Medicare programs. The typical rural hospital could find its annual budget cut by a third, forcing many to close and causing many physicians to leave and to never return. Medicaid cuts will eliminate coverage for 2.2 million rural Americans, including 1 million children. Net farm income will decline by $9 billion over the next 7 years. And for what, Mr. President? Once again, for the almighty tax breaks for the wealthy. The evidence clearly keeps mounting. It is compelling. It is heart- wrenching. This reconciliation bill is wrong for our great Nation. For the good of our Nation, it should be defeated. At a time when we should be formulating a balanced budget that unites America and unites its people, this one only seeks to divide us. We know that this reconciliation bill will be vetoed by the President. Those of us who reject the extremism of the day, both Republicans and Democrats, should be looking beyond this doomed reconciliation bill. We should be looking to a workable alternative, a compromise. We should be looking toward building on the structures and values of our great Nation, not tearing them down. I have offered before, and I offer again now, to my Republican colleagues: Come, let us reason together and develop a true and workable compromise. If we can stop this Republican juggernaut and stop it now, we can get on with fashioning a reasonable formula to balance the budget.

Mr. EXON. I allocate myself 2 additional minutes. Mr. President, if we pass this bill, it will certainly receive a Presidential veto, and we will belatedly start all over again. The American woman of letters, Lillian Hellman, once commented: ``I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fabric.'' Nor will I, Mr. President. I will vote against this budget, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, October 20, 1995. Hon. J. James Exon, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: Pursuant to Section 205(a) of the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67), the Congressional Budget Office on October 18 provided the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee with a projection of the budget deficits or surpluses that would result from enactment of the reconciliation legislation submitted to the Budget Committee as of that date. As stated in the letter to Chairman Domenici, CBO projected that there will be a total- budget surplus of $10 billion in 2002, using the economic and technical assumptions underlying the budget resolution, and assuming the level of discretionary spending specified in that resolution. If the estimated Medicare savings in 1996 through 2002 resulting from the legislation submitted by the Finance Committee were excluded from the calculation, CBO would project a deficit of $82 billion in 2002. Similarly, if any other savings submitted to the Budget Committee were excluded from the calculation, CBO would project a higher deficit. CBO also stated in the letter to the Chairman that the estimated deficit reduction would likely reduce federal interest costs and increase revenues by an amount similar to the fiscal dividend that CBO discussed in its August report, The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update. If deficit reduction in each year were lower by the amount of the estimated Medicare savings (and the associated debt service), the fiscal dividend would likely be lower than the estimated CBO published in August. If you wish further details on this projection, we will be pleased to provide them. The staff contact is Jim Horney, who can be reached at 226-2880. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill.