J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President the Senate proposal before us reduces transportation spending significantly more than the House. The difference between the Senate and the House is primarily attributable to unrealistic savings associated with privatizing certain air traffic control functions of the FAA. Beginning in 1997, the Senate assumes that this proposal will achieve savings of $3.675 billion a year. The feasibility of the Senate Republican's air traffic control privatization proposal is highly suspect because it asks users to pay twice. Not only will users continue to pay the Federal Government, via the ticket tax, but users will have to pay an additional tax to the new private entity. While the Republican plan may help reduce the deficit, it is clearly not fair. Asking users to continue to pay the ticket tax to help reduce the deficit and then asking them to pay an additional tax to pay for an air traffic control service they already receive is asking too much and has little chance of succeeding. Given the fact that the Senate Republican's FAA proposal is totally unrealistic, the Department of transportation would then be forced to virtually eliminate new highway, Transit, and Airport Improvement Grant funding in fiscal year 1997 to even get close to achieving its Senate fiscal year 1997 budget In addition, deep cuts of 20 percent or more in Coast Guard and FAA operations would be required to actually make the cuts proposed in Senate budget for fiscal year 1997. We should not jeopardize the safety and viability of the Nation's transportation system with unrealistic budget assumptions. Let's have a more realistic budget for transportation, a budget that won't put vital transportation functions at risk. privatization of air traffic control

Mr. EXON. I so anticipated.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have no ill will at all toward some of the Democrats, some of my closest friends and associates, but I have tried to conduct this matter with a sense of dedication but still in good humor. I just want to say that if there are any Republicans who wish to vote against the budget, I will be glad to yield them time if they come to the Senate as quickly as possible. [[Page S7449]] I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we come to the closure of debate on this very, very important budget matter, I want to start out my closing remarks by taking a moment to thank the Budget Committee staffs, the majority staff and the minority staff, for what I think was a truly wonderful job. It takes a lot of hard work and they performed it so very, very well, whether in the minority or majority. I think we all recognize that while we have fractious debates from time to time, our staffs do a particularly outstanding job in working together. Senators on this side of the aisle are certainly most grateful for the contribution of our minority staff and also the important role and relationship we have had with the Senators on that side, headed by my good friend, Senator Domenici, and his excellent staff. I guess few realize the truly monumental task and the intricate time demands and the details--the daunting task, if you will, of budgeting. It was much tougher this year than it was in previous years, when we were obviously more restrained about our expenditures. I want to take a moment if I can, then, just to run through some names here that I shall be forever indebted to. I think the Senate will be as a whole. The American people should know it was an able staff headed by my chief of staff, Bill Dauster, whom everyone recognizes is one of the true experts on our budget. I thank Bill for all he has done. And the excellent staff he has assembled to work with. I want to thank: deputy chief of staff Jerry Slominski; analyst for Transportation and Justice Andy Blocker; analyst for Veterans and Commerce Kelly Dimock; special assistant to the ranking member Tony Dresden; analyst for government, community and regional development Meg Duncan; general counsel Jodi Grant; senior analyst for Energy and environment Matt Greenwald; LBJ fellow Nancy Harris; senior analyst for income security, social security and Medicaid Joan Huffer; chief economist Jim Klumpner; staff assistant Nell Mays; director of budget review and analysis and analyst for Mecdicare Sue Nelson; presidential management intern Susan Ross; and assistant director for revenue and natural resources David Williams, and the others who played key roles in our budget staff. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes, if I can, to sum up the feelings this Senator has after a lot of work and effort by a lot of people. I come down to the final debate on the 1996 budget resolution with a lot of thoughts and with a lot of appreciation for all the help I have had. I was just thinking the other day, though, that this will be my 17th budget that I have debated in the U.S. Senate. I voted for some good, creditable budgets, like the one in 1993 that provided nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction. I voted against others that I believed were fiscally unsound and were not in the best interests of our great Nation. Each of those budgets was important, but perhaps none as important as this one at this particular time. As Nebraska draws me closer to home, I think more about the country I want to leave my fellow citizens. I think about their day-to-day struggle for a better life. I think about their grandchildren and the uncertainties they face, I think about how I want to leave them a country with shoulders broad enough to build a family and a future on. This Republican budget may convey that legacy to some, but not to this fiscally conservative Nebraskan. It is a budget that makes a devil's bargain over tax cuts at a time when we should be appealing to our better angels. We should make sure we balance the budget before we make a real or phony commitment to the politically popular promise of a tax cut. It is a budget that takes away unfairly from our seniors, children, and least fortunate, but disproportionately and unfairly lines the pockets of the wealthiest among us. It is a budget that keeps the most affluent fling first class, but puts rural America in a tail spin. It is a budget that turns a blind eye to working Americans who play by the rules. In the final analysis, it is a budget I cannot support. I know what a tough task my good friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has had. I salute him for the masterful job he has done. And he has my condolences for the job that lies ahead that will require the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job. We may disagree on the shape of this budget. But the Senator from New Mexico and I truly believe, both of us, in balancing the budget. For us, and many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not an abstraction. We want to make a decisive attack on our country's budget crisis. I wanted a bipartisan balanced budget where all of us would share, and share equally, in the painful decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to bring the budget into balance. I wanted a balanced budget that was driven by fairness. On many occasions, before and during this debate, I offered the olive branch to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In spite of the heated rhetoric, I thought that cooler heads could prevail. I offered compromise and reason. I offered unity instead of division. I though we could fine tune this budget and redistribute the cuts within its framework. I thought that we could work together to produce a balanced budget that most Republicans and Democrats could support. But the past 50 hours have proven me wrong. The Republicans froze us out of the process, basically. We were persona non grata as far as they were concerned. I didn't expect my Republican colleagues to accept all of our amendments. But they did not give serious consideration to barely any of the constructive and reasonable amendments we offered. And none, and I repeat none of the amendments I supported would have kept us from balancing the budget by the year 2002, which is the central element, I think in the plan offered by the majority. The Republican majority put a fence around their budget. We were blocked at every turn. We were rebuffed on each critical amendment. It was ``No'' to softening cuts on Medicare. It was ``No'' to the earned income tax credit. It was ``No'' to education. It was ``No'' to rural America. It was ``No'' to fairness. It was ``No'' to shared sacrifice. Mr. President, this is not a budget for all seasons, and is certainly lacking in reason. This is not a budget for all Americans. This is not a budget of shared sacrifices. This is not a budget on which our fellow citizens in Nebraska, or elsewhere can build a better life. This is a budget that I cannot support. Where do we go from here? To something workable and more constructive? Given the budget presented us by the House, and this one concocted in the Senate, we go to conference with little hope of a final budget that will have any semblance of bipartisan support. It follows that the reconciliation bill and the appropriations measures will be so bound in advance by this unworkable budget that the end product will also be devoid of any real semblance of bipartisan support. There are those who seemingly have reveled in the charges that the President is ``irrelevant'' in the budget considerations. They will find out how ``irrelevant'' he really is should he veto--and, in my opinion, properly so--the end product of all of this partisanship. Beginning now, and up to the point of a possible veto, I will be working with my President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to attempt to fashion a workable bipartisan compromise that will not be painless, but will be fair to all Americans and, most importantly, to America. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we reach closure----

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time allotted to our side.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think I have a little time left. With regard to this, we favor the Snowe amendment and urge its support. It would restore funding needed for student loans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this point to ask for the yeas and nays on the four remaining amendments that have been outlined with one request for the yeas and nays, which I request at this juncture.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Bradley amendment reduces defense spending by $5 billion; reduces nondefense discretionary by $15 billion more, than a hard freeze; restores $100 billion of the $256 billion Republican Medicare cut; $85 billion from a $1 a pack increase in the tobacco tax; restores $75 billion of the $175 billion Republican Medicaid cut; retains Republican agricultural cuts; restores funding of student loans; restores $60 billion of the $86 billion in income assistance cut by the Republican budget plan; reduces the tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy by $197 billion. If the fiscal dividend materializes, using $70 billion to restore a portion of the spending cuts from the Republican proposal; and lastly, uses the remaining $100 million of fiscal dividend, if available, to provide a middle-class tax cut.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that low-priority domestic programs and activities of the Federal Government, including the space station, should be reduced in order to meet the requirement of the Hatfield National Institutes of Health amendment. It ensures that the high-priority programs, including education, food and nutrition for low-income children, anticrime efforts, veterans programs, job training, health care, and other similar investments be protected.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would instruct the Senate Committee on Finance to report changes in the laws within its jurisdiction; to increase revenues by $10 billion in fiscal year 1996; $50 billion in the years 1996 through 2,000; and $70 billion for the year 1996 to the year 2000; to be generated by scaling back or eliminating outright a number of unnecessary, excessive or inefficient tax expenditures, including those which provide special tax treatment to a single taxpayer or a group of taxpayers. The $70 billion goes to deficit reduction.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I wish to add Senator Hollings as a cosponsor of this amendment--this Dorgan-Hollings motion--which is to recommit, and this motion would recommit the budget resolution to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back a budget that is balanced in the fiscal year 2002 according to section 301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading be dispensed with.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk on behalf of the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. It is a motion to recommit.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has outlined this. Just let me summarize so all understand where we are. We are moving very well. At the outside, we have six or seven amendments left. At the inside, I think it might be as low as five that will require that many more votes, of course. Following the pattern that has just been set, after this pattern of three, then we would try to bundle the last three in the same fashion. So I certainly ask unanimous consent it now be in order to offer those three, as agreed to by the chairman of the Budget Committee. I will proceed at this time to offer those three with brief explanations.

Mr. EXON. For the information of all Senators, the Senator summed it up very well.

J. Exon

Speeches

Manage analytics