J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank very much my friend and colleague from Nebraska for his kind remarks with regard to not only myself but our mutual friend, Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee. This is a very difficult task. I think the Senator from Nebraska, my colleague, knows very, very well we have been reaching out. I appreciate very much the dedicated leadership he has provided in a whole series of areas with regard to deficit reduction. Senator Graham is in the Chamber. I will yield to him.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida for that question.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 14 minutes to the cosponsor of the amendment, the Senator from West Virginia, and the remaining time following that to the minority leader for closing our section of the debate when his turn comes.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce by request the administration's proposed pipeline safety bill. This legislation builds on a continuing record of success that administrations of both parties and the Congress have made in ensuring the safe operation of America's vast network of natural gas, petroleum, water, and other types of pipelines. Pipeline safety is one of the lesser known, but more important responsibilities of the Senate Commerce Committee. As a former chairman of the Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee I am proud of the progress we have made in advancing safety. With this legislation, the Congress can open a new chapter of safety. This legislation gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to make grants to States to encourage the adoption of effective comprehensive one-call legislation. It also authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with the private sector to bring new efficiencies to pipeline safety research, risk assessment, and mapping. In a time of tight budgets, the bill also introduces the concept of risk management to pipeline safety activities. With fewer dollars available the Congress must be certain that we get the most bang for the buck or more appropriately, in the area of energy pipeline safety, we need to get no bang for the buck. Mr. President, as a member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this important legislation, I want to mention some areas of concern which I would like our committee to address. In the area of mapping of pipeline locations, the Congress must assure that public and private funds are not wasted on duplicative efforts. The Government's mapping needs must be better coordinated with the private sector and existing mapping operations within the U.S. Government. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to pipeline mapping. I am also concerned about the way pipeline safety user fees are calculated [[Page S7018]] for natural gas suppliers in rural areas. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] maintains a fee schedule for their activities which more fairly takes into account the risk, volume, and economics of serving rural areas. I have urged the Department of Transportation to consider the FERC schedule and its appropriateness for their operations. Finally, Mr. President, I am committed to enacting a meaningful comprehensive one-call bill. Last year I was pleased to propose a compromise and work with Senators Bradley and Lautenberg to enact comprehensive one-call legislation. Meaningful call-before-you-dig programs will save lives, dollars, and productivity. I would certainly support the addition of the Bradley-Exon bill to this legislation. That bill represents the one-call compromise worked out last year. Mr. President, I look forward to the swift enactment of pipeline safety legislation this year and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis prepared by the Department of Transportation be included in the Record.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Dodd is on his way to the Chamber floor. I am prepared to make some remarks. Is there someone on that side of the aisle who wishes to speak at this time? I see the Senator from Colorado has just come in. We would be very pleased to yield on the basis that we generally have, going back and forth on these matters.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been listening with keen interest to my good friend and associate from the State of Wisconsin. We have worked together on many things, and I thank him very much for his kind and thoughtful remarks. Suffice it to say I join with him again and appreciate his appeal for some bipartisanship on this matter. We will continue to pursue those goals. Has the Senator from Wisconsin finished his remarks or did he wish additional time?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, my friend and colleague, Senator Dodd, will be speaking in a very few moments. Let me take this time to make some remarks on the procedures and what the hopes are on this side of the aisle. Mr. President, I am very disappointed by the amendment that is before us, because I do not think it is particularly helpful but it creates political drama. Yesterday I made a sincere offer to my Republican colleagues to work with them to craft a bipartisan budget. I offered the hand of friendship and the hand of reason. This amendment, the first amendment offered by those on the other side of the aisle, is a stinging rebuke to that offer of bipartisanship. The Republicans have decided to begin their part of the budget debate with a bit of political theater, and we have seen that tactic vividly displayed this morning. Theatrics and voice quivering dramatics is not the stuff of which reasonable debate and a sound budget is reached. They seem to want to deflect attention from the priorities in the Republican budget by setting up a straw man and then knocking that straw man down. Time and time again in the debate this morning, we Democrats have been accused by the majority, basically walking in lockstep, of wanting to make changes in the Republican-offered budget, that we are trying to be [[Page S6955]] helpful and reasonable in offering changes as an attempt by the Democrats to spend, spend, spend. I think that anyone who has followed the debate thus far would have to concede that we on this side of the aisle are not spending, spending, spending, as has been accused in the theatrics that have taken place thus far on the floor of the Senate. What we are trying to do is to be reasonable, to restore some of the cuts on some of the most needy programs, to not allow the budget offered by the Republicans to do terrible harm in certain areas that I think we and, basically, most of the Republicans hold very, very dear. We are trying to be reasonable, Mr. President. We are not trying to spend money. We are trying to alleviate some of the draconian cuts in certain programs that we think are very vital to the United States of America and the people that dwell happily therein. Mr. President, I would simply say--and I want to emphasize once again--that we on this side of the aisle have not offered a single amendment on the floor, nor did we as Democrats in the Budget Committee offer a single amendment that basically changed the goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002 and making some necessary and painful cuts that we recognize and realize are vital if we are going to get to that point of balancing the budget in the year 2002. I noticed in the debate this morning that there was much ado about nothing with regard to the continued reference to the fact that those on this side of the aisle, and at least one on their side of the aisle, prevented the balanced budget constitutional amendment to pass. Well, this is a Senator that rejects that proposal, rejects what I consider lack of reasoning, because as the Chair and everyone else in the Senate knows, this Senator has long sought a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I, and others on our side of the aisle, supported that when it lost by only one vote on the floor. But we come back to the matter of what is reasonable, what is possible, what can be done. This confrontation that I see we are running into on that side of the aisle is back to, I think, what can be pointed to as the failure link, if you will, of the budget offered by the Republicans which the Republicans seem to be defending at every turn in the road. You cannot move a comma, you cannot dot an ``i,'' you cannot make a change. I do not believe that that kind of theatrics that we have heard this morning, that kind of rhetoric or that kind of what I consider lack of reasoning is beneficial to getting us to a place where we can balance the budget by the year 2002 and do it in a responsible fashion. Congress received the administration's budget on February 6. The President, frankly, admitted that he invited Congress to come forward with its alternative, and the Congress has, so that we as a nation could begin our great discussion on the budget. A lot of things have happened since February 6. For one thing, we had a thorough debate on the amendment to the Constitution that would have required a balanced budget. As I said, I supported that amendment, and so did nearly two-thirds of both Houses in recorded votes. So, of course, the political landscape has changed dramatically since the President submitted his budget on February 6. As we stated on the floor of the Senate yesterday, there is a broad consensus in favor of balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002. All of the amendments offered on this side of the aisle in the Budget Committee and the debate that was held there, and with regard to what we will be offering later on today and next week, all are deficit neutral, as far as throwing us further into debt, expanding the debt, and all are designed to balance the budget by the year 2002, which is the central theme of the majority budget that has been offered. I said some good things about that yesterday. I just simply want to point out, Mr. President, and have everyone understand that every single amendment that we offered in the committee and which will be offered on the floor of the U.S. Senate, to my knowledge, would have balanced the budget just as quickly and at the same time as the Republican-offered budget that seems to be sacrosanct in which no change, even one cent, can be made. We do not disagree about the goal of balancing the budget. What we disagree with is the priorities, or lack thereof, that has been set and made part of the budget process that has been offered by the opposition. This is a debate we should be having, and I look forward to our proceeding to that debate. Because so much water has gone over the dam since then, I cannot support the President's budget as offered, and certainly it is not a starting point, but it was something that the President started and was required to do some months ago. I certainly was not enthusiastic about the President's blueprint when it was first offered. As I said in my opening remarks, we on this side will offer perfecting amendments to the Republican budget to try to enter into a constructive process to improve the Republican budget. In my view, the President's budget should be handled in the same manner, but we all know the fate of that proposal. So there is no point whatsoever in attempting to amend it. I have never been a Senator who blindly follows the President, regardless of party. In 1993, I worked hard to make changes in the President's budget. As a result of those efforts, the proposed cut in agriculture was significantly reduced. I would not--I would not--have supported the President's budget then had it not been changed along the manner that I suggested. I can only hope, Mr. President, that as this debate continues, there will be some on the other side of the aisle who will choose not to blindly follow their leadership and who will vote against the Republican budget unless the hits, the unfair hits on some key proposals, are reduced. If those on that side of the aisle want to call that irresponsible spending--it is not true--they have to live with their words. But the important part is that we need to start with the budget that has a chance of getting the votes to pass and then work to improve that document. The sooner we begin that process, the sooner we will start to get something serious and constructive done. The sooner we get to that process, the sooner we will end the political theater. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. EXON. There was no agreement, to my understanding. I ask the Chair, was there an agreement as to who was to speak at what time? Last night as we left, I understood that we jointly yielded to allow your side to have the first half hour of debate. Chairman Domenici just came 2 minutes ago, 20 seconds ago, and stood right here and said it is our turn now. I would give that advice to the manager of the bill on the Republican side. Maybe I am wrong. But I ask the Chair if I am mistaken and misunderstood the binding agreement that had been previously entered into.

Mr. EXON. Is the manager of the bill on the Republican side trying to interfere with the lineup that we agreed to offer on this side?

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator repeat the question?

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I believe these requests have all been cleared. I would like to ask, as long as we are in this, we are scheduled to come in at 8:30, is it, Monday?

Mr. EXON. Big cuts in Medicare will cause many of these remaining hospitals no other option but to close. In 1993, Nebraska hospitals lost $383 per case caring for Medicare patients. Let me repeat that. In 1993, Nebraska hospitals lost $383 per case caring for Medicare patients. Based on the Republican budget, they would lose an average of $1,370 per case in the year 2000. That is a pretty devastating figure. And that would be only if the hospitals are still open. How can our hospitals respond to cuts of this magnitude? Several hospitals in my State are teetering on the brink of insolvency, and these cuts may put them over the edge. They are forced to slash wages, lay off employees, cut back on services, or simply close their doors. Once they close, Madam President, physicians leave our small rural communities and they never, ever will come back. The hospitals are gone forever, and so are the doctors. Hospitals should not close simply because they serve a large population of Medicare patients. And that is what the Republican budget does. The No. 1 health priority for rural areas is increasing the supply of primary care physicians for our 22 million rural Americans. The Republican budget takes us in the direct opposite direction. More than 75 percent of Nebraska's counties have been designated medically underserved. Up to 25 percent of the rural doctors will retire or relocate within the next 5 years. More than 2,000 practitioners are needed to even begin to meet the rural needs of America. Madam President, in recent years, a variety of Federal grants have been awarded to States with large rural-urban populations to help them develop new and innovative ways of delivering health care to our rural areas and we have appreciated that. Rural States like Nebraska have formed consortiums among their schools, churches and clinics, in order to pool resources and reach out to vulnerable residents. They have formed regional emergency care networks and organized training programs for their emergency volunteers. They have used physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and they have been a Godsend. Telemedicine grants that help connect rural and urban hospitals through the information highway show real promise in improving quality and access to care for our rural elderly who cannot travel the long distance to urban hospitals. Rural America got the short end of the stick in the Republican budget. These and other programs critical to the health care of our rural communities were left to wither on the stalks. I have heard time and time again today the phrase that has been used over and over again that the Republicans have worked so very, very hard to fashion a budget that is going to save America, that is going to balance the budget by the year 2002, that will make these hard choices; that those on the Democratic side of the aisle want to change all that, not give a tax cut, and they want to increase spending. Obviously, from all of the extensive polling that they have done with GOPAC and all of those other good organizations, they have found good buzzwords. They know that ``spending'' is a good buzzword that catches a lot of attention. So when we say the Democrats are trying to spend more, it rings a bell that they hope will fool the people of America into believing that we are--we as Democrats--offering this amendment that I emphasize, once again, does not change the balanced budget by 2002, and does not increase the deficit. It keeps it the same as outlined in the Republican budgets. It does not raise the national debt. The only way that we can interpret this as spending would be to say, since we want to keep hospitals open in rural Nebraska and elsewhere, by not eliminating the cut, but softening the cut that has been suggested in the Republican budget, somehow we are big spenders. Well, if that is the definition of being a big, wild-eyed spender, this conservative deficit hawk, as Governor of Nebraska for 8 years and having the privilege of representing them, this is my 17th year, with a record of trying to reduce spending, with that background, I say if I am going to be labeled as a big spender because I am trying to help out the most fragile parts and sections and individuals in our country, those senior citizens living in rural America, alleviating just a little bit the tremendous hit that they are going to be taking as a result of the budget submitted by the Republican majority, then I stand convicted. I stand convicted, Madam President, of being a big, wild- eyed spender. I simply say that the record speaks for itself. Madam President, I would like for the purpose of clarification to know where we think we should be going on this side. For the information of my friend and colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, as we bring this week's debate on the budget resolution to a close, I just want to lay out the content of the amendments on this side of the aisle that we will be pursuing after we vote Monday afternoon on the measure before the Senate. At that time, I assume that we, therefore, will go to the other side of the aisle for the next amendment. As I stated earlier yesterday and then again today, we on this side plan a series of deficit-neutral amendments that seek changes in priorities in the Republican budget. Each and every one of the amendments that we will be offering fall exactly within the guidelines that I have just enunciated with regard to the amendment before the Senate. All of these amendments, and any that I know of, maintain the Senate path as outlined in a Republican budget to a balanced budget, that is basically the underlying principle of the budget resolution. The first amendment that we offered that is pending now is referred to as the Rockefeller-Lautenberg amendment on Medicare. That amendment seeks to trim back--not eliminate, but trim back--the tax cut in the Republican resolution and devote more of those savings to alleviating the hits in the Medicare Program that we think are unreasonable. The amendment following that, when we on this side have an opportunity to offer our next amendment, will be an amendment to offer to trim back the tax cuts just some, a little bit further, and debate those savings, to reduce the cut and the hit on education. Now, Madam President, we will be making the very similar case and following generally the same roads of reasoning as to why we think the Republican budget that came unanimously out of the Republican- controlled Budget Committee does the same thing to education as their figures on Medicare do to Medicare recipients and hospitals that primarily serve Medicare patients. There will be a very similar amendment. I suspect that the debate will be very similar, perhaps, to what we are having today. That is the amendment that will follow. Following that, the next amendment that we contemplate would trim back those Republican tax cuts just a little further, and devote those savings once again to eliminating the tax increase in the Republican budget on working families making less than $28,000 a year. Generally, that is referred to as the earned income tax credit. It has come up on several occasions during the debate in the last several hours. Taken together, those amendments that I have just offered constitute a different vision for America. A different vision--again, not violating the basic principles of the budget brought by the Republican majority. This Senator has commented previously--not only commented, but complimented especially Senator Domenici, who I know has worked very hard and very long on this proposition. I simply say to my good friend, ``You have done an overall very good job.'' Just please reason with this side and allow changes within the budget that has been submitted. If we can come to that, we are going to have a much stronger bipartisan budget as it leaves the U.S. Senate than we would have had otherwise. Our vision puts a higher priority on seniors--not eliminating any cuts but reducing the cuts. It does the same for working families. It does the same for education. Together, these amendments define the difference, I suggest, the difference in the two parties with regard to priorities. As Harry Truman once said, ``With us as Democrats, the people come first.'' I wish we could do more, but we cannot. I believe the people of America are willing to join to make some very hard choices and to take some very painful cuts. [[Page S7007]] Once again, I emphasize in closing, Madam President, that all we are trying to do is to do some surgery on the Republican budget. Not violating, obviously, the basic principle; not violating balancing the budget by the year 2002; not violating the overall goals with regard to spending, the totals; not increasing the national debt. What we are trying to do in all good faith is to be joint partners, as the minority party, in making some changes that will allow many of us, with a lot of thought and consideration, to simply say to Senator Domenici and our friends on that side of the aisle: We will join with you in making these very painful choices, because we realize, we recognize, and we think it is a must to make some dramatic changes in what has taken place with wild-eyed spending and very high deficits over the last few years, starting back basically with the election of President Ronald Reagan as President of the United States. So I simply say that we recognize the fault for this is not all on the Republicans, and it is certainly not all on the Democrats. We are in this boat together. I hope we can work in consort, in a bipartisan fashion, to begin to work our way out of it. We do not believe any of the amendments we have offered thus far, or the amendments we will be offering before we go to the final debate and vote on the resolution itself, are anything other than reasonable priorities that we would like to reset and make some changes in, as advanced by the Republicans when they brought this budget to the floor of the U.S. Senate. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Nebraska Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, May 10, 1995. Hon. J. James Exon, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Exon: On behalf of the 94 acute care hospitals in Nebraska, I wish to call your attention to a serious potential problem. Clearly, the United States must work its way out of debt. To do that, Federal spending must be cut. It is my understanding that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman's mark is set an an overall reduction of $1.5 trillion by the year 2002. I further understand that in order to achieve a savings of that magnitude, Medicare is targeted for $256 billion reduction in spending over the same seven-year period. Here's the problem. For fiscal year 1993 (FY '93) (the most current completed year), Nebraska hospitals had a net operating margin of -7.5 percent for care rendered to Medicare recipients. Based upon the Chairman's mark for Medicare spending, in the year 2000 Nebraska hospitals would have a net operating margin of -23 percent for Medicare patients. This figure is expected to improve by the year 2002 to a net operating margin loss of only 14.5 percent, because the reductions are ``front loaded.'' Putting this into financial terms, in FY '93 Nebraska hospitals lost $383 per case caring for Medicare patients. Based upon the Chairman's mark, in the year 2000 they would lose on average $1,339 per case and in 2002 they would lose $983 per case caring for Medicare patients. This is all compounded by the fact that Nebraska is a state with a higher proportion of elderly citizens in its population. How can hospitals respond to the cuts of this magnitude? Hospitals are caught in a catch-22. They can: (1) shift more costs to the private sector--this is no longer a viable option in today's managed care environment; (2) slash wages and lay-off employees; (3) cut back on the scope of services provided--all of which threatens the quality of care, will close rural hospitals and restrict access. It is a lose-lose situation for community hospitals. Reimbursement reductions of this magnitude in a state with a disproportionate share of the elderly population, a state in which Medicare patients account for 60 to 70 percent of hospital admissions, clearly threatens the health care system upon which all of us depend. Medicare needs to be fixed. There is an opportunity for Congress to change Medicare, but the change must be driven by sound health care policy, not budgetary or political imperatives. The Senate Budget Committee's proposed Medicare reductions would crush Nebraska hospitals. As always, Nebraska's hospitals look to your leadership. Sincerely, Harlan M. Heald, President.

Mr. EXON. If I understand it right, when we close the business today there has been a joint agreement that we would either have used or have agreed to use 10 hours, is that right, today?

Mr. EXON. I thank my colleague.

Mr. EXON. So when we start debate Monday morning we will have 30 hours left on the budget resolution, is that correct?

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, as far as this Senator knows, we have no further speakers for today. I have some remarks that I would like to make on the matter at hand and then advise the Senate briefly what amendments we intend to take up and what those amendments are about that we have scheduled on our side, recognizing that we will be going back and forth on the amendments. But first, Madam President, we will be talking more about this on Monday. What we are going to be talking more about Monday is to try and explain to America the deep cuts that are being provided for in the Republican budget with regard to Medicare. I hear a lot of comment about the concern for America. I have heard a lot of talk about the Democrats that want to spend. I simply say to the Senate again that the Democrats, once again, have not offered an amendment in committee, we have not offered an amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate that raises the deficit, the violates the 2002 date suggested in the Republican budget which this Senator and several Democrats happen to agree with. Once again, on this amendment, and others that we are going to be offering, we are simply going to be dipping into the reserve of $170 billion that is specified eventually likely to be available for a tax cut, to alleviate the extraordinary hits--not eliminate them--but to relieve the extraordinary hits on some programs that we just do not think are capable of accepting those kinds of hits. So let us make it clear once again, despite the theatrics that I have heard from those on the other side of the aisle today, that this is a terrible spending program that the Democrats are about, that the Republicans are trying to save money, they are trying to balance the budget and they are the only good guys because those bad Democrats on the other side of the aisle, you see, want to take this money and throw it away, I guess. In this particular case, and on other amendments we will be offering, we are not throwing money away. We are not going out and saying, ``Here, wind, take these hard earned tax dollars and let it blow into the Potomac.'' No, what we are saying, Madam President, is that we just have different priorities than our Republican brethren. We are simply saying that we do not agree with the priorities that have been set on that side of the aisle. We are not trying to eliminate the 2002 date for balancing the budget. We are not trying to raise the deficit. We are certainly not trying to raise the national debt. What we are talking about is whether or not we can move without violating the basic principles that have been laid down to reach a balanced budget that this Senator ascribes to, as evidenced by the fact that I voted in favor of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We are for these things. I emphasize once again, Madam President, that what we on this side of the aisle are attempting to do is to say, let us get our heads screwed on right with regard to priorities. And with regard to the devastating Medicare cuts, I would simply say--and I will be addressing this in a few moments--as to how unfair these would be--not only unfair but devastating to the rural health care delivery system in my State of Nebraska. What I say about Nebraska and the facts that I will use to back that up can be said for many other States in the Union that have a substantial portion of rural population. Madam President, the Medicare cuts in the Republican budget are grossly unfair to the average senior citizen. But rural America will, once again, bear the brunt of the storm of deficit reduction. What we are saying is we want to alleviate some of that by dipping into the money set aside for a tax cut in the Republican budget. And I remind all, once again, that not only is a $170 billion set aside, the $170 billion is specifically set aside for one thing and one thing only--a tax cut. Now, we are for cutting taxes, too, if we can provide that tax cut in a form that does not primarily benefit the wealthiest people in the United States of America, as clearly the plan offered and passed yesterday in the House of Representatives does. We are against that. We happen to believe that, in the case of the amendment presently before the Senate, to dip to the tune of $100 billion into the $170 billion kitty that is in the Republican Senate budget, to alleviate by that amount of money, $100 billion, the unfair and tremendous hit in the area of $250 billion that is scheduled over the next several years by the Republican budget. It does not mean that it is not going to be cut. It simply says it would be fair and probably acceptable to most of us on this side of the aisle if we just did not hit those senior citizens on Medicare right between the eyes, as clearly the Republican budget does, notwithstanding the protests of those on that side of the aisle. They are wrong. I think they are wrong on the numbers, I think they are very sincere. But I hope that possibly we can pick up enough Republican votes on this very reasonable amendment to allow it to pass. Madam President, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid could lay siege to small rural hospitals, which often serve a much greater share of the elderly and low-income patients. Nearly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries--10 million, which is one-fourth of all beneficiaries-- live in rural America, where there is often one hospital per county. Many times, that one hospital serves many counties, more than just one. Nebraska is a perfect example of rural America's health care crisis that is going to be driven into a more serious crisis if eventually we accept anything close to the cuts suggested in the Republican budget for Medicare. Let me lay out a few of the statistics. Nearly one-third of Nebraska, or 1.6 million citizens, live in rural areas. More than 38 of our ninety-three counties have elderly populations in excess of 20 percent. Nineteen of Nebraska's 93 counties have no hospitals. Here is the kicker: Medicare patients account for 68 to 70 percent of hospital administration admissions. Cuts in Medicare will cause many of our remaining rural hospitals simply to close. The downturn spiral has already begun. Ten percent of all rural hospitals closed during the 1980's. Medicare cuts will only accelerate that decline. Unlike urban and suburban hospitals, shifting costs to the private sector is not an option. It is not an option when the majority of rural patients are on Medicare and many others are uninsured. Madam President, I ask at this time, because it is particularly pertinent to the remarks that I am making, that at the conclusion of my remarks a letter that I introduced in the Record last night from the head of the hospital association substantiating my figures be printed again in the Record.

Mr. EXON. No objection. We agree to that.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee. Just 2 or 3 minutes of closing remarks. I would agree. I would agree with my friend and colleague from New Mexico that during debate on the Senate floor there may have been some overstatements of the facts by Senators on this side of the aisle. I was here today, though, and I heard several statements on the Republican [[Page S7024]] side of the aisle that I interpreted also as overstatements. We do get carried away sometimes in debate. This Senator, both in the Budget Committee and on the floor of the Senate, has tried to make a case as I saw it in a responsible, honest manner. I just want to say, once again, that I spoke a few moments ago about one of the greatest overstatements that I keep hearing on the floor of the Senate on this matter, despite the fact that the Democrats have not offered an amendment and as far as I know will not during this debate that violates the very principles that the Senator from New Mexico emphasized was part and parcel of the budget, to protect the kids of the future, to eliminate the ever skyrocketing deficit and grossly increasing national debt. But, once again, I feel, when somebody on this side of the aisle or somebody on that side of the aisle gets up and says something about overstatements by someone on the other side, they better be careful that they are not throwing rocks at their own glass houses. My friend from New Mexico went right after one of the very basic tenets of the remarks that I made, I think in a reasonable fashion, just before we went into the closing procedures, and that was that I have heard the statement, certainly an overstatement, once again, from the chairman of the Budget Committee that the Democrats want to take this money and spend it. Well, I think that is a good buzzword and I think the Republicans have researched that well in their extensive polling. I want it clearly understood that this deficit hawk, this conservative Democrat, is not for spending in the context that the Republicans continue to use during this debate, accusing the Democrats of spending when we are not spending. We are reducing the hits. We are reducing the significant reductions in hits in a whole series of programs that even the Republicans concede are very heavy and very difficult. I simply say, Madam President, once again, I hope that we can continue a legitimate debate on Monday, to debate the legitimate issues in proper form and with proper respect for all Members of the Senate that I have great respect for, but I recognize that all of us, from time to time, make some overstatements. I just hope, because every time I hear the Republicans talking about spending, I wish that they would better define that word. We are not spending money. We are trying to alleviate what we think are more onerous cuts in budgets of the most needy of our citizens, especially our senior citizens, and especially our young people who were relying on Government loans to get their education. We will continue the debate on Monday next. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. EXON. But I will not object with this caveat, that the Senator from Nebraska, when we have finished the wrap-up procedures, would like to reserve 2 or 3 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. EXON. I will be happy to, Madam President.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute. I just wanted to take a minute's time to compliment the excellent remarks, right on the point, by two of my best friends in the U.S. Senate with whom I have had the opportunity to serve with as a former Governor of Arkansas and a former Governor of the State of Kentucky. Governors, who have been through these difficult decisions of balancing budgets, should be listened to more than they are sometimes. I just want to say to my friend from Arkansas and my friend from Kentucky, well done, well stated, and I hope that the American people are listening. [[Page S6896]] I thank you, Senator, and I thank you, Senator Ford, who will be back on the floor in a very short period of time. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.