J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. What the Senator is saying is that although you have used more time than we have, you want to divide the remainder of the time equally?

Mr. EXON. It all depends on how much time you continue to yield in excess of the amount that was allotted to your side of the debate. We are not going to sit here and let you keep yielding time and then beat us over the head because you do not have a vote. We have 21 minutes left under the original agreement by the Senator from Iowa. I hope we intend to use that time, but no more. I will yield time off if you are going to continue to yield 10 and 15 minutes to people to speak against it. All I am asking for is fairness.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend. I was trying to seek the floor in my own right. I would ask a question.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me suggest that it appears to this veteran of 18 years in the U.S. Senate and, before that, 8 years as Governor of Nebraska, that this place is more off balance than any supposed representative body that I have ever witnessed. To put it bluntly, it has gone bonkers. Here we have a group of supposedly thoughtful and mature men and women wallowing in politics, throwing aside what is right for America, in a seizure of fiscal madness, at the very time we are about to vote on a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget by the year 2002. No one--no one--in this body has been more intent on amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget. But the irresponsible bed that we are making, and the grandiose plans for what represents fiscal balance down the road, is so fraught with craziness that I am reconsidering my support. I am very concerned that the recent political circus, with more than three rings, designed to present ``The Greatest Show on Earth'' and prove beyond a doubt that there is ``a sucker born every minute,'' will go down in history as one of the most shameful exercises in the history of the Senate. This year, 1996, could go down as the year that we deep- sixed the people under a guise of fiscal sanity that is, in reality, insanity. Mr. President, America deserves better. Unfortunately, the ringmasters of all of this are the Republican majority leadership in the House and the Senate. The Republican majority leader in the House even suggested making up the billions in lost revenue by reducing education funding even more than the Republicans have previously announced. That will not fly. The Senate majority leader, 20 points behind in the race for the Presidency, has come up with a gimmick to reduce the gas tax by 4.3 cents, which would cost the Treasury $34 billion in revenue by the magical year 2002, when we are already far short of any attainable goal to meet the constitutionally guaranteed balance by that date. It is politics at its worst. Sooner or later, the American people will see it for what it is, if they have not already. I call on the Republican leadership to announce that they have come to their senses and renounce their fiscal indiscretion, and get on with balancing the budget, passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and putting the campaign back on a sane course. Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced Federal budget and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I used to think that if you favored one, you almost had to support the other. But I have to admit that the antics around here on the gas tax have caused me to question whether people who favor a balanced budget amendment in speeches really do want to balance the budget at all. You hear all of these pious speeches about how we want to balance the budget. I suggest that if we had a dollar for every speech in the Senate that favored a balanced budget, we would have reached a surplus a long time ago. But then comes along a year divisible by 4, and all of a sudden Senators are falling over themselves to cut taxes. I heard one Senator say this was not the first tax that he would cut, but, heck, it was an opportunity to cut taxes, and he was not going to miss it. It is a transparent political ploy, Mr. President, and this Senator, for one, has had about enough of it. Repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax is a costly enterprise. Between June of this year and the end of the year 2002, it would cost $34 billion in lost revenue, and it would worsen the deficit by the year 2005 to $52 billion. Yes, I say, ``worsen the deficit,'' because the offset that the majority cobbles together to pay for the tax cut will, in all likelihood, be something we were already counting on, or desperately need, to help balance the budget by the year 2002 under a constitutional amendment. One way or the other, we are going to have to come up with another $52 billion in additional deficit reduction, or increase taxes, over the next 10 years. I suggest, Mr. President, that that will not be easy. As I said when I started these remarks, this whole gas tax charade has made me reconsider the sincerity of the debate that I have heard about the balanced budget amendment. The willingness of Senators and Congressmen to rush headlong to cut the gas tax makes me question whether I want to be a part of an enterprise that promises to balance the budget down the road but avoids every hard vote to cut the deficit in the here and now. In closing, Mr. President, I want to say that I will consider very closely and see how Senators vote on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I certainly feel that, as of now, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that I voted for previously, and supported, needs to be examined as to how Senators vote and how sincere they are, which will be keenly measured, I suggest, on the gimmick of repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. If people vote to cut taxes with wild abandon and then ask me to join them in support of a balanced budget amendment, they may find this Senator unwilling to go down that crooked road of no return. The people should understand that if the tax cut proposed by the Senate majority is followed with a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2002, the Congress at that time will face, by far, the largest tax increase ever imagined in history. I do not want a small tax cut now that probably would trigger and find its way into higher taxes in the future. In this regard, I must also say that even if the Senate and the House would invoke a law that eliminates that tax, there is no assurance whatsoever, or likelihood, that the money would end up in the consumers' pockets. It would end up elsewhere. Unless someone can rationally explain to me how the numbers work out on this, I will not vote again for a constitutional amendment under the Republicans' changed scenario. In my view, Mr. President, as a fiscal conservative it would be the height of fiscal and budget irresponsibility to do so. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to make reference to this, and will ask for this to be printed in the Record. I notice with great interest a full-page ad in the New York Times of March 26, 1996, and the startling information here in dark type is ``Does Sex Turn You off?'' Then it goes on to say--this is published by Penthouse--entitled ``The Facts of Life.'' It says: It is a touchy subject. But an important one. Especially if you're a marketer who wants to reach men. If you've never experienced the satisfaction of advertising in Penthouse, there are some facts you should know. Facts that help explain why Penthouse is a savvy business decision, and why it performs as well as it does. For starters, Penthouse's efficiency far surpasses Playboy, GQ, Sports Illustrated and Esquire. We also reach a higher concentration of 25 to 49 year old men. And at newsstands, where a full purchase price helps gauge a magazine's true value to readers, Penthouse's sales are routinely on top. What's more, study after study has found that the more involved readers are with a magazine's editorial, the more they're involved with its advertising. And no magazine's readers are more involved than Penthouse's. The appeal and leadership of Penthouse extends beyond print, however. On site on the Internet --http://www.penthousemag.com_attracts over 80,000 people daily--(not hits, people.) This not only makes Penthouse one of the Internet's most popular sites, it enables us to guarantee advertisers an audience of 2.4 million people every month. This proposition is encouraging more and more marketers to take advantage of both Penthouse Magazine and Penthouse Internet. If you're an advertiser who wants the special stimulation Penthouse offers, contact Ms. Audrey Arnold, Publisher, at 212-702-6000. And it says down here: Penthouse, The Facts Of life. Mr. President, when Congress considered the Communications Decency Act, commonly called the CDA, as part of the telecommunications bill, opponents of the Communications Decency Act raised all kinds of concerns that passage of the Communications Decency Act would restrict free speech of adults and end the commercial viability of the Internet. Let me repeat that last part again: And end the commercial viability of the Internet. The Washington Post in this regard printed an editorial that the Exon Communications Decency Act would interfere with the matter of making money on the Internet. I have only cited the article that appeared in a full-page ad in the New York Times and intend to make these remarks tonight to thank the Penthouse magazine for printing that full-page ad, which is their right--pretty expensive but it is their right, and obviously they are a pretty good free enterprise, money-making concern. But I think it points out more than anything else how all of the opponents to the Communications Decency Act are way off base. The recent full-page ad in the New York Times both refutes and makes meaningless the claims of the elimination of free speech of adults and the end of commercial viability on the Internet. Penthouse Magazine, which until enactment of the Communications Decency Act, offered free adult fare to Internet users of any age, was one of the first purveyors of sexual material to take steps to comply with the new law. That law is clearly working and has already been instituted to create a great success story. Before our law was introduced and before it was passed, there was thunderous silence, thunderous silence, Mr. President, from both the industry and those loud voices that are now hammering away at the Communications Decency Act. Published reports have indicated that Penthouse and Hustler Internet sites, referencing great numbers in the wording from the ad that I just read, and maybe some others now require, after passage of the act, a card to access these offerings. Like it or not, Mr. President, this is the type of electronic pornography that is legal and constitutionally protected for adults. If their actions are as reported of requiring a credit card before you can access this particular part of the Internet that is widely, widely used according to Penthouse, if they have indeed instituted the procedure of having a credit card, then Penthouse and Hustler and their like appear to be in compliance with the new law, and I applaud them for that. Adult material remains available then to adults but children are not provided pornography. This is precisely what the Communications Decency Act was designed to do, and it is working. The fully anticipated court challenge that is now underway apparently is not aware of this fact or it would be a defense on its face to some of the constitutional challenges that are being made. The fear that keeping pornography away from children on the Internet would destroy this great medium and all of those charges that have been made are erroneous, they are unfounded, and it is nonsense. During the year the Communications Decency Act was fully debated, Internet use doubled, and Internet growth has continued since the passage of the bill. Already, AT&T, MCI, and several local telephone companies have announced plans to offer easy Internet access and the Internet is coming to help other media as well and will come as I understand it to cable and satellite television. Penthouse boasts, as I have just read, that it attracts over 80,000 people daily to its Internet site and an audience of 2.4 million each month. The ad's enthusiasm for the Internet is in keeping with the Communications Decency Act. We know that great system called the Internet that provides information and help to a lot of people is not only important but I simply say that the scare tactics that continue to be used by the Communications Decency Act's opponents are not well founded. It is not censorship, the word opponents of the Communications Decency Act throw around at will, to responsibly protect our children from pornography and, I might add, pedophiles. The Communications Decency Act was fully debated, extensively negotiated and carefully designed to strike the right balance between the protection of children and the growth of this exciting and promising new technology. Revisionists like to paint a picture of Congress rushing to judgment on computer technology especially as it affects the spread of pornography. In my nearly 18 years in the Senate, I have won passage of many pieces of legislation dealing with the most important issues of the day including bills affecting national security, law enforcement, transportation, safety and deficit reduction. No bill that I have worked on has had as much attention, discussion or debate as the Communications Decency Act. For one full year, the Nation has talked about the Communications Decency Act. And that is good. The hands-off crowd, though, have argued that protection of children was exclusively and totally the responsibility of the parent. For families to safely enjoy the benefits of the Internet, the family had to be there turning on the computer or turning it off, making sure that whatever the child brought up on the screen was acceptable to them. The Communications Decency Act does not lessen--and I emphasize again, Mr. President, does not lessen--the need for parents to be vigilant, ever vigilant. But, by putting the law on the side of the families and the children, the Communications Decency Act recognized, as our First Lady might say, ``It Takes A Village.'' I am also pleased that the President of the United States and the U.S. Department of Justice fully support the Communications Decency Act. I am delighted that the computer industry has been working to develop blocking software and parental control software as well. Before the Communications Decency act was introduced, these products did not exist. But all the blocking software in the world should not absolve an adult from the responsibility for allowing the abuse or the corruption of a child. The Communications Decency Act holds those who attempt to harm children responsible for their acts. To all of those who are worried, the Communications Decency Act is law, and the Internet, in the meantime, is doing just fine. They should be applauding the article and ad that I read, published by Penthouse. Adults still have access to their legal vices. But most important, children are steadily gaining protection when they travel on the information superhighway. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the President's counsel to me be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I yield myself off the time of the minority leader.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Indiana knows my high respect for him. We have worked together on many occasions over the years. I happen to think that he was one of the better qualified Republican candidates for President of the United States, and I saw the gentlemanly type of campaign that he ran. I was rather surprised that he did not catch on more than he did, but then, gentlemen do not always win. We are at odds under the present bill. My point is, I want to drive it home once again, the Senator from Indiana indicated that the Agriculture Committee will monitor and look at this program as we go down the road. My point is--and I might be wrong, and I hope I am--but the farm program that is initiated with this freedom-to-farm act and the transition payments that go therewith, will so poison the well that even if the Agriculture Committee of the House and Senate think changes should be made, the public mood at that time will be to say, ``What are you telling us? You have been giving this money away, chunks of billions of dollars, whether corn is $3 a bushel or $4 a bushel, and now you want to change it.'' The main difference of opinion on this whole matter between the Senator from Indiana, my friend, and myself is that I do not think the concept that he is outlining, while it sounds like a better scenario to me than what this bill is intending to do, I am simply afraid there will not be the votes in the Senate or the House to make changes that the Senator from Indiana has at least indicated might be made and might be recommended at some further date. That is the crux, I think, of the difference between the point of view being expressed by the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Nebraska. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes off the time allotted to the minority leader.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, all my life, before and during my last quarter of a century of continuous high service as either the Governor of Nebraska or the last 18 years as a Member of the U.S. Senate, having the great honor of representing the great State of Nebraska, there can be no question--and the record will show--that I have been an outspoken supporter of farm legislation, farmers, and what is good for rural America. With that background, I simply want to say about the farm bill that will pass tomorrow, without my support--it will pass, the die is cast, it is all over--but we cannot allow this to go forward without reviewing once again many of the concerns that myself and others from the Farm Belt have with regard to this legislation. No. 1, if you remember back last year when we were having the budget debate--and I happened to be the ranking Democrat, the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee--we heard all these wonderful things about how we are going to take that farm program and we are going to help balance the budget in the year 2002 by reducing it. There were the magnificent figures bantered about as to how much we could save by the farm bill that the Republican majority was going to pass. Obviously, I say, as a farm supporter all my life, this conference report is a sham as far as sound agricultural policy is concerned, and it is a sham as far as the taxpayers are concerned. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this conference report which we will vote on tomorrow will cost $3.2 billion more than the current law for 1996 and $1.4 billion more than current law in 1997. There is no savings, as the chief of staff of the Republican Budget Committee has said publicly. So if anyone thinks that this measure contributes anything to balancing the budget, the opposite is true. That would not be so bad if we were taking this money and applying it as a safety net. That is what the farm programs have always been about, providing a safety net, not dishing out money to farmers for doing nothing. This conference report is also a sham to farmers. The so-called 7- year contract with the transition payments stick out like a sore thumb. In future budget negotiations and allocations, reductions, in my view, are all but inevitable, when everyone finds out what this ill-advised bill does. Once again, let us have a thorough understanding that there were those of us who offered legitimate, reasonable proposals that gave the farmer all the flexibility that the farmer has under the so-called Freedom To Farm Act and allowed the farmers basically to plant what they want and get away from all that redtape, but that was not good enough. This conference report, in addition to all its other shortcomings, goes right at the safety net. And the safety net, I should explain, is something that has been inherent in farm policy as long as we have had farm policy, and that is to provide a safety net for family-size farmers when the prices of the product that they raise, for whatever reason, was drastically low. Those of us who understand agriculture, and I might say that there are people on both sides of the aisle, people who are for this program and people who are against it, who probably are very well-intentioned, but I am very fearful that this Freedom To Farm Act, or its successor, whatever you want to call it, is built around transition payments that are supposed to phase out in 7 years, the year 2002, when the budget is supposed to be balanced. There were also those of us who have advanced policies to balance the budget in year 2002 with a workable farm program, which I think this one is not. Example: The conference report retains a cap on loan rates. Loan rates are historically what the farmer used as his safety net. He could borrow money at so much a bushel and store that commodity and sell it at a later date if the price went up. He had that option. Or if the price stayed the same or went down, he would forfeit the crop. These levels are inadequate in this bill: $1.89 for corn and $2.58 for wheat. For all practical purposes, that is the end of the farmer- owned reserve which was always a major portion of stability and the safety net that has served us, not perfectly, but well. The conference report is bad particularly, I suggest, for beginning farmers. Older farmers who have their land paid for will cruise toward retirement with a large amount of a hefty taxpayer-financed billions of dollars. I do not think there is any question but what we will hear more and more about these welfare payments to farmers because that simply is what it is. But this is only good for 7 years, we should understand. This may be very good news for dad, but it sure is bad news for the son or daughter who may want to take over the farm after dad retires in the year 2002, because then, I assure you, that when this program and the cost of the program is fully explained to the people, the well will be so poisoned that we will never have the votes for a workable farm program. All my public life, in defending and protecting farmers and rural America, I and others of us on both sides of the issue before the Senate, I might add, have fought continually to explain the need for a sound agricultural policy in America. How sound is it? Pretty good. Most of the people do not understand that while they might think food costs are too high, the facts of the matter are, Mr. President, that the people of the United States of America have reaped the benefits of a sound farm program. We in the United States of America have the cheapest food costs of any nation in the industrialized world. I simply say that this particular Freedom To Farm Act, with its hefty payments from taxpayers to the farmers of America, is sure not good for the farmers who want to take over after that 7-year period. How good is it? Well, Mr. President, there has been talk on the floor tonight about, I believe one speaker said this bill is a chance for a farmer to make more money than ever before--I tend to agree with that-- in many instances, maybe for doing nothing. This particular measure authorizes an expenditure over 7 years of $47 billion. Do you know what, Mr. President, $36 billion of that $47 billion will go out for payments that another speaker in this regard said is good, because then we will know exactly how much money will be spent for price support programs. We sure do, and we know what it is going to be for 7 years--$37 billion. That $37 billion will go out under a formula that has nothing to do with what the price of the commodity is that the farmer raises. It will have nothing whatsoever to do with the price that the farmers receive for the products of their labor in the marketplace. He or she will be making his own decisions. But I say to you, Mr. President, I do not think it is fair, I do not think it is reasonable. The old farm program that a lot of people have criticized--and there are reasons to criticize it--the old program basically provided a safety net, and we did not pay the farmers anything if they were getting a fair and decent price for their product. Most farmers will agree that if you are a corn farmer making $3.50 a bushel, you should not receive any money from the taxpayers or the Government of the United States of America. But most farmers would agree that if the corn would not be at $3.50 or $3.10 or $2.75, maybe down to $2, certainly somewhere in that framework, should be a trigger mechanism that would kick in as a safety net to help the farmers when they need help and not help the farmers when they do not need help. Mr. President, as I said when I started out, the die is cast, and a week ago when some of my colleagues who were against this bill said they would request that the President veto it because it was so bad, I said I was not going to request the President to veto this farm bill. We have fought the good fight. We have had a chance at least to make the case that some of us very firmly believe in. But the facts of the matter are, we are the latest ever in passing a farm bill, and that is hurting the farmers because we are in the planting season. So, as bad as this bill is, I do not suggest that the President veto the bill because with all of the other partisan battles that we have going on right now with regard to the budget, we could get ourselves in the position where we would have the same inefficient manner of managing the farm programs as we do in managing the overall Government of the United States, with a series of continuing resolutions, and evidently we are going to have the 11th and 12th continuing resolutions to fund this fiscal year, and this fiscal year is already halfway over. Pretty bad record. We should do things the right way. I talked a few moments ago, Mr. President, about how I thought this program was wasteful. I cited the figures that are available with regard to what this is going to cost. The total cost of $47 billion; $36 billion of that will go directly to farmers, as another speaker said, with a chance to make more money than they ever made before. I think it is wonderful. I support the concept of the marketplace. When the farmer can make a good living, an outstanding living, by relying on the price of the marketplace, that is fine with me. That is the way it should work. But what this particular measure overlooks is that there is no safety net, and there will not be after 7 years when the price goes down. If I might, Mr. President--and I yield myself what additional time I might need under the time reserved for the minority leader--I would like to explain to the Senate just how bad this program is and how I think the well will be poisoned so that we can never ever again muster the votes in the House or the Senate for a workable farm program. Under the freedom to farm bill, with its transition payments--let us talk about what those are. I would like to give you a specific or two. Under the act that was passed, let us take a 500-acre corn farm--that is not small; that is not big; that is probably somewhere near the average--a 500-acre corn farm that has a yield of 120 acres per bushel--and that is not a high or a low yield; that would be somewhere in the middle, somewhere in the average--and the cash market price that that farmer received for growing 120 bushels on a 500-acre farm, you multiply that by a cash price in the marketplace of $3.10--and it is near $3.40 today, so this is just an approximation--you take the 500 acres at 120 bushels per acre, that is 60,000 bushels, and you measure that 60,000 bushels by the cash price of $3.10, Mr. President, and you find that that particular farmer would have a gross cash income of $186,000 for 1 year. That is not net; that is gross. Under the transition payments that are embodied in this particular measure, that same farmer would receive an additional check, which I can only say is probably welfare, of $22,000 from the Government on top of the $186,000 of gross cash income, obviously for a gross income of well over $200,000. There is nothing wrong, Mr. President, with the present situation of a good price in the marketplace for corn. But it is terribly wrong, in my view, when we are trying to cut down the costs of Government and when we are attacking welfare payments that have to be cut, to envision, as has been described on the floor of the U.S. Senate, that these transition payments will continue regardless of what happens. That means, Mr. President, that even if the farmer does not plant a crop under the example that I just gave, if he did not do anything, he would receive the $22,000 payment, I guess, for owning the land. Mr. President, I am very concerned about this bill. I will not take any further time of the Senate tonight because, as I said, the die is cast. I will vote against this bill tomorrow for the reasons that I expressed tonight. If anyone should ever be interested in the further details, I would make reference to the Congressional Record of March 12, 1996, when this Senator went into great detail and cited background material from many others who understand farm policy and why we are voting against this measure. It is bad farm policy. It is bad Government policy. But I certainly agree, Mr. President, that it is good for the established farmer over the next 7 years. Let me put it this way: If you are a 57-year-old farmer today, with your land paid for, you are going to have not only a good income, but a handsome income for the next 7 years. If you are 57 or 58 years old, which the average farmer in the United States is today, and you accept this program, you are going to be in pretty good shape, I would suggest, for the next 7 years. But what about the son or daughter who wants to take over the farm? This measure, I emphasize once again, in my opinion, will so poison the well that we might never be able to have the stability that is necessary, because farming is a risky and expensive business, to provide the safety net that I think is absolutely essential for the stability of our farms after the year 2002. I do not want to be overcritical of many of my friends that I have worked with on farm policy for a long, long time. They may have--I am sure that they do have--sincere beliefs that this is a good farm program. My experience and my study of the bill indicates that that is not the fact. But I also realize and recognize that the majority in the House and the majority in the Senate do not agree with me. I think the President has no option, given the late date that we are finally getting around to passing a farm bill, that this measure, against my wishes, will become the law of the land. We will see how it works out for the next 7 years. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of a Democratic Member, I object.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, my colleagues know that I am an ardent supporter of a line-item veto. I had one when I was Governor of Nebraska and put it to excellent use. It was crucial to my success in balancing the budget. I am an original cosponsor of line-item veto legislation. I am proud of the leadership role I have taken. I fervently believe that the President of the United States should have at his disposal every possible means to strip away the pork from the Federal budget. The line-item veto should figure prominently in his arsenal. Mr. President, I will vote for this conference report, but I will not conceal my keen disappointment at what has emerged after nearly a year of stalling, partisan games, and bickering. This is a classic case of what might have been. I was a conferee but as usual, the minority was shut out of the decisionmaking process. I also have some possible constitutional questions and concerns. Anyone who doubts the partisanship behind this legislation need look no further than its effective date--January 1, 1997. I have supported the line-item veto under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Those of us who have long sought the line-item veto believe it is a good idea, regardless who sits in the White House. So, we are in a big hurry to pass this legislation because it is a popular issue in an election year. But, there is no rush to make it effective. How strange. That can wait until after the Republican Congress has passed one last set of appropriation bills and perhaps, for good measure, one last bill loaded with special interest tax breaks. I had great expectations for this legislation; so did many of my colleagues on both sides. What we got was diminished returns. It now seems that those of us who fought the good fight will reluctantly have to accept an inferior product. We desperately need this line-item veto--as flawed as it may be. Even the staunchest advocate of a line-item veto must confess that the Senate bill did not age well in conference. We do not have a better bill today. The line-item veto before the Senate today is a half- measure. It only addresses one side of wasteful Government spending. Madam President, there are different types of pork around here. There is what I call classic pork, but it does not belong in a museum. It is the sweetheart awards, the bogus studies, the phony commissions, the make-work projects that look good to the constituents back home. Frittering away the taxpayers' dollars is an affront to middle-income Americans who have been stretched and squeezed enough. This is where the line-item veto can be a fierce instrument against waste. The President can slice out the pork with a slash of his pen. In this regard, the measure before the Senate should accomplish today what we set out to do, and I salute the managers of the conference. But the special interests who benefit from pork always seem to be one-step ahead of the deficit cutters. You might not find their pork on the menu of an appropriations bill. But they are still dining a la carte at the Finance or Ways and Means Committees, and yes, the Budget Committee too. They dress up pork in the latest fashion: special interest tax breaks or tax expenditures. That is right, Mr. President. It is still pork, but it will be riveted onto a revenue bill or a budget reconciliation bill-- like the one the Republican majority passed last fall. Call it a tax loophole or whatever you want, it is still just as wasteful, and it is still just as shameful as appropriated pork spending. This problem of tax expenditures is not new. We have visited it many times, but with little resolution. The Budget Committee held hearings going back to 1993 on the budgetary effects of tax expenditures. OMB Director Dr. Alice Rivlin testified, and I quote, ``Tax expenditures add to the Federal deficit in the same way that direct spending programs do.'' I believe, and many of my colleagues on both sides agree, that if we are serious about cutting wasteful spending, if we are serious about reducing the deficit, if we are serious about a credible line-item veto, we should include special interest tax loopholes in the list of what the President can line out. What should shine forth from this conference report is an attack on both wasteful appropriated spending and tax benefit pork. But the long arm of the special interests reached into the conference and turned off the lights when tax loopholes were put on the table. From what I have seen of the conference report language, it could be virtually impossible for the President to veto special interest tax breaks, or as they are now called, limited tax benefits. There are so many exceptions that any tax lobbyist worth his salt will be able to write legislation in such a way that they will not be subject to the line-item veto procedure. And mark my words, they will. The conference report language defines a tax benefit as a revenue- losing provision that does one or two things. It could provide a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 100 or fewer beneficiaries. What is more, there are exclusions for tax breaks that target persons in the same industry, engaged in the same type of activity, owning the same type of property, or issuing the same type of investment. The exclusions do not end here; quite the contrary, they are expanded. There are exceptions for individuals with different incomes, marital status, number of dependents, or tax return filing status. For businesses and trade associations the exclusion could be based on size or form. That is so limited, it does not exist. It is nearly impossible to think of any provision that it would cover. In fact, I do not believe that more than one or two of the more than dozens of tax provisions in the last year's Republican budget reconciliation would be subject to a Presidential line-item veto under the report language. And that bill was drafted before the lobbyists needed to draft their way around the line-item veto. The exceptions are troubling enough, but it gets worse. Who defines a targeted tax benefit for the purposes of the line-item veto? I was surprised to learn that it will be the Joint Committee on Taxation. I, certainly, do not intend to disparage the committee and its fine members, but this oversight duty strikes this Senator like the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse. This conference report would make Aesop proud. This is how it works. Under the provisions of the conference report, Joint Committee on Taxation will review every tax bill and decide whether the bill includes any tax loopholes, called limited tax benefits. The Joint Committee then gives its ruling to the conference committee, which gets to choose whether to include that information in its conference report. Recall that it is very often the staff of this same Joint Committee on Taxation that drafts the tax loopholes in the first place. Here is the kicker. If the JCT statement is included, the President can rescind only, and I repeat, only those items identified in the legislation as limited tax benefits. The JCT declaration is more than a piece of paper. It is a declaration of immunity for what could very well be a limited tax benefit. It is an inoculation against a Presidential line-item veto. It is the magic bullet for tax lobbyists. I do not believe that any of my colleagues fell off the turnip truck yesterday. We know how lobbyists work. I guarantee you that they will be swarming over JCT like the sand hill cranes returning to the Platte River in Nebraska. JCT will be thick as thieves with tax lobbyists. And for good reason, the committee will have the sweeping power to grant unprecedented immunity to any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a sweetheart tax deal. Madam President, I am disappointed by the final product the conferees bring to the floor today. It is a tarnished reflection of the hopes I brought to the process. Yes; we should have done better. Yes; we should have attacked pork in all of its guises, Yes; we should have been tougher. But I have my doubts that more time and more debate will produce a different result--a superior result. I tell my colleagues that giving the President at least some power to rein in wasteful spending is better than doing nothing. So today, I will cast my vote for taking a small, but clear, step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield my remaining time.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my friend and colleague from Washington. I signed the conference report with regard to the product liability measure that is before us. I recommend that the Senate accept this. I hope the President will not veto it, as he has threatened. I have been listening to the debate, and I have studied this issue for a long, long time. Over 20 years ago, when I had the opportunity to serve my State as Governor, we worked on and we enacted a piece of legislation that is related to this whole area. It was with regard to malpractice in the health care field. There were concerns about that. I listened to both sides at that time. I finally decided, in the best interest of Nebraska, that malpractice piece of legislation should go into effect to provide adequate and better health care, to keep everyone involved. I must say, that was one of the early pieces of legislation with regard to placing caps on malpractice legislation, and I must say that it has been a resounding success in Nebraska. I recognize and have heard the debate on both sides of the issue, and, as so often is the case, Mr. President, we do not pass perfect legislation here, but ignoring the problem that we have today, that we have had for all of these years--this is as near a place we can solve it with what I think is a reasonable piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that where, if there is gross misconduct on the part of the manufacturer or the inventor, there is some relief. I think we accomplish very little by citing this case and citing that case. If we continue with that kind of a proposition, we will simply confuse the public at large, and maybe the House and Senate, that we should do nothing. I think if there is one thing that is obvious, it is that we have to do something. I think the ``something'' is this bill that has been carefully crafted, that has been worked out in committee, that has been worked out in the conference between the House and the Senate, and I believe if there was ever a true workable compromise, this is a principal example. So, I simply salute the people who have provided the leadership in this over the years. I hope the bill will be resoundingly approved by the Senate with our vote around noontime today. Maybe we can get on with solving this problem. There is a problem. No one can deny that. I am sure many of my colleagues feel very strongly that this is a bad piece of legislation. It is not a perfect piece of legislation, but it is a piece of legislation that has been carefully crafted, compromised. I think it is the best we can do under the circumstances, and I believe we should do it. I intend to vote enthusiastically in support of this legislation. I thank the Chair and thank my friend from Washington.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first I would like to be associated with the remarks in this regard by the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, my friend and colleague from Indiana, and with the statement that was made by my longtime friend and seatmate, Senator Nunn from Georgia, and, last but not least, the excellent summation just given to the U.S. Senate by a Member of this body who we all cherish and recognize for his sound leadership and common sense over the years. Mr. President, I do not take any pleasure at all in making the remarks that I am about to make. It would have been much easier to just skip it and not say anything. But I am very much moved by the unfair attacks on the Armed Services Committee on which the four Members now in the Senate have served for a long, long time. For myself, this will be my 18th year. And I come to the floor to give my views as briefly as I can. I have no written statement, but I am speaking from my heart on this matter that I think is being glossed over. Mr. President, I have not been happy with the majority on the committee, both Democrats and Republicans, for what I feel has been a folding like an accordian into the spotlight of pressure by the press that has been brought on this particular issue. I take no pleasure in this, Mr. President, because as a veteran of World War II--and 2 years of that overseas--I was taken over there by the U.S. Navy, and they brought me back. I have a very soft spot in my heart for the Navy of the United States of America. There is no better navy anywhere--nor do I suggest there ever has been--than the men and women that make up the U.S. Navy today. And I am proud of all of them. But I wish to raise some questions and cite some examples tonight on what I feel are some holes, if you will, in some places--not a lot--but in some places in the top leadership of this Navy that have been spotted and brought out into the light with several events of the last few years. Talking about the Navy, I am not going to go into my record with votes and the leadership positions that I have taken for the Navy in a whole series of areas. I guess the only serious difference I ever had with regard to some of the initiatives of the U.S. Navy was over the reincarnation of the battleships, which I said was nonsense at the time. It was a multimillion-dollar fiasco. We brought four battleships back into commission when we obviously did not need them. But, under the leadership of the Navy, the Congress of the United States was convinced otherwise. We are still paying for that costly mistake. But do we not all make mistakes? I think I was right on that, but I believe that event was the only time in my 18 years of service in the Armed Services Committee that I had serious disagreement with the U.S. Navy. I emphasize again that I do not condemn the Navy as a whole. But I am here to support the outstanding efforts by Senator Coats, Senator Nunn, Senator Byrd, and others who have taken on the dragon in this case--the dragon being certain key parts of leadership of the U.S. Navy. That is not easy to do, but it is something that has to be done. I cite, for example, that--while I think Tailhook, we can all agree, was not one of the finer moments of the great history of the U.S. Navy--it may be that it has been overshadowed, and I join with Senator Nunn in his comments. I have heard him say it. Let us not overreact to things of this nature. But we have to act. That is part of our responsibility in the Armed Services Committee. I stood on this floor to give an example of how in Tailhook and everybody within 100 miles of Las Vegas during that weekend, that riotous weekend, I might say, of ``fun loving fun,'' I guess, by primarily some of the officers of this man's Navy--and sometimes boys will be boys--leadership people should not be boys, and that is my concern and that is my major problem without condemning any of them or all of them. I have not been one of those who sanctimoniously says it was such a terrible thing that we have to do something about it. I stood at that desk in the Chamber and provided the leadership for the Armed Services Committee with a lot of serious debate with regard to not retiring a very famous, very capable, top leadership man in the U.S. Navy, an admiral who happened to be at Tailhook but was not involved in any of these things. And I stood there and took the advice of Sam Nunn and others of saying let us keep this in perspective. So we retired that outstanding admiral and did not take away his top-grade retirement as some in this body wished to do. So I simply give that as an example that this Senator is not consumed by Tailhook, but I am concerned about Tailhook. I emphasize once again that we have a great Navy, but some in the leadership of that great organization have let that organization down in recent years. Let me cite one or two examples. I do not know whether they have been talked about by my friends and colleagues before or not. There certainly has been, though, a most unfortunate series, unfortunate series, Mr. President, of serious and distressing shortcomings in part of the U.S. Navy in the last few years. Without going into any detail, I would simply cite the problems of cheating and scandal and sex at the Naval Academy in Annapolis that we finally seem to be getting turned around, but there was too much of it. I would simply say that one of the most distressing things that I ever saw practiced by certain select leadership, not everybody, was the coverup of the blowup of the Iowa battleship, one of those four that I referenced earlier that I thought should never have been brought back in any event. Just so you will remember, my colleagues in the Senate, that was the case where after a high-level naval investigation of the blowup on the battleship Iowa that caused 130 some deaths. The Navy leadership, part of it, came forth with a program that it was the responsibility of two homosexuals. Well, it turned out later when some of us wanted proof, that the two homosexuals were not involved at all; it was a typical case of the old-boy network working very effectively in part of the coverup. They were not successful, but they almost were. I would simply like to mention in that regard also the glossy coverup, or not so glossy coverup, that the U.S. Navy, some of its leaders, did after Tailhook was exposed in the press. We would not have had the difficulty that we are in today with Commander Stumpf nor would he have his difficulties at least to this extent were it not for the fact that key leadership in the U.S. Navy again fouled up by not following a very simple procedure that was well-known to all of the leadership of the U.S. Navy when Commander Stumpf's nomination came up, and I am sure that Senator Coats and Senator Nunn went into that in great detail. Then there was another serious situation with regard to the spy scandal of a marine in Moscow in our Embassy. That was a tough blow. I simply say, Mr. President, that all of these attacks that have been made on the integrity of the Armed Services Committee in the press are nonsense. And for rules and reasons, those of us who are knowledgeable of the full extent of this situation for the protection of the innocent and not to inflame the story are not privileged to talk about it in detail. One editorial that I read said that was McCarthyism, keeping the secret to ourselves like Joe McCarthy did. Well, those of us who have had the top secrets of the United States of America with us and live with us all the time we have been in the Senate know our responsibility and know how to live up to the commitments that we make while editorial writers are not so constrained. I thought one of the most disgusting articles that I read on this was by the Detroit News. I do not know anything about the Detroit News except that they printed an editorial on Friday, March 15, 1996: ``Commander Stumpf Gets Blacklisted.'' They then go on to launch an all-out attack on Senator Carl Levin, who most of us on both sides of the aisle recognize as one of the most decent, most fair, sound men in the Senate. But the Detroit News was very critical. Let me quote from that: Senator Levin and his aides refused to discuss Commander Stumpf's case or the workings of the Armed Services Committee, or anything else for that matter. Citing his allegiance to striking unions, he refuses to talk to the News but his committee colleagues lack so handy an excuse. Carl Levin is one of my best friends in the Senate. I came here with him. And for the Detroit News to attack that fine U.S. Senator in the manner they did is unconscionable. And many other members of the press including our own Navy Times, of course. The Navy Times in an editorial of March 11, 1996, says ``Commander Stumpf is a Marked Man:'' The Senate can strike a blow for naval aviation safety right now by dropping the Tailhook ``acid test'' now used to block some aviator promotions. And at the bottom of the editorial, the last paragraph: But Tailhook was nearly 5 years ago. It's time for the sore to heal. It's time to abandon that list and help the men and women of naval aviation get back to the basics of safe flying. Five years is not very long. I also cite, for the record, an excellent statement in this regard made by a nonmember of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Grassley of Iowa, printed in the Congressional Record of March 13, 1996, on S. 1999. Senator Grassley goes on to say that he feels that the flagging of officers who were promoted, who were investigated, should be and should continue to be brought to the attention of the Armed Services Committee. And I agree. That does not mean, as Senator Coats and Senator Nunn and Senator Byrd have pointed out, that we blacklist these people at all. That is not the way we work. I simply say that the major reason that Commander Stumpf has had some trouble was, once again, the top leadership of the U.S. Navy failed to do the routine thing when they submitted Stumpf to the Armed Services Committee for us to discharge our responsibilities that we have sworn to uphold. They just forgot. It was a legitimate error. I do not believe it was intentional, but it was another error, another shortcoming of some of the leadership of the U.S. Navy. I simply say that the Armed Services Committee, nor any of its members, are at fault. Yet, our integrity is being questioned because of what we collectively did and thought was our duty. Let me close, if I might, by giving my own personal view, without detailing any of the information at my disposal that, for good reasons, I am sworn to protect. I know most or all of the details, some of them sordid, about Tailhook. I happen to feel that Commander Stumpf may be being overly criticized for some things. It is true, in the opinion of this Senator, that he was not in that room at a time when an act was taking place that I think would have probably guaranteed that he not be recommended for promotion. He got out in time. But he did not do anything about anything that he saw going on. But I simply say and emphasize once again that I am not one of those who feel that Commander Stumpf should be blacklisted, should be eliminated for consideration--and I emphasize consideration--by the Armed Services Committee in carrying out its responsibilities. My view is that circumstances following the unfortunate foul-up by the top echelon in the U.S. Navy in not giving us the information is the main reason for the problem. But what happened after that? And this is something that I feel very strongly about. After that happened, we began to see articles appearing, although none of the authors came to see me. The old boy network took over for a top gun. Let me emphasize that again. The old boy network took over for a top gun and dedicated themselves to seeing, as quickly as possible, that the promotion was granted. I think--and I am very much upset with Commander Stumpf--that he did not take the first logical step that he could, should, and had the right to take, by appealing to a board that looks after these things, called the correction board. No, he bypassed that, because the other top guns and their supporters went to work by lobbying. So it seems to me that if and when I have a responsibility to discharge, as one member, my duties as one member of the Armed Services Committee, I would not, having known what I know, interfere with Stumpf's promotion on the basis of Tailhook. Some other Members may not see it that way. But I am very much concerned about an individual that we look to, and certainly is one of the finest performing officers that we have today in the U.S. Navy, there is no question about that, but there are other things that we look for when we go through the promotion scheme. In all likelihood, Commander Stumpf, if and when he is promoted --as I think he will be, eventually, to captain; he is very likely to become an admiral someday. There are lots of things beside your ability to fly and your courage in battle that play into the promotion role. As much as anything else, I simply say that as far as this Senator is concerned, the hiring of a lawyer without going through the proper procedures is a step in the wrong direction and emphasizes what I am most concerned about in this particular matter, and that is that the Navy, unto themselves, with the machoism that they show time and time again, decided they were going to get the Armed Services Committee, regardless of our faithfulness, regardless of what we have done, regardless of what we will do as members of that committee in the future. And the crowning blow, although I recognize that he has a right to do it, was a Washington Post news story of March 19 that I will submit for the Record. The headline is ``Tailhook Figure Files Suit Over Navy Promotion.'' Going to the courts, hiring a lawyer to get what he wants and is probably entitled to, it seems to me was not the wise way to proceed. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON. Some will disagree with me, probably, about Commander Stumpf. But the main reason for my appearing on the floor tonight was to try to set the record straight as to the legitimate role that the Armed Services Committee has played in this matter. We played the role right by the book. I happen to feel, when Commander Stumpf comes before us again, he may be approved. He might get my support. But I will be asking some questions about why the lawsuit, why the full-court press by some of his friends, trying to discredit, by their actions, the legitimate steps and actions and decisions made by the Armed Services Committee? Mr. President, I think we have not heard the last of this matter. I think it is just another bungled handling of a situation by certain top leadership in the U.S. Navy, and I will simply say to Commander Stumpf that had the information been furnished to us when it was not about what happened, or that he was even at that Tailgate party 5 years ago, I would have voted to send Stumpf on through after I took a look and had a thorough briefing on what the allegations against him were. I do not think they were that serious. But the U.S. Navy is the one that caused Commander Stumpf his problem. His friends are in the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Tailhook Figure Files Suit Over Navy Promotion A former commander of the Blue Angels squadron, who was cleared of wrongdoing in the Tailhook scandal, has accused Navy Secretary John H. Dalton of improperly blocking his promotion to captain. In a suit filed Friday in federal court in Alexandria, Cmdr. Robert E. Stumpf said Dalton bowed to political pressure from Capitol Hill. Stumpf, stationed at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, asked that he be given his promotion as of July 1995. Stumpf's was one of the most high-profile cases resulting from the 1991 Tailhook convention of Navy aviators, in which dozens of women and female officers complained of sexual harassment. A three-officer panel found that Stumpf left a Las Vegas hotel suite before a stripper performed oral sex on an officer. The suit said Congress approved Stumpf's promotion after Dalton inadvertently failed to notify Capitol Hill of Stumpf's Tailhook connection. Dalton, pressured by the Senate Armed Services Committee, withdrew Stumpf from a promotion list in December. The suit said federal law allows a promotion approved by Congress to be canceled only if an officer ``is mentally, physically, morally or professionally unqualified.''

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Michigan.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I just would like to make an inquiry about one officer that I believe is on the list. I want to confirm the fact that he is on the list. Captain Padgett was supposed to be confirmed tonight. I believe his name is on the list. I would like confirmation.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have two articles that I will ask to be printed in the Record. There continues to be wholesale, gross, misleading statements with regard to the Decency Act that was included in the telecommunications bill. Somehow we must respond to the whole avalanche of highly financed special interest groups who are opposed to the measure that overwhelmingly passed in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the process we incorporated in the measure to expedite the consideration by the courts. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two articles, one from the Omaha World Herald of March 11, 1996, with the headline, ``Internet Doesn't Fit Free-Press Concept,'' and another from the Omaha World Herald of March 13, 1996, with the headline, ``Some Internet Fare Worse Than Indecent.''

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. To use an example, and then I will yield the floor, if the controlling agency would declare the rattlesnake an endangered species, we in the Congress could override that under what you have in place?

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend for answering my questions. I have some concerns on both sides of the issue. Mr. President, I thank him very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. But the final decision still rests with the agency of jurisdiction?

Mr. EXON. I agree with my friend. I am not sure with how much I disagree, though. I generally have been supportive of all the agencies that have something to do with this matter. I think the environment is very, very important. I do, though, think maybe sometimes we, here in the Congress, give too much authority to the bureaucracy to make determinations. At one time --I do not know whether it is by the boards or not, now--but they talked about putting the rattlesnake on the endangered species list. Those of us who have been born and raised and been around rattlesnakes, we really do not believe they are endangered now, and I do not believe they are. But it seems to me at least maybe we should consider--not that we can take the time to go through each and every one of these things, but certainly, possibly, we should at least consider the possibility, when something is put on the endangered species list, whether it is one species or 100 species, at one time, maybe the bureaucracy should have to make a better case to the people's representatives here, to say yes or no, rather than, carte blanche, giving them the authority after the input that you say should be improved with regard to State and local governments. I am just saying that I have some concerns. I think this whole matter of endangered species has been overstated, and yet, I must say to my friend, I congratulate him for bringing this up, because when we have a situation today when we cannot add on anything, even though they are critically endangered, it is a concern to me.

Mr. EXON. How do you propose to do that?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. If the Senator will yield, I thank him very much for his comments. There is one thing that I want to correct, because no one knows it better than my friend and colleague from Montana. Certainly each and every cattle farmer is not doing well today. And no one knows that better than my friend from Montana because at one time he was a very prominent cattle person in Montana, and he knows better than anybody else the sad condition that our cattle industry is in today. I just wanted to correct the record. I know that he agrees with that. So everybody in Montana is not doing well. If there are any corn people up there, and the wheat people are probably doing pretty good and will the next 7 years, I do not know about the cattle business.