J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a great women's volleyball team, as a matter of fact, the best in the Nation--the Nebraska Cornhuskers. This is only the second time in the history of the volleyball championship tournament that a team east of California has won the title. The Huskers had a spectacular season led by their great coach Terry Pettit. Coach Pettit has been with the Huskers for 18 years and has become a key part of their success. The season was also boosted by the help of Allison Weston who was named cowinner of the national Player of the Year Award. And finally, the team was raised to a level above all others on the court by a team of national championship-winning players. The Huskers have played for the title previously in the 1980's, so being in the limelight of college volleyball is nothing new for them. What it is, however, is a feat only few have attained outside of the Pacific rim. The only other team was the Texas Longhorns. The Huskers were incredible in a 3-1 title match versus the Texas Longhorns. The volleyball program should be acclaimed for another great record as well and that is the success in the classroom. The University of Nebraska has 132 Academic-All-Americans, the most of any college sports, and 16 of them are on the volleyball team. Playing like champions and being champions in the classroom are two incredible accomplishments. I am quite pleased and very impressed by the success of the Nebraska Huskers and look forward to continued excellence by our great volleyball program.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and 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 rise today to congratulate one of the top college football programs in history--the Nebraska Cornhuskers. The Huskers have once again clinched a national championship earning back- to-back titles in 1994 and 1995. Nebraska won two consecutive championships also in 1970 and 1971. This year's repeat was made special by the fact that this is only the second time ever in college football history that a team was a consensus, undisputed champ in the major polls 2 years in a row. The last time this occurred was in the 1950's. The Huskers decisively defeated the Florida Gators 62-24 in the Fiesta Bowl on January 2. This victory not only brought with it the national championship, but a perfect 25-0 record for the past two seasons, a 36th victory for the Huskers in the last three seasons and the worst defeat of a number 1 versus number 2 in a championship game. As for the 36 victories, the Huskers are the only team to win that many games in 3 years time. Nebraska was 36-1 overall and the 1 loss came down to a last-second field goal attempt. That field goal was the difference between a repeat and a threepeat of the national title. The Huskers defeated the Miami Hurricanes in Miami 24-17 last year for the championship. The Huskers this year managed to play nearly everyone on the roster in many of the games and crush opponents by averaging 52.4 offensive points per game. Also when matched against Top 10 opponents this season--Florida, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State--the Huskers smacked each by an average of 49-18. The Nebraska program has risen above all others on the field. The Huskers have the record for the most straight bowl game appearances at 27. Between 1970 and now, they have finished 19 times in the Top 10 and 4 of those were at number 1. Additionally, in this the final year of the Big Eight, the Huskers have dominated with the most Big Eight conference championships at 20. The Huskers were victorious in the Big Eight consecutively for the last 5 years. The Huskers likewise hold the record for overall conference championships--Big Six, Big Seven, Big Eight--at 41. As it is clear that the Huskers have been winners on the field, they have been winners off the field as well. Coach Osborne, the coach with the highest winning percentage in college football, wrote ``More Than Winning,'' a book which describes his philosophy. There is certainly more than winning and Coach Osborne, who holds a doctorate in educational psychology, tries to teach each of his players how to be winners in the bigger game of life. For example, the University of Nebraska has had the most Academic-All-Americans on its teams at 132 players. The next closest college has 82. The football program itself is number 1 with a total of first team Academic-All-Americans at 49. The next closest college has 35. I am very pleased with the Huskers for the success that they have had over the years and another repeat of the national championship. While the 1971 match-up between Nebraska and Oklahoma has often been called the game of the century, the run the Huskers have made in the last three seasons, 1993, 1994, and 1995, deserves the caption--``the Team of the Century.''

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am a Senator who has been close to agriculture for a long time. I want to speak with regard to the remarks made preceding my statement by my farm State colleague from the State of North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and likewise, my farm State Senator next door, Chuck Grassley, who both are Senators I have worked with for a long time on farm policy. I think we have an awful lot to do in this particular area. The most significant concern that I have in this regard, Mr. President, is the fact that here we are dilly-dallying on a farm program, and the farmers across the United States of America are justifiably concerned. Many in the South are beginning to plant now. The grain crop farmers in Nebraska and the rest of the major grain-producing States are now preparing to plant. They are trying to work out their financial needs with their bankers. They are totally at a loss and do not know what we are going to do. I suggest that never before in history have we been so late in deciding what a farm program is going to be in the year that the crop is going to be planted. That has to stop. I do not know how to end this impasse that we have but the impasse must be broken for the good of the food producers of the United States of America. I happen to feel that probably the best way to resolve this matter in an expeditious fashion, if we could reach an agreement between the two leaders in the Senate to bring up a freestanding farm bill with some kind of restrained debate, something to move things along and then have an up-or-down vote. That would be one way to solve the problem and let the Senate work its will. Whether that is possible or not I do not know at this juncture, but I know that is one of the suggestions that are being mulled over. The initiative by the Senator from North Dakota today to essentially extend the present farm program for 1 year is not the best of all worlds but it is a whole lot better than no action whatever. I must say that I have studied with great interest the so-called Freedom to Farm Act and I understand that the sponsors of that measure over on the House side, as the House has the penchant for these days is to say, ``Do it our way or we will not do it at all.'' That is not the way which you handle farm policy or the way we should handle the budget. Certainly, we have 435 Members of the House of Representatives and 100 of us here in the U.S. Senate. We have an obligation to work our will, using the procedures that are in place in both bodies, and we cannot have some people, one, two, or three individuals, say ``Doing it my way is the only way, and I will not do anything unless you do it my way.'' It is not the way to get things done or accomplish anything in a body where you have 435 over there and 100 of us over here, 535 all strongly willed individuals with their own ideas. I suppose it would be self- serving to say, Mr. President, that maybe I should say 534 because the Chair and everybody in the Senate knows this Senator from Nebraska is not a strong-willed individual. I set myself apart from all of the other Members. With that facetious statement, I come back to the core issue here, and that is we have got to move. I cannot support the so-called Freedom to Farm Act in its present form. Certainly, the Freedom to Farm Act eliminates a great deal of the red tape. It gives the farmers what I like to see them have and what they want. That is to make decisions on their own about where they plant and how they plant it. That concept is also basically included in a measure that was introduced by the minority leader, Senator Daschle, another farm State senator, myself, and my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, and others, known as the Democratic farm bill. It also incorporates all of those good features of allowing more flexibility on the part of the individual farmer, eliminates a lot of the redtape but does not go as far into what I think is making the farm program a welfare program, as I am very fearful the Freedom to Farm Act would eventually encounter. Let me cite an example, and I will ask at the appropriate time that the facts be printed in the Record. As a farm State Senator who recognizes that our prediction of many of our farmers today, especially those with limited acres on which they farm, continue to be in dire straits, I also cite today the fact that the cattle-producing industry is in deep, deep trouble today. While the Farm Act today or any of the Farm Acts we are talking about is not going to provide any relief basically for the cattle producer, they are part of the important food chain. I simply cite this as a fact. They are in deep, deep trouble today because of the steady decline in the cattle at all levels. Coming back to the Freedom to Farm Act, I think that the main criticism I have of that act--and once the farmers of the United States fully understand it, I think that they would come out resoundingly against it because in essence it would turn the farm program into a welfare program which is something that they do not want. To say that, Mr. President, and having said that I am a farm State Senator, have fought for good farm programs for a long, long time, I recognize they cost some money but I also recognize that the American public today spend less of their disposable income for food of any industrialized nation in the world. Food is a bargain primarily because of the good work, the production ability and the genius production of our family farmers going to make good food, clean food at more than affordable prices. However, if we decouple completely the farm program from the marketplace we are marching down a road that I think farmers and the food industry eventually would come to recognize is a big mistake. The welfare provisions in the so-called Freedom to Farm Act we all should know about, and I cite a typical example which is very accurate. Under the Freedom to Farm Act, which is a step down to phasing out the program in total in 7 years, as I understand it, we will take a typical farm and talk about typical farm, typical numbers. The facts of the matter are that as I indicated, the livestock industry, the beef industry in particular, the pork industry as well, are in deep, deep problems these days. If you go along with the Freedom to Farm Act, that will not be necessarily true of the row crop producers. I cite, for example, if the Freedom to Farm Act became a reality and if we took, Mr. President, a 500-acre corn farm which is not a particularly big farm, not particularly little farm, but use that as an example, and if that individual farmer planted his 500 acres to corn, under the Freedom to Farm Act, and if that 500-acre farm produces 120- bushel yield, and if the price for corn were, for example, $3.10 a bushel, 500 acres, 120-bushel yield, and a cash price of $3.10, you multiply 500 by 120 bushels and come up with 60,000 bushels. And 60,000 bushels at $3.10 cash price produces $186,000 gross cash income. Not net, but gross cash income. In addition to that figure under the Freedom to Farm Act that same farmer would get from the Government, he would be paid, sent a check by the Government over and above the $186,000 gross for 1996 using 60,000 bushels, he gets a 27-cent payment. That is $16,200 in 1996 that typical farm would receive over and above the $186,000 gross. In 1997, that goes up to 37 cents a bushel for $22,200, which I think could be described as a welfare payment. In 1998, it goes up to 40 cents a bushel or a $24,000 welfare payment. I simply say that the example that I have used at the cash price of $3.10 for corn producing for the farm that I have outlined, $186,000 in gross cash income, on top of that the individual farmer would receive basically for doing nothing, or to put it another way, the 500-acre farmer with the ability to produce corn, assume that farmer planted nothing, he did not do anything, he just sat and watched television all day long. Well, he would not get the $186,000 but still under that kind of a scenario that farmer who planted nothing and did nothing would receive $16,200 from the Federal Government in 1996, $22,200 welfare-type payment in 1997, and $24,000 in a welfare-type payment in 1998. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the figures I have just referenced be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining under my control, under the new arrangement?

Mr. EXON. How much?

Mr. EXON. I yield 9 minutes and forty seconds to the Senator from North Dakota, with his allotment to any other Senators on our side wishing to speak out of that time.

Mr. EXON. No objection. Whatever you want.

Mr. EXON. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. EXON. I understand there is some talk about a unanimous consent agreement to extend the time. Does the manager on the other side know about this?

Mr. EXON. May I interrupt for just a moment and thank my friend from Minnesota. I only yielded him 7 minutes, but with the tone he is following, he can have about 5 hours. [Laughter.]

Mr. EXON. I think that would be the best of all worlds. Let me conclude, then, on the remainder of the time that I have. Despite the temptation that has been offered me by those on the other side, trying to bait this Senator into rancorous political discussions, I said at the outset that was not my goal. I just received a call from Leon Panetta, the Chief of Staff. Some progress has been made. We are going to have a meeting at 1 o'clock today and another meeting at 5 o'clock. Then the chief negotiators on the Senate side, Democrat and Republican, will make presentations of how well we are going forward to the White House in the morning, as I understand it, in front of the big five. We are trying to move things along. So, despite the baiting, I am not going to become involved in a partisan debate at this time to pick each other apart. This is a time to come together, and I hope, if we extend the time for the vote, we do not extend the debate.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to agree with my colleague on this. I would like to offer a substitute by asking unanimous consent that the vote occur on the adoption of House Joint Resolution 132 at 11 a.m., with the time between now and 11 a.m. equally divided as in morning business, with the time remaining on this side under the control of the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the matter before us is one that I think does not require a great deal of debate and consideration. I think probably it is going to be overwhelmingly approved if we have a voice vote on the matter. I simply say that I am not sure at this particular juncture, when the Government is shut down, when there is great anxiety in America that we get on with this matter of balancing the budget, it is particularly helpful to go on another diatribe and sharp debate in the Senate on scolding the President or scolding other people. I noticed with interest the manager of this measure on the other side indicated that we never have come forth. We have a program, of which this Senator was a chief author, that does, indeed, balance the budget in 7 years, does, indeed, balance the budget based on CBO numbers, period, without any caveats whatsoever. So in total keeping with the cooperation that has come forth from the Democratic side, we are in basic agreement with what we are attempting to do here, and therefore it is simply a statement of what once again is the obvious. What I am attempting to do at this time is to restrain our rhetoric, to restrain our differences of opinion as to how we reach that goal of a balanced budget in 7 years using the conservative scoring techniques of the Congressional Budget Office, which, I might add, has been proven wrong. The figures by CBO have been wrong the last 2 years by a very large proportion and all other scoring outside of CBO has been right with regard to what the economy has been doing. There cannot be any question about that. Regardless of that, I simply say that I think this is the time of coming together rather than to try to blame everybody else for what has or has not happened up to date. The facts are that it is a national disgrace that here we are in a situation 2 or 3 or 4 days before Christmas Eve, people are being sent home and laid off, the Government is being shut down, while at the same time I see certain leaders rushing to the floor or rushing to the microphones to say, ``Well, all you employees that have been sent home because of the impasse that we have created, regardless of whose fault it is, do not worry; you are going to be paid. We are going to have the taxpayers pay you even though you are not at work.'' That is one of the reasons, Mr. President, that as far as this Senator was concerned and many others, I kept each and every one of my employees at their post during the last Government shutdown when others were rushing to send them home in the spirit of shutting down Government. I knew that was a ridiculous proposal because I knew that if I had sent my good associates and coworkers, over which I have control, home, they would be sitting at home twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing, wishing that they were at work with the full realization that they were going to be paid even though we sent them home. That is part of the phoniness, I suggest, of this whole process that we are going through. If we cannot come to an understanding of a continuing resolution to keep Government fully operating between now and Friday, which is 2 days from now, then it shows how ridiculous all this impasse has been, meant to create something, I guess, from the standpoint of a revolution, a revolution that is taking place without due consideration for all others. With regard to the President of the United States, I have not agreed with the original budget presented by the President of the United States as the Democratic leader on the Budget Committee, but I think the President of the United States is not all right or all wrong. I do not know whether I am all right or all wrong in our proposal. I believe the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, does not claim that the plan that we have put together and offered that does, indeed, do exactly what has been demanded by some, balancing the budget in 7 years, with CBO scoring--we have met all those commitments in the plan we offered yesterday--is all right or all wrong. Our plan has not been universally blessed by the President of the United States, but I believe the President of the United States realizes and recognizes there is going to have to be some give and take, there is going to have to be some compromise, there is going to have to be some understanding, there is going to have to be something more than political rhetoric back and forth on both sides. If we are to come together, as I think we must, as reasoned adult people, to recognize with 535 Members of the Congress of the United States, there is no way we are going to write a budget that each and every one of those 535 Members says, ``Boy, that's fine. That's just what I want.'' So I would simply say, Mr. President, that we are working very hard in a bipartisan fashion to try and come together, and I am not sure that a great deal of rhetoric on this measure that probably is not going to be seriously contested from either its intent or its language, because we generally agree. I yield whatever time is necessary to the Democratic leader.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, once again, I say that I am tempted to answer word for word, charge for charge what is being made on the other side. I will be restrained. When I get up in the morning, I go through a few exercises, maybe take a little walk and then have breakfast. My main desire when I get out of bed in the morning is not to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to bash the President of the United States. I will simply say, while the President of the United States has not always come up with the numbers with regard to a balanced budget that this Senator would like to see, as I said a few moments ago, I simply say that the record is pretty clear that this President has done a better job than most Presidents of the United States in modern times with regard to trying to restrain the deficit. The fact of the matter is that in 3 straight years under President Clinton, we have had a significant reduction of nearly 50 percent in the annual deficits. That is the first time that has happened since the administration of another Democratic President by the name of Harry S. Truman. So I do not know that Clinton bashing--although it is vogue in some quarters today--is particularly helpful at this juncture when we are trying to come together rather than split ourselves further apart. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise to support this landmark conference report to eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC], and to reduce regulation on the transportation sector, and to transfer the responsibilities of the Commission to a new independent Intermodal Surface Transportation Board [ITSB], and the U.S. Department of Transportation. I am pleased to lend my enthusiastic support to this legislative package of two bills to reform the Nation's transportation laws and to embrace the labor protection reforms endorsed by the House in the Whitfield amendment. If both are enacted, I expect this legislation to win Presidential approval. I support this conference report with only two reservations. To reach agreement, difficult, painful and significant compromises had to be made. Two areas which continue to concern me are Carmack amendment review and the transfer of the Federal Maritime Commission responsibilities to the new board. While the conference report embraces solutions to perceived problems in these issue areas. which are different from both S. 1140 which I introduced earlier this year and the Senate-passed bill; given the need to bargain, I believe that fair, defensible compromises have been made. Regarding the Carmack amendment, while I would have preferred the Senate provision to study the Carmack cargo liability system prior to enacting changes to current law, our House counterparts were firmly fixed in their position for dramatic and immediate reform. The compromise reached is one which very closely follows the Carmack procedures in force when tariffs were filed with the ICC. My second reservation concerns the decision of the conference to delay consideration of transferring the responsibilities of the Federal Maritime Commission to the new board. The Senate bill embraced my vision of an intermodal agency which provided one-stop shopping for all surface transportation. This action is, however, a vision delayed, not denied. When the Senate debates reforms in the Ocean Shipping Act next year, I will continue my push to transfer the responsibilities of the FMC to the new board. Notwithstanding these reservations and necessary compromises, I do endorse and urge my colleagues to support this conference report. This legislation builds on a bill I introduced earlier this year known as the Transportation Streamlining Act. Following the introduction of that act, Senator Pressler and I and our staff worked long and hard to find broad areas of agreement and compromise. The work product of that negotiation is S. 1396. This conference report represents the latest chapter in a thoughtful and deliberate effort to reform and deregulate America's great transportation sector. As one of the few Members of Congress with regular contact with America's oldest independent regulatory agency, I again acknowledge the commitment and hard work of the Commission and all of its employees. A grateful Nation owes a debt of gratitude to these dedicated public servants for over a century of hard work. Their vigilance has made the current transition to a more market-oriented transportation system possible. One might ask, why there is a need for a successor agency to the ICC? Simply put, if there were no forum to resolve disputes, oversee standard contract terms, establish national standards and assure fair treatment for shippers and communities; the great, efficient and productive transportation sector will spin into chaos. The failure to enact this legislation will produce just such chaos. Efficiency would be replaced with litigation. Certainty would be replaced with buyer beware. The result would be great harm to the notion of interstate commerce. The new ISTB within the Department of Transportation will continue to be the fair referee between shippers, carriers, and communities. It will provide interested parties with one-stop shopping and administer a significantly streamlined body of law which assures that the public interest is protected in transportation policy. This transfer of responsibility and streamlining of authority will reduce costs both to taxpayers and the private sector and assure that key transportation safety responsibilities do not fall between the cracks. Mr. President, our Nation takes for granted the blessings of America's great transportation system. Every part of the Nation has accessible transportation service. As the Congress continues its efforts to keep regulation to the minimum necessary to protect the public interest, let us not forget what a valuable asset we have and how critically important it is that the Congress carefully choose the correct course. I urge my colleagues to vote today to modernize America's transportation policy and enact the pending conference report. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. The matter has not been cleared on the Senator's side? I withdraw my objection.

Mr. EXON. That would be fine with me, if that can be agreed to.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, could I ask that the Senate stand in a quorum call for at least 10 minutes to give me a chance to get this straightened out?

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, I would simply say to my colleague from Pennsylvania and to the Chair we have one matter that may be cleared tonight. It had been agreed to on both sides pending one telephone call.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. It probably was 1987 and 1988 because in that time we did control both Houses, not 1986. I have no further comments, and if we are ready to close, I am ready to close.

Mr. EXON. In other words, what you are saying, it was a Democratically controlled House and Senate that did that?