J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from South Dakota, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, for his kind remarks. He has outlined very adequately and completely the bill before us that we have worked very, very hard on in the Commerce Committee. I have long been associated with the Commerce Committee, especially surface transportation, all during my years of service in the U.S. Senate. Certainly with the end of the Interstate Commerce Commission, it is very important that we transfer the duties that have been performed by that agency to a division of Government that can accurately carry them out without the expense that we had with the Interstate Commerce Commission during their days of reining over a whole series of very complicated issues, which I think they accomplished very accurately, very intelligently, and made the right decision for the public at large. But, Madam President, I rise to support the landmark legislation to eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission, ICC, and the Federal Maritime Commission, the FMC, and to transfer their responsibilities to a new independent Intermodal Surface Transportation Board, which we call ISTB for short. This will be recognized under and reorganized under the Department of Transportation under this act. Madam President, this legislation builds upon legislation that I introduced earlier this year known as the Transportation Streamlining Act. Following the introduction of the act, Senator Pressler, the chairman of the committee, and I worked with our staffs long and hard to find broad areas of agreement and compromise. The work product of that negotiation is S. 1396, which is before us, which the chairman of the committee explained very adequately. This legislation represents the latest chapter in a thoughtful and deliberate effort to reform and deregulate America's great transportation sector. The more we can deregulate it, the better it will be and the more service it will provide. In recent years, the Congress has worked very hard to bring fairness, efficiency, and productivity to all modes of transportation, many of them cited by Chairman Pressler. The Negotiated Rates Act approved in 1993 has already saved American businesses billions of dollars in so- called undercharge claims and litigation, ending the undercharge crisis and providing for a fair and expeditious settlement of all undercharge claims. The Trucking Regulatory Reform Act of 1994, which Chairman Pressler alluded to, enacted dramatic and revolutionary Federal regulatory reform in truck and bus transportation. These measures, combined with the intrastate truck rate and route deregulation provision contained in the 1994 airport improvement program reauthorization bill, represent a body of law which compromises one of the most important, dramatic, productive and meaningful regulatory reform in modern times. S. 1396, now before us, known as the Pressler-Exon bill, continues that tradition. Some areas of compromise were difficult to come by. On labor issues, I believe we have found a fair middle ground. A fair middle ground is the best we could do in this area, but it does protect the public interest in continued rail service while recognizing the sacrifices and the hardships of those hard-working men and women in the rail industry. The House of Representatives took a similar approach, and in conference we will need to carefully reconcile the two bills. As a long-time defender and supporter of an independent Interstate Commerce Commission, I support this legislation with enthusiasm, although I see the end of the Interstate Commerce Commission with some sadness. As one of the few Members of Congress with regular contact with America's oldest independent regulatory agency, I know well the dedication, the commitment, the hard work of the Commission and all of its employees. A grateful Nation should thank those dedicated public servants for over a century of hard work. In a different time, with different fiscal realities, it might have been possible to maintain a strong independent regulatory agency, but that decision has now been made, and we must move on. That being said, I support S. 1396 with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm. This legislation opens a new chapter in Federal transportation policy. This legislative effort can also [[Page S 17582]] serve as a model for other agencies to achieve the efficiencies that people demand, but also do the work that the people expect. One might ask why there is a need for a successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission and the FMC. 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 would simply spin into chaos, and all members of that transportation system of the United States understand that. Each State would develop its own rules, and transportation companies would become entangled in needless complicated litigation. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Board, ISTB, will assure that there is continuity and efficiency in transportation policy. The new ISTB within the Department of Transportation will continue to be the fair referee among 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, at the same time, assure the key transportation safety responsibilities do not fall between the cracks. This legislation represents only a first step to even greater consolidation and efficiency of transportation regulation and dispute resolution. I am delighted that the Senate Commerce Committee adopted an amendment which Senators Lott, Breaux, Pressler, and I offered to sunset the Federal Maritime Commission and transfer their responsibilities to the new board next year. If enacted, this legislation will bring to reality my vision that the new ISTB become a true one-stop shop for all modes of transportation. That is efficiency. By having a staggered sunset of the ICC and the FMC, the Congress has time to thoughtfully review the Nation's maritime laws and to consider reforms in this body of law before the final transfer of responsibility to the ISTB. Madam President, our Nation takes for granted the blessings of America's great transportation system. Every part of the Nation has accessible transportation service. As 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 Congress carefully choose the correct course. We have done that in this instance. I urge my colleagues to vote today to modernize America's transportation policy and pass S. 1396 as it was reported out of the Commerce Committee under the dedicated leadership of the chairman, Senator Pressler from South Dakota. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the committee. I will simply say to him that I believe this bill can be moved rather promptly. If there are any Senators wishing to offer amendments, I suggest this be the final notice to them to appear now or forever hold your peace, and by that, I mean I will certainly suggest the absence of a quorum in just a moment and then possibly the chairman and myself could confer. If we have no appearance of anyone or advised by anyone wishing to offer an amendment, we might check with the majority leader and minority leader and consider going to third reading. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON. May I add, Madam President, please come forward now or forever hold your peace. Thank you.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I understand the Senator from Washington wishes to ask unanimous consent to go into morning business for a short period of time. Neither the manager nor myself have any objections to that. I will say that this is the last appeal that this Senator is going to make for anyone that has an amendment on this bill, please come to the Senate now, or I suggest the Senate may set a model for doing things in the future. If we would go quickly, maybe after the remarks by the Senator from Washington, to final reading, if no one is here to offer an amendment.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, now that we are about where we were at 3 o'clock this afternoon, maybe we will be successful at this time. I think we are ready to pass this bill if the Chair would see fit to recognize the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. EXON. We have no objection.

Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I addressed this amendment earlier, and I hope that the Senate will vote it down. It is a violation of the basic principles that we put together with a near unanimous vote, if not a unanimous vote, of the Commerce Committee. This amendment would simply place in the Justice Department a veto over things that should be properly decided by the independent body that used to be the Interstate Commerce Commission and now will be a body under the Department of Transportation. Once again I say, I think that the Justice Department should be a legal advisor, which they are, in the bill introduced by myself and the chairman of the committee, but this is a bad step in the wrong direction, and I hope the Senate will vote it down.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota is about to offer an amendment, as I understand it, that he has shown me, and I am opposed to it. But, to accommodate this Senator and the time constraints that I have this afternoon, I wish to make a few appropriate remarks about why, in my opinion, we should not adopt the amendment that is going to be offered by the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to change the way mergers are handled by curtailing the current ICC rail merger review process. Under the current process, and the process in the bill before us--the bill by the chairman of the committee and this Senator from Nebraska-- the so-called Intermodal Surface Transportation Board will approve, disapprove, or condition rail mergers based on the public interest standard currently used by the ICC, not a narrow, Department of Justice-type of antitrust analysis. The public interest standard--which is part of the bill offered by the chairman of the committee and myself--allows the board to weigh the public benefits of a merger against its competitive harms. This standard allows the board to condition and approve mergers that are in the public interest even though they might violate some of the existing antitrust laws. This review has served my farmers, the farmers of South Dakota, and other farmers as well. This concept must be kept as part of our overall transportation network if we want it to run efficiently, especially with regard to rural areas. The current process provides for the input of the Department of Justice. Let me repeat that. The bill before us, the Pressler-Exon bill, provides for the input of the Department of Justice. This amendment goes beyond that and gives the Department of Justice the final say--or the veto, if you will--on rail mergers. Even though a merger might be approved by the Board because it is in the public interest, is protection of captive shippers, and is in the best interest of the transportation system, the Department of Justice with all of the lawyers, or some other third party, could still bring suit and force divestiture based on antitrust laws under the Dorgan amendment that is going to be proposed. Mr. President, this amendment erodes the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, and the new ISTB board because it invests too much authority in the Department of Justice. Lawyers are a very important part of our society, depending on your point of view. It seems to me, Mr. President, that, if we are going to turn the Department of Justice into a veto authority which they did not have under the Interstate Commerce Commission and take away the independent functioning of the board that we are setting up with the Pressler-Exon measure in the Department of Transportation, we are taking a significant step backward. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the Department of Justice being the lawyer-adviser to the new board that is created. They should be consulted as to whether or not there is a serious violation of antitrust laws. But customarily in business, in my experience in business, and my experience as an individual, I have never let my lawyer make decisions for me. I consult with my lawyer, if I need one. I listen to his counsel and advice as to what is right [[Page S 17585]] and what is wrong. But I think the decision has to rest with me. Likewise, for the newly independent board that is created under the Pressler-Exon bill, which vests in a new department under the Department of Transportation, we do not need to hamstring that board and their efforts with regard to what should and should not be done with regard to mergers. So I hope if the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota comes to a vote the Senate will overwhelmingly oppose it. The Senator from North Dakota was involved in a similar effort with regard to the FCC legislation wherein he and some others felt that the Department of Justice should have the final say so in matters before the Federal Communications Commission. That measure was turned down overwhelmingly by the U.S. Senate because, if we have supposedly independent operating boards, such as the Federal Communications Commission, they should not be hamstrung or dictated to by the Department of Justice. It seems logical as to why we should not accept the amendment being offered by the Senator from North Dakota because it would essentially do the same thing that the Senate voted down with regard to the Federal Communications Commission. Therefore, I hope that we will give these new independent boards the authority that they obviously need to make decisions based upon the public interest. If turned over to the Justice Department, I believe that too much of the decisions would be made on legal technicality rather than that it is in the best interest of the public, in this case transportation, especially with regard to small States. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota. I just want to add my voice of thanks for the true bipartisan effort that was made, especially over the last 2 days, certainly under the effective leadership of Senator Daschle, on this side, and Senator Dole on the other, in cooperation with my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, the excellent staffs on both sides, Bill Hoagland on the Republican side and Bill Dauster over on our side, and all associated therewith. We came to many points on the cliff when I was not sure we were ever going to jump across, but we did on many, many occasions. I am very pleased with the fact that, as Senator Domenici just said, it was a bipartisan effort. We were not trying to make political points, we were trying to reach an agreement to balance the budget in 7 years that this Senator has stood for for a long, long time and accommodate as many as we could. The main thing, of course, is that finally, as I have been suggesting for the last few days, what we did was have a breakthrough today, finally, by extending the argument, if you will, to December 15. That means that everybody can go back to work, if we can get this passed in both the House and the Senate this evening, and the Government can return to full functioning by tomorrow morning. This has not been easy, but it has been rewarding, once again, that after a lot of effort and understanding among friends who sometimes have different views on how we get from point A to point B, we do get together and accomplish what we want to do. Mr. President, I simply say and emphasize that while this is a good agreement, it really requires a lot of heavy lifting between now and the 15th day of December, because we have all of these contentious areas remaining with regard to how we do meet the 7-year balanced budget goal and the different parts of the budget and how we allocate the funds are going to be contentious. I just hope that the bipartisan spirit that brought this short-term agreement together can be carried on to a considerable degree with the heavy lifting that we have yet to do. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are having a rather unusual Saturday session today for the very obvious and specific reason that, indeed, the Government of the United States and the United States is in a crisis situation today because of the failure of the legislative and executive branches--regardless of their political affiliations and political attitudes--meaning simply that we have to come to some kind of an agreement, some kind of an understanding, some kind of a lowering of the testing of wills with regard to a compromise that can be reached at this time to at least establish the basis or the framework to get on with the more important and more difficult task down the road, and coming to an agreement to balance the budget as quickly as we can. But I think we should keep this all in perspective. I would simply say, Mr. President, that heated rhetoric, charges, and countercharges of what this Senator will do or what that Senator will do, the pretense of standing up for what is right above everything else, of what I think is right regardless of what my colleagues on this side of the aisle and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think might be a workable solution, a solution to the crisis that faces the United States today and toning down our rhetoric, toning down our demands, toning down our individual wills, is the only mixture that is going to provide a measure of success in the future that none of us individually might be totally satisfied with, but one that gets this Government moving and allows democracy to function as it has successfully functioned for many, many years.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Alaska, my friend from Virginia, and my friend, Senator Lott, for their remarks on the matter at hand. I understand as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, and I join and thank Senator Stevens, Senator Warner, and others for bringing up this matter. It is a very critical matter and we cannot pass over it. So whatever help I can be to you in this regard, I will be. I simply point out that Senator Warner and I came here together, and we have served on the Armed Services Committee ever since then. I have been disappointed, as he has, that we still have not reported out of the Armed Services Committee the authorizing legislation, which customarily should precede the appropriations that are handled so very ably, and have been for so many years, by my colleague from Alaska. You bring up a very good point. I think that, as important as that is, we should realize and recognize that people in other areas are just as surely affected adversely. That is why we have to move. Thank you very much, my friend from Alaska, for saying we should stay here for however long it takes; there should be no recess. I was delighted, in case my colleague did not know it, that within the hour, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected a move by Speaker Gingrich to adjourn the House of Representatives. How in the world anybody who understands Government--including the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who evidently you have been in contact with regarding the dire circumstances coming on to the Defense Department-- why in the world he would want to adjourn the House of Representatives is beyond me. I was delighted to see that it was overwhelmingly rejected. I do not know whether there has ever been a case before where a motion to adjourn has been overridden on the floor. I do not ever remember that happening, at least on this side, while I have been here. I think maybe that message was sent very loud and clear to the Speaker of the House of Representatives that this is no time for us to be adjourning or recessing. We have to stay here regardless of how early we come in or how late we work every night, to show that we are trying to work out the problems on this. I suspect and say, without knowing it for sure, that if the Members on the floor of the Senate right now would have their way, we could probably sit down and resolve this matter very, very quickly. But politics on both sides, unfortunately, are being played. I simply say that I was so pleased that the House of Representatives did not take the recommendations of their Speaker and adjourn. I thought it was rather interesting as I watched that vote, that early in the first 5 minutes of that vote, I believe there were 87 or 88 Republicans who had voted with their leader, Speaker Gingrich, to adjourn the House of Representatives. But before the vote was over, when the Republicans saw what was happening, that 87 or 88 shrunk down to, I believe, about 32 at the end, as even the Republicans recognized that their leader was way, way off base by trying to adjourn with the dire circumstances that face our country today, including the ones brought forth and explained in great detail by my friend from Virginia and my friend from Alaska. I will be of whatever help I can. Now, on the overall and underlying matter that was addressed by Senator Lott, objected to by the minority leader, I think this points up the problem that we have today. Let me, as best I can, try to explain what is being overlooked in this discussion. Within the last few minutes, I have heard, I believe, the phrase ``balance the budget in 7 years'' about 17 times. Well, Mr. President, notwithstanding the fact that there is some dispute as to how we get there, this Senator has wanted to balance the budget in 7 years, if not sooner, for a long, long time. In fact, I was one of those that had voted for the constitutional amendment that would have been referred to the States to accomplish that end. So my credentials, certainly, with regard to national defense and certainly with regard to fiscal responsibility, I think, are pretty well established, and most people even on that side of the aisle would agree. I simply say that, when you throw around this phrase, a 7-year balanced budget--I have been for that for a long, long time, as have many people on this side of the aisle. I would like to advise all so that we can straighten that out--all that are hearing my voice at this time--that as late as last night when we thought we were very near reaching a compromise, we had as a part of that agreement that we would balance the budget in 7 years. That was put up not by the President, but by Leon Panetta and myself and others who were in on the negotiations. So when we throw around the term ``balance the budget in 7 years,'' not everybody, but most people are for that. The President's Chief of Staff was here offering to enter into an agreement for a continuing resolution to accomplish that end. Now, the holdup comes with regard to how we reach that balanced budget in 7 years. Therein lies the grave concerns. What the Republicans are saying, I believe, without emphasizing it, is that they want to tie the President's hands to a 7-year balanced budget on their terms. I simply say, Mr. President, that I think that is wrong for lots of reasons, and I will not be part of that. When you ask the question, ``What is at stake here?''--and that question is asked by Senator Lott--well, what is at stake here is a great deal. What is at stake here are basic principles of Government, and most of us on this side of the aisle do not agree with the way those on that side of the aisle are coming up with their numbers, setting their priorities. We think they are mixed up. I said earlier today on the floor of the Senate and, therefore, I will try again at this time to keep my rhetoric within due bounds, because I do not believe expanded rhetoric of simply abuse is particularly constructive. However, among other things that have been overlooked about what is at stake here, I interpret it as being a basic violation of constitutional principles that is at stake here. The Constitution guarantees the right of the President to veto a bill passed by the Congress. The Constitution does not say that he has a right to veto only after consultation with Congress. The Constitution does not say that the President, in balancing the budget, has to do it in a fashion and in a manner that the majority of the House or Senate propose. The Constitution guarantees, as a very important part of that document--and the Framers of the Constitution, in attempting to have balance of the three equal branches of [[Page S 17464]] Government to try to balance the judiciary, executive, and the legislative, gave the President that power. What the Republicans are really doing, Mr. President, whether they realize it or not, is putting a gun to the head of the President of the United States, saying, ``If you veto, which you have a right to do under the Constitution, we are going to take that away, or attempt to take it away by saying to you we are going to close down Government if you exercise your right, Mr. President.'' We are going to violate the principles of the Constitution simply by putting that gun to your head and saying, ``If you do that, we will close down Government because you, Mr. President, can't veto this bill or you will close down Government.'' I think the President is standing up not only for himself but every other President that we are going to have in the years to come. If this President of the United States does not stand up and protect the prerogatives of the President of the United States, that are guaranteed in the Constitution, if he is going to set precedence here to some time in the future with some other Congress and some other President, they are going to hark back and say ``Well, the Republicans back there in 1995 took away the prerogatives of the President.''

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent since there are no other speakers on this side of the aisle that I be allowed to continue for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. EXON. So, Mr. President, I simply say, what is at stake here is the fact that we cannot get together. What is at stake is the President of the United States and others who were negotiating last night said, ``OK, 7 years. We will work for a 7- year balanced budget but we are not going to accept what I think is being tried to be dictated to by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.'' We are in a very serious situation. I looked at the clippings from the newspapers back home today. One headline says ``GOP Puts Wrapping on Budget Package;'' ``Return to Sender Seen as Response.'' Here is another: ``Gingrich's Remarks Fuel Democrats' Budget Fight.'' Down below that a headline, ``Park Service to Evict Campers.'' Then, of course, ``Veto Expected As House OK's Defense Funds.'' That is what has been addressed here. I simply say, Mr. President, that if we could have the continuing resolution that we have been pleading for, on a short-term basis, that has been continually rejected by the Republicans, primarily led, I suspect, by Speaker Gingrich, we could have that continuing resolution, all of us know that all of these concerns that have just been addressed by the Senator from Alaska and others would fade. They just would not be there. Why can we not be reasonable? Two other items and headlines: ``Office of Aging Plans Furloughs, Service Cuts,'' and ``21 Guard Drills Are Canceled As Budget Standoff Continues.'' Let me read briefly from the ``Office of Aging Plans'': The Eastern Nebraska Office on Aging intends to furlough 74 of its 90 employees because of the federal budget dispute. Bob Whitmore, a spokesman for the Omaha-based agency, said the furloughs would take effect at 5 p.m. Wednesday. . .'' All this would not be necessary and we would not go through the silly charade if we could have, as we have had several times in the past, a short-term continuing resolution to December 5 or December 15. All this could be set aside if it were not for the fact that the Republicans were trying to put that gun to the President's head to take away the constitutional right guaranteed to the President by saying ``You are going to do it our way or none, or we will close down Government.'' I hope we have an understanding between cooler heads in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, for clarification purposes, if I might ask my colleague from New Hampshire whether he would so characterize the dairy programs that we have in the United States as Marxist, as he has clearly indicated he feels the sugar programs also are?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I was absolutely astonished at the remarks made by my colleague from New Hampshire a few moments ago, when, if I heard him correctly, he said that the sugar program of the United States was Marxist in nature. I will with some restraint tone down my rhetoric on that, except to say that the Senator from New Hampshire is wrong. Coming on the floor of the U.S. Senate at a time when very delicate negotiations are going on and assailing one part of the agricultural bill--in this instance, the sugar program--I think is not helpful. It is not constructive. It is not good Government, especially in that it would further impair the delicate negotiations that are now ongoing. Let me speak a little bit about the sugar program. If we would follow the recommendations, as I understand it, that were just made on the Senate floor by the Senator from New Hampshire, we would in effect be eliminating the production of sugar in the United States of America for all time to come. The sugar program does not cost the taxpayers anything. It is true that it does prop up prices to a very reasonable level so that we can continue to have such a fundamental ingredient as sugar as a part of the American production system. If we would follow the recommendations, as I understand them, from the Senator from New Hampshire, we would, in effect, eliminate the sugar program in the United States of America. All of our industries that rely on sugar as a key ingredient of our diet would go down the tube, and the United States of America would be totally reliant on imported sugar for as far as we can see into the future. I would simply say to my colleague from New Hampshire that maybe we should follow that same program with regard to milk production. I do not know how much sugar production there is in New Hampshire, but there is a great deal of milk production. There is both sugar and milk production in my State of Nebraska. I would simply say that, if we are going to destroy the sugar program, it would only follow that we would destroy the milk program. If we are to logically follow the recommendations by the Senator from New Hampshire, I do not know what the milk producers in New Hampshire [[Page S 17427]] would think of that, but I would suspect that they might not be very much impressed.

Mr. EXON. I will yield at an appropriate time. I simply say to the President, and to the Senate, that if we are going to try to work things out here, I think it is not proper, and it is not accurate, to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and indicate that the sugar program is Marxist in its concept when it clearly is not. I happen to feel that if we could tone down our rhetoric, if we could recognize and realize that there are differing points of view from people who are basically well-intentioned, then we can come together. I happen to feel that the Republican plan on the farm bill that was originated in the House of Representatives is a total disaster for America. Not only is it a disaster for America in our food production industry, but I think it turns the farm program--good, bad, or indifferent --into a welfare program. And few understand that if we accept the agricultural program announced and endorsed by the House of Representatives, we would be turning the farm program into welfare. Why do I say that? Mr. President, a key ingredient of the so-called Roberts farm plan is to pay farmers even if they do not plant anything. Can you imagine anything that smacks of ill-advised welfare, if we would start paying farmers for not doing anything or producing anything? That part of the Roberts farm bill that I refer to as farm welfare pure and simple is so revolting and so illogical that I think it should be rejected out of hand. Yet, that program is alive and well today and was given editorial support this morning in the Washington Post. The Washington Post has been historically against farm programs. That is well known, and that is very right. They are an Eastern newspaper that does not understand at all the needs of rural America and have had no pretense whatsoever of understanding the problems of rural America. I think their editorial writers down there in the Washington Post think that food is something that you go down to the supermarket and buy off the shelf. I simply say in returning that I understood the arguments of the Senator from New Hampshire would be that we should junk the sugar program because it is Marxist. That would be another step down that road that we have gone a long distance in traveling with regard to nearly 60 percent of the fuel that we use in the United States today, oil-based fuels, comes from overseas. We have been down that path before when we recognized that a few foreign oil cartels can literally, if they want to, get together and set the prices for oil. That is bad enough, and we are not taking enough steps, in the view of this Senator, to correct that. But to follow the same road by eliminating sugar production in the United States of America, which would surely come if we would follow the recommendations of the Senator from New Hampshire, we would simply say, in addition to being solely dependent in the future for the major part, if not all, of oil production, we would be also following down the line which would be even worse with regard to a basic part of our food supply and distribution system. Mr. President, I simply say that this is a time for all of us to maybe control, rein in our rhetoric at a time when the leadership of both the Democrat and Republican Parties is at this very moment trying to institute some kind of a compromise and agreement, if you will, that will eliminate the crisis that we have today and have some kind of a framework understanding of what we are going to do in the future, to come to some agreement with regard to the future budget of the United States and how we are reasonably going to balance it. With that, I yield the floor, and I certainly yield to my colleague from New Hampshire for any questions he would like to ask the Senator. If I did misinterpret his remarks, I would appreciate his explanation.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, apparently, the present occupant of the chair wanted to make some remarks; is that correct? (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)

Mr. EXON. Madam President, we have been trying to go back and forth. As I understand it, my colleague from Oklahoma wishes to make some remarks. I would agree to that. I hope that the Chair will see fit to recognize the Senator from Nebraska after the Senator from Oklahoma has completed his remarks.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his history lesson on Nebraska politics. My colleague from Nebraska and I know a great deal about the history of politics in the State of Nebraska. I simply say to him one of the great experiences of my lifetime has been service in the U.S. Senate with Henry Bellmon, two times elected Governor of his State. Some of the lessons that I have learned were at the knee of Henry Bellmon when I came here as a freshman after two terms, 8 years as Governor of the State of Nebraska, so I also know something about the political history of that State.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been listening with great care to the speeches that have been made here. I noticed on two occasions my Republican colleagues have brought the name of Thomas Jefferson into the discussions. It was somewhat amusing to me. I do not know what position Thomas Jefferson would take if he were on the floor of the U.S. Senate today, but as the founder of the Democratic Party I suspect that he might not appreciate too much the Republicans invoking his name in the support of the proposals that they are making. Facetiously, it kind of reminded me, Mr. President, of my own dad. As a very young lad, brought up in a very traditional Democratic household with Franklin Roosevelt the new President of the United States, whom my mother and father and grandfather thought was an outstanding individual, and I was thoroughly brought up in the Democratic traditions. After going to school one day, I came home and I told my dad we had studied a President by the name of Abraham Lincoln, and I asked my dad what he thought of Abraham Lincoln. I did not tell dad that I discovered that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. My dad said, ``Jim, Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest Presidents that this Nation ever had or probably ever will have. He was a truly outstanding American.'' I said, ``Yes, dad, but he was a Republican.'' Dad paused for a moment, and he said, ``Well, yes, Jim, but if Abraham Lincoln were alive today he would be a Democrat.'' Now, maybe that is the reverse of what my Republican colleagues are arguing today. But at least I loved my dad and my dad said that to me in jest. So when we start instituting the names of great leaders, Presidents, political leaders of the past, sometimes we take license that probably we are not entitled to. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about balancing the budget here. I hear the Republican cry today and I think they are talking about saving the children and saving the grandchildren. [[Page S 17432]] Mr. President, although there may be some that can top me, I have three children and I have eight grandchildren, and I am just as much concerned about their futures as any other Member in this body. But to indicate, by inference at least, that if I do not go along with their draconian budget proposals, that I think are unwise and unfair, I am not concerned about my children and grandchildren, is just a little bit too much for me to swallow. I was Governor of Nebraska for 8 years. As Governor, I balanced the budget each and every year, as did my colleague, Senator Kerrey, from Nebraska, who is on the floor, who followed me by a few years. He balanced the budget each and every year. So I simply say, probably, from the standpoint of history, I was balancing budgets in government before some people had ever been elected to public office. I follow that up by saying I think the record of this Senator has been very clear. All the time I have served the public of Nebraska and all the time I have had the opportunity to serve the people of Nebraska and the people of the Nation as a whole as a U.S. Senator, I have put forth many, many efforts, of which the latest was to vote for the Republican-sponsored constitutional amendment to balance the budget in 7 years. While I agree with that principle, that does not mean, nor should anyone necessarily construe anything, just because I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that was primarily supported and advanced by the Republicans with the help of nearly enough Democrats to pass it. I think my credentials of being a dedicated conservative with regard to fiscal policy are well established. I, too, listened with great interest to the remarks made by the President of the United States today. I did not, strangely enough, come away from listening to those remarks with the same conclusions as my friend and colleague from Indiana. I thought the President of the United States today laid it on the line. I may concede that possibly he may have gone a little too far in his rhetoric, but compared with some of the rhetoric I have heard from the other side of the aisle on the Senate floor in the last few days, I would excuse the President for any oversteps that he had made in that regard. I think it is clear to say, though, that the President of the United States said today that during his term of office he has essentially cut the annual deficit in half. That is more than has been done for a long, long time. So, at least in our criticisms of the present President of the United States, for whatever reason, we should realize and recognize that, under his leadership, we have cut the deficit and not continued to raise it. I would simply point out, I want to share and be one of the workhorses in cooperation, in full cooperation, when I can, with my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to do something about the skyrocketing national debt of the United States of America. I am fearful all too few of our citizens fully understand the difference between the annual deficit and the national debt, the latter being, of course, with additions each and every year, the shortfall we have been going through here, unfortunately, for a long, long time with regard to spending more than we take in. In that regard, though, a little history might be in order. The last Democratic President of the United States that we had before the present occupant of that high office was former Governor Carter of the State of Georgia. I would cite--and I think the record will back me up--when President Carter left office the national debt of the United States was under $1 trillion. What happened in the intervening years when we had Republican Presidents of the United States? From 1980, when President Carter left office and the debt was under $1 trillion, some 12 years later, when President Clinton took office, the national debt had skyrocketed fivefold, from under $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion. Some would argue during most of that time there was Democratic control of both Houses of the Congress, and that is true. But the facts of the matter are, had those Republican Presidents in the years 1980 to 1992 stood up and exercised their veto, as this President has stood up strongly and said he will exercise his veto, the national debt would not have taken the jump and be as troublesome as it is today. The problem we are in today is not all the responsibility of the Democrats or all the responsibility of the Republicans. Certainly, the Democrats, I think, are, by our traditions, by the record that we have established, as much concerned about the children of America in the future as anyone else. I happen to think you will see a growing portion of both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate--and hopefully in the House of Representatives--anxious to come to some workable understanding, some framework where we can, indeed, balance the Federal budget in 7 years. I am continuing to work toward that end. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I hope once again we can contain our rhetoric just a little bit and give the leadership of the House and Senate an opportunity to come to some resolution of the crisis which faces us today. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I correct the Record. The only change is the Senator from Minnesota gets 15 minutes instead of 10 minutes.

Mr. EXON. You bid first. I ask unanimous consent at this particular time, upon recognition from the Chair, that the following Senators be recognized in this order charged to our time: Senator Wellstone, 10 minutes; the following Senators 15 minutes each: Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dorgan, Senator John Kerry and Senator Pryor.