J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I have exactly 1 minute left. I yield that 1 minute only to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I advise Senators on both sides of the aisle that we have 11 minutes remaining. I am about to yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Florida. There will be 2 minutes to Senator Heflin and 2 minutes to Senator Ford. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Yes. As ranking minority member of the Budget Committee, I have been concerned to ensure that the budget reconciliation process is limited to affecting mandatory spending and is not misused to achieve other objectives. Budget reconciliation's departure from ordinary Senate rules of debate must be carefully limited to its original and proper purpose. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle shared this view when they agreed to strike the offending provisions from the Senate bill.

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

Mr. EXON. Yes. These provisions stayed out of the bill in conference, as the conferees sought to avoid another challenge on the Senate floor that these provisions violated the Byrd rule. This manifests our intent to keep this bill within the proper parameters of budget reconciliation. Mr. President, changes in discretionary programs on a reconciliation bill, such as the ones mentioned by the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Massachusetts, result in no direct budgetary savings and are therefore extraneous under the Byrd rule. During floor consideration of this legislation, we struck section 2403(c)(1), and in section 2423, section 213(A)(f)(2) because they contained material that was not under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, namely many discretionary programs, because they violated section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Budget Act. These provisions also provide no budgetary savings, and violating the intent of section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Budget Act, but because they were cleverly embedded in language which did provide direct budgetary savings, it was difficult to fully enforce the Byrd rule. Nonetheless, it is clear that this bill should not be used to make changes in discretionary programs, and those who look to interpret the action of the Congress should take this into account. Mr. President, the purpose of the Byrd rule is to prevent reconciliation bills from being loaded up with provisions, such as these, that have no budgetary impact. This is important because reconciliation bills move in the Senate under special rules which limit amendment and time for debate. Without the protections provided by the Byrd rule, it would be far too easy to take advantage of the privileged nature of reconciliation to enact controversial items without proper consideration in the Senate. Allowing reconciliation to be used in this manner fundamentally undermines the basic nature of the Senate's rules which protect the voice of the minority and damages the Senate as an institution. For this reason, I feel it is important to bring these provisions to the attention of the Senate, and I thank the Senators for their efforts.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. It would be the same cosponsors?

Mr. EXON. If I might add a comment. It seems to me that if there is that much money out there to get this job done, we might seize on that as a means of balancing the Federal budget in 2 years. I thank my friend from North Dakota.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this is something that the Senate approved last year. It is a very important matter with regard to railroad safety. The matter has been cleared on both sides, I believe. I urge its adoption.

Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers of the bill.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I was distracted for a moment. I would like to be recognized in my own right to make a few comments about the amendment being offered by the Senator from Ohio. I ask that I be added as a cosponsor. What was the suggestion of the managers of the bill? What was the unanimous-consent request?

Mr. EXON. The Senator from Ohio has agreed to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for a very thoughtful amendment that is vitally important if you understand the peril, or the potential peril, maybe is a better word for it, that small shippers find themselves in today. There probably has been no one in the U.S. Senate today who has spent more time and effort in committee and on the floor with regard to railroad matters generally, including grade crossing safety. I fought very hard for the Interstate Commerce Commission. When it was obvious that was not going to prevail for long, I was one of the leading proponents of the Surface Transportation Board that was created under the Department of Transportation. I simply say, from experience and looking into the future, myself and others as original cosponsors have had firsthand experience with the situation that could affect particularly small carriers. The most important work of the Surface Transportation Board is to protect consumers from unfair, unjust, and unreasonable rates or actions by the railroads. I mention specifically captive shippers. Captive shippers are those who are captive because they have no other way to move their products or their goods or their livestock or their grain. So simply put, what this amendment does is to say that if you are a small shipper, you cannot be charged as originally suggested in a preliminary announcement of fees by the Surface Transportation Board. The Senator from North Dakota touched on this, Mr. President. I emphasize it a little bit more. If somebody files a complaint against a railroad, the railroad has a whole stable of attorneys who are willing, ready, and able to act in their behalf. Actually, unless we adopt an amendment like this, for all practicable purposes, if the fees are set too high, that small shipper, that captive shipper, that grain elevator, that small company out there could not afford to file a complaint even if he had full justification for doing so. So I simply say that railroads need some supervision. There needs to be, especially for small and captive shippers, the right to appeal when they think they are being unfairly treated by the railroads. The Surface Transportation Board is the successor in this area to the Interstate Commerce Commission. I think the Senate and the House should be very careful that when we talk about increasing fees, we do not allow the Surface Transportation Board arbitrarily to set fees so high that the small businessmen-- captive shipper, grain elevator, farmer, call it what you will--would be discouraged from even making a legitimate complaint. At a time when there is consolidation in the rail sector, rate oversight by the Surface Transportation Board is the best primary means to protect rural shippers, and urban shippers, as well, from a possible loss of competition for the captive shippers. It is time to stop the annual threat to the consumers of rail transportation. The Surface Transportation Board is all that stands between small shippers and captive shippers and the big railroads. I applaud the Appropriations Committee for rejecting the user-fee-only proposition to finance the Surface Transportation Board. The Dorgan-Exon, and others, amendment assures that the rights of rural and urban shippers are not compromised by unfair, high user fees if they file a complaint with the Surface Transportation Board. I thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for offering this amendment. I urge its adoption. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I simply ask the Senator from Ohio, I would like to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I remind the Senate, and the managers of the bill, this Senator offered a five-point program last year with regard to grade crossings. Three of the five were accepted and are now part of the law. The two things that were not agreed to, basically on that side of the aisle, last year are now incorporated in the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. So I congratulate him for his leadership in this area. I simply remind all we should have done this last year. I hope we can do it this year in some form. So I thank my friend from Ohio. I am very pleased to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] be added as a cosponsor to the amendment just offered by my friend and colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. EXON. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. EXON. With that fee schedule that you just outlined right from the Surface Transportation Board paper, how many complaints do you think small businessmen, small elevators, would file out of North Dakota?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the minority leader, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nebraska be allowed to proceed as in morning business for not exceeding 2 minutes the purpose of introducing legislation.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation known as the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Improvement Act. This legislation is a companion measure to H.R. 3431 which has unanimously passed in the House of Representatives. It is my hope that this bill which makes a slight modification to its companion can be taken up and swiftly passed this year to safely expand the benefits of the Armored Car Reciprocity Act of 1993 which I introduced in the U.S. Senate. The 1993 law which had support from law enforcement, public safety and armored car industry advocates replaced a patch work of State laws with a common sense, pro-safety, pro-interstate commerce approach to weapons registration, background checks and training for armored car crew members. The amendments to the 1993 law build on what was learned since 1993 and will make the reciprocal benefits of the law available to more States. The net result will be better screened, better qualified and better trained armored car crews. The armored car is one of the most overlooked instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Without the ability to safely and securely move currency, securities, food stamps, gold and other valuables, interstate commerce would be impossible. I am pleased to introduce this legislation which I encourage the U.S. Senate to overwhelmingly endorse. It is a tribute to the success of the 1993 law.