J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, point of inquiry; how much time does the Senator from Nebraska have under the unanimous-consent agreement in place now?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, upon his seeking recognition, I ask unanimous consent the Chair recognize the Senator from New York, and the remaining time under my discretion is allocated to the Senator from New York.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in view of the agreement just reached, we are prepared to offer the Medicare amendment. I hope that the chair will recognize the Senator from West Virginia for whatever time he might need. I remind him that we have an hour each, which can be divided between the managers of this particular amendment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to take a moment from our time, if I might, to thank both my friend from Alabama and my friend from Arkansas, who preceded the Senator from Alabama, for excellent remarks. The Senator from Alabama is the former chief justice of that State. I have served with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas since 1971 when we both were elected and began service to our States as Governors. They are extremely talented and dedicated people. I want to thank them for their excellent comments to try and recognize the serious problems with this budget bill that I addressed at some length at the beginning of the morning, about 10:30 this morning. To all I want to say that while I am disappointed that we have not had a single vote yet, I advise all that some progress is being made, and I suspect that in the possibly not too distant future we may have some kind of an announcement by the majority leader and the minority leader, or the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, who is on the floor, and we can maybe move more progressively ahead and stop the talking and start the voting. I thank the Chair. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. EXON. If I have understood what you have said, this is a Republican amendment, and 1 hour is allocated on that side and 1 hour on this side. If this side of the aisle only uses 5, 10, 15, or 20 minutes, then we would only be charged with that on our total 10-hour allotment; is that correct?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 1 minute for debate before the vote.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I wish to congratulate the majority leader for the remarks he just made. I thought it was an excellent meeting at the White House today. I will simply say that I think the President unquestionably has agreed to consult with the Congress. I believe that commitment was made again today. This is a very critical time. I hope and believe that adoption of this measure is meaningless, but I hope and think at this particular time we could do no good by adopting this once again, but, obviously, it will be adopted. I will oppose it because I think it is ill-timed for us to be stepping into this matter once again at this particular juncture. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Ohio. Were it not for the fact that I have made a commitment to go to an affair elsewhere in the Capital City, I would stay and become involved in this debate. I am going to be very brief because others here will go into the matter in more detail. I simply say, Mr. President, that while a case can be made that we need improved relations with Pakistan, from the information that I have, the proliferation arrangement and laws of the United States of America have been violated by arrangement, among others, of shipments of materiel from China to Pakistan. I simply say that while we can make excuses, and while we can say that we need the cooperation of Pakistan with regard to drugs and terrorism, which I agree with, the fact of the matter is that the laws of the United States have been violated. An official of the Clinton administration called me and asked me to support the Brown amendment. I asked that individual was it not true that the laws had been violated, but the administration, working with the majority in the U.S. Senate, are simply going to wink at that and say, it is OK. It is OK. We are going to make this exception to make them happy. It seems to me we are setting a precedent here. I do not believe my voice or the voice of others is going to change the vote, but as well intentioned as the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado is, it is a mistake. It is a mistake entered into by the Clinton administration. They are wrong, in my opinion. I state that as clearly as I can. What they are doing in this particular case, Mr. President, is simply to offer an alibi to try to soothe the Government of Pakistan. If our laws with regard to proliferation are going to mean anything, then we have to recognize that both Pakistan and China should be subject to the laws that we enacted in the Congress of the United States and cannot be winked at. I object to the fact that the Clinton administration is winking, going back [[Page S 13948]] on the laws that we have in our land. I think that is a mistake, Mr. President. I suspect that the Senate is going to make a mistake because I do not think 5 hours of debate after most people have gone home is going to change any minds. I simply back the position of Senator Glenn and Senator Levin, both associates of mine from long standing on the Armed Services Committee. I hope that the Senate will come to its senses and do an about face on the earlier vote that we had in the Senate on this matter today. I thank my friend from Ohio. I thank my friend from Michigan. I thank my friend, Senator Feinstein, from California, who I understand is going to speak on this. I thank my friend, Larry Pressler of South Dakota, who was author, I believe, of the law that we have in place. I simply say, Mr. President, this is a mistake. I hope the U.S. Senate will reverse course, recognize it is a mistake, notwithstanding the pressure that has been brought to bear by the Clinton administration to not change the vote.

Mr. EXON. I say to my friend from Colorado that I think if we get into those kinds of details, we may cloud the central purpose. The central purpose of my opposition to this, notwithstanding the strong feeling about my friend and associate from the neighboring State of Colorado, is that we are violating both the intent and the principles of the law that we have in effect with regard to proliferation. Therefore, this Senator feels it is a mistake.

Mr. EXON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. EXON. That is correct.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will make some brief remarks on this. I believe there is strong support on this. I will be asking for the yeas and nays. And I would agree to have the yeas and nays ordered at any time that the managers of the bill think are in order. Mr. President, last Friday I offered an amendment to the welfare reform bill which states that Federal benefits shall not be paid or provided to any person who is not lawfully present within the United States. I have introduced measures to address this problem in the past and the Senate accepted a very similar amendment in 1993 by a vote of 85 for and only 2 against, and only to see it unfortunately dropped in conference. My amendment specifically defines who is a person lawfully present within our country. Previous prohibitions on the payment of benefits to illegal aliens have been weakened by expansive agency regulations and court decision. My amendment also provides for a number of exceptions. Illegal aliens would still be eligible for elementary and secondary education, emergency medical services, disaster relief, school lunches, child nutrition, and immunization. Also, States would not be obligated to provide benefits to those not lawfully present in our country, and funds would be provided for States to set up systems to verify the status of the applicants. As we continue to debate welfare reform, I believe it is evidence that we must not pass up this opportunity to stop, once and for all, providing scarce Federal benefits to illegal aliens. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Certainly.

Mr. EXON. It may well be that the Senator from Florida did not understand. That was incorporated in the amendment and was suggested as an exception by the Senator from Wyoming. And I think it satisfies the concerns of the Senator from Florida. It is in the amendment on which we are now discussing and on which we will vote. If you are talking about the amendment that I offered last Friday, it is not in there. But it is in the amendment that we will be voting on.

Mr. EXON. After introducing the amendment last week, I have a very minor addition to the amendment that was suggested by my friend and colleague, Senator Simpson from Wyoming, with whom I have worked on this matter for a long, long time. I ask unanimous consent that this minor addition be announced and considered, and the amendment itself be considered at this time.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2525, As Modified

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas very much for the kind statement and support. Since no one is seeking time, I yield back the remainder of my time, and the yeas and nays have already been granted.

Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield a minute.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, is there remaining time in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. EXON. I am prepared to yield back my time to move things ahead. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Wyoming.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as Governor and Senator, I have been a long time supporter of public broadcasting. In Nebraska, public broadcasting leads the way in innovative programming, distance learning, and educational opportunity. That dedication to excellence, to children and to families has made Nebraska Public Television an island of decency, sanity, and enrichment in the sea of violence, sex, and immorality which is commercial television. I am pleased to introduce legislation titled the Public Broadcasting Financial Independence and Family Viewing Act. Opponents of public broadcasting have sparked a debate about the future on this national treasure. That debate has been healthy and ironically could lead to the salvation of public broadcasting. As a member of both the Senate Commerce Committee, and the [[Page S 13621]] Senate Budget Committee, I foresee a budgetary situation which threatens the very existence of public radio and television regardless of who controls the House or the Senate. The reforms proposed in this legislation would give public broadcasters the tools for survival. As a strong supporter of public broadcasting, I have repeatedly expressed several troubling concerns about recent public broadcasting programs and policies. This legislation is also meant to refocus the mission of PBS and CPB on family-friendly, entertainment, educational, cultural, and informational programming. I simply can not defend standards and practices which permit displays of nudity and use of language in CPB-funded dramatic programming which would not be permitted on commercial broadcast television. Public broadcasting can tackle controversial subjects but it should be done in a manner which is not offensive. Public broadcasting comes into the homes of American families thanks in part to the tax dollars of those families and thanks to the radio spectrum owned by the people. It is not too much to ask that programming be presented in a manner which is appropriate for a home with children. In this regard, I must give the Nebraska Educational Television network credit for showing great sensitivity to Nebraska families. Last year NETV only aired the edited version of the controversial program ``tales of the city'' and decided not to broadcast some of the programming offered by PBS and other sources which push the envelope of taste and propriety. On a national level, I strongly believe that the CPB and PBS should show the same sensitivity to taxpayers and viewers. It is not censorship to ask that American tax dollars be spent in a manner that is consistent with American values. On the financial side, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should more aggressively pursue and share in the spinoff profits generated by products related to CPB funded programming. It is tragic that public broadcasting has made millions of dollars for others but must battle each year for modest appropriations. In addition, under this legislation public broadcasters would be given spectrum and schedule flexibility as well as new channel placement options which could generate additional nontax revenues. These measures hold long-term promise toward the goal of making public broadcasting more financially independent. Mr. President, never before has the need for quality television been more critical. Public broadcasting has a long tradition of meeting that need for quality. I believe that we can reinvent public broadcasting. As a supporter of public broadcasting, I am prepared to consider any creative idea to lessen taxpayer burdens in this area. My one bottom line; my one nonnegotiable item is that public boardcasting remain public. It should not be privatized or dismantled and sold to the highest bidder. It is a national treasure which must remain in the public domain. Mr. President, I introduce this legislation and extend a hand of friendship and cooperation to Members on both sides of the aisle. Public broadcasting is an institution which means a great deal to the people of Nebraska, and the Nation, and we must find ways to help it meet the challenge of survival in a very difficult fiscal climate. Thank you Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.