J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds so that I might propound a unanimous consent request.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Arizona. Amendment No. 2340

Mr. EXON. Could I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds? My friend and colleague from Arizona has no objection that he had earlier. I ask unanimous consent that if there is a cloture vote on the DOD authorization bill tomorrow that the Senator from Nebraska be allowed 10 minutes prior to the vote for the purposes of making appropriate remarks.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I had an inquiry of the Senator from South Carolina when he properly filed a cloture petition on the defense authorization bill for Friday. At the time, I was not aware that there was a previous DOD pending motion on cloture that might be called up tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that if a cloture vote is called for tomorrow on the defense authorization bill, the Senator from Nebraska be allowed 10 minutes preceding that vote for appropriate remarks.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I know the position that my friend from New Jersey and my friend from Oregon, the managers of the bill, find themselves in. I have found myself in similar positions during long, tedious sessions of the Senate when we try and make appropriate cutoffs at certain times. And they would be fully within their rights, and maybe it is their final determination not to consider the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from South Dakota. I happen to feel that this was one of those very legitimate oversights where the chairman of the Commerce Committee, on which I have had the opportunity to serve with the Senator from South Dakota since we both came to this Senate 17 years ago--I know he has always been helpful and understanding on a whole series of matters. Therefore, I think the decision is up to the managers of the bill, but I would simply suggest that this was, I am certain, a very innocent error. I believe the Senator really felt that his amendment had been included. To make the point, if we would go back to the managers of the bill when they were reading the bill, the various amendments that have been offered, the Record will show the Senator from Nebraska rose and asked if his amendment would be included. And I was properly corrected by my good friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to the fact that the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska was indeed listed. So I was protected. There are occasions when we are not sure whether we are protected or not. And in this particular case I was. I simply say that I believe this was a simple oversight. And I was just wondering, is there any way we could possibly resolve this matter by considering some other kind of an offset of the funding that the Senator from South Dakota has used to finance the measure that he has requested? I do not know whether that is one of the problems or not. I have no dog in this fight except to say that fully understanding the problems that the managers of the bill have, I think this was a very legitimate error. If the wishes of the Senator from South Dakota could be accommodated, I think it would be fair. If there is any problem with the measure itself, you could always have a vote on it. Is it possible that there may be some other form of offset we might be able to work out? I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. That is right. I thank you. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I have offered it, and I would like to have the comments of the two managers.

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, may I ask my friend and colleague, I was trying to get to my friend the last 2 or 3 hours, but for some unexplained reason there has been such a crowd down there I was unable to break through. I have an amendment that has been cleared, I believe, on all sides that I have not had a chance to talk to the Senator about. I think it will be agreed to by voice vote, but I will agree to just put my name down for an amendment, 10 minutes a side.

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, I just want to clarify what I think I heard the Senator from South Carolina, my friend, say. The cloture motion that he filed tonight will not be voted on on Thursday, it will come up on Friday; is that correct?

Mr. EXON. I have no objection. Thank you.

Mr. EXON. On Friday?

Mr. EXON. Will that be the usual procedure of 1 hour after the Senate comes in? What is the parliamentary situation on that?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce landmark legislation to eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and to transfer its responsibilities to the independent United States Transportation Board (USTB) which will be organized under the U.S. Department of Transportation. This bill builds on successful legislation I introduced in recent years to bring fairness, efficiency and productivity to the transportation sector. The Negotiated Rates Act, for example, approved in 1993 has already saved American businesses billions of dollars in so-called undercharge claims and litigation, by relieving small businesses and charities of undercharge liability and providing for fair and expeditious settlement of all other undercharge claims. In addition, the Trucking Regulatory Reform Act of 1994 enacted dramatic and revolutionary federal regulatory reform in truck and bus transportation. These measures combined with the intra-state truck rate and route deregulation provision contained in the 1994 Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization bill represent a body of law which comprises one of the most important, dramatic, productive and meaningful regulatory reforms in modern times. As a long time defender and supporter of an independent Interstate Commerce Commission, I introduce this legislation with some sadness because as one of the few Members of Congress with regular contact with America's oldest independent regulatory agency, I know well the dedication, commitment, and hard work of the Commission and all of its employees. In a different time, with different fiscal realities, it might have been possible to maintain a strong independent regulatory agency. That being said, I introduce this legislation with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm. Not only is this legislation a tribute and compliment to earlier efforts made by the Congress to introduce competition into the bus, truck, and rail sectors through the Bus Act, the Motor Carrier Act, and the Staggers Act, this legislation opens a new chapter in Federal transportation policy. Mr. President, this bill can serve as a model for other agencies to achieve the efficiencies that the people demand, but also do the work that the people expect. 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, review rail mergers and abandonments, establish national standards, and assure fair treatment for shippers and communities America's great, efficient, and productive surface transportation sector will spin into chaos. Each State would develop its own rules and transportation companies would become entangled in needless, complicated litigation. The United States Transportation Board (USTB) will assure that there is continuity in transportation policy. The new USTB--an independent board within the Department of Transportation will continue to be the fair referee between shippers, carriers and communities. It will provide interested parties one stop shopping and administer a significantly streamlined body of law which would assure 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.'' I am hopeful that this legislation represents only a first step to even greater consolidation and efficiency of transportation regulation and dispute resolution. My vision for the new USTB is that it become a fair forum for all modes of transportation. I strongly support the incorporation of the Federal Maritime Commission's (FMC's) duties into the responsibilities of the USTB as well as aviation dispute resolution duties administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Senator Inouye is the Senate's leading expert on maritime issues and I look forward to working with him and others to promote this intermodal concept. In a real sense, the introduction of this legislation represents the first step in a long journey but a necessary one. 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 study this proposal and look forward to working with members from both sides of the aisle to assure that the Congress continue its responsible modernization of American transportation policy.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. The only reason the Senator from Nebraska intervened was not because I want to interrupt the order, but when a quorum call was suggested, when this Senator waited last night and again this morning, I thought I might move ahead. Mr. President, in order to go back to the usual procedure, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to add my thanks to those that have been said by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle this morning for the good leadership that we, obviously, have in the forefront of the U.S. Senate as we face this very, very difficult but must-do task of reforming welfare. Certainly, my colleague and friend from New York, the former chairman of the Finance Committee, has been trying to get this reformed for years and years and years. I say to the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, his dream is about to come true, I think. I appreciate the thoughtful leadership that he has provided over the years, the thoughtful bipartisan leadership that he has provided, and his counterparts on the other side of the aisle, as we move forward on this important matter. I have brief remarks, comparatively speaking, with regard to the welfare matter before us. Before I go into that, I warn all, I suspect we are not going to complete action on the welfare reform matter before we finally get to our shortened recess. During that time, there are going to be lots of wars going on, financed by special interests, on the radio and television. In that regard, I will simply advise all Senators, but more importantly, the public at large, that they should have seen the ``Nightline'' show last evening. The ``Nightline'' show last evening went to the heart of what I suspect will be foremost on our airwaves during the recess, particularly with regard to the welfare reform bill. The ``Nightline'' program last evening went into great detail with regard to the totally unprincipled lobbying that is being done by certain high-minded interests with regard to the telecommunications bill we wrestled with in the Senate not long ago and which passed the House of Representatives last week. The House Members were deluged in the last few days of that debate by stacks and stacks of mail from their constituents. We all want to get mail from our constituents. We are here to represent them. But, clearly, I think with the investigation that is now being promised by prominent leaders of the House of Representatives, we may begin to get to the bottom of some of the problems that we have with the democratic processes today that are being perverted by money and moneyed interests. The ``Nightline'' show last night went into great detail about the mountains of mail that was being received, supposedly from constituents on a voluntary basis. There is an alarming trend developed with regard to the brief investigation that has so far been done on the amount of mail being received by House Members from their constituents that their constituents were not writing to them at all, but their constituents' names were on the bottom of preprepared mailings. They had several instances of people live on the ``Nightline'' show last night whose names and addresses were signed to memorandums or lobbying or constituent letters, depending on how you want to describe them, people who never sent the letters. Letters were signed by dead people. Letters were signed by one person who knew nothing about it. In fact, he was bicycling in Europe someplace during this time. So I hope that the House of Representatives will pursue their investigation to see how moneyed interests, with highly paid expert lobbyists, cannot fool the public all of the time but sometimes they can fool Members of the Congress by totally fraudulent avalanches of mail sent in for a specific purpose, to vote one way or another on a bill when the constituent had no knowledge of it whatsoever. Certainly, the new modern revelations and revolutions that we are having in communications today has given a new power into the hands of the manipulators, the highly paid manipulators that dwell inside the beltway. The ``Nightline'' program showed some of that last night. This is simply a forerunner to say that at the present time, there are highly paid advertising schemes going on on television. I say, again, that the majority of the people cannot be fooled all of the time, to partially quote Abraham Lincoln, but it is clear to me that a substantial portion of the public can be fooled, temporarily at least, and can be led into writing their Members of Congress on something with a key phrase or two. The key television phrase that is being used against Democrats in five States today, Democrats up for reelection, is to ``Write your Democratic Senators and tell them to support workfare.'' Boy, that is a catchy phrase. There is an untold amount of millions of dollars spent today, first, to see what catchword or phrase rings with people and ``workfare,'' of course, is something that most people would like to see. So thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent by money groups and political parties during this recess to bombard the Members of the House and the Members of the Senate. I emphasize once again and I invite, I encourage, and I have a significant staff that works with me in responding to constituent suggestions. I want legitimate input from my constituents. I do not want my constituents or my office or this Senator to be taken advantage of by the high-price money that has invaded the political system. We, in the House and Senate, are partially to blame for this ourselves because we are the first ones who started to divert the political system with high-paid, efficient attack ads--attack, attack, attack--and maybe I can win whether I should or not. There is nothing shameful that millions of dollars cannot overcome and at least temporarily justify. It is wrong. Therefore, I hope that the welfare reform bill we are talking about today will not be unduly influenced by money through television and radio advertising that is intended to mislead the public rather than inform it. I think we all remember very well that key television ad of last year that [[Page S 11826]] made it impossible, because the people were misled temporarily, that ad where Lucille and her live-in boyfriend were sitting at the table in the kitchen saying--it was the most effective television ad I had ever seen. They were talking about the problems that Americans have meeting their medical expenses. And then they talked about the President's plan. They said, ``He is trying to do something about it,'' but the key line at the end was, ``But there must be a better way.'' That is the old technique that the trial lawyer used in trying to plant doubt in the minds of the jurors. If you can plant a doubt, then you are not going to get a conviction. There are lots of things wrong today, but I think things are right when we are tearing into the matter of welfare. I rise in support of the amendment to be offered by the distinguished minority leader and Senator Breaux, the Work First welfare plan, the only one of its kind that I know about today. The Work First welfare reform plan is a step in the right direction and should be the rallying cry around which we can all gather, Democrats and Republicans, to get something constructively done with regard to welfare reform. The Daschle-Breaux plan attacks welfare reform head on. It helps turn welfare recipients into productive breadwinners. It weaves a safety net that protects the children of welfare parents. It allows the States greater flexibility to administer their welfare plans and to make positive changes. If I were to summarize this amendment in one word, it would be: responsibility. It requires the responsibility of those currently receiving welfare to take charge of their lives and find work. Responsibility is a two-way street. The amendment requires the Federal Government to act responsibly by making sure that the States will have sufficient funding and oversight to do the job properly. Mr. President, the current welfare system has veered off course. Senator Moynihan has demonstrated and talked about this time and time again. There is no doubt about that. Not enough welfare recipients are making the leap from support to gainful employment. The well-beaten path of welfare has become a dangerous rut that grows deeper and deeper with the years. For many, welfare has become a permanent state of existence. Welfare's failings did not develop overnight, nor will they be solved in a day and a night. However, in the past decade, we have taken constructive steps to reform the system and we build on these reforms with this amendment. In 1988, I vigorously supported the Family Security Act, which was signed into law by President Reagan. That bipartisan legislation, passed by a vote of 96 to 1, provided States with the flexibility to establish programs to assist with job skills, education, and child care. The philosophy behind the Family Security Act is as sound today as it was 7 years ago. We best help people in need by giving them the tools to get off of welfare and onto the job rolls once and for all. Unfortunately, while some States showed modest success in implementing their reform programs, the Family Security Act never achieved its full potential. Welfare reform continues unabated, however, in many States, including my State of Nebraska. And the Democratic amendment provides the States with the flexibility and funding to carry out and administer those reform plans. Let me briefly explain how. First, the Daschle-Breaux plan replaces the unconditional, unlimited AFDC aid with conditional benefits over a limited period of time. I believe that most Americans would agree that there has to be an endpoint to benefits for able-bodied adults. Otherwise, we find ourselves still saddled with a welfare system that is self- perpetuating. Second, the Democratic leadership amendment emphasizes work. Let me repeat that. The Democratic leadership amendment emphasizes, above all else, work. Welfare reform without work is but a hollow promise. For States the plan establishes the Work First block grant, giving them the resources and flexibility to assist welfare recipients to obtain work. By the year 2000, States will be required to put 50 percent of eligible recipients into jobs. In addition, the States will be penalized for missing the target and rewarded for surpassing it. The Democratic plan emphasizes a partnership between parents and the States through the parent empowerment contract. Parents must engage in an intensive job search, or have their benefits reduced. Moreover, the plan provides incentives to stay in the work force by adding an additional 12 months of child care and Medicaid for those who go to work. Third, the Democratic plan is sensitive to the consequences of welfare reform--especially as to how it affects children. Children should not be pawns in this debate. I would never hold children hostage merely to satisfy some ideological itch. Rationing assistance to innocent children is not only heartless, it is terribly shortsighted. The Democratic plan protects the well-being of children above all else. They are not left to the vagaries and whims of local conditions and officials. They are not pitted against competing interests. They are not shortchanged on services. If a mother loses her benefits after a 5- year time limit, her children will still be eligible to receive assistance for housing, food, and clothing. Fourth, the Democratic leadership plan cuts and invests. It cuts spending by reducing the welfare rolls and invests those savings to provide even greater rewards for the American taxpayers. This is fiscal responsibility. Mr. President, I am fearful, however, that other well-intentioned proposals essentially bundle up the problem and shuffle it off to the States. As a former Governor, I see concerns here. We must not just pass the welfare problem on to the States without some assurance that it can be financed. You simply cannot, in my opinion, pass the buck without passing the bucks. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to remind all that earlier this year, I was one of four original cosponsors of the unfunded mandate bill. We passed that legislation, and the President signed it into law. This is one of the greatest accomplishments of the 104th Congress. We had bipartisan support for the unfunded mandates bill, and for good reason. From town councils to the Governor's mansion, we heard the cry for relief from unfunded mandates. For too long Congress shifted the costs of regulations and mandates to the States. Their ledgers bled from red being forced to comply with the unfunded mandates. The Republican formula for block grants is troubling, especially to States like Nebraska that have a growing poverty population. Under the new formula, Nebraska will receive no additional funding above the 1994 level. However, in the early 1990's, my State's AFDC population grew by 18 percent. We also have experienced a 24-percent increase in the number of children living in poverty over the last 3 years. So I am very concerned that my State might not have the resources that it needs for a safety net for our poor children. Mr. President, the Republican claim that they put welfare recipients to work is not a valid one. One of my Republican colleagues has said on countless occasions that folks should get out of the wagon and start to pull. That may be an appealing sound bite, but despite the modification made by the majority leader yesterday, this Republican initiative does little to ensure that goal. The Republican bill is not tough love, it is just tough luck. If we are truly sincere about welfare reform, we have to help people get and keep jobs and keep them off of welfare. If we want to put people back to work, we have to help them with training and job placement. Our society and our world has changed dramatically from the days when a high school diploma could alone still land you a good job. We are in an economy that puts a premium on education and training. Yet, other plans provide no incentive or resources for either the States or individuals to get welfare recipients into the workplace and keep them there. We can do better, and we must do better, with the likes of the Daschle-Breaux amendment. There are now plans underway to tighten the provisions being considered to the Democratic proposal. We offer an open invitation to come join us, to work constructively together with suggestions. [[Page S 11827]] It is my hope that we can move ahead on this matter in a true bipartisan fashion and carefully consider a consensus. But let me emphasize, Mr. President, unreasoned haste can clearly make matters worse on this measure, which is of great import and great magnitude. Mr. President, we should work together. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague from South Dakota for his excellent remarks. I think they were right on point. I would just like to say to my leader, the Democratic leader and to the Republican leader, that I think the minority leader made an excellent point. The States are going to have a key role to play in this. We know that. I simply say that let us be careful that we do not make some mistakes and just assume that every State is going to take care of this. We also ought to assume that this is not necessarily going to cost less money, because I suspect it is not and that we are going to pass it along to the States and let them worry about it. I hope that during this debate that since the Governors are going to be very much involved, those of us who served as Governors of our States may have a somewhat unique perspective that is not there by others who have not had the responsibility of serving as Governor and, therefore, Democratic former Governors, Republican former Governors probably can have some pretty good input to this as to how it might affect the States and the responsibilities of the Governors. Let me close by saying that I believe people in the United States recognize that they are their brother's keepers to some extent. I think the complaint has been, Mr. President, that the policy that we have had in effect in the past have not worked. People stay on welfare from generation to generation. That is what they object to. I think that is what both plans are trying to address. Let me finish up by saying how proud I was of my leader, the Democratic leader, for mentioning children. Yes, we are going to have to have some kind of a cutoff date, if you are unsuccessful. We are going to have to raise the minimum wage if this is going to be successful. Last but not least, we are going to have to recognize what the Democratic leader said. What about kids? Supposing their parents are not successful after being on welfare for a length of time? They are going to have to get off, and we are going to have to have some kind of a cutoff mechanism. But we are also going to have to recognize that we cannot cut off the kids. It is not their direct responsibility. All of these things must be given consideration. I hope and think they will be. I thank the Chair and my friend and colleague from South Dakota.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1\1/2\ more minutes.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, before the leader leaves the floor, I want to say I have listened with keen interest to the opening remark by the majority leader and the introduction of the welfare reform bill and the spirit of compromise that he expressed and exchanged with Senator Moynihan, who has been a leader in this for a long time. I am looking forward to the remarks by the minority leader, which I think will follow, probably on this subject. I just want to say that after being here 17-plus years, I do not believe there is anything that probably is more important or more necessary for reform. And I hope that the spirit of compromise which started out this debate will be part of the debate, because I believe that this is not something that we want to make a political issue out of it. This is a problem that we all know of that is very fundamental to the whole prospect that we have of getting our fiscal house in order and doing the right thing in a fair way. I hope we will not have any filibuster. I hope that maybe we can be so bipartisan that maybe we will not even use tabling motions. Maybe we can just have up-or-down votes on all of the amendments. I am not trying to direct how this is moved forward, but I think if we are going to get something done, it is going to have to be a combination effort with the combination of the majority Members and minority Members having a say so and let the body work its will on the various amendments. I will have more to say on this probably on Monday or later. I am very much concerned about it. I am very happy it has finally come to the fore. And I salute the majority leader and the minority leader, Senator Moynihan, and others, who have had a key role to play. I do not think we are too far apart. I hope we will not become too far apart during the debate which will ensue. I thank the majority leader and the minority leader, and I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair and my friend and colleague, the majority leader.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am certainly pleased to join my good friend from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, and others, including the distinguished junior Senator from the State of New Mexico, and many other cosponsors, to correct one of the most objectionable provisions in the defense authorization bill that is now before the Senate. The Exon-Hatfield, et al., amendment is a very simple and a very straightforward one. It would delete--eliminate--section 3135 of the bill in its entirety, and remove the $50 million authorization for hydronuclear testing. Our amendment makes no adjustment to the funding for either the stockpiled storage program or the overall energy department budget. Our amendment is funding neutral. It simply removes the authorization in the bill for the use of $50 million to resume nuclear weapons testing. With that brief opening statement--and I will be expanding on this further--I now yield 10 minutes to my colleague, the junior Senator from New Mexico.