J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there can be no question that we are about to cast a critically important vote. We will send a signal that will resonate around the world and have far-reaching implications on mankind's chances of moving further away from a reliance on nuclear weapons and a possible nuclear holocaust, or we can reverse course, abruptly and shamefully. As the world's leading nuclear superpower, we can send a signal loud and clear that, notwithstanding our protestations about the spread of nuclear devices, notwithstanding our supposed commitment to a nuclear test ban treaty, we are going to reverse course. [[Page S 11377]] The Exon-Hatfield amendment assures a constructive policy of gradual and very deliberate thought processes, and offers the nuclear olive branch, if you will, to potential friend and potential foe alike, that the United States of America offers a hand of nuclear understanding. If we vote down, if we table the Exon-Hatfield amendment, it is going to be a significant step backward for which we will not forgive ourselves, I suggest, for centuries to come. It is the time we reemphasize our restraint, our vigilance, and agree to the Exon- Hatfield amendment as we have explained in great detail during debate this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. I make an inquiry of the Chair. I thought that the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment had been ordered. Is that not correct?

Mr. EXON. I will be glad to incorporate that. I ask for the yeas and nays on all of the amendments with reference to the matter that we have been debating.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Massachusetts, and following that, 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. EXON. I just want to summarize what the situation is with regard to this report. Senator Reid, Senator Kyl, and probably others have confused the just-completed JASON report. But they did not reveal the full story. They are simply wrong, and they are comparing oranges with lemons. The entire quotation in the JASON report just put out, on hydronuclear testing, is as follows: A persuasive case has not been made for the utility of hydronuclear tests for detecting small changes in the performance margin for current U.S. weapons. So the newest JASON report does not endorse nuclear tests. Also, the particular quotation used by the Senator lacks accuracy. When they quote the JASON report as saying, ``However, experiments involving high explosives and fissionable material that do not reach criticality are useful in improving our understanding of * * * weapons materials,'' the Senator fails to mention the most important point, that the experiments that do not reach criticality are not hydronuclear tests. They are not hydronuclear tests. I simply point out that the portion of the report that the Senator quotes deals with experiments that are not hydronuclear in any way. Again, the JASON report is very clear. I quote from it. A persuasive case has not been made for the utility of hydronuclear tests . . . I hope this begins to set the record straight. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will yield myself 3 minutes. First, I would like to introduce letters from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, since their names have been mentioned, in full support of the Hatfield-Exon amendment. I would simply also advise the Senate that, following the references made by some Senators with regard to the new JASON report, the Secretary of Energy initiated a call to me. She was very upset about the slant that was being placed on this. She has furnished me a full copy of the JASON report of August 3. I submit that at this time to be made part of the Record. I ask unanimous consent the letters and the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. I yield 10 minutes or whatever time he needs to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks previously made in this regard by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Mexico with regard to the measure before us, the underlying amendment that was offered the first thing this morning by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I wholeheartedly support this amendment that was worked out after a lot of hard work and a lot of thought. I think it is a very, very sound amendment. It has the wholehearted support of this Senator. It is a good time though for me to emphasize--with all the work that has been done by all of the parties that have been partially named thus far this morning that I support--that I think the amendment now before us, the underlying amendment introduced by the Senator from South Carolina, is a great improvement over what came out of the committee, and I believe it is nearly unanimously supported. I thank all of those who played a key role in working this out. It is a good time for me to emphasize though that the second-degree Exon amendment goes after one part of this bill which I will be talking about in greater detail as will many others Senators. That is the part of the bill which allows hydronuclear testing which we think is an important step in the wrong direction, and, if the Exon second-degree amendment is approved today, I think there will be unanimous support for the bill as introduced by the Senator from South Carolina--if the Exon-Hatfield, et al., amendment is accepted. With that statement, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield 15 minutes--with my thanks for all the work he has done on this in company with Senator Domenici and others--to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. EXON. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining of the time assigned to the Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerrey be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Michigan. Let me summarize, if I can, some of the overall problems that I see with this measure that I partially addressed in remarks this morning. The way this came out of the committee it attacks the limits of the Nunn-Lugar proposal that has been responsible for the safe and accountable disarming of over 2,500 former Soviet Union warheads. It cuts the Energy Department nonproliferation arms control and verification funding. It recommends reconstituting our nuclear weapons manufacturing complex at untold billions of dollars, while at the same time advocating the resumption of U.S. nuclear weapons testing. This last committee initiative is contrary to U.S. policy, and it is designed to scuttle ongoing comprehensive test ban negotiations and any prospect of reaching a treaty agreement. I will have some more to say about this later on as we go into other particular issues under consideration in this bill. Let me simply say, though, I am concerned with the tone and the substance of the bill and the level of micromanagement placed on the Pentagon and the Department of Energy is unprecedented and harmful to our Nation's standing in the international community. Many of the committee initiatives are driven by a desire to defend against a superpower threat to U.S. security that simply does not exist. At the same time, when one-time enemies are now allies and the world community is committed more than ever before to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the committee bill is at odds with the reality and the strong [[Page S 11259]] need of amendment before it can properly serve our Nation's security interests. At a time when American leadership in the world community is strongly needed, we cannot be viewed as a nation living in the past, jousting with our imaginary dragons in order to lay claim to the mantle of being strong on defense. We are a strong country, the preeminent military power of the world by far. But we must also be forward looking and recognize that it is in our national interest as well as the interest of other nations to encourage arms control and alliances based on collective security. It is unfortunate that some feel more comfortable in an adversarial environment than in one based on cooperation and lowering of superpower antagonism. Like a beehive, the world in 1995 has the capacity to be both dangerous and peaceful. And handled properly, the hive can be benign and capable of producing sweet honey. If agitated, however, it can become hostile and threatening. The defense authorization bill in its present form is a sharp stick ready to be jabbed into the hive. The design and intent of the bill is to agitate the world community to the ultimate detriment of ourselves. This is not the time in history to rekindle the rhetoric of the cold war. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that will correct these and other self-defeating elements of this flawed legislation.

Mr. EXON. I have no objection.

Mr. EXON. After a tabling motion, then a second-degree amendment would be in order.

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, I would hope we are about to be in a place where we could agree to this. I heard the leader say that there would be no second-degree amendments. Now I understand. I was not clear. If I understand correctly, the amendment offered under the unanimous consent agreement by the majority leader, if we agree to this time agreement, as he has just spelled out, there would be no allowable second-degree amendment to the Levin amendment until after a tabling motion.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been listening and waiting very patiently for my turn to make some remarks on this matter. I had hesitation about the unanimous-consent agreement because this is one of the most important matters, if not the most important matter in my view that I have been a part of in my 17 years in the Senate. Notwithstanding the desire to move on briskly, I simply say that I hope, regardless of political affiliation, we will all take a very close look at what we may be about to do unless the Levin, et al, amendment, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor, is passed. I have been listening to the Senator from Arizona and his rather interesting remarks, and during those remarks the Senator from Arizona mentioned the names of several very prominent administration officials, including Bob Bell at the White House, National Security Council. He mentioned the present CIA Director, the former second man at the Department of Defense. He mentioned the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili. I simply want to say that I am not indicating the Senator from Arizona has misrepresented any of the statements that those individuals have made, but I have checked, while the Senator from Arizona was addressing the Senate, with Bob Bell at the White House. Bob Bell tells me that, notwithstanding the name dropping, all of the individuals mentioned by the Senator from Arizona to substantiate his position of being against the Levin amendment is not shared by anyone in the administration including each and every one of the officials mentioned in support of his argument by the Senator from Arizona. This is a tremendously important matter. My judgment is that this should not come down to a party-line vote. I am afraid it is going to be a party-line vote. Maybe if we can just reach a few Republicans. I would guess at this time that we would not lose more than one or two Democratic votes, two at the most, on this side of the aisle, maybe none, which means that we Democrats are talking to five, six or seven of our Republican friends asking that they look very closely at this before they vote against the Levin amendment. I thought it was rather ironic a couple hours ago while I was on the floor at that particular time there were four Senators on the floor. There was Senator Nunn, for whom I have great respect and with whom I have worked closely for 17 years; there was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my dear friend, and no one has more respect in this body, in the view of this Senator, than my friend Strom Thurmond from South Carolina; there was John Warner, who came to the Senate the same time as this Senator. And the four of us happened to be here on the floor. There have been many very important statements made and, I thought, well thought out by Members on both sides of this issue. It is an issue that may not be clear-cut in some people's minds. For 17 years, I believe, on national defense matters I have stood hand in hand with the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Virginia and others. I do not know that we have been very far apart, if far at all, on many issues. I can include Senator Lott, a Member of the Senate that I work very closely with; Senator Levin; and others. I simply say that we are at a point where I do not feel it is fair to indicate people are in bad faith on that side of the aisle on the matter. I just hope they will listen to the pleas that we are making on this side. Maybe a good way to put it is, I think they know not what they do. They are not badly intentioned. I think they know not what they do. To put this in perspective, I would like to ask a question of the Senator from Michigan on this matter that may put this in some kind of perspective as far as this Senator sees it. Notwithstanding the protestations to the contrary, if the Levin amendment is not adopted, I feel that we have gone a long way down the road to disrupt some of the advances that have taken place over the last few years with regard to downplaying the role of dependence on nuclear devices. It is this Senator's feeling--and I am wondering to what degree this is shared by my friend and colleague from the State of Michigan. Senator Levin and I came here at the same time. We have sat side by side on the Armed Services Committee. We have generally agreed. And I would generally include him in that group of bipartisan Senators, Democrats and Republicans, that have worked hand in hand on critical defense matters. Without losing my right to the floor, I want to ask Senator Levin this question: If your amendment striking basically the references to the ABM Treaty fails, it is the opinion of this Senator that such action, if your amendment fails, will probably end any chance of finally completing in a successful fashion the implementation of the START I treaty. In all likelihood, further, it will scuttle any chances of cooperation to obtain ratification of the START II treaty and then further eliminations of the number of nuclear warheads that were planned to follow on beyond that. I think it drives a stake through the heart of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I think it certainly would do great harm to any chances that we have with regard to the nonproliferation treaties that we are interested in. And last and certainly not least, I would think this action very likely would go a long way to maintain a conventional forces understanding in Europe meaningful from the standpoint of seeking some form of stability in the world. All of these things, I think, have a very grave threat of extinction if we proceed in the fashion that the ABM Treaty language that the Senator from Michigan is trying to strike as it came out of the committee remains.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Dorgan's amendment to eliminate the Armed Services Committee add-on of $300 million for the national missile defense system. If I am not already listed, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor. The committee funded increase of $300 million is an initial downpayment on what the committee majority advertises as a multisite, multilayered missile defense system designed to protect against a large and sophisticated missile attack. The missile defense language in the authorization bill makes clear that the system desired is one that will violate the ABM Treaty and intercept a Soviet-type missile attack. The $300 million plus-up in the bill is the first installment of a bill that could grow to a staggering $48 billion cost according to a March 1995, CBO report. This $48 billion is in addition to the $35 billion we have already spent on missile defense. Let no one misunderstand the significance of this vote. This is the first of many expensive installments to resurrect the Star Wars concept. This vote is on a question of priorities. At a time when we are significantly slashing domestic spending and making tough, painful budgetary choices, it would be irresponsible to add $300 million into a system concept designed to defend against a threat that does not exist today and will not exist by the operational deployment date of 1999. I believe we should send a powerful signal to the American public by approving the Dorgan amendment and putting the Senate on record that the domestic welfare of our citizens will not be sacrificed on the gold plated alter of star wars. This vote is on a question of priorities. We can ill-afford to shrug our shoulders and say ``what is $300 million'' at a time when we are asking all Americans to tighten their belts. As I said earlier, a vote for this $300 million installment is only part of a lengthy payment plan that will eventually drain our treasury by another $40 to $50 billion. To buy into such a payment plan would be the height of fiscal folly. I urge my colleagues to support the Dorgan amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator. That does not happen to agree with the schedule of the Senator from Nebraska. But I will try again. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from North Dakota? The Senator from Nebraska has been attempting to make an opening statement with regard to the measure before us. I am wondering, after the Senator from North Dakota has made the presentation under the unanimous-consent agreement, if both sides would agree to the Senator from Nebraska having 10 minutes for an opening statement on the overall measure without being charged to the time under the control by the majority or the minority.

Mr. EXON. Yes, I got that statement made.

Mr. EXON. No, I was going to follow up on some of the remarks that had been made by the other Senators on this matter. The Senator from Georgia probably wishes to do the same.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, a license to use the public airwaves to broadcast or use the public rights-of-way to provide cable service is a tremendous privilege. To many, it is almost a license to print money. The recent purchases of television networks reveal the extraordinary value of this privilege. With a broadcast or cable license a company gains a key to every household its signal can reach and access to the most intimate and memorable moments of people's lives. Broadcast television and radio as well as cable programming are key elements of our Nation's culture. With this privilege should come responsibility. Some of that responsibility is statutory or regulatory, for example, the requirements that broadcasters and cable operators refrain from transmitting obscenity; that broadcasters restrict indecency to hours when children are unlikely to be awake; and that broadcasters serve the public interest. Some of that responsibility comes from the marketplace, broadcasters and cable companies which offend American families lose their audience. Grassroots efforts have both saved programs from cancellation and quickened the demise of others. Some of that responsibility comes from the ethics of broadcasters and cable companies as leading corporate citizens of this country. Some of these corporate entities have been more responsible than others. Long before Presidential candidates have tried to shame the media, the Senate Commerce Committee on which I serve has attempted to focus attention on the destructiveness of certain trends in the popular culture. Some of those who have not been responsible about what they put into American homes blame the marketplace. They claim that in spite of their desires to be more family friendly, the competitive environment forces them to test the limits of taste and decency in the quest for viewers and listeners. To be effective, the law, the market, and individual ethics must work together. There are some examples of success such as Senator Simon's legislation which encouraged and allowed joint efforts to reduce the amount of violent programming. But more remains to be done on all fronts. Few can deny that there is a crisis in America. Parents, churches, schools are having more and more difficulty conveying values to their children. The electronic emperors of the modern age are increasingly replacing parents and families as the primary source of values. This is a crisis which goes deeper than violence on television it is also about sex and family values in popular culture. Today, sex sells everything from soft drinks to blue jeans. Daytime commercial television talk shows have become [[Page S 11325]] a virtual freak show of abuse, addiction, and alternative lifestyles. And prime time television regularly tests the limits of taste and propriety. Year after year the situation seems to get worse. Parents try to teach the values of ``Mayberry'' and are overruled by the values of ``Beverly Hills 90210.'' The entire premise of commercial television is that a 30- or 60- second advertisement will affect a substantial portion of an audience to do things which they would not otherwise do--that is, to buy a particular product or service. It should be no mystery that 30- and 60- minute programs on television or radio have a profound effect on the views and values of audiences, especially young audiences. The three areas of entertainment industry responsibility--legal, market, and ethical--are ripe for careful review and discussion. The legislation I introduce today attempts to empower the industry to bolster its ethical commitments and to take responsible self-initiated steps to improve the contemporary entertainment industry. It picks up where Senator Simon's TV violence initiative left off. During the so-called golden age of television, broadcasters had a voluntary, but well followed, code of ``standards and practices'' known as the Television Code. Many of America's most memorable television series from the black and white era of the fifties and sixties proudly displayed the Television Code Seal at the conclusion of each show. It is ironic that those moments recognized as some of television's finest are devoid of the coarseness, vulgarity and unpleasantness of today's programming. Antitrust prosecutions in the late 1970's related to the advertising provisions of the television code led to its eventual total demise in the early 1980s. The legislation I introduce today would allow the television and cable industry to revise a voluntary code of standards and practices. Such private sector empowerment may be useful in reducing the crudity and coarseness in the modern entertainment industry. While the Congress reviews ways to strengthen the legal responsibility of television and cable industry through legislation to limit violent programming and to strengthen the market forces through the public disclosure of violence report cards, I ask my colleagues to give serious consideration to the legislation I introduce today. The Broadcast and Cable Voluntary Standards and Practices Act will at least empower the entertainment industry to strengthen its ethical commitment to the American family. I urge my colleagues to review and support this important legislation.