J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Further debate has been ordered, then, before we proceed to consider the matter for final approval, is that right?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, what is the matter currently before the Senate?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may we have order, please?

Mr. EXON. I make one further request for a rollcall vote on the Simpson amendment.

Mr. EXON. Immediately following. I have asked for a rollcall vote. I did not receive a sufficient second? Is that the ruling of the Chair?

Mr. EXON. May I make further inquiry of the Chair? If I understand what the situation is at the present time, there was a unanimous consent agreement earlier, after we had voted on the second-degree amendment, that the underlying amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming would then be approved on a voice vote? Was that the unanimous-consent agreement?

Mr. EXON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, since I have the floor, I lost the floor at the discretion of the Chair, and I do not wish to delay this matter a great deal, but I do think that the discussion that has taken place between the majority leader, the minority leader, and others----

Mr. EXON. Would the Chair kindly explain the rules to the Senator? I believe the rules say that when an amendment is offered, if the Chair chooses to recognize someone else, that is within the authority of the Chair. Is that not correct?

Mr. EXON. I certainly want to abide by the rules of the Senate, and after the amendment has been read I will seek recognition again and let the Chair make the ruling that the Chair thinks is proper at that particular time.

Mr. EXON. I believe I was recognized by the Chair in my own right, was I not?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I understand now we are on the affirmative action matter. Before we go into that, I will make a few brief remarks with regard to the exchange between the majority leader, the minority leader, and others, with regard to the bill that just failed with the third cloture vote. I encourage the majority leader to recognize the fact that there are many, if not all Members on this side of the aisle, that are just as much concerned about regulatory reform as those on the other side of the aisle. I was, frankly, rather amused to hear the majority leader say it takes 60 votes to get anything done around here. Does anyone remember last year? Does anyone remember last year, when we had to have 60 votes to do anything, with the possible exception of adjournment? Now, the facts of the matter are, as one Senator who has been on many sides of many issues on this floor, I simply say that I was with the majority leader on a very close vote not too long ago with regard to how we are going to balance the Federal budget, and a constitutional amendment to do that. Once again, the Senate is so closely divided on this issue, regulatory reform, because it is a very key issue. I say to the majority leader that at least as one Senator, and I know from the meetings that I attended there are others, as so ably stated by the Democratic leader, that we think we are very close. We get down to these situations, though, and the old bulls lock horns. The old bulls like to say unless you do it my way, you are against regulatory reform. I think there is general consensus for regulatory reform. I was very pleased that the Senate voted on the Glenn amendment, 52 to 48. I thought we were very close under that kind of a proposal. Now, whether or not the Glenn amendment is exactly the same as that which was indicated earlier as not being necessarily true or not, I think that most reasonable people would agree that the Glenn amendment is extremely close, if not identical, which I would agree, to what was, I think, unanimously passed out of the committee at one time. I simply say that we are not nearly as far apart from resolving this important issue of regulatory reform as I think the majority leader has indicated. I do not wish to impugn the motives of the majority leader at all. But I noticed on several occasions he indicated 100 percent Republican support for the measure, which implied, with the three or four other Democrats that he also complimented for their help, that all was lost because of minority Democrats just would not yield. Sometime or other, the minority has to stand up when they think things are not going correctly. Why can we not take the Glenn amendment, that was defeated on a very close rollcall, 52 to 48, and use that as a means to come together in a bipartisan fashion? But, oh, no, we cannot do that. We have to use, as the basis of consideration, the proposition that the majority leader has indicated it is not possible, under the circumstances, to come together. I say to the majority leader and my colleagues on that side, whom I frequently vote with, I think we are that close. I do not believe there is any sincere effort for most of us on this side of the aisle to be obstructionist, as the majority leader seemed to indicate in his remarks. I therefore suggest that it is time that we not give up. It is a time that we start working together on this matter of regulatory reform, which I think is very, very important. But I want to compliment the Democratic leader for saying this probably is the most far-reaching bill that we will even consider or pass in this session of the Congress. It is a very important matter and there are some major concerns on this side of the aisle, some of which are not necessarily shared by this individual Senator. But I happen to feel it is critically important for us to recognize and realize, when we pass major pieces of legislation, we must take the time to consider as best we can. And I happen to feel it should be clear to all that, when we get ourselves into a situation where we are passing this type of legislation, major legislation under anyone's definition of that, that 60 votes should be in order. I think the 60 votes are there. I really believe we can get things done in this particular matter if we just keep on trying. Therefore, I say to the majority leader, come forth once again, Mr. Majority Leader, come forth and talk to the minority leader. I feel very confident that we are that close to coming up with something I think would be generally satisfactory--not totally satisfactory, because this is a piece of legislation that is obviously so complicated and so difficult that we are probably never going to get unanimous consent. However, I say to the majority leader, come, let us reason together. I have talked at great length about this with the minority leader, and I think the minority leader is in a position to speak for enough of us on this side that we could get cloture.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. So, with those comments, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the second degree and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the United States is caught in a dilemma. For the past 3 years we have been working with our allies to bring the warring factions in what was formerly Yugoslavia to a peace settlement and end the pervasive brutality against innocent men, women, and children. As we have pursued this diplomatic track, the United States has refused to become involved militarily on the ground to halt the aggression against civilian populations or punish the root sources of the aggression, the Bosnian Serbs against the Bosnian Moslems. The fact is that there is no political will in America for a level of involvement that may result in Americans dying in Bosnia. It is, as many proponents of the legislation are fond of saying, a European problem. American national security interests are not at stake, it is said. Let the Europeans get their own house in order. On its face, Mr. President, that sounds reasonable enough. It is also, as it has most unfortunately turned out, a convenient exercise in face saving for us. It has not worked, obviously. Clearly, the efforts thus far have not stopped the fighting and the killing. There is no peace settlement. The U.N. peacekeepers have been ineffective shields against Serb forces who regard human flesh as fodder and ravenous eyes cast on innocent people, penned in like sheep waiting to be slaughtered. As a nation, we are outraged at the dark turn of events. The chorus cries louder and more demanding. Something must be done. The United States must lead. The United States recognizes the problem, but the efforts of the Europeans have failed. There has emerged a political scapegoat theory by some Republicans and some Democrats alike. It is called ``Clinton bashing.'' Blame the President and his leadership, even though I suggest that George Washington could not have led such a collection of wet noodles. Here lies our dilemma. Our moral outrage has led to an overwhelming desire to do something--anything--to halt Serb aggression. But there is an important restriction on any action that we take: no American can be put at risk. In what is the messiest, most intractable crisis the world has known in this decade, we want a neat, antiseptic solution. I think it is time for a little realism. I do not think it is going to happen, but we should try. The die is cast. Many of my closest colleagues in the Senate do not see this as I do. They may be correct. I think not. The bill before the Senate now is not a solution, and it does not fill the leadership vacuum with respect to Bosnia that so many lament. It says let us lift the embargo and let the chips fall where they may. At least we will feel better about ourselves knowing that we have removed an impediment against the Bosnian forces trying to defend themselves, and it keeps our hands clean. I have heard a lot about ``heavy lifting'' in the Senate over the years. [[Page S 10295]] While we have been talking about S. 21, it is often referred to as lifting. It should not be confused with the substance or the wisdom of S. 21. S. 21 is foreign policy light. It represents an approach that starts a course of events in motion without being honest enough to admit the resulting likely consequences. S. 21 is like a mischievous boy who lights the end of a firecracker and then runs a safe distance out of harm's way. Mr. President, I say those nations that have displayed the courage and put their soldiers in Bosnia should not be undercut. Our allies, the British, the French, the Dutch, and others are on the ground in Bosnia. We are by our own wishes not. They have lost dozens of their troops to snipers, to mortars, to mines, in an attempt to keep the forces of slaughter at bay. We have not. The question each of us should consider before we vote for S. 21 is whether it is right to force a decision on our own allies when we enjoy the luxury of not being involved, when our forces are not at risk. I am not a supporter of the embargo against Bosnia, and I do not believe that the U.N. peacekeepers are effectively protecting the supposedly civilian safe areas. However, let the Bosnians go to the United Nations and ask that the peacekeepers leave. To date, they have not. Or if the situation on the ground in Bosnia becomes untenable, let the nations with troops in Bosnia make the decision that it is best for them to leave. After all, they are risking their lives to protect innocent Bosnians. That should count for something when it comes to the question of who decides that the forces should be withdrawn. The decision should be made without having the Senate lighting a firecracker under the seat and then running away. Perhaps the most important part of S. 21 is what it does not say. It does not say what damage will result to NATO if the United States decides to break with our allies on the question of the embargo. It does not say that a United States decision to unilaterally lift the embargo will endanger compliance with existing embargoes against Serbia, Iraq, Libya, or with economic sanctions against rogue nations in the future. It does not say that passage of the bill will precipitate the removal of peacekeeping forces which in turn will involve American forces for the possible purpose of extraction. It does not face up to this consequence and authorize the President to use military forces to safely remove our allies from Bosnia. They are silent on that, evidently by design. It does not recognize the safe areas may be protected in western Bosnia despite Serb actions in the east and the withdrawal of peacekeepers there. It does not mention how many more civilians will die when the Serbs step up their attacks before the arms reach the Bosnian Moslem forces under the theory of lifting the embargo. It does not explain that an infusion of arms from Serbian and Slavic allies will flow freely to counter the arms embargo against Bosnia, likely resulting in heavier fighting and more killing. It does not talk about who will arm and train the Bosnians and how much it will cost. Do we bear a significant portion of that? How much? It is not surprising that S. 21 is silent on these questions. It not only has the United States light the firecracker underneath our allies and then run off, it has us look the other way conveniently as well. We do not want to know the consequences of our actions or deal with the details. We want a shot of cortisone to allay our guilt complex in the pretense of leadership. Cortisone is not a cure for cancer. The well-meaning S. 21, in my opinion, will make a bad situation worse. If the authors of the bill feel its passage is necessary due to the lack of coherent, effective policy in Bosnia, they have failed to step up with an approach that will end the fighting. S. 21, in my opinion, is very likely to inflame the fighting to new heights resulting in the deaths and the horrible situation for refugees and the atrocities that are so rampant in that area. Mr. President, it is a scapegoat approach. It is cleaner and neater and more antiseptic for the United States to unilaterally lift the arms embargo and thumb our noses at our allies. Such an action is counterproductive and obviously endangers an alliance that has furthered the cause of peace on the continent for 50 years. When it comes to the crisis in Bosnia, we are not participants in the solution. We are removed observers who cannot accept that the situation has turned sour. I am reminded of a quotation that, ``For every complex problem there is a solution that is both simple and wrong.'' S. 21 in its present form, in the opinion of this Senator, is such a solution. Mr. President, I thank the chair. And I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, what is the pending matter before the Senate?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself completely with the remarks made by my learned and distinguished colleague from Georgia. I will oppose the Dole-Lieberman proposition, as I understand it, basically for the reasons brought forth in the carefully worded and well-thought-out statement made by the Senator from Georgia. We have to look to the future. As bad as the situation is over there now--and I think no one feels that they have all of the right answers-- we have to look to the future. I am afraid, Mr. President, that despite the good intentions of the Dole-Lieberman amendment, it clearly sows the seeds, which are ripe for harvest, for the beginning of the end of NATO. The situation in Bosnia today is very bad, and the pictures that are coming through very loud and clear on television are horrifying, portraying the atrocities that are being taken in that most unfortunate war in Europe. However, I happen to feel that we should always try and walk in others' shoes. I simply say that if we take action today, or this week, we might regret it in the future, because it sows the seeds for the end of NATO, which has been a force for peace since World War II. And then we might look back on that action and say we probably acted in haste, we probably acted in compassion, but we probably acted in a way that would not be in the long-term best interest of peace in Europe and probably would go a long way to disrupting the NATO alliance and our friends and allies in Europe that have been a part of that. This is a grave situation. I wish that our allies would agree to remove the peacekeeping forces because, seemingly, that is what both sides of the combatants there want. I happen to feel that the U.N. mission is doomed to failure under the circumstances that are present. Nevertheless, unless and until our allies in NATO can be convinced of that, I say let us proceed with caution. I have grave concerns about the way we are going. I do not know the answers. I simply say that caution is a better part of valor at this particular juncture. I thank my friend from Georgia, and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from the State of Idaho. I probably was nearly as shocked and surprised as he was to hear a few moments ago on national television that the Deputy Director of the FBI has been ``reassigned.'' It seems to me that the Senator from Idaho has made a very good point. I do not claim to have any inside information with what happened at Idaho. It is entirely possible my colleague from that State knows much more about this than I do. If I understand it correctly, the Deputy Director of the FBI has been reassigned. I do not know what that means, but I hope that the Senate will move forthwith and speedily for a thorough investigation of this matter. I reserve the right to exercise my final judgment on this after I know more about it than I do at this particular moment. But I think the Senator from Idaho has put his finger on the matter. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is something that must be beyond reproach. Again, I do not know at this moment what the reason for this was, but as I understand it, the Director of the FBI has determined that, for the good of the service and because Mr. Potts is under some investigation that I believe started in the House of Representatives, that he thought it was best for him to be reassigned. I do not agree with that matter at all. If Mr. Potts has not done anything wrong, not done anything improper, not violated the law, not violated the Federal Bureau of Investigation rules, then the Director of the FBI and the administration should stand square behind him and fight out the matter. If, on the other hand, that is not the case and he did do something wrong in any area that I just mentioned, or any other area, he should be fired, because it appears to me that this is a tremendously serious matter. I certainly agree with my colleague from Idaho that I hope the proper committee of jurisdiction, which I assume would be the Judiciary Committee, should move aggressively on this matter in the Senate so we can, too, make sure that we have a full explanation of what is or is not going on. This is a serious matter that has had a very adverse effect on this Senator's view of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and what it does or does not do properly. I thank my friend from Idaho for bringing this up. I wish to associate myself with his remarks. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for no longer than 6 minutes.

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the letter that I referenced is a letter from attorney Bruce Taylor, of the National Law Center for Families and Children, dated July 10, 1995, and I ask unanimous consent that that letter, and an introductory memorandum, be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this letter is by a distinguished lawyer, who has, I guess, as much experience with the prosecution of pornographers as most lawyers in the United States would recognize as a real authority on the subject. The letter of July 10 is addressed to the Honorable Christopher Cox of the House of Representatives and the Honorable Ron Wyden of the House of Representatives. The subject is the Cox-Wyden bill on Internet connectors as consistent with the Exon-Coats Senate decency amendment. And I quote: Dear Representatives Cox and Wyden: Please excuse the length of this letter, but much misinformation needs to be corrected and this is an issue of utmost importance to America's children and families. You have been lied to. I'd like to give you my views on the pornographer's propaganda and offer an explanation of the true meaning of the Exon- Coats amendment dealing with computer assisted obscenity and the problem of indecency being made available to minors. A review of your proposed legislation to protect the computer information service providers shows that you are trying to accomplish the same objectives as the Senate version of the communications decency amendment (``CDA''). Whatever you may have been led to believe about the ``Exon- Coats amendment'' is obviously incorrect. The Senate bill accomplishes the same benefits and protections your proposed bill seeks to provide. However, I feel your bill, in giving immunity and a defense without a corresponding offense, will have the opposite effect to that which you seek. Mr. President, although the letter has been printed in the Record, I would like at this time to quote from the last two or three paragraphs: The communications decency amendment is a good, fair, and constitutional proposal. You and your colleagues have been lied to about what it would do and what it provides. I trust that you seek a proper blend of law and private action and I trust in your instincts to see through the smoke. Without a law, the computer nets will continue to be abused by the purveyors of hard-core obscenity and it will continue to be a place in which responsible adults should fear to let their children play. A law that does not prohibit unlawful materials is no law at all to the pornography syndicates, their associates, and the addicted customers. An overly strict law would not be tolerated by the courts, for fear of an unconstitutional prior restraint. There is no reasonable doubt that only a carefully worded and first amendment sensitive statute will survive the legal challenges of the ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and some commercial pornographic companies will mount. The CDA can withstand the tests to be applied, no other proposal can make that claim. This is a serious problem and needs a serious and lawful solution. The CDA would be a valid extension of Federal obscenity law to the computer networks and a valid extension of dial-a-porn protections for children from indecent adult material. Our hope is that you sponsor and support the CDA as passed by the Senate. Your leadership would probably insure its passage. The country, all us parents and grandparents, all of our children, our neighbors, even the addicted customers need your help and that of your fellow Members of the House of Representatives. Please reconsider and look at the communications decency amendment in a new light. It is a good bill. Look for yourself. It won't lie to you like porn advocates have. Please let me know if we can be of help in this regard. Sincerely yours, Bruce A. Taylor, President and Chief Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families Mr. President, since the Exon-Coats measure passed with a 84 to 16 majority, the Senate of the United States sent a very loud and clear signal that something has to be done about obscenity. Something has to be done with regard to material that is being used promiscuously on the Internet today. This is a wonderful new system for the distribution of information. But if we are to sit idly by and listen to some of the opponents, who do not want to do anything about this problem, the American people are being convinced and are now being told by national publications, including Time magazine, who last week had an indepth story with a front-page cover showing a child. This is a carefully crafted piece of legislation. It is obviously necessary, as has become evident to most people who have taken the time to either see this smut--and I use that word very advisedly because it does not begin to describe the bestiality and the sexual perverts that have invaded this system, primarily to make money. The courts have continually held that we have the right to do something in the courts when we have this kind of material in full swing. We had a hearing in the Commerce Committee today, primarily on violence on television. The people are justifiably upset about that. We also talked today about the large amount of sex and suggested sex that is being thrown at our children today. The Exon-Coats proposal with regard to our Internet system is an important step in the right direction. And as more and more people look at it, and as more and more people recognize all of the lies that are being told about this piece of legislation--simply untruths designed and planted in many publications by those who want the pornographers to run at will and be available at will to our children on the Internet. Mr. President, I think this is a step in the right direction. I have personally hand delivered a copy of this letter that I had printed in the Record to the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno. I have had a personal conversation with the Vice President of the United States about this today. He was very much interested in this letter. I faxed the letter to him. In addition thereto, I have had delivered today to the White House itself, to the attention of the President, this well-thought-out letter that adequately and honestly describes the well-thought-out Exon-Coats amendment. I only hope that the Members of the House of Representatives will awaken. I think too many of them have been misled and lied to about the communications decency amendment. I hope it becomes law. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am going to be asking unanimous consent for publication of a letter in the Record at the appropriate point, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that the heading of this letter, when it appears in the Record, be entitled ``Lies That Pornographers Tell.''

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we will continue as best we can. I would like just a moment to recognize the Senator from Florida, who has been waiting patiently. Following Senator Graham, depending on the flow of what speakers are available--I would like to at this particular time yield to the Senator from Florida 10 minutes; followed by the Senator from Minnesota, 12 minutes; followed by Senator Boxer, the Senator from California, for 10 minutes, in that order.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes in combination between three Senators who wish to discuss this very important matter, the Senators from Connecticut, Washington, and Wisconsin. I will allow them to divide the 15 minutes among themselves as they see fit.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to compliment my colleagues, Senator Dodd from Connecticut, Senator Feingold from Wisconsin, and Senator Murray from Washington, for an excellent presentation. I hope that Senators heard their presentation so that they will cast their votes the way I would like to see them cast their votes sometime this afternoon. I thank my friend.