J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will be very, very brief. I just want to compliment my friend and colleague from my neighboring State of Iowa for his excellent remarks. [[Page S 9348]]

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I echo what has been said. I echo my thanks to Bill Hoagland and the great staff on the Republican side on this matter. They worked very hard. We are also indebted to Bill Dauster, who is over here, and the members of his staff. Both staffs did a tremendous job. I think the chairman of the committee would agree.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we had one cancellation. Therefore, I have some extra time that I do not have obligated. I am very pleased to accommodate my friend by yielding him 5 minutes from our time.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I listened with great care to my good friend. We use that term around here, and people listening [[Page S 9407]] might say: How can they be good friends when they carry on as they did? But we are good friends. We just happen to differ very strongly on this matter. My good friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, whom I have worked with for 17 years, complained about some of rhetoric and some of the phraseology that was used by those on this side of the aisle, attacking it. I listened very carefully to my good friend who used time that I yielded to him----

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I see no one on the floor so I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time being equally charged. Which is another way of saying to anyone who wishes to speak, the longer the quorum call is in effect, the less time you will have to talk.

Mr. EXON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend. I appreciate his very generous remarks. We have been on different sides on many issues. In 1993, when we passed the first great deficit reduction bill in history offered by the President, while I thought that my friend and colleague from New Mexico probably agreed with many of the thrusts of the President's initiative, he still was not able to support it. I have reviewed some of the statements that he made in opposition to the President's measure which received not one single Republican vote in either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. With that thought in mind, I have gone through the remarks that I am about to make and hope that Senator Domenici and others might not, in a year or two, be able to point back and say Exon said this and it did not turn out that way. I will simply say that we do get carried away with rhetoric from time to time. I am going to try to be straightforward about this and explain my position, and the general Democratic position with regard to what we think is an unfair, very troubled, very bumpy road, especially with regard to our senior citizens, our veterans, rural America, and others not so fortunately situated financially. Mr. President, today we bring down the curtain on the first act of this budget drama that has been unfolding since February. And I hope I can bring a little Nebraska common sense to the sound and fury that has swirled around this budget. Contrary to what we may read in the papers or see on television, the budget we are debating should not be about Presidential politics. It is not about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. This budget is about 100 million American households. It is about the 250 million Americans who are looking to us to make the right decisions about this budget. That is not the province of any person or party. I am glad the President has become engaged in this landmark debate on how to balance the budget. The American people want to see cooperation between the two parties. They crave rational and civil discourse and meaningful dialog. They hope that we will take the best ideas-- regardless of party--and forge a tough new alloy from these different metals. Unfortanately, my Republican colleagues have a different view. They believe that their budget is so pure, so sacred, so perfect that it cannot be touched by those of us on this side of the aisle. I am reminded of a story that Will Rogers told. It seems that a woman confessed to her priest that she was guilty of the sin of pride. She said, ``When I look in the mirror, I think I'm beautiful.'' The priest said, ``That's not a sin. That's a mistake!'' And so it is with this Republican budget. The Republicans may think so, but their budget has not improved with time. It has not turned into a dazzling butterfly. It is a mistake on a colossal scale. At the opening of the conference on the budget, I predicted that the Senate budget would deteriorate. I wish that I had been wrong, but with each violent lurch forward, this budget gets meaner and uglier. The all-Republican conference merely twisted the knife. And that is the story of Republican priorities throughout this budget: From bad to worse--from worse to worst. Were the Medicare cuts softened to ease the pain on the elderly? No, they are worse--$14 billion worse, bringing the total Medicare cuts to $270 billion. That is the largest cut in Medicare history coming from the self-proclaimed saviors of Medicare. Hit men is more like it. What about Medicaid? Was there any attempt to help the elderly, disabled and the children who rely on this health safety net? Not a chance in this Republican budget. Medicaid was slashed by an additional $7 billion, bringing the cuts to a staggering $182 billion over 7 years. What about rural America, already reeling from the $11.9 billion in cuts in the Senate budget? This new budget heaps on further abuse with an additional $1.4 billion in agriculture cuts bringing the total damage to $13.3 billion. And what about the tax cut? What about the so-called economic dividend we heard so much about on the Senate floor in May? It was the once and future tax cut. It was the tax cut that was not a tax cut, in the parlance of my friends across the aisle. Thank goodness, we can finally end that charade. We can dispense with the play-acting. There is a tax cut in this conference agreement. It is a whopping $245 billion tax cut--$75 billion more than the Senate economic bonus and it is on page 32 of the conference report. That is where the Senate Republicans accommodate the Contract With America. ``Caved in'' would be a more accurate description. We know how the Republicans will pay for the $245 billion tax cut. They pay for it by strip mining Medicare and Medicaid. They pay for it by gouging education, job training, and the earned income tax credit. They pay for it by flailing rural America. Of course, we do not have any firm details on the tax cut itself. That will be up to the tax-writing committees, as Senator Domenici indicated. But I think we can venture a good guess at what will be in this witches' brew. The conference agreement is the vessel for the Contract With America and it's filled to the brim with tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy. The Wall Street Journal reported that the $245 billion Republican tax cut could include such goodies for America's wealthiest as a $64 billion capital gains tax revision and a $500-per-child tax credit for families making up to $200,000 per year--key provisions of the Contract With America. The sense-of-the-Congress resolution, sponsored by Senator Boxer, that stated that 90 percent of the tax benefits should go to working families making under $100,000 was changed beyond recognition. It was gutted in conference to drop the $100,000 cut-off. It was totally rewritten to conform with the Contract With America. House conservatives are threatening to derail the reconciliation bill unless it meets their far-right litmus test. Representative Phil Burton, leader of the so-called Conservative Action Team, told the Journal, and I quote, ``It is imperative that it''--the child tax credit--``be kept at $200,000.'' House Ways and Means Chairman Archer said, and I quote, ``I'm not going to go back and do another tax bill.'' And why should he when the Senate Republicans are waving the white flag to the Speaker of Newt Gingrich's, army. Mr. President, families making $200,000 a year do not need any largesse from the Federal Government. It is astonishing that at a time when we are asking for a helping hand for our elderly, our students, and middle-income Americans, we are giving a handout to the wealthy. It is obscene that my Republican colleagues are contemplating tax cuts for families making six figures. Is this mainstream America, Mr. President? I emphasize that. I think the Republicans are not so much concerned about mainstream America as they would have you believe. My Republican friends talk much about it. I can simply sum up by saying it certainly is not mainstream Nebraska. Mr. President, the most confusing part of the tax cut package is that it costs $245 billion, but it is supposedly financed with an economic bonus of only $170 billion. Anyone can tell you that is $75 billion short. Republican leaders have gone to great pains to explain this sleight of hand by focusing on the net effects of the cut and the bonus in the year 2002. In that year, the economic bonus will be $50 billion, the CBO says. The Republican package will thus be restricted to $50 billion as well for that year. In preceding years, however, the cost of the tax package will exceed--will exceed, Mr. President--the savings from the economic bonus by a significant margin. I underline that. In the preceding years, the costs of the tax package will exceed the savings from the economic bonus by a significant margin. Despite the differences in the cost, the Republicans claim that the $245 billion tax cut can be included in the budget without compromising the goal of zero deficits in the last year. In order for all of this to pan out, spending cuts in programs like Medicare and Medicaid once again will have to be used to finance the additional costs. This is coming from the party that claims it is ``saving'' Medicare. For Medicare, any more of these kinds of ``savings'' will assure that there will not be anything left for the program. My Republican colleagues are not only short $75 billion to pay for their tax cut, they are also short on explanations. They are not explaining to the American people that the extra $75 billion in tax cuts would result in higher debt service and, in turn, higher deficits--up to $100 billion--for the years leading up to the magic balanced budget year of 2002, and that, in turn, would cause higher debt service costs for those intervening years. Mr. President, that is clear. I mentioned earlier that this budget is about American people, and so it is. I want to take a few minutes to get beneath the shiny surface of this budget that is all glitter and glut for the wealthiest. Nowhere do we see this more than in Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans now siphon off $275 billion from Medicare to help pay for their tax cut. That means the average Medicare beneficiary will pay $3,345 more over the next 7 years in out-of- pocket costs--$860 more alone in the year 2002. The $182 billion in Medicare cuts is especially harsh on the elderly, the disabled and children. Average Federal and State spending would be reduced by nearly 30 percent by the year 2002, and of the children covered by Medicare, more than half live in working families. Mr. President, under the Republican budget, the States would be forced to roll back the number of people served. I estimate that 8 million people, including children, could fall through the safety net by the year 2002. As many as 2.9 million seniors and disabled, including children, could lose access to long-term care. From day one of this budget, I have expressed my deepest concern about the betrayal of rural America. Rural America has been sold out. Rural America became a popular fall guy for this Republican budget. What is particularly galling to this Senator is that agriculture is being asked to take such a whack once again. It is totally out of all proportion to other cuts in the budget. Where is fairness in this budget? Farm program cuts in the Republican budget represent 20 to 25 percent in spending reductions over the next 5 years. Agriculture Secretary Glickman warns, and I quote, ``Cuts in spending of this magnitude could be especially burdensome on those farming areas that specialize in the production of target price commodities and could reduce producer payments, incomes, and their ability to borrow.'' The Republican budget does not stop with these programs. It wraps its fingers around and squeezes the life from numerous programs vital to Americans. The earned-income tax credit was high on their hit list. The EITC, as it is commonly called, is a refundable tax credit for working families. It helps families get off and stay off welfare by boosting the value of low-wage jobs. While the conference report folds EITC changes into the overall savings for welfare reform, the description suggests that the far more draconian Senate-passed cuts are assured. If enacted, these provisions would result in tax increases--that is right, Mr. President, tax increases--for more than 14 million families. Families with two or more children would be the hardest hit, losing $305 in 1996 alone. More than 72,000 Nebraska families will lose $110 million in benefits under this proposal over the next 7 years. They would experience an average tax increase of $230 in 1996 alone. Families with two children would lose $290 in 1996. Mr. President, do not tell me that there are no tax increases in the Republican budget because they are there and they are real. The Republicans are just as shortsighted about job training. The conference cut job training by 20 percent. That means that by the year 2002, 1.3 million fewer disadvantaged youths will be able to participate in the summer jobs programs. That also means that nearly 1.3 million fewer dislocated workers could be assisted in their efforts to return to productive employment. Mr. President, let us look, too, at education. The Republican budget makes scandalous cuts in one of the greatest investments our Nation can make. Let us start at the beginning with Head Start. Under the Republican budget, preschool children from disadvantaged backgrounds could be denied this critical service that prepares them to succeed in school. Even if Head Start was funded at the current level of the current law, over 350,000 children would be denied services over the next 7 years because the population of eligible children will continue to grow. The same is true with title I, education for the disadvantaged. Under the conference agreement, up to 2 million children from disadvantaged backgrounds could be denied funding to help them improve basic math and reading skills. And that is even if title I programs were funded at the current levels. We have also heard a lot about the hit on student loans. The conference agreement assumes elimination of the in-school interest subsidy for 500,000 graduates and professional students. This would cost an average graduate student between $3,000 and $6,600 more in interest payments over the life of his or her loan. However, do not for one second believe that this is the full extent of the cut. Eliminating this subsidy for graduate students does not account for the full $10 billion cut required by the conference agreement. All students, including undergraduates, could be required to pay hundreds of dollars more for loans in the form of higher upfront fees or loss of the grace period that currently prevents interest from accruing on loans until 6 months after graduation. Under the conference agreement, the 3.7 million college students receiving Pell grants--30,000 of them in Nebraska alone--could lose the value of these grants and see them cut dramatically. Even if Pell grants were funded at current levels, their value would decrease by nearly 40 percent by the year 2002 simply because of inflation. And student population will continue to grow over this time. Nearly half of all of the Pell grant recipients have annual incomes of less than $10,000 a year. Fairness, Mr. President? I think not. I also want to touch briefly on impacted aid. Under this Republican budget, Nebraska school districts, with large amounts of Federal land within their boundaries, could see their operating budget shrink to unacceptable levels. The level of funding for veterans programs and the cuts therein are an abomination. For example, the cut in VA medical funding will result in the cancellation of approximately 74 projects. These are projects which are needed for the VA to meet current community health care delivery standards. Our veterans deserve better than this Republican budget. Mr. President, I could go through this budget function by function and line by line and program by program and prove how it hurts ordinary Americans and hurts them badly. That is what is often lost in these budget debates--the human factor. We speak in baselines. We speak in acronyms. We do not speak in terms that put a face to the budget. And I have been able to partially do that today in these remarks. In conclusion, let me say that the face that is reflected in the Republican budget is not one of mainstream America. It is not the face of our elderly. It is not the face of our children. It is not the face of our middle class or our veterans or our working poor. It is not the face of rural America. And as one from rural America, I can assure you beyond any question that it is not the face of rural America. The face reflected in this Republican budget is one for the privileged few, the wealthiest among us who do not have to worry about Medicare or job training or college tuition loans or crop prices or the state of care at the local Veterans Administration hospital. They are not being asked to make the sacrifice. The others are the ones that are being asked to make this sacrifice, all for the good of the wealthiest citizens of America. They are the ones, the wealthiest, who will benefit most from this package with a $250 billion unfair tax cut. From the beginning of this budget process I have stated that the only way to balance the budget is through shared sacrifice. The only way to balance the budget is through bipartisanship. But for the past 6 months my Republican colleagues have worn blinders. They have seen only their core constituency. They have seen only their own party, which has veered dramatically to the right. If the Republicans insist on maintaining their narrow version, they do so at their own peril and the peril for mainstream America. The stage has been set for a confrontation between the Republican Congress and the Democratic White House. I have called it a train wreck. That is an apt description. However, if the Republicans open their eyes, they will see there is an alternative, one that will get us to the same destination and without the chaos of a Government held hostage to politics. That alternative is called bipartisanship. I tell my Republican friends, meet us halfway, and we will create a budget that is not only a balanced one, but represents the whole citizenry of this great Nation. Mr. President, I understand that there has been an informal agreement that we could go next to Senator Kennedy. And, if acceptable, I would yield to him whatever time he might need. And then following that, it would be two Republican Senators in a row, after the two Democrats, myself and Senator Kennedy. In furtherance of that agreement, and if there is no objection, I yield 15 minutes or such additional time as he might need to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to start out by congratulating my good friend, Senator Domenici from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for the remarks he has just made. I say to Senator Domenici, the remarks I will make in the next few moments are certainly not intended directly at him. I have the highest regard for him, his ability, and, generally speaking, I would subscribe wholeheartedly to the road he just outlined to get from here to there with regard to a balanced budget. I worked with Senator Domenici on the Budget Committee since I came here 17 years ago. He is a principled individual. He worked very hard to put this budget together. Unfortunately, we were not able to see eye to eye. I would simply say to my friend from New Mexico that the main disagreement here, as he understands fully, is not the goal that I think we both want, a balanced budget, but--and there has been considerable discussion and debate--which will continue--the roads or the paths we follow to get from here to there. I think in summation, before I begin my remarks, I just wanted to say that he is the Republican leader and I am the Democratic leader. When we have this kind of democracy in action we are entitled to the majority view, we are entitled to the minority view. I simply say, I congratulate him for what he has done. I hope we could work together in the future. But certainly, as he knows full well, the events of the last few months have not made it possible for us to join forces as I hoped, earlier, we might be able to. That is not his fault and it is not mine. That is the system under which we operate.

Mr. EXON. I advise the Chair that the answer to that is yes.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time I might need off time on our side.

Mr. EXON. We do not yield ours back at this time.

Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to reserve that time for later in the debate without further charging to this side of the aisle. How much time is left on the other side?

Mr. EXON. How much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. EXON. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which the Senate was expected to consider as an amendment to the National Highway System. Last minute negotiations between the chairman of the Commerce Committee and myself produced an understanding that this legislation would be considered by the full committee at the next scheduled markup. This legislation is a very simple and very narrow measure. It preserves congressional involvement in critical truck safety issues currently before a trinational committee authorized under the North American Free-Trade Agreement. This legislation simply states that if the executive branch moves to set a standard for single trailer lengths pursuant to the NAFTA negotiations and that standards exceeds 53 feet, the executive branch must come to the Congress for such authority. This legislation only applies to Federal regulations on truck trailer length issue pursuant to the North American Free-Trade Agreement. Last year, I chaired a hearing on this issue of truck lengths and safety. Needless to say there are serious concerns about the safety of longer and heavier trucks. Pursuant to the NAFTA agreement, the Governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States of America are negotiating the harmonization of traffic safety laws. The Senate has been very concerned about these negotiations and following the approval of NAFTA, approved a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that these negotiations should bring Canadian and Mexican traffic safety up to United States levels, rather than lower United States standards. I am pleased to report that the Clinton administration expressed their desire to involve Congress in the adoption of any new safety rules arising out of these negotiations. this legislation simply locks in that commitment. Since the Federal Government maintains no single trailer length standards, there is a risk that a future administration cold use the NAFTA negotiations to increase lengths beyond the generally accepted 53-foot standard. This legislation assures that the Congress will remain involved in critical truck safety issues. Again, Mr. President, this bill only applies if the administration sets a single trailer length standards pursuant to NAFTA negotiations exceeding 53 feet. In such a case, congressional action would be necessary to implement the longer Federal standard. The amendment does not restrict State action. The amendment does not affect Federal legislative action. The amendment does not affect Federal regulatory action not related to the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the Reigle-Exon NAFTA/ truck safety resolution, approved by the Senate following the approval of NAFTA, and in no way disrupts the long combination vehicles freeze Senator Lautenberg and I authored as part of the 1990 highway bill. I ask my colleagues to consider and support this narrow legislation which will preserve congressional discretion over truck safety and the NAFTA.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from my neighboring State of Iowa, whose usual good judgment has never been questioned by this individual. I thank him very much for addressing this matter. I, too, read the article that he referenced in Time magazine. I got in on just the end of his remarks. May I inquire of my friend from Iowa, did he have printed in the Record that portion of the Time magazine article from this morning's Time magazine?

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. If it was not referenced, I would reference the graphic picture on the front of Time magazine today, which I think puts into focus very distinctly and directly what my friend from Iowa and this Senator has been talking about for a long, long time. I would also reference for the Record and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, interestingly enough, simultaneously a similar story along the same lines that appeared in this morning's weekly edition of Newsweek magazine.

Mr. EXON. The story Newsweek tells is not dissimilar. Alarming facts have been brought out into the open even further with the publication in these two national magazines. The Newsweek article is entitled ``Sex Online: What Parents Should Know.'' I very much appreciate having the time to take a look at the legislation the Senator from Iowa has introduced. I do not know how it is significantly different from the measure that was introduced by Senator Coats and myself, known as the Decency Act, and approved on the Senate floor by a vote of 86 to 14, if I remember it correctly. I simply say, this is an ongoing battle. If we have not done anything else, I hope all will recognize today at least Americans know that there is a real, real problem, primarily with regard to our children, our innocent children--at least as we like to think of them. It seems to me all of the profit-making motives are now sizing the Internet to make money on, and I applaud the efforts of the Senator from Iowa and the legislation that he just indicated he intended to introduce with regard to crime taking over a more important part of the Internet. That happens wherever there is an exciting new development. Once again, I emphasize this Senator has followed with keen interest the development of the Internet. It so happens this Senator probably is one of the few Members of this body who was on the original Internet. The original Internet, the only thing like it, was the amateur radio network that I became involved as a very young lad, 16 or 17 years old, growing up in Lake Andes, SD, and I communicated, dit-dit da-dit, with people all over the United States. Of course you had to have a license to be an amateur radio operator; you had to pass certain tests. I guess no one ever thought about that first Internet being used for the purposes that this Internet is being used. Nevertheless, as the senior member of the Armed Services Committee I was very much involved in the Internet development. Some people wonder where did the Internet come from? It came from and was borne by taxpayers' dollars, out of the national defense budget. It spread far beyond that at this time, and I certainly say and emphasize once again, I am a strong supporter of the Internet, the information superhighway. But for a long, long time, beginning seriously a little over a year ago, I began to develop legislation that would hopefully make the information superhighway a safer highway for kids and families to travel. The legislation that was passed by the Senate on a 86 to 14 vote within the last week or so was a follow-on to a proposal that I addressed and attached to the telecommunications bill out of the Commerce Committee last year. The concept of all of these has been to make a constructive suggestion, recognizing constitutional rights. Like that portion referred to by the Senator from Iowa, the measure crafted by myself and Senator Coats and our staffs, with the help of an awful lot of people, does provide protection, constitutional guarantees oftentimes supported by the courts in a whole series of areas including the laws that we have always had regarding obscenity on the telephone lines and also laws similarly against transportation of pornographic and obscene materials through the U.S. mail. Further, our law incorporates the protections under the first amendment that have been argued out and thoroughly discussed and held by the courts under the Dial-a-Porn statutes, which is another form of pornography. It is safe to say, the issue has been engaged. I think that is for the good. Once again, I cannot speak for my cosponsor, Senator Coats, or any cosponsor of the measure that passed the Senate, but this Senator simply says I am willing to listen to any improvements or changes that should be made in this bill. But I certainly am not going to stand by and see it watered down to the place where it is totally meaningless. Therefore, I say I think we have accomplished a great deal by clearly, for the first time, illuminating and bringing this to the attention of parents of the United States of America. And parents still are required, I suggest, to play a key role in how we develop this and how it is administered. But the parents, I think, cannot do it alone. Therefore, I hope we can continue to work together in a constructive fashion and not listen to the voices that simply say, ``I want what I want when I want it on the Internet and I don't care what ill effect that might have on kids.'' We have to continue to work together. I hope there is a way to solve this problem for the good of all. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend. I will be glad to expand on it a little bit further and maybe satisfy the concerns of all in this particular area. We have so many last-minute objections by so many people that I do not know who they are. It has been very difficult to kill these rats when they keep coming out of the hay bin. I repeat again, we have had in the Commerce Committee and in the committee of jurisdiction on this particular piece of legislation various studies and indepth hearings all aimed at safety, safety on the highways of America. There is a discussion ongoing right now as to whether or not we should increase by law the length and the width of trucks traveling on our highways. Generally speaking, this is a matter that has been split. The Commerce Committee has been generally recognized to have jurisdiction over truck lengths. The committee that is headed by the two distinguished managers of this bill have always had jurisdiction over the width. I cannot go into an explanation of why one committee has length and the other committee has width. That is too complicated a matter for me to understand, and I cannot explain it because I do not know the reason for it myself. But we are not changing any of that, and we are not changing any lengths of trucks in this amendment. All that we are saying in this amendment--very clearly defined--is that the administration, under the authority granted the administration in the NAFTA agreement, cannot automatically extend the lengths of trucks over and beyond what is the law of the land at the present time. There is some indication that in order to facilitate the movement and to make it easier for some of the Mexican trucks to enter the United States, the administration might have the authority, under the terms of NAFTA, to supersede the laws presently in place in the United States with regard to lengths of trucks. All this narrowly defined amendment does is it writes into law and snatches away that part of the law that some might interpret as authority for the administration unilaterally, without any consultation with the Congress, let alone laws, unilaterally to authorize longer trucks on our highways under NAFTA that would otherwise be prohibited. That is a simple, straightforward explanation. With that, I do not know what the objection would be. If there is an objection, I would be glad to attempt to address it. [[Page S 8854]]

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Exon truck-length amendment is a very simple and straightforward provision. It only applies to Federal regulations on length issued pursuant to the North American Free-Trade Agreement. Last year, I chaired a hearing on this issue. Pursuant to the NAFTA agreement, the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States of America are negotiating the harmonization of traffic safety laws. The Senate has been very concerned about these negotiations and following the approval of NAFTA approved a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that these negotiations should bring Canadian and Mexican traffic safety up to United States levels, not to lower United States standards. I am pleased to report that the Clinton administration expressed their desire to involve Congress in the adoption of any new safety rules arising out of these negotiations. Since the Federal Government maintains no single trailer length standard, there is a risk that a future administration could use the NAFTA negotiations to increase lengths beyond the generally accepted 53-foot standard. If the administration sets a single trailer length standard pursuant to NAFTA negotiations, that exceeds 53 feet, congressional action would be necessary to implement the longer Federal standard. The amendment does not restrict State action. The amendment does not affect Federal legislative action. The amendment does not affect Federal regulatory action not related to the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the Reigle-Exon NAFTA- truck safety resolution approved by the Senate following the approval of NAFTA and in no way disrupts the long combination vehicle freeze Senator Lautenburg and I authored as part of ISTEA. I ask my colleagues to adopt this narrow amendment which will preserve congressional discretion over truck safety and the NAFTA. This does not affect truck lengths at all, as far as normal processes are concerned. What this amendment would do is to prevent the administration, through any real or imagined parts of the NAFTA agreement, to increase truck lengths unilaterally without any consideration at all by the Congress. I think this is a safety matter, but it is very narrowly drawn and has been cleared by, as far as I know, all participants who have an interest in this matter.

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the two managers. I have been trying to work with them to move this expeditiously ahead. I think we have made some great progress overnight. At least two of the amendments that were in question have now been resolved. The first amendment that I have just offered is the Federal highway- railroad grade-crossing safety amendment. This legislation builds on the important work already done by the U.S. Senate. The provisions in this amendment should be familiar and are familiar to the Senate, and it is noncontroversial. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer the Federal highway and railroad grade crossing safety amendment. This legislation builds on important work already done by the U.S. Senate. The provisions in this amendment should be familiar to the Senate and noncontroversial. Most deaths and injuries which occur in the rail industry are as a result of trespassers and motorist violation of railroad grade crossing laws. About 600 people a year die as a result of railroad crossing accidents and about 600 people a year die as a result of trespassing on railroad property. An automobile and a train collide once about every 90 minutes in the United States. In 1992 approximately 2,500 people were either killed or seriously injured as a result of railroad grade crossing accidents. This is one area of death and injury which is almost entirely preventable. The amendment I offer is meant to complement landmark rail safety legislation approved last year as part of the so-called Swift Rail Act, named in honor of former House Chairman Al Swift. As the former chairman of the Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I chaired a number of hearings on railroad and grade crossing safety. Those hearings indicated that although significant progress has been made in reducing the number of rail related deaths, there is still room for improvement, especially when it comes to grade crossing safety. Unfortunately, in the past, jurisdictional disputes with the House of Representatives got in the way of a number of important Senate grade crossing safety initiatives. Now that the House of Representatives has reorganized, I am hopeful that good ideas will not be slain by the sword of jurisdiction. States and local governments must be encouraged to enforce their laws against grade crossing violations and must be encouraged to finally close crossings. The split jurisdiction between the Federal Highway Administration, The Federal Rail Administration, States, local governments, and railroads has led to a gridlock of responsibility. This amendment helps shatter that gridlock. It is time to make the places where rails meet roads safer for rail workers, drivers, and pedestrians. This amendment should be very familiar to the Senate. Its provisions are [[Page S 8853]] taken from legislation unanimously approved by the Senate last year. Provisions taken from the railroad safety bill unanimously approved by the Senate in 1994 consist of provisions dropped from the final Swift Rail Act because they were outside the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. These provisions require that grade crossing safety be made part of at least two intelligent vehicle highway systems projects; ensure that States include grade crossing closure and safety enhancement plans in their highway safety management plans; stiffen penalties for truck violations of grade crossing safety laws and encourage cooperation between State and Federal authorities on grade crossing safety. Finally, the amendment gives the Secretary power--but only as a last resort--to impose a statewide freeze on grade crossings where a State has failed to make substantial, continued progress toward crossing reduction and improvement. Mr. President, with the amendment, the Senate can vote to save lives. Again, this amendment should be noncontroversial and simply represents unfinished business from last year. I say to the managers of the bill that we have agreed to strike the two provisions that your committee had objection to, and we are going simply with the proposition that was originally cleared by the Commerce Committee.

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

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