J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair, and I thank the managers of the bill. While the dialog was just briefly going on between the two managers, I have received information we have clearance for the second Exon amendment now on both sides of the aisle. I will take those in order.

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this Senator has been serving the Senate now for 17 years representing my people of the great State of Nebraska and in speaking for them I have tried to support the wishes of the Presidents of the United States from all different parties whomever they wish to place in their key positions. I have not always done so, because I think everyone should be looked at on an individual basis. Like the Senator from Louisiana who just spoke, this Senator voted against the last nomination by President Clinton for the position that is now being debated with regard to Dr. Foster. I never as long as I have been here have taken part in a filibuster to try to thwart the will of the majority of this body and the elected President of the United States, whether that President be a Democrat or a Republican, to go the filibuster route and thwart the will of the majority of this body. Mr. President, it seems to this Senator that the debate on the Foster nomination has simply deteriorated into a series of pronouncements by his opponents as to how they have come to principled reasons for voting against him. I may be wrong. But it is the opinion of this Senator that Dr. Foster is being crucified on the altar of Presidential politics, pure, and simple. That is not what all of the opponents of Dr. Foster are thinking in my mind. But it is to a considerable extent of some who are providing leadership. I think crucifying someone to enhance someone else's Presidential ambitions is a sorry sight, indeed, to see happening on the floor of the supposedly deliberative body that makes up the U.S. Senate. I guess the feelings about abortion of this Senator are somewhat legendary in this body. I suspect that Dr. Foster and I do not see eye to eye on the matter of abortion. But despite the many pronouncements to the contrary, I believe any reasoned, seasoned interest of the U.S. Senate would recognize and realize that in all too many cases votes will be cast one way or other on this nomination driven by one's feelings or pressure groups on abortion. Having said that, I probably do not agree directly with Dr. Foster on abortion, but I still say that all of the abortions that he has been involved in, as near as I can tell, are fully legal. He has broken no law of the United States of America. He has broken no laws of the professional organizations to wish he is a very prestigious member. I sat down with Dr. Foster in a one-on-one meeting not long ago. I came away from that meeting convinced that here is a family physician that I would like to have being the family physician of my family. How then could I not vote to support his nomination even though we might not agree on all issues? He is a very decent human being. He is an understanding human being. He has the bedside manners, if you will, of what most of us would think of as a family physician. He is very much concerned about the falling morality in this country. No one has spoken out more effectively, in my view, than Dr. Foster with regard to out-of-wedlock births and what we are going to do about it. Certainly there has been some confusion with regard to some originating statements that came out of the White House early in the nomination process. But there are few among us who have never made some mistakes, made some errors. I do not think any of those mistakes or errors on the part of Dr. Foster were intentional or plotted or designed to mislead. I think he made some mistakes. Who of us has not made some mistakes? It seems to me, Mr. President, that we in the Senate have an obligation to have a majority vote, if you will, on nominees for important high office sent to us for confirmation by the President of the United States. So I will vote for cloture. I think it is somewhat discouraging that by and large Dr. Foster is being crucified on the altar of Presidential politics; that we are even having a filibuster and a cloture vote. But I do not object to the right of my colleagues, mostly on the other side of the aisle, who choose this route. That is within their right. I think it is not playing fair with Dr. Foster or a qualified nominee sent us for confirmation by the President. So I hope that the Senate will have the courage to rise above the obvious attempt to crucify Dr. Foster for the sake of partisan Presidential politics. It is wrong. It should not be a part of this process. And I hope the Senate will rise to the occasion and enough Members on that side of the aisle will recognize that despite some reservations they might have, and in some cases legitimately so, the right way to proceed on this is to stop the filibuster, invoke cloture, and then let the Senate adopt by majority vote its will. For the Senate to adopt a majority vote under its will will require some help from the Republican side of the aisle. We do not have enough votes on this side. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Is it fair to assume that, in the opinion of the Senator from South Dakota, Time Warner and all these good folks would not have made this arrangement at this very late hour had it not been for the actions that we in the Commerce Committee took to address some things that were going on with regard to the way Time Warner and others treated rural areas? Is it safe to assume, in the opinion of the Senator from South Dakota, that this grand compromise at the last minute would not have been reached had we not taken the action that we did in the Commerce Committee on the telecommunications bill?

Mr. EXON. I have the floor. It seems to me it would be much better to leave the measure as it is in hand and let them continue their negotiations. I point out again that I think anyone who understands the process knows we would not have had the Dole amendment had we not had action taken by the Senator from South Dakota, myself and others that forced their hand. It seems to me that we have forced their hand to try and give the small cable operators a decent chance. Now they are coming to us saying, ``We will give them the decent chance, maybe, if you don't pass the law.'' I think that is [[Page S8443]] putting the cart before the horse, but I have nothing further to say on the matter at this time. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I simply say that I will not take any more time on this. There will be others who may want to speak on it. I happen to think this whole proposition is a pretty sorry mess. It seems to me that if we approve the Dole amendment, which Time Warner and others would like to have, we would simply be saying, regardless of your improper activities, regardless of the letters that you wrote within the last few days, which I thought was unfair to the Senator from South Dakota and others, and certainly unfair to the processes and workings, legitimate processes and workings, of the U.S. Senate, then I think it would be entirely proper to vote for the Dole amendment. On the other hand, if you feel as I do that this is kind of a blot on the U.S. Senate, and that if we vote for the Dole amendment we are just going to be saying to Time Warner and others to come in with your strong-arm lobbying, come in with your accusations in the form of letters about Senator Pressler and others, but we are all going to have one happy ending here now, because we have gotten together in a grand compromise and, therefore, this is a good for everyone. The fact that Time Warner, in my opinion, has taken hostages through the small cable operators that you in South Dakota and myself in Nebraska, and my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, have tried to protect, it seems to me that we in the Senate, if we adopt this amendment, are winking and saying: You should not have done that, but you are going to get what you want in the end anyway. I urge rejection of the Dole amendment.

Mr. EXON. What I am trying to get at, though, Mr. President, it obviously is the Senator's feeling----

Mr. EXON. I would like to ask a reply to my question from the Senator from South Dakota. Did I understand the Senator from South Dakota to correctly say that if we pass the Dole amendment, it is the understanding of the Senator from South Dakota that we would fix or repair the essential problem that the Senator from South Dakota has recognized is an important player in including some protection for small cable operators in the measure that has passed out of his committee? Is the Senator saying he thinks that is repaired or fixed with the Dole amendment?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I have just one second to thank my friend from West Virginia for his usually thoughtful remarks? I appreciate them very, very much. As one who has presided over and has put the U.S. Senate on course, I think his words are well taken.

Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield to the Senator.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the remarks my friend and colleague from South Dakota just made. He has had printed in the Record an outrageous letter, an outrageous letter from Time Warner on June 13, addressed to Senator Pressler, chairman of the Commerce Committee. Any lobbyist who would write a letter like this, especially when it is not true, should make a public apology. And his powerful employer, Time Warner, should do likewise. I am referring to the letter of June 13 that the Senator from South Dakota has just entered into the Record. He has also entered in the Record a letter of June 15, which is supposedly an apology from Timothy Boggs for the letter he earlier wrote. However, in the letter of June 15, while admitting that his previous letter was in error, and in a way apologizing for it, I do not see anything in the letter that indicates to me that Time Warner may not have had or thought they had a quid pro quo with some other Members of the U.S. Senate. What we are talking about here is money, and that is one of the problems with this whole telecommunications bill, in which I have had an integral part to play. I want to say Senator Pressler is an honorable man. He is a good and hard-working Member of the Senate and has a very decent staff. He is a friend and a colleague I respect, and I congratulate the Senator on his letter to Time Warner and their response. I object to the action taken by Time Warner and Viacom--two of the big giants today--for putting the U.S. Senate in a difficult if not compromising position. Probably nothing else better demonstrates the power of the lobbyists around this place, who overreach and overreach and overreach, and get not only themselves but the reputation of this body in some degree of disrepute. There are good and substantive arguments for and against the cable volume discount provision in the committee-passed bill. Time Warner and Viacom have told the Senate they will give discounts to the small cable operators, as we had provided for in the bill, if and only if, Mr. President--they have not gotten themselves off the hook as far as this Senator is concerned--they will agree to these discounts that they never would have thought of had we not incorporated this in the bill, and they simply say that if and only if the Senate removes the volume discount language for the small cable operators will they carry out their commitment. They still have a quid pro quo and it is wrong. That is why this Senator last night objected to any unanimous consent requests that by voice vote we change the committee's position. I will insist on a rollcall vote. There may well be good reasons for the Senate to change that provision that came out of the Commerce Committee. Time Warner has obviously put all kinds of pressure on the small cable operators around the United States, which they can do. So now we have a situation, as I understand it, where the small cable operators, whom we wanted to protect to some degree with regard to insisting on some discounts, now have been pressured by Time Warner to appeal to us to eliminate the proviso of the bill. I do not want to see the Senate agree to something like that, because I think whether we do it knowingly or unwittingly, we place ourselves in a position of being influenced when maybe that is not the case. There comes a time when the U.S. Senate, despite money, despite power, despite pressure from competing interest groups, has to stand up and do what we think is right. Just because of the action of the Commerce Committee to provide some measure of relief for the smaller cable operators, who by and large are at the complete indirect control by the biggies like Time Warner, the little guys are now appealing that the big guys have said they will go along with what we want to do if we will knock it out of the piece of legislation. This has gone way too far. Time Warner and Viacom have taken the small cable operators hostage, just like hostages are being taken in Bosnia today. They have taken these little guys hostage and they say, ``If you will knock this out of the bill, then somehow we will get along.'' I think this is the time to teach Time Warner and every other lobbyist--and there are a lot of good lobbyists around this place--that they overstep their bounds. They clearly overstepped their bounds when they wrote the referenced letter I had just cited and which was placed in the Record by my friend and colleague, an honorable man, the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler. I hope we will recognize that Time Warner is attempting to take hostages. I think we should say to Time Warner, grab them right by the throat if we have to, and say: Mister, you may be very big and you may have control like no one else has ever had of our entertainment industry, but you cannot control the U.S. Senate. Therefore, I will insist upon a vote and I will be against any kind of a voice vote because I think this is the time to teach some of these larger companies that enough is enough. These large companies are saying to the Senate, ``If you do not remove this provision, we will not give fair prices to the small cable operators.'' They are trying to take the U.S. Senate hostage, also. If we, the U.S. Senate, do what Time Warner and Viacom want us to do, this type of contingency is dangerously close to a quid pro quo. It is not right and is probably illegal. The U.S. Senate should not negotiate with hostage takers. Mr. President, because of this tactic, I insist on a rollcall vote on trying to knock out the volume discount provisions. The Senate can work its will but I will stick by the committee's provisions.

Mr. EXON. I would like to ask the managers of the bill, both my friend from South Carolina and my friend from South Dakota, about exactly what we are doing here. As I understood the Senator from South Dakota, the chairman of the committee, he said that if we accept the Dole amendment, it will fix or cure the problem that we have with regard to availability for small cable operators to get certain types of program from the likes of those good folks, Time Warner and Viacom. Is that right?

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. EXON. I am sorry.

Mr. EXON. Just let me add, I could not disagree more with my friend and colleague from South Dakota. I happen to feel that we have a gun to our heads and probably a gun to the heads of the small cable operators, where all those good folks I mentioned before, Viacom and those other public-minded nonprofit operations, have a gun to the heads of the small cable operators and, as part of that, they are taking the United States hostage. It seems to me----

Mr. EXON. Will the Chair advise the Senator from Nebraska what is the pending matter before the Senate?

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. This is the amendment I had discussed earlier in the day. As I understand it, the Senator from South Dakota is recommending and has introduced this amendment for the majority leader, notwithstanding the discussions that we had earlier in the day on this specific matter?

Mr. EXON. I simply say I want to understand what is being proposed. Do I understand the Senator from South Dakota is offering the amendment for the majority leader?

Mr. EXON. Now you are calling it up for a vote, is that correct?

Mr. EXON. No, it is fine to have the vote. I am not going to object to that. There is no way I can object to a vote. I would simply say to my friend from South Dakota, is he, as the leader of the bill, recommending that the Senate vote for the Dole amendment?

Mr. EXON. I would simply say, I think the Senator from South Dakota knows this Senator came to the defense of my friend and colleague from South Dakota earlier because of what I thought was terrible precedent setting with regard to the letters that had been distributed, apologies given on this whole matter. Notwithstanding the serious objection that the Senator from South Dakota, I thought, had with regard to the lobbying activities that took part on this, notwithstanding that, am I to understand the Senator from South Dakota is still going to support the measure?

Mr. EXON. Is the Senator saying that while he objects to the way this matter has been handled, the end result, in his opinion, is that it is good for rural areas with regard to receiving television material?

Mr. EXON. Just so that I understand this, I would like to have my colleague from South Dakota explain a little bit more. As I understand it, Time Warner and all these other good folks that control massive sections of our entertainment industry were not treating the small cable owners in South Dakota and elsewhere fairly, in the opinion of the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee. Therefore, we wrote into the telecommunications bill that was reported out of committee language that would have required Time Warner and all these other good folks, who were very much concerned about the public interest and public access, and not interested in making money-- we wrote that in there to try to force them to treat the subscribers to cable in South Dakota and elsewhere fairly. Is that accurate? Is that an accurate reflection of what I thought we did in committee?

Mr. EXON. Could I rephrase my question? I took it from the statements that the Senator from South Dakota just made that he is recommending we accept the Dole amendment because he believes, with the private negotiations that are going on, the Dole amendment would satisfy or solve the situation as of now, and that is why he has supported the Dole amendment. Is that a fair interpretation of what the Senator from South Dakota is saying?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will be very, very brief. I want to take 2 or 3 minutes if I could to congratulate the chairman of the committee, Senator Pressler, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, who have struggled long and through many difficult situations--and that I have been with them on--on many occasions. This is a bill that is criticized, that as a bill is easy to vote against because voting against the bill, if there is ever any problem, you can always say, ``Well, I voted against the legislation.'' I happen to feel that this bill is very important, and I rise in support of the legislation that has been deliberated on, been written and rewritten so many, many times. I would have to say that at least everyone has had their chance at an input on this piece of legislation, through what we worked on last year, reported out but never got passed, and then taken up by Senator Pressler when he became chairman of the committee; worked very hard and very closely with Senator Hollings. Certainly the bill before us, the telecommunications reform bill, is a good bill, although not a perfect one. A bill as complicated and as detailed as this one could be, I simply point out that it has many good features. It includes strong education provisions, including the Snowe- Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey educational library, and rural health care discount provision. It includes important market protections, including the farm team provisions of last year, all of which were incorporated here in the bill this year. It includes the Grassley-Exon infrastructure sharing provision. It includes the Communications Decency Act that we debated and passed yesterday. It includes a revolutionary, and I think very positive, TV ratings system. It includes a strongly needed and fair universal service language. And it abandons the one-fits-all regulation that has been a problem for a long time. The cable provisions in this bill are still a disappointment to this Senator but were improved somewhat from the committee bill. Final passage will take America's telecommunications industry off hold. Mr. President, it is time to move on and pass this legislation. I thank the Chair. I yield floor.