J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I appreciate very much Senator Byrd and Senator Heflin, two very distinguished lawyers, the latter, Senator Heflin, being the former chief justice of the supreme court of Alabama. I think both of them would not be a cosponsor of this Exon-Coats amendment unless they felt it had adequate constitutional safeguards. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters in support of the Exon-Coats amendment be printed in the Record. The first is from the Christian Coalition headed: ``Senators Exon and Coats Have Joined the Efforts. Support the Exon-Coats Antipornography Amendment.'' And we have the support of that organization. Next, a letter from the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families that has essentially the same message in different words. Next, Mr. President, a reference that Senator Coats made earlier in his excellent presentation. I pause for just a moment to thank him for all of his help and cooperation and for the excellent, forthright, factual statement he made in explaining what we are attempting to do and how seriously we consider this to be. That is why we are acting. Senator Coats mentioned the chamber of commerce supports this legislation. I have a letter from the chamber of commerce that I likewise will include in the unanimous-consent request. Next is the Family Research Council, along the same general line. Next is a news release from the National Law Center for Children and Families, of Fairfax, VA, that follows the same general category. Last but not least, a news release from Women of America Say ``Enough Is Enough.'' I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. I have been listening with keen interest to my friends and colleagues, the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Wisconsin. I hope that they will listen very carefully to some of the things this Senator has to say, because everything that they have brought up are things that I considered very long and very hard when I started working on this difficult situation a year ago. Nothing they said is new. I just think they are, without malice aforethought, putting some spin on the Exon-Coats amendment that simply is not there. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd and Senator Heflin both be added as original cosponsors to the Exon-Coats amendment.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment related to the foreign ownership provisions of the telecommunications bill. S. 652, the pending bill, adds new procedures to permit foreign ownership of common carrier licenses if the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] determines that the home country of the proposed foreign owner offers reciprocal and equivalent market opportunities to Americans. The Exon-Dorgan-Byrd amendment clarifies that nothing in the new section limits or affects the application of the Exon-Florio law (50 App. 2170) which gives the President the power to investigate and if necessary prohibit or suspend a merger, takeover or acquisition of an American company by a foreign entity when the national security may be affected by such transaction. Where the proposed FCC procedure would permit the foreign acquisition of a U.S. telecommunications company and its common carrier licenses, it is important to make clear that the new FCC procedure does not pre- empt existing law affecting foreign mergers, acquisitions and takeovers. Most importantly, our proposed amendment would give the President 15 days to review actions of the FCC. Under this provision, the license could be granted only if the President does not object within 15 days. As Commander in Chief, and the conductor of foreign policy, there may be information available to a President which would not or should not be available to the FCC in making its findings under the proposed procedure in S. 652. The Exon-Dorgan-Byrd amendment assures that the President gets the final say if a common carrier license is granted to a foreign entity. This amendment should be non-controversial and in no way undermines the foreign investment and ownership reforms of S. 652. It preserves important national security, foreign policy and law enforcement powers of the President. I urge my colleagues to support this short but critically important amendment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support and cosponsor Senator Byrd's amendment to the Exon-Dorgan-Byrd foreign investment amendment. This friendly amendment would require the President to report to the Congress in a classified and unclassified form. This report mirrors the reporting provisions of the 1993 Exon-Byrd amendment to the Exon-Florio law. I am pleased to lend my full support to my friend and colleague from West Virginia.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce a bill intended to eliminate the payment of Federal benefits to illegal aliens. I spoke on this issue in detail yesterday and I rise to formally introduce the bill today. I believe that as we begin to debate the welfare reform bill, we have a golden opportunity to stop, once and for all, paying benefits to illegal aliens. I also believe that we can forge a new compact between the States and the Federal Government. If the States can stand with us and help to identify and verify alien status, we will provide them the necessary funds. We can also allow States to deny benefits to illegal aliens. I intend to pursue this matter to the end, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I stand by the committee-reported bill's compromise on the role of the U.S. Department of Justice. As one of the architects of the Justice Department's advisory role compromise, I believe that this compromise delicately balances provisions that hold together very well under even the most dedicated scrutiny. The survival of the Federal Communications Commission public interest standard is a testament to that fact. As a lesson in the art of compromise, the role of the Department of Justice is an example of how Congress should work together. Chairman Pressler [[Page S8151]] presented a draft on behalf of his Republican colleagues which embraced a day certain for Bell entry into long distance, no role for the Department of Justice in the long distance decisionmaking, and no savings clause to preserve antitrust authority. Our ranking member, Senator Hollings, presented a draft on behalf of the Democrats which held equally firm to the position of no date certain, a separate decisionmaking role for the Department of Justice, and a full preservation of antitrust authority over the telecommunications issue. What I am explaining is that a lot of thought and compromise and discussions and ``-cussions'' have taken place with regard to this very important matter. I happen to feel that the Commerce Committee, on which I have served for 17 years, since I have been here, has done itself proud on this particular issue. We have, I think, by compromise, by understanding, by persuasion convinced all that the Department of Justice, indeed, has a role to play. What we are talking about and debating today--and I think the debate is very worthwhile--is how much authority, how far can the Justice Department go in this area. I happen to believe that while this, like most other bills and most other amendments that we adopt from time to time, is not perfect, we are not certain how it is going to work out. But we are certain in that this issue has been debated very, very thoroughly, and I believe that we have something that makes a great deal of sense. I hope we will hold to the committee position. Following months of consultation, negotiations and bipartisan compromise, the committee recommended to the full Senate a bill which preserves an advisory role for the Department and certainly, without any question, preserves what I think was a necessary addition, making sure that the antitrust authority is maintained in the Department of Justice where I think it rightfully belongs. The compromise did not include a day certain for Bell entry into long distance, but it did include a certain procedure for entry that I think is important. It is a compromise, and I think it will work. It is a compromise which is balanced. It is a compromise which presented a win- win proposition as best we could for both sides. I certainly think that Chairman Pressler and ranking Democratic member Hollings should be complimented for reaching out to each other and the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle to come up with something that I think is something that could be best described as providing a lot of wisdom. I have been somewhat proud in the role of breaking the logjam between Democrats and Republicans on this particular critical issue, and certainly I appreciate the fact that there are others in this debate, including my friend and colleague from Nebraska, who have made some excellent points with regard to the debate that has taken place on this vital issue. At the heart of this debate is the appropriate role for independent regulatory agencies, of which the Federal Communications Commission is an important one. It is often said that these agencies are a half-step among the legislative, judicial and executive branches of Government. We should keep it that way, I suggest. It has not been my experience that the Justice Department has always been the hallmark of cooperation or understanding of the needs of the public at large. The Senate Commerce Committee has a unique relationship with all of the entities involved in these decisions. I have found over the years that Congress has a much easier time working to implement policy with the independent regulatory agencies than it often does with the executive branch and, specifically, in many instances, with the judicial branch. The central purpose of this telecommunications reform bill is for the Congress, the representatives of the people, to regain control of telecommunications policy. It is ironic that the Justice Department and Judge Greene removed telecommunications policy from the congressional domain, and now here is a move to shift that control back to the world of the unelected, which I think the suggested amendment would do. Make no mistake, the Department of Justice will have a key role in telecommunications policy. Its expertise will not be wasted, and there is a great amount of expertise within the Justice Department on this and other things with regard to communications. Nothing in this legislation repeals the antitrust statutes, and I debated and cited instances of that on Friday last. This legislation specifically requires that the Department consult with the Federal Communications Commission. The bottom line is there should be one rule book and one referee. The preservation of the public interest test assures that the Federal Communications Commission will give the Department's advice the most serious of consideration, as I think, by and large, history will prove they have done in the past. At this time of reinventing Government, there is added merit to avoiding duplication from shopping around, looking to different agencies of Government to get relief. To my colleagues who have expressed shock at the recent attacks on the Federal Communications Commission and the irresponsible suggestion that the Federal Communications Commission should be abolished, I suggest now is an appropriate time to stand up and show confidence in the independent judgment of that important agency. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will follow the well-thought- out and, I think, well-compromised and well-done effort on the measure that we have been debating now for some time. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. I yield.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to address the issue of payment of benefits to illegal aliens and how it relates to the welfare reform bill that [[Page S8130]] the Senate will be considering very shortly. As other Senators may know--and I hope that they all know--I have long had an interest in curtailing Federal benefits to illegal aliens as a matter of both sound immigration policy and sound fiscal policy. I have introduced that measure as either a stand-alone bill or an amendment in every Congress since 1989, long before measures like California's proposition 187 arrived on the scene. In 1993, when we debated the comprehensive crime bill, the Senate overwhelmingly accepted my amendment to restrict the benefits, but unfortunately those provisions were dropped in conference with the House of Represenatives. That happens all too often. I need not remind the Senate of the growing concern for what the public considers a runaway immigration policy and porous borders. It is true that many Federal programs specifically exclude illegal aliens and their criteria for eligibility. But we now have the sorry condition of the money flowing out just the same due to expansive and misguided agency regulation and court interpretations. We also now have large border States filing lawsuits against the Federal Government as a result of failures in our Federal immigration policy, with other States threatening to follow suit. It should be noted that the long-awaited report from the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, headed by respected former Representative Barbara Jordan, has generally recommended that illegal aliens not--not--receive publicly funded services or assistance. I agree wholeheartedly with that recommendation. I am hopeful that we will soon make significant progress in immigration reform and welfare reform. I am concerned, however, that meaningful measures to restrict Federal welfare benefits to only citizens and legal aliens will be lost in the shuffle. I submit, that when we turn to welfare reform, we have a golden opportunity to create a new and more coherent policy and stop, once and for all, paying benefits to illegal aliens. The Senate appears ready to give States more funding flexibility and responsibility to oversee our welfare programs. I think it is only fair that, in exchange for that high degree of flexibility, the Federal Government asks the States to stand with us in verifying immigrant status and identifying illegal aliens for speedy deportation. With the assistance of the States in the verification process, fewer illegal aliens will receive benefits and both Federal and State budgets will reflect those savings. It is a simple fact that a deported alien will not continue to collect welfare benefits for months and even years. To this point, the Federal Government and the States have essentially been working at cross-purposes in enforcing the immigration law. The States have decried the inability of the Federal Government to police its borders. But when Congress considers dropping benefits to illegal aliens, the States complain that they will be saddled with the full cost of providing these services. But aside from just a few exceptions, the point remains, and the point is this: Neither the Federal Government nor the States should be paying for those benefits to those here illegally. Illegal alien means just that, illegal. That is why I believe the State agencies must help us identify illegal aliens so that they may be deported before they sap either the State or Federal budgets. It is time for a whole new way of thinking about this subject. We must initiate a joint new State-Federal resolve--a new compact, if you will--to put an end to these abuses. Call it a fully funded mandate, and a cost saver as well. I think it is only reasonable to require States to verify the status of applicants, provided we help them give the resources that they need to do the job. It is my opinion that this change in the compact between the States and the Federal Government would yield benefits for both. And this principle should apply to whatever welfare reform compromise eventually passes. Believe me, Mr. President, I feel that we also need to do more spadework on immigration reform itself. I feel strongly that deportation proceedings should be expedited. I also feel that there needs to be greater enforcement in those many cases where holders of temporary visas intentionally overstay their visas. And I feel that there needs to be stricter enforcement of the sponsor affidavits, aimed at ensuring that immigrants will not be a burden on the taxpayers. Efforts to provide better border patrol and to attack asylum abuse are also needed. The President has made tough, new proposals in this regard, and I also applied the results of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Operation Hold the Line at El Paso. The passage of a welfare reform bill this year is the perfect opportunity to take a step back to look at what has gone wrong in the past and to stop the robbery of the American taxpayers by illegal aliens. America has a rich history of diversity. Most of our forebears came from abroad, but I do not know how anyone can justify payment of Federal benefits to illegal aliens. So I put my colleagues on notice. I intend to pursue this matter to the end beginning anew on this year's welfare reform bill. We need teeth to back up our laws, not watered-down compromises. The time for action is now. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, today, and very probably tomorrow, almost definitely we will be back into debating a very important part, if not a critical part, of the rewrite of the telecommunications laws of our country. They obviously need rewriting because we have not done anything about it since 1934, and we all know what has happened to communications and the distribution of information since that time. In the mind of this Senator from Nebraska, who has been involved in telecommunications and distributions of information for 17 years on the Commerce Committee, and before that in other pursuits, a very important part of that legislation, as reported out of the Commerce Committee, dealt directly with something that is sweeping this country, and that is pornography, directed at children primarily, on the information superhighway, generally called the Internet. Too many people are sweeping this aside and saying everything is constitutionally guaranteed, and there is nothing we can do without violating the Constitution. That is nonsense, Mr. President. I am up this morning just briefly to address this matter and alert every Member of the U.S. Senate, all 100 Senators, to this growing peril in America that needs the direct attention and action, in a constitutional manner, by the U.S. Senate. A measure cosponsored by Senator Gorton and myself was unanimously adopted in the committee and incorporated in the telecommunications bill before the body. At the time of that action, I said this was not a perfect piece of legislation. I felt it had to be very carefully drafted in great detail to make certain that we did not pass a piece of legislation that would almost immediately be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. I had amendments to that measure that I was principal sponsor of, along with the Senator from Washington State, in the committee that will further clarify, further define, and further alleviate any legitimate concern for anyone about trampling on the Constitution. I would simply recite once again the statement of presentation made at some point on this floor on Friday last. It is printed in the Congressional Record of Friday, June 9, 1995, starting on page S8089 and running through page S8092. I would like my colleagues that are not on the floor at this particular moment, or their staffs, to take date on what is going on on this very important matter, and have an independent judgment made by every U.S. Senator as to what is right and what is wrong in this area. I was especially taken, Mr. President, by the prayer of the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate that was offered this morning as we began our deliberations. The Chaplain prayed for guidance and prayed for action on this matter that he and others see as a very, very, serious threat, especially to our youngsters. Therefore, I say, Mr. President, I hope that there will be some study given to this. I hope that my colleagues and their staffs will listen to this Senator and others, who try and make our case for doing something constructive about this menace that is engulfing the Internet; statements to the contrary by those who do not agree, notwithstanding. I simply say, Mr. President, that this is something that needs our definite attention. It is something that needs some study. I would hope that my colleagues and their staffs would do some study and make certain individual judgments on this matter, because I am sure that whether they agree completely with this Senator or not, they cannot help but be concerned about this very real threat that is out there today that I happen to feel is the greatest polluter of the minds of our children and grandchildren, that must have some rules and regulations. In short, Mr. President, what this Senator from Nebraska is attempting to do is to merely copy the legislation that we have had on the books for a long, long time with regard to the spread of pornography and obscenity, especially addressing the many court decisions that have said that the community standard rules, and basically rules in law have been recognized for a long time, that we have the right, and I think the responsibility, to make sure that our children do not have instant access to material on the Internet. That we prohibit them by law and constitutionally to see or read or view on our magazine stands, even in our motion pictures, certainly in our sex shops around the country. The law that we have in place now that I am attempting to get into the legislation with regard to the Internet basically says that we should have the same laws in place with regard to pornography and obscenity that we have had for a long, long time, that everyone seems to generally agree with. We have laws at the present time to prevent pornography and obscenity in our telephone system. We have laws on our books to prohibit the mailing, through the U.S. mails, of pornography and obscenity. I do not mean that those laws have eliminated any and all type of material, of the type that I am suggesting, of getting through. I simply say, Mr. President, that without those laws, there would be much more of it, and particularly our children would be placed in harm's way from all of this sex sickness that is rampant on the Internet today. I will have more to say about this in some more detail as the debate moves forward. Once again, I would like to reference pages in last Friday's Congressional Record that I hope might be of interest to my colleagues and members of their staff. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I also ask that a copy of an Omaha World-Herald article, which appeared in the Seattle Times, entitled, ``Police Cruise the Information Highway'' appear in the Record, also following my remarks.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have delayed bringing up this matter until an appropriate time when I would not necessarily inconvenience all of my colleagues with the very important amendments that I have had a part in developing as a member of the committee of jurisdiction, the Commerce Committee. I will be back on the floor on this matter, though, next week before the vote or votes are held on the matter on which I wish to address the Senate today. There has been a great amount of behind-the-scenes activity. There has been a great amount of activity on the Internet system, and I am here today to outline the measure that I will offer as a substitute to the measure that was reported unanimously out of the Commerce Committee, called the Exon decency bill with regard to the Internet. I cannot think of a more appropriate means of bringing this to the attention of the Senate and the American people than in our debate and eventual enactment of the telecommunications legislation, which is the most far-reaching legislation dating back to 1934. Obviously, everyone knows of the dramatic developments in telecommunications since 1934. It is about time we do something. But as we are doing this, and with the many important factors that we have considered and deliberated on for a long, long time, including last year when the Commerce Committee had extensive hearings on the whole matter and scope of telecommunications, what we should do and should not do, what we should try to do, and what we can do-- unfortunately, the Senate adjourned before that bill was reported out of the Commerce Committee last year and was considered and enacted into law. When Senator Pressler took over as the very distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee this year, Senator Pressler, rightfully, in company with the Democratic leader on the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, moved very aggressively on, once again, bringing forth a piece of legislation not distinctly different from the legislation that we reported after extensive hearings and deliberations and brought to the floor last year. So here we are, Mr. President, making some very significant changes. One of the things this Senator feels we should properly address, and will address and, hopefully, act on in a fair and reasonable fashion, with full understanding, absent of outlandish claims and charges, is the matter of trying to clean up the Internet--or the information superhighway, as it is frequently called--to make that superhighway a safe place for our children and our families to travel on. Mr. President, at this time, I send an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record and held at the desk. I will formally call it up for consideration sometime next week.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, earlier this week, I circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which explained the revisions in the communications decency provision. In title IV of the telecommunications reform bill, as my colleagues know, title IV includes legislation that I have worked on for about a year to make the Internet and other aspects of the information superhighway safer for our families and for our children to travel. It seems an appropriate time to explain these revisions and file my amendment so that it may be printed in the Record, as I have just asked for and received consent for--primarily, for the convenience and review of my colleagues before we debate this matter further next week and eventually come to a vote. Mr. President, some basic rules of the road need to be established. As the information superhighway rolls up to the front door of every household and school and library in America, this bill will bring exciting, revolutionary, and new information technologies within the reach of every American. There has not been anything that I think is more exciting that has ever been developed than the information superhighway and what it is going to do to make more information and more education readily accessible to any who seek it. I have said on many occasions that I happen to believe the whole computer Internet system is the most important, the most revolutionary development since the printing press. Eventually, I predict, it will do as much good for circulation of information as the printing press. I support the development of this so very, very strongly. I simply cite that there are some dangerous places, Mr. President, on the information superhighway. I think that while we are creating this as an important part of our new telecommunications bill, we who are charged with the responsibilities to pass laws that are reasonable and proper should emphasize a little in our thinking what is proper and what is not proper. [[Page S8088]] It is my intention to point out to the U.S. Senate some of what I think is highly improper, what I think is eroding the society and will continue to erode the society of America, unless we have the courage to stand up and do something about it, despite the minority of naysayers in the United States of America who do not want to change anything. Mr. President, the Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey amendment that assures that schools and libraries will gain affordable access to the digital world, including the Library of Congress, the great universities, and the museums, will remain in place. The Communications Decency Act is proposed in the context of this information revolution that is exploding in our society. Just as we modernize the rules which apply to the telecommunications industry, we need to modernize the rules which apply to the use of their products and their services that are going to be distributed in a form that we never even imagined previously. Unfortunately, the current laws, which clearly protect young and old users from harassment and obscenity and indecency, are woefully out of date with this new challenge and this new opportunity. The current law is drafted in the technology, primarily, of the telephone, dating back to 1934. Our efforts today, and in the coming weeks, bring closer the day of technological convergence. Soon the concept of a telephone will be as relevant as today's concept of the telegraph. The principles that I have proposed in the Communications Decency Act are simple and constitutional. Telecommunications devices should not be used to distribute obscenity, indecency to minors, or used to harass the innocent. The revisions offered to the committee-reported bill are in response to concerns raised by the Justice Department, the profamily and antipornography groups, and the first amendment scholars. If anyone would take the time to look through them and study them, I think most, but not all, would conclude that they are reasonable and proper. I have also had a great deal of cooperation from the online service providers. The online service providers, of course, are those entrepreneurs who have assisted us in providing services to the many outlets that are anxious to have their services in America. These service providers are key members of this new industry. Certainly, what we are trying to do here is to only craft and put into law some of the provisions that have been in existence for a long, long time, way back to 1934, to make sure that the same restrictions that were necessary and have been placed into law, and have been held constitutional time and time again by the courts, have a role to play in the new Internet system and how that Internet system reacts, as best explained on this chart, which I will get to in a few moments. So I have had good cooperation from many, many people who are truly experts in this area, including members of the telephone industry who have worked and operated without problems under very similar, if not identical, restraints in the law that everyone thought had been good. The proposed revisions that I have submitted to the desk that passed unanimously out of the Commerce Committee, follow closely the confines of several Supreme Court cases. I am very confident that this legislation will withstand a constitutional challenge. I am not interested, Mr. President, in passing a piece of legislation here, and then say, ``Look what a good job we did,'' and then have that matter in the very near future declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. We would have to start all over again. I assure all from the beginning, I have put out the hand of cooperation to all parties--even those most opposed to any action whatever in this area--and I find that there are a great number of well-intentioned people who shudder at the thought of passing any kind of legislation in this area. They are not bad people. I just do not think they fully understand, as I think I do and as I think 9 out of 10 Americans do, when they find out what is going on, on the information superhighway today. Mr. President, a few days ago I had a remarkable demonstration, in more detail than I had even fully known, of what is readily available to any child with the very basic Internet access. I want to repeat that, Mr. President: Of what is readily available to any child with the basic Internet access. It is not an exaggeration to say that the worst, most vile, most perverse pornography is only a few click-click-clicks away from any child on the Internet. I have talked to so many people about this and had so many interviews and read so much material. There have been many experiences during these last few months, people have told me of the fact that they knew nothing about what was on the Internet with regard to what I was concerned about. Only last week I had a journalist who was doing a story on this who conceded--this was a woman--when she started writing this story she was extremely skeptical of what my motives were and whether there truly was a problem. It just happened that very recently, though, during the process of writing the article that she was doing for a national publication, she put her computer at home on the Internet system and was sitting with her 8- or 9-year-old daughter one evening. She said, ``Senator, I got my eyes opened very wide, very quickly.'' She said, ``I was astonished at what I came across accidentally. Even more astonished when I started doing even preliminary searches of what we were getting into. Finally, I recognized it was not something I wanted my daughter to see, let alone me sharing it with her.'' I did a television show on this subject. Half the people that called in were very upset that I was not for free speech, I wanted to violate the Constitution. The most rewarding of those who supported it was a call out of the blue from an obviously very young person who identified himself as a 12-year-old boy. He said, ``Senator Exon, I want to salute you for doing this. I am a 12-year-old. I am completely literate on the computer. I have seen and observed the material that you are talking about. It is common talk among all of us my age and younger, and, of course, older, in school.'' He said, ``I appreciate the fact you are trying to do something about it, because someone has to.'' That word from a 12-year-old really meant more to me, Mr. President, than all of the brickbats that have been thrown my way from, basically, people that I think are uninformed in what this Senator is trying to do. The fundamental purpose of the Communications Decency Act is to provide much-needed protection for children. Throughout the process of refining this legislation, I have held out the hand of friendship and understanding and cooperation to those who have had different ideas, and I have made revisions in many instances that I think are very appropriate and help in our effort rather than hurt us. I responded to the concerns raised over the last several months and those raised earlier today by my friend and colleague from the State of Vermont, Senator Leahy. I have publicly and privately expressed support for Senator Leahy's study. But not as a substitute for or at the expense of these critical provisions which are designed to allow children and families to share and enjoy the many wonderful benefits of the information revolution that are taking part on the Internet. The reason that I am concerned is that I am afraid that there are some of my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle that might be tempted by Senator Leahy's efforts, that have been primarily sponsored, as I understand it, by the Clinton administration people, primarily in the Justice Department. What the Clinton administration and the Justice Department is trying to do is punt--punt like in football. We happen to know something about football in Nebraska. I would simply say that any time Nebraska has a fourth down and 37 yards on our own 3-yard line, they always punt. But this is not a time to punt on this important matter, if it concerns my colleagues as much as it does me. I think if they will take time to study it, most of my colleagues would agree that we cannot punt. Even though it is third down or fourth down and 37, we better act. In response to the concerns that have been raised by the Justice Department [[Page S8089]] and others, the Exon revision drops the bill's definition of ``knowing'' and the so-called ``predominant defense issue.'' The remaining defenses are narrow and streamlined and limited to the new revised section 223. A new section is added to assure that no other Federal statute will be limited or affected by the Communications Decency Act. I want to repeat that, Mr. President: The new section is added to assure that no other Federal statute will be limited or affected by the Communications Decency Act. This is important to many Members and pro-family groups. The current dial-a-porn statute would be left untouched and unamended by the decency provisions. We have made that clear. Furthermore, the bill's narrow, streamlined defenses would not apply to the current dial-a-porn law or any other Federal statute. We are leaving that measure that has been heavily debated, on which there have been court cases alone, to stand exactly like it is. The Exon Decency Act does not touch it. With these revisions, decency provisions pose no risk to any current or future dial-a-porn, obscenity, or indecency prosecution. The State preemption provision in the committee-reported bill is clarified, in that its application is limited to commercial activities and consistent with the interstate commerce clause. This provision will assure that businesses and nonprofit services and access providers know that State and Federal rules and obligations with respect to the Communications Decency Act are consistent and are predictable. This assurance is critical to any interstate enterprise. In addition, new language is added to this provision to assure that the State preemption provision in no way limits State authority over activities not covered by the Communications Decency Act. In other words, State child endangerment or delinquency statutes will in no way be adversely affected by this legislation. The heart and the soul of the Communications Decency Act are its protection for families and children. The distribution of obscenity and indecency to minors by means of telecommunications devices would be covered by new sections in the revised language. Unlike the current dial-a-porn statute, there would be no noncommercial loophole in the new provisions. I am saddened to report that there is a great deal of grossly obscene and indecent material on the Internet available to anyone free of charge. The decency revisions strengthen the committee- reported bill by providing clear, constitutional, and much-needed protections for users of the telecommunications services. I look forward to discussing this critical piece of legislation as the Senate further considers the telecommunications reform bill, as I indicated earlier, next week. Mr. President, given the floor debate will be a key part of the legislative history for these new provisions, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis, as well as the text of my amendment, be printed in the Record following my remarks. The Chair had previously given authority for those to be printed. I am asking that they be printed following the conclusion of my remarks today.

Mr. EXON. I send those to the desk for action, as has been agreed to. Mr. President, let me, if I might at this juncture, go into a little further discussion as best I can, and as I think decency would allow me to proceed. This is the blue book. This is a sample of what is available today free of charge: Click, click, click on the computer, on the information superhighway. This will be available for any of my colleagues who are not familiar with what is going on on the Internet today, to have a firsthand look at the listings of materials that are available free of charge and pictures of what is being shown. To give an idea, let me read through some of the listings that appear on the bulletin boards. The computer is a wonderful device for arranging, storing, and making it relatively easy for anyone to call up information or pictures on any subject they want. That is part of the beauty of the Internet system. This is on some of these bulletin boards, and there is such a long list it would take a big binder to cover all of them, but let me read through what is in the form of pictures that have been taken on computer screens on the Internet. I have several pages of them here. I am going to just go through some of them and tell you any child who can read--and of course anyone else, too--could click onto this kind of an index that tells them what to do to punch in very easily to any of these types of things. Multimedia erotica; erotica fetish; nude celebrities; pictures black, erotic females; pictures boys; pictures celebrities; pictures children; pictures erotic children; pictures erotica; pictures erotica amateur; pictures erotica amateur females; pictures erotica amateur males; erotica animal; erotica auto; erotica bestiality; erotica bestiality, hamster, duct tape; bestiality, hamster, duct tape; [two of those] erotica black females; erotica black males; erotica blondes; erotica bondage; erotica breasts. Here is a good one: Erotica cartoons; erotica children; erotica female; erotica female, anal; erotica fetish; erotica fury; erotica gay men; erotica male; erotica male, anal; erotica Oriental; erotica porn star. This goes on and on and on--so much repetition. But it is startling, page after page after page, on screen after screen after screen--free, free of charge, with a click, click, click. The blue book will be available to any who want to see how bad this is. I hope if any of my colleagues are not familiar with it, they become familiar. Mr. President, I draw the Senate's attention to the chart that I have before me. I have been here in the Senate for 17 years. I think this is the second time I have ever used charts. We never had charts in the Senate until we had television. But now we talk to our American citizens, many of whom watch us very religiously from their homes throughout the Nation, as much as we do to our colleagues on the floor. To try to explain this as briefly as I can, and I certainly do not claim to be an expert at it, the Internet system here in the center is the information system and the information system explosion that I have been talking about. When we look at what is good about this system, it is the Internet, the information, and all the multitude of good that is coming out of this today and is going to be further exploding in the future. Then we have people at home on the Internet and children at home on the Internet. Under the system that the Exon Decency Act would provide and protect is this kind of a system with those at home, the children, having direct and full access to the Internet. After they get on the Internet, there would be a degree of protection to keep them from going on to the pornography bulletin boards. That is what I am talking about here. The child at home, the adult at home could get on the Internet and they could go to the Library of Congress, the museums or any of the other magnificent sources of information we have. But anyone who pollutes that system over here on the pornography bulletin board would be subjected to the restraints in the law that the Exon decency provision tries to put in place. Let me describe this for just a moment, if I might, and emphasize once again that we have today laws against--and providing fines and jail terms--people who misuse the telephone system to promiscuously spread pornography. We also have in like manner in that regard laws prohibiting the use of United States mail for pornography. Obviously, Mr. President, under the present law we do not put the innocent mailman in jail for delivering pornography, which is prevented by the law, from one place into a home. This is a way that I would like to see, and I think most people would like to see, the Internet operate. But that is not the way the system works today and is the reason for the Exon decency provisions. This is the way it works, Mr. President. You will notice in the previous chart that there are lines connecting these entities. On this chart, I simply say to you this is the way it is today. This is the way it is today where either [[Page S8090]] the child or the adult at home enters the Internet system and is automatically connected with an additional click to the pornography bulletin board which is the material in the blue book and everything that I connected with it that I call smut. They are all connected together. I happen to feel, if we make law the Exon decency bill, the Exon decency bill would not prevent or eliminate people from seeking the pornography bulletin board, and if they are adults and if the material on that is designed for and dedicated to adults, whom I would basically describe perhaps for these purposes as someone 18 years of age or more, then they could seek out the pornography bulletin board, and any of the people on the Internet, who have been claiming that Senator Exon's bill wants to close them down, if they want to watch pornography on the Internet, should have that right. I agree. I do not like it but I agree. It would be unconstitutional I think if we tried to eliminate that totally. What I am trying to do with the Exon Decency Act is make the Internet like this rather than the direct connection accidentally to this system. Over here in the pornography bulletin board we have entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs who are seeking money, cash money-making opportunities. They have facilities to where you dial into these bulletin boards, and they will through a credit card system allow you to subscribe whenever you want to the whole galaxy of things that they have, some of which I read out of the blue book. And that would continue, that would be allowed for adults under the Exon Decency Act. What would be prevented under the Exon Decency Act is that these people who make lots of money, hundreds of millions of dollars selling smut, people on this pornography bulletin board, not unlike the Library of Congress, if I dare use that example, have a complete library of anything and everything that you could possibly imagine that you might see in an adult bookstore. If it is pocketed over there where it is very difficult to reach and you have to pay for it, that is one thing. But that is not the way it is. What do these entrepreneurs over here do, Mr. President? What they do is to use the free access, without charge advertising with the best of some of their pornographic, obscene material, and they put it over here on the Internet with their printing press. That is a printing press and everybody has one. They can enter their computer, and they can take off anything that is in the Internet and store it, if they have the proper equipment. And people do. Let me emphasize once again what I am trying to do, Mr. President, is to stop these people over here essentially from using teasers, not unlike coming attractions that we see when we go to the movies--best of the coming shows that will be here 2 weeks from today. And obviously when you get into movies you see some of the most violent explosions on previews of things to come. When they, the pornographers over here, the money-making pornographers enter the free system of advertising, you do not even have to pay the price of going in and sitting down in a seat at a movie theater. What they do is take the best and most enticing pictures of whatever they want to sell that particular day or that particular week and they enter it over here on the Internet. They are posted on the bulletin board. And those are the ones, those are the pictures, those are the articles that are freely, without charge, accessible to very young children and to anyone else who wants to see them. Among other things, the Exon bill would prevent the money makers over here--and many of them are perverts but very smart perverts--from advertising free on the Internet system to pollute, in the view of this Senator, our children and our grandchildren. Simply stated, Mr. President, I have tried to summarize this as best I can in the 20 or 30 minutes' time I have taken of the Senate today, and I will be talking more about it next week as we come to a vote on this matter. I hope that most of my colleagues would recognize and realize that this is not the time to punt. This is the timely way to take action with regard to the telecommunications measure before us. I say today, as I have said before to my colleagues and all others outside the Senate who have an interest in this, many of them legitimate, I invite once again, if there is any particular problem you have with the Exon language, come let us reason together. I am not an unreasonable individual as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Senate recognize. There has been nothing that has concerned me more in my 8 years as Governor of Nebraska and my 17 years of having the great opportunity to serve my State in the Senate, there is nothing that I feel more strongly about than this piece of legislation, because I think it is more than just a piece of legislation. It is a time I suggest to step up to the plate and not offer excuses, not go along with those who say I wish to do what I wish to do, when and in whatever form I want, and I do not care what it might do to others. I am going to do everything I can to see that a constitutional remedy is offered. If it is offered exactly as I am recommending or will recommend in future, if changes are in order, will that stop all of this and end the problem? No, it will not. It is too big for that. We still have obviously pornography through the mails, yet we have laws against it. We have pornography on the telephone. I guess that we do not have, though, anywhere near the stalking that is going on with regard to children by deviants. The newspapers have been full of that material very recently. And there are many hundreds of cases that take place all of the time that never reach the press, for obvious reasons. I simply say, Mr. President, that this Senator is very dedicated to this cause. I have no ill will toward those who do not agree with me, but I hope that after studying this they would at least agree that there is a problem that we should do something about. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Amendment 1268 Beginning on page 137 line 12 through page 143 line 10, strike all therein and insert in lieu thereof: (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof: ``(a) Whoever-- ``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications ``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly-- ``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and ``(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; ``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; ``(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or ``(D) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.''; and (2) Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsections: ``(d) Whoever-- ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign communications with the United States by means of telecommunications device-- ``(A) makes, creates, or solicits, and ``(B) initiates the transmission of or purposefully makes available, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communications; or ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subsection (d)(1) with the intent that it be used for such activity; shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both. ``(e) Whoever-- ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign communications with the United States by means of telecommunications device-- [[Page S8091]] ``(A) makes, creates, or solicits, and ``(B) initiates the transmission of, or purposefully makes available, any indecent comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication to any person under 18 years of age regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; or ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both. ``(f) Defenses to the subsections (a), (d), and (e), restrictions on access, judicial remedies respecting restrictions for persons providing information services and access to information services-- ``(1) The provision of access by a person, to a person including transmission, downloading, storage, navigational tools, and related capabilities which are incidental to the transmission of communications, and not involving the creation or editing of the content of the communications, for another person's communications to or from a service, facility, system, or network not under the access provider's control shall by itself not be a violation of subsection (a), (d), or (e). This subsection shall not be applicable to an individual who is owned or controlled by, or a conspirator with, an entity actively involved in the creation, editing or knowing distribution of communications which violate this section. ``(2) It is a defense to prosecution under subsection (a)(2), (d)(2), or (e)(2) that a person did not have editorial control over the communication specified in this section. This defense shall not be available to an individual who ceded editorial control to an entity which the defendant knew or had reason to know intended to engage in conduct that was likely to violate this section. ``(3) It is a defense to prosecution under subsection (a), (d)(2), or (e) that a person has taken good faith, reasonable and appropriate steps, to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, communications described in such provisions according to such procedures as the Commission may prescribe by regulation. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to treat enhanced information services as common carriage. ``(4) No cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any person on account of any activity which is not in violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil penalty, which activity the person has taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a communication specified in this section. ``(g) No State or local government may impose any liability for commercial activities or actions by commercial entities in connection with an activity or action which constitutes a violation described in subsection (a)(2), (b)(2), or (e)(2) that is inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions under this section provided, however, that nothing herein shall preclude any State or local government from enacting and enforcing complementary oversight, liability, and regulatory systems, procedures, and requirements, so long as such systems, procedures, and requirements govern only intrastate services and do not result in the imposition of inconsistent rights, duties or obligations on the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude an State or local government from governing conduct not covered by this section. ``(h) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) or in the defenses to prosecution under (a), (d), or (e) shall be construed to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other federal law. ``(i) The use of the term `telecommunications device' in this section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) broadcast radio or (one-way) broadcast television operators licensed by the Commission or (one-way) cable service registered with the Commission and covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act.''. On page 144, strike lines 1 through 17.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. If I might, I simply advise my colleague, as I understand it, the Republicans have a golf game this afternoon. I am sure that is a high-priority item. But this measure before us, which I would like to get to, is a very important piece of legislation for America.

Mr. EXON. My question of the Senator from Pennsylvania is simply that we have, as I understand it, very important business to transact. Can the Senator advise me as to how long he intends to hold the floor on the matter that we have heard from him on several occasions?

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. First, to be facetious, I would like to advise my colleague from Nebraska that unless he misspoke or unless I heard him wrong, he said something to the effect that he sees nothing wrong with the U.S. Senate. If somebody would take that out of context, it would be the end of his political career. It might be a good time to ask that be stricken from the record. Seriously speaking, I had cited earlier the section on page 8. I would also like to cite an additional paragraph from page 89 of the same act which says ``before making any determination under this subparagraph, the commission shall consult with the Attorney General regarding the application.'' I would simply advise both of my colleagues that this Senator has had considerable experience over the years in dealing with the bureaucracy. We have dealt for a long time, and my colleague from Nebraska has been involved in many of the interstate commerce decisions. In no case does the Justice Department have prior consideration with regard to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Therefore, I think the point the Senator from South Dakota is trying to make is that we are treating the various agencies of the Federal Government--either independent agencies or agencies under the direct control of the President--the same as we have treated them previously. I think that my colleague from Nebraska makes a pretty good point. I think I understand his concern. I just want to say, as one involved in S. 1822, the predecessor of this, and this piece of legislation, the original draft that came to the committee after our distinguished colleague from South Dakota became chairman, contained no information or statement whatever to help address the concerns that have been raised, and I think to some degree, legitimately raised by my colleague from Nebraska. It had nothing in there at all. That proposal came that would have, for all practical purposes, ignored the Justice Department. I have cited two instances where, during the cooperation, during the discussion, during the compromise that we worked very hard to maintain, we came up with something that I think would allow the Justice Department to play a key role. One thing I would suggest might be wrong, to go back to the illustration used by my colleague from Nebraska, U.S. West, for example, wanted to go into some kind of a network they had not previously been allowed to do. According to the feelings, unless they were spelled out in the law, they would have to act after the fact. Of course, that is the way they always do, act after the fact. The problem that the company, in that particular situation, I am fearful, was that they would have two different agencies of the Federal Government to go to for clearance, the Justice Department on one hand and the Federal Communications Commission on the other. I simply say that I happen to feel that the hard-driven compromise that was worked on this by members of the committee may not be perfect, but as both Senators know, I have never voted for a perfect law since I have been here. I will study the matter over the weekend further. I appreciate the discussion I had with my good friend and colleague from Nebraska and my colleague from the State to the north, South Dakota, where I was born. Thank you both very much.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am going to be very brief. I thank my friend and colleague from Nebraska for his remarks. I simply say that I did not use coach Tom Osborne's name. He has called me on the telephone and written me a letter. He does support this legislation. And for whatever that is worth, I think you and I have the highest respect for Tom Osborne, the man, as well as Tom Osborne, the football coach, and for what he has done for young people. I want to ask my colleague from Nebraska a question with regard to the matter that he just brought up. We are going to vote next week on the amendments being offered by the Senator from North Dakota, and I think cosponsored by my colleague from Nebraska, with regard to the Justice Department. I have been following this, and I am not quite sure I understand the Senator's objections. I had a great deal to do with this during the last 2 years--the whole bill, in the Commerce Committee. On page 8 of S. 652, there was specifically put in the legislation on line 20, section 7: Effect on other law. A, antitrust laws. Except as provided in subsection B and C, nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the actions of the antitrust laws. I am sure that my colleague from Nebraska knows of that provision. I have always thought that was put in there specifically to make certain that the Justice Department of the United States would maintain their traditional role of enforcing the antitrust laws in America. Does that not satisfy the concerns of the Senator from Nebraska, or does he feel that that particular quote from the law impairs, in any way, the responsibility that the Justice Department has under the antitrust laws, that they will have the full right, as I understand it, to pursue in the future as they have in the past?

Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to continue for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I congratulate the managers of this bill, the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Utah, both very good friends of mine. I have the utmost faith and confidence in their abilities. I recognize they do not always agree. But I believe that under the leadership of these two individuals, who have been foremost in the Judiciary Committee for a long, long time, we certainly should be able to come up with some workable arrangement to dispose of the terrorist bill which the President sent us. As I brought out when we last met here 10 days ago, when the majority leader and the minority leader were debating the fact of how fast we could move this bill ahead--we were going to take it up today, and the majority leader said he wanted to complete work on it on Tuesday--for the life of me, I do not know why Tuesday is such a magical date. I simply say there were supposedly some 50 or 60 amendments that were going to be offered, or proposed to be offered by Members on both sides of the aisle. We also remember that in the last week we met here, we had some 55 or 60 amendments to the budget bill. We finally got down to work and completed our deliberations and had our votes in a matter of, I believe, 3 days. As important as I think the budget debate was, as important as I think the ever-increasing deficit is, as alarmed as I am about the ever-increasing national debt and the cost to the taxpayers for the interest on that national debt, I do not believe there is anything more important to the people of United States of America today than terrorism. Terrorism is not like the balanced budget that I hoped we could get to a few years ago down the road. It is with us today. It was demonstrated in Oklahoma City very vividly most recently. I would simply like to ask my colleagues, if I could get their attention, to explain to this Senator why is it that we cannot make some kind of a good-faith effort by the two leaders of the Judiciary Committee, supported by the majority leader and the minority leader, to come to some kind of an understanding about how many amendments we are going to have, and about [[Page S7678]] how long that is going to take. I would think that if we would try to stay away from the filibuster and eventually limit debate to 15 minutes a side for most of these amendments, clearly that would give us an opportunity, in this Senator's opinion, to come forth and let the Senate express its will by majority vote on this tremendously important amendment that has to do with terrorism. And I assure all of my colleagues--and they know it full well--that terrorism is unfortunately alive and well in America today. I believe that the people of the United States expect us to stand up and do something about it, not in a foot race fashion, but in an expedited process of some kind, to have everyone have a chance, as is customary in the Senate, to work their will and maybe offer amendments. This Senator has no amendments to the bill. That cuts us down to 99 other Senators that may have amendments. I simply say to the managers that this Senator wishes to cooperate with them, and if they would put out an appeal and if the majority leader and minority leader would join in that, I would think that maybe we can focus on this important piece of legislation that the President has set up. We do not have to approve it exactly like the President wanted it. We can change it dramatically in any fashion we see fit by a majority vote here. I simply feel if we can put out this appeal, certainly the majority party, the Republicans, have demonstrated that they march basically in lockstep on most of these matters. The Republicans, it seems to me, have the majority and have the responsibility to either vote up or down on any amendments that could be offered from either side. I am simply appealing for some expeditious action on this tremendously important piece of legislation. If we have to take until Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or even into next week, and if that is necessary, I do not think there is anything more important right now than this bill that is before us. I salute the President for addressing terrorism. A failure of respect for law and order is rampant in our society today. Certainly, the police, the prosecutors, the judicial system we depend on to handle these matters for us, need strengthening, they need additional tools. I believe that the bill suggested to us by the President of the United States goes a long way into helping these people that need help today with the ever-increasing threat of terrorism. So I simply pose a question for the managers of the bill. At their first opportunity, I ask them to respond as to whether there have been efforts made and are efforts being made now before the vote--as I understand it, there is a vote scheduled for 6 p.m. this evening. I would certainly be willing to remain here until midnight or 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning to take up or debate the reason or lack thereof of many of the amendments that I understand are to be offered. I hope that we will not do what the majority leader had indicated over the weekend--that he would pull the bill down on Tuesday-- tomorrow--unless we complete action. I feel, though, that the majority leader is not irresponsible in asking for some time agreements, some way to limit the number of amendments that I think could be constructively moved forward, if it is the will of the majority of this body. I have posed a question, and I will await the response of the managers of the bill at their first opportunity. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will ensure that Department of Defense supplemental payments are made to heavily impacted school districts like Bellevue, NE without reducing their payments from the Department of Education as is unfortunately happening now. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Kerrey, as an original cosponsor. The DOD supplemental payments are used to reduce 1994 impact aid payments being made now. The use of the funds is a new and in my opinion erroneous interpretation by the Department of Education as to the meaning of ``all funds available,'' which is contained in its regulation. The intent of the DOD appropriation was to provide a supplemental, not a substitute, payment to these heavily impacted school districts. The offset which is being implemented by the Department of Education makes no sense. This legislation clears up any ambiguities. I am hopeful that this legislation can be considered by the appropriate committee in a timely fashion. The 1994 impact aid payments are needed by these school districts to meet current budget requirements. The only payment for 1995 received so far by these districts has been the hold-harmless payment. In some cash-strapped school districts, funds are being borrowed to meet current payrolls and other obligations. Prompt passage of this legislation will help alleviate the problem for many of these districts and will ensure that the Education Department understands and carries out the will of Congress.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, but in the spirit of trying to help the two leaders, especially on this type of legislation, obviously with the rights of every Senator that are well known and abound and are used more than infrequently, on legislation like this I think it possibly would be wise to at least consider a set number of amendments and then seek a unanimous-consent agreement that the Republican leader and the Democratic leader--depending on how many they want--would ask to be the final authority on what amendments and in what order are offered on something I think as critically important as this piece of legislation. If we had not had the 50-hour time limit on the budget resolution, obviously we would have been here this weekend and through next Wednesday. I was one who had to wrestle with it. I guess somewhere along the line we have to appeal to all the Members with the idea of moving things--not in all cases--but in cases like this, maybe we could have some kind of appeal to have the leaders say how many amendments will be called up and in what order and the others would not be in order.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.