J. Exon

Mr. EXON

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. It is a very good one, and a very timely one. This amendment is simply good and prudent planning. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia has detailed our real concerns with the separate enrollment concept advanced by the Republican substitute. Legal scholars can debate whether the separate enrollment violates the clause of the Constitution. That would be affected regardless of where the Senate comes out on this issue of separate enrollment. It is a constitutional question. I hope that all can agree that we do not want a constitutional cloud hanging over what I think we will eventually pass in the form of whatever kind of line-item veto or enhanced rescission we come up with here in our debate on a final vote. We do not want that cloud hanging over forever. The pending amendment simply allows a speedy resolution of this constitutional issue. It does not allow a legal challenge to hang over all the bills for years upon years. Let us provide an expedited judicial review, which the Senator from Illinois suggested. As I understand it, it is identical to what was passed in the House of Representatives. Possibly this is something that can be passed by a voice vote, since I know of no objection to it on this side of the aisle.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, if I could correct just one impression that the Senator from Arizona said about the filing of amendments. As a manager of the bill, I filed a whole series of amendments before 1 o'clock today, which I had to do to protect this side from a whole series of important matters that we thought were necessary on this side. I simply advise my colleague from Arizona that as of the breakdown, the Senator from Nebraska has only four amendments, and I think we will dismiss two of those, which gives the manager of the bill only two amendments. And I think, by any measure, that is reasonable. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, what is the pending question?

Mr. EXON. I have been listening with great interest. The Senator left out whether or not he has made any calculation as to what the cost to the taxpayers would be, for all of those pens? Do you have any estimation of what that would be, in dollars, at the present time? Or is that just a minor matter?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Arizona have been working on the language of the Senator's amendment on judicial review that was debated briefly an hour or so ago. Senator Simon has given me language that he believes addresses the concerns of the Senator from Arizona regarding severability. Senator Simon asked me to seek to modify his amendment to reflect the changes. So, Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Illinois, I send a modification of his amendment numbered 393 to the desk, and I ask that it be so modified.

Mr. EXON. Gone.

Mr. EXON. More expenses to the taxpayer. I thank my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I withdraw the request.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with regard to the Simon amendment No. 393.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, during the extensive debate that has gone on now since 2:15 this afternoon, a lot of things have been talked about. I simply emphasize once again that, as far as this Senator is concerned, I am working very hard and have been for many years to try to come up with something that we can generally agree on, get it passed, hoping it is constitutional. I go way back to 1986 when the then Indiana Senator, Dan Quayle--the predecessor to Senator Coats, who was in the chair most of the afternoon--and I combined at that time on what was called the pork-buster bill. That launched one of the first recent initiatives trying to do something about putting some brakes on some of the pork that goes into the bills. So, therefore, I wanted to march shoulder to shoulder, as I did with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, this year in introducing S. 4. And then came, of course, S. 14, which came after S. 4. It was introduced by Senator McCain and others. We held a very interesting hearing on that. It now seems that many of the things embodied in S. 4 have changed to the new concept offered by the majority leader last night. I think some significant changes were made that brings the proposal that is now before the body much, much closer to S. 14, which Senator Domenici and myself introduced under the number S. 14. So I think we are making progress. I think we are going to pass something now. But I certainly hope that we recognize and realize that nothing is perfect, and the substitute offered last night, which I understand has been agreed to by most of the Senators on that side of the aisle in the majority, is something that we are looking at. I think some changes would be in order, and I certainly hope that we will not dismiss out of hand the detailed presentation made by Senator Byrd today. The points he made, I thought, were tremendously important, and we should take a look at that. I am not sure where and when it came after the introduction of S. 4 and S. 14, which were the two principal bills in this area, that had nothing about actions of an enrollment clerk. I am not sure yet how that has become such a centerpiece. I hope that those on that side of the aisle will at least listen to those of us here who would like to suggest and have a vote on what we may think would be a better way that would keep us, hopefully, away from the courts intervening and saying that we have done something unconstitutional. I simply say that I believe there are some concerns with regard to an enrollment clerk. I listened to the Senator from Indiana this afternoon talk about how computers could be used to expedite this process and it would not be as laborious as indicated in the presentation by Senator Byrd. I wonder if we recognize that the Constitution probably does not allow computers to sign bills or ``billettes,'' as they were called today by Senator Byrd in his rather extensive debate. When you start talking about this enrollment proposition, I do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution ever envisioned that an enrollment clerk would be involved in such an intricate way. If the enrollment clerk would be required to enroll all of these bills separately, given that, we also have to recognize that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the President of the United States all have to sign these. I suspect and would hope that we would not have changed the system so much that we do not require the signature of those key officers, as established in the Constitution, and that they can sign through a computer. It might well be that we have advanced to the point where the computer can sign the name of the President of the United States. But I suspect that that might be somewhat suspect from a constitutional standpoint. I simply say, Mr. President, that all we are trying to do here is to move ahead aggressively. Let us have an open debate. Let us not try to shut off debate, because this is a very important matter. Certainly, when you are talking about matters like this, matters that we debate at some length regarding the constitutional amendment to balance the budget--an item, by the way, on which this Senator sided with those on the majority side of the aisle. I still think constructive debate, dialog and discussion is part of the Senate process, and we should not try to move as quickly on everything as does the House of Representatives. I remind all that the U.S. Senate is not the House of Representatives. If there is one thing that was made clear by the Framers of the Constitution, they felt that the U.S. Senate should be the more deliberative body. That does not mean we should be so deliberative that we get nothing done. Nor does it mean that we have to race down the track like they do in the House of Representatives to meet some magic 100 days that I think means little, if anything, if we are going to properly traditionally done it in the U.S. Senate. I was extremely disappointed by the vote on the balanced budget amendment. However, we cannot spend the rest of the session licking our wounds and assigning blame. The world did not come to a screeching halt because the balanced budget amendment failed to carry the day. We continue to run deficits and we continue to pile up debt. It is time to move forward on a bipartisan basis. It is time to balance the budget with or without a balanced budget amendment. Oftentimes, during the balanced budget amendment, I found people talking by each other, as I thought we did to some extent this afternoon. I was here all afternoon. I listened very carefully to the Senator from Indiana. I thought the Senator from Indiana was setting up a straw man and knocking the straw man down, because I have not seen anybody on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle who has been up talking against the concept, at least, of enacting some kind of enhanced rescission line-item veto. Call it what you will. So I hope that we are not going to be talking a great deal during this debate assuming that there are people on this side of the aisle that are trying to stop this. I assure you, Mr. President, and I assure all Members on both sides of the aisle that I see no determination on either side of the aisle of a filibuster. But I do see a desire to thoroughly think things through and then move ahead. But back to the situation at hand. A long time ago, I hitched my wagon to fiscal discipline and responsibility. I certainly do not plan to switch horses because of one setback in the form of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Nebraskans care more about what we leave than what we take. I do not choose to leave other's children or my grandchildren trillions of dollars in debt. I will not leave them a Nation where we spend 17 cents of every tax dollar for interest on the debt. I will not rob them of thousands of dollars that they will have to pay to service the debt even before we begin to start reducing the principal. That is what the debate on the balanced budget amendment and it is what the debate here is all about-- how do we best do these things in a fashion that gets them done? I will not cheat them, my children or grandchildren, out of the legacy they so richly deserve. We must do everything in our power to blot out the red ink. I am a realist, though, Madam President. The legislation before the Senate today will not break the back of the deficit, and we should all understand that. It will not cause the mountain of debt to vanish into thin air. But it will rein in pork-barrel spending, and that is an enormous step in the right direction. Madam President, there is a common thread between this legislation and the balanced budget amendment. When we debate either measure, this Chamber sounds like a revival tent of sinners repenting. Senators vow to refrain from wasteful spending. I say, ``All evidence to the contrary.'' We have been out of control and spending abounds. The only thing in short supply is self-restraint. Revenue acts are chocked full of special interest tax credits and expenditures. Appropriations bills are larded with pet projects that cost the taxpayer billions of dollars. There are groaning with pork that is carefully tucked away--so carefully placed that the President cannot extract it without bringing down the entire bill. Our colleagues have become quite skillful in slipping in these projects. The President has a tough choice to make. Will the President veto an appropriations or revenue bill just to get rid of the pork? My colleagues know the drill and how it works. The President brings out the scales and weighs the good against the bad. More often than not, the President holds his nose and signs the bill. The obvious solution is to grant the President the line-item veto, more properly called, I suspect, an ``expedited'' or ``enhanced'' rescission authority. That is what we are about and I think that we are going to accomplish it this time. Suffice it to say, there are few in this body and even fewer in the House who have firsthand experience with or have ever experienced a line-item veto. It is my hope that the limited few, with firsthand experience, will be listened to. Today, 43 of the 50 State Governors have some form of veto authority. As Governor of the State of Nebraska, I was privileged to have that line-item veto. It was an invaluable weapon in my arsenal to control spending by my State legislature. I think the President of the United States, President Clinton and all the Presidents that come after him, should have a line-item veto authority so that they can take similar action, as I think the President of the United States can and should do if we can do it in a fashion--and I emphasize, Madam President, if we can do it in a fashion--that is not on its face constitutionally suspect. I have long believed that the President should have this power. All but two Presidents in the 20th century have advocated some type of line-item veto authority. President Clinton strongly supports it. On the first day of the 104th Congress, I joined in introducing the legislative line-item veto proposal, known as S. 14. This bipartisan compromise was cosponsored by the distinguished Republican and Democratic leaders, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and Senators Bradley, Craig and Cohen. The original S. 14 stood in stark contrast to some of the other line-item veto proposals. I am not saying that ours was perfect and I do not think others were. S. 14, though, would have forced Congress to vote on the cancellation of a budget item proposed by the President. However, it needed only a simple majority of both Houses of Congress to override the President's veto. This proposition was a viable alternative if it was still a fact, as I suggest it was and maybe still is, that S. 4 as introduced would fall to a filibuster. I do not think any of us wanted that. S. 4, as originally introduced, would be the legislative equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot, in my view. If we are serious about reducing the deficit, tax expenditures should be included in any line- item veto legislation. Anything else would be a half measure. The significantly revised S. 4 that has been introduced by the Republican leader as of yesterday has come a considerable distance towards addressing the concerns that this Senator had with that portion of S. 4. But S. 4 also had a lot of good things in it. Mr. President, a little history, I think, is in order. On February 3, 1993, the Budget Committee held a hearing on the impact of tax expenditures on the Federal budget. What we found was rather startling. At that time, tax expenditures were projected to cost more than $400 billion and were slated to increase to $525 billion by the year 1997. Today, tax expenditures are $450 billion and are projected to rise to $565 billion in 1999. Like entitlement programs, tax expenditures cost the treasury billions of dollars each year. And like entitlements, they receive little scrutiny once they are enacted into law. Even though they increase the deficit like mandatory programs, tax expenditures escape any sort of fiscal oversight. Indeed, by masquerading as tax expenditures, a program or activity that might not otherwise pass congressional muster could be indirectly funded. Certainly I would say that we have to take a look at these things and a close look. Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin correctly summed up the situation, and I quote:. Tax expenditures add to the Federal deficit in the same way that direct spending programs do. If we are willing to subject annual appropriations to the President's veto pen, then that same oversight should be granted to the President on tax expenditures. Pork is pork. We should be willing to say ``no'' to both spending pork and tax pork. The revised S. 4 finally recognizes some of its earlier shortcomings, in the view of this Senator. For too long, many of our colleagues have clung to the thin reed that we can Unfortunately, the reed has given way and we are sinking in an ocean of red ink. In spite of the pay-as-you-go provisions of the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, entitlement spending is the largest and fastest growing part of the Federal budget. The terrible truth is that entitlement or mandatory spending is projected to grow from about 55 percent of the Federal spending in the current fiscal year to 62 percent in the year 2005. The surge occurs in Federal health care programs. They are the only programs that will grow at a rate significantly faster than the economy, increasing from 3.8 percent of the gross domestic product in fiscal year 1995 to 6 percent of GDP in 2005. On the other hand, discretionary spending, which currently makes up only about one-third of all of the Federal budget, has been significantly curbed. It is expected to decline as a percent of the economy over the same time period. However, we cannot take much comfort in this success story. As much as we cut away at the fat and well into the bone in appropriated spending, we get to a point of diminishing returns. We will not be able to balance the budget if we rely essentially only on appropriated spending, as anyone who understands the budget process knows. Sooner or later we must look the deficit squarely in the eye and make some tough and painful choices. Entitlement spending and tax expenditures are two that we can no longer avoid. The new found Republican realism about a sunset provision in the amended S. 4 is helpful in improving chances to pass the legislative line-item veto. This is a brandnew legislation that is untried and untested. The sunset provisions will allow Congress to look at any glitches and problems that may arise. If for some reason the line-item veto does not perform to our expectation, we can trade it in and start anew. I also have been stressing that the only way to bring down the deficit is on a bipartisan basis. I support the line-item veto legislation, but some of my colleagues have doubts. A sunset provision will ease some of those concerns because this bill will not be carved in stone. We will be able to revisit the bill at a day certain and make some changes if necessary. During markup, I offered several sunset provisions that failed on party line votes. I am pleased that the majority has reconsidered. The legislative line-item veto does not exist in a vacuum. We must revisit the entire Budget Act in 1998. That is when the caps and other major provisions, including the one that creates a 60-vote point of order and the system of sequesters, expires. What better time to reexamine the legislative line-item veto? Madam President, I have finally had an opportunity to review the majority party substitute version of the line-item veto legislation. I must say at the outset that I am extremely disappointed by the manner in which this bill was brought to the floor and how the majority party apparently hopes to force this bill through very quickly. As the majority leader knows and as the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee knows, there are many on this side of the aisle who would like to see a line-item veto bill pass this Senate. I think it will. We have been working on a bipartisan basis to do so. As evidence of the bipartisan effort, I note that the majority leader and the minority leader were cosponsors of S. 14 as introduced by Chairman Domenici and myself. As a long-time supporter of the line-item veto legislation, I am very encouraged that this topic is finally being debated on the floor of the Senate. I hope and trust that the majority leader will back off of some of the tactics and the ``hurry up'' actions that have been so far demonstrated. I am reminded of what the great historian Barbara Tuchman wrote about the 14th-century knights of war: They were concerned with action, not the goal--which was why the goal was so rarely attained. If we can have a free and open debate, absent hardball politics, and if we can keep our focus on the attainable goal and not just partisan reactions, we can prevail. Madam President, I have some concerns regarding the substitute that is before the Congress, although I think it is a vast improvement over what we have considered previously. Although I understand the need for changes and compromises, this bill raises some questions that I think need to be fully explored. For example, the majority party has chosen to vest in the enrolling clerk the power to divide up appropriations bills into many, perhaps hundreds, of pieces. How might such a procedure actually work in practice? Is such a procedure realistic? Legislative drafters already are coming up with ways to get around this bizarre mechanism. There are many other troubling questions regarding the substitute, but I think they can be corrected if we can work together, at least corrected to satisfy this Senator and most on this side of the aisle. For example, what is to prevent the Congress from enacting provisions that do not take effect until other specified provisions take effect? Or, what about a provision that spends $80 million if, and only if, a second provision spends $20 million, but suspends $100 million if the second provision is not enacted? What about a provision that funds every item specified in a separate piece of legislation? The majority substitute does not allow the President to veto these provisions effectively. The legislative process may end up the victim much more so than all would like to see. The measure before Members raises constitutional questions as well, as Senator Byrd so eloquently pointed out earlier today. It would be very unfortunate if after all of these years the Congress was finally successful in passing a line-item veto, only to have it declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Other proposals such as S. 14 do not have that potential Achilles heel. There are also issues which the substitute does not address that I think it should. I believe that most Members would agree as they look at the measure objectively. For example, the President cannot--I emphasize cannot--reduce any amount. The President can only sign or kill it. He cannot scale it back to a more reasonable amount. Under S. 4, the President had that option of reducing the amount. In closing, let me say, Madam President, what about the goal of reducing the deficit? S. 14 wisely includes a lockbox to ensure that any money saved in rescission goes to reduce the deficit. The Republican substitute includes no deficit reduction lockbox. I think it should. And I think when my friends on that side of the aisle take a look at that, they will agree. In conclusion, then, I believe the substitute needs further consideration, although I am disappointed by the process used by the majority leader to force a cloture vote immediately--supposedly tomorrow--to cut off debate on this important matter. I am encouraged that the substitute bill has moved in the right direction by including tax expenditures, which previous versions of that did not. Yet it is far from a perfect bill and could be improved by addressing some of the concerns that I have mentioned and others that will be addressed by Senator Levin and other of my colleagues. Mr. President, in the hours and days ahead, I hope we can put aside overheated rhetoric and partisanship on the legislative line-item veto. No Senator has a monopoly on all of the issues. No Senator is all right or all wrong. No Senator has all the answers. I hope that we can accommodate as many views as possible during the upcoming debate. If we stay on this track, Madam President, we will pass a legislative line-item veto--or call it what you will--that is as good as a promise that I think we can do in keeping faith with the American people. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I have been listening all afternoon to the excellent presentation by Senator Byrd from West Virginia and learned a great deal. I think we would all agree that the Senator from West Virginia is a very talented and experienced constitutional lawyer. I thought he brought up some excellent points today, and I simply say that I think it is very important that the Congress listen to somebody with the experience of Senator Byrd and not get ourselves into a situation where we, once again, try, and maybe this time pass, some version of a line-item veto and then have it promptly set aside by the courts. None of us want that. There have been a lot of arguments back and forth, and I will submit for the Record at this juncture a statement by Walter Dellinger in front of the Judiciary Committee in January of this year which disagrees with the holding of Senator Biden of the Judiciary Committee, the former chairman, with regard to this concept of enrollment. I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. EXON. I have listened to the statement made by the leader, and I would simply say that we are prepared to move ahead on these things as quickly as possible. This is a very important piece of legislation, and I have listened to a lot of talk today that some people misconstrue what most of us on this side want to do, and that is pass some acceptable version of the line-item veto or enhanced rescission proposal. So we are not being dilatory. I do not think anybody is filibustering. There has been no threat of a filibuster. I hope, for the purpose of moving ahead now, to show we want to get things done--as soon as the Chair thinks it appropriate, I would appreciate him recognizing the Senator from Illinois for the purpose of offering an amendment to get on with what we think the request of the majority leader is. Let us get going on offering the amendments.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am sorry to hear what the leader has just said. We were prepared to offer an amendment. There have been those of us in the Chamber today who have not had a chance to talk. Some people do not follow the usual order around here, but I was prepared to yield to my colleague from Illinois for the purpose of offering an amendment. Do I understand that the leader is saying he does not want any amendments offered as of now?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me just briefly address this because I had talked briefly about it earlier. This amendment would add to the bill what is called a lock box to insure that any and all savings achieved as a result of the line-item veto under the bill would go to deficit reduction. This is simply a truth-in-advertising amendment. All this amendment does is to ensure that, if you promise deficit reduction in a veto, you actually have to deliver deficit reduction at the end of the day. I have nothing further on the amendment at the present time. I assume we will have, if it is not accepted, probably a vote on it on tomorrow.

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

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

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arkansas for yielding. Mr. President, first, I am pleased to learn that even distantly we are reaching a point when we will move ahead and dispose of the remaining amendments and hopefully, pass the defense supplemental defense bill today. It is critical that we get moving on this. I am glad to see that the Senate has finally arrived at the position where they recognize we have to move on this bill. As I understand it, we will have a vote on this today. I have been listening with great interest, Mr. President, to the remarks of my two colleagues who have spoken before me. They made some very excellent points that I think the U.S. Senate should take a very close and very hard look at. In another time, in another day, I would be persuaded by the arguments made by the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from California. But the facts of the matter are this is a new day, this is a different day. We are going to be deluged, I say, Mr. President, all of us on all sides of various issues that are going to be upcoming with trying to do something about the United States of America continuing to spend more money than it takes in, however worthy. I will simply say that regardless of the excellent points that have been made by the two previous speakers, I must support wholeheartedly the effort to reduce these types of expenditures regardless of how worthy, given the situation that confronts us today. Mr. President, all of these things are good. The question is, can we afford them? If we are talking about programs like this, then that is just one more deep bite of the knife or the machete--call it what you will--into programs for the elderly, the poor, the School Lunch Program, Women, Infants and Children, and all of these other things that we think are tremendously important. I simply say that if we cannot make savings in programs like this that have already been zeroed out by the House of Representatives, then I suspect that we are going to have even more and more difficulty than we thought we had with regard to doing something constructively and thoughtfully about the deficit of the United States of America and the ever-skyrocketing national debt that is eating our economy alive. Therefore, I say notwithstanding the good, valuable, articulate, and well-thought out recommendations by those who are opposing the Bumpers amendment, I simply say that I must at this time not only vote for the Bumpers amendment, but I hope that the Senate on this occasion will rise to the occasion and do what I think we must under the circumstances that confront us, and that is to approve the Bumpers amendment. from Arkansas, and I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which I hope--and I emphasize ``I hope''--will serve as a common ground for the two warring factions very prominent in our society today. My bill amends the Federal labor law by providing a short-term ban on permanent replacement workers for the first 60 days of a strike. Then permanent replacements could be gradually phased in over a 12-month period so that an employer could hire 100 percent of their work force as permanent replacements by the end of a year. I believe that those two warring factions--management and labor--need to focus more on what is in our Nation's long-term best interests and less on getting and keeping an upper hand. I caution either side from thinking that crushing blows or complete victories are within reach. They are not. I have proposed my idea before but neither side wanted to take the first step. To management I say you have leveraged a rarely used practice into what is now the sledgehammer of negotiations. The right to strike hangs by the thread that separates the difference between being fired and being permanently replaced. To labor I say the global economy has remade the rules. International competitiveness may mean that labor will have to settle for less than the whole loaf sometimes. I voted against NAFTA and against GATT for various reasons, but some of the most important involved my concern that our chase for cheap labor would erode the ground under our workers and the standard of living in America. But that is over and done with. We can shore up as best we can, but I fear the erosion may continue, not subside. The two old bulls, labor and management, are still at it, with their horns locked, straining. The harmful effects of that intransigence can be seen in the festering sore of professional baseball. They often threaten to pull the Senate into the trenches and seem to have done so once again. Mr. President, I make this appeal: Congress has the power to step in and set some ground rules instead of being pushed this way and pushed that. Let us take this opportunity to impose some order, set some rules, then hopefully set this issue aside and see if such a resolution works. Under my bill, management is barred from simply replacing workers permanently the day after the strike. Certainly management can keep the plant open, if they choose, with temporary workers. Labor knows, however, that the meter is running under my bill and that the effect of the strike is diminished with time. For example, after 60 days, the employer can hire 10 percent of the work force as replacements, permanent replacements; after 90 days, 20 percent; after 6 months, 50 percent; after 9 months, 75 percent; and after 1 year, 100 percent, if that is the desire of management. Management will say that the 60-day ban is too long, while labor will say that a year before being completely replaced is too short. I say that sounds like the start of a good compromise. Congress can break this logjam, and I think it should. I do not believe this is a matter to be resolved by Executive order but, rather, by law. I think this proposal can satisfy well-meaning and well- intentioned people on both sides of the issue and may help us to look forward in both the Senate and this country to something better. Mr. President, I suggest that we look ahead to the 21st century. Let us quit sticking our heads in the sand with meaningless gestures. Anyone who is looking beyond next year or the next election, who truly believes in collective bargaining, should recognize that international competition in the 21st century demands labor/management cooperation and not war. I submit it is not fair or reasonable to expect a union worker to strike for economic grievances when he or she could lose their job the very first day that they dare walk the picket line. Some collective bargaining. With just a little bit of backbone and a little bit of reason and a little bit of understanding, we could properly correct this situation that continues to tear American labor and management apart. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to the unfunded mandates bill. I am proud that we are so close to delivering this critical legislation to the nation's Governors, mayors, and town managers who have been laboring under the terrible weight of unfunded mandates. When the President signs this bill, we will hear a collective sigh of relief from coast to coast. For too long, Congress shifted the cost of these regulations and mandates to the States. Their ledgers bled red from our actions. Their unfunded mandates that we have foisted upon them. However, with this conference report, of which I was very happy to be a part, in working out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the mandate bill, we are taking an important step in the right direction. Equilibrium is restored. The fiscal responsibility shifts back where it belongs--with the authors of these rules. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues this is a fair and just compromise. This is a conference report that addressed the unfunded mandates problems head on. This is a conference report all of us can support no matter on which side of the aisle we sit. I wish we could approach more of the business of the American people in such a bipartisan manner as we have addressed this in the Congress of the United States. In closing, Mr. President, it is my opinion that the conferees did an excellent job knitting together the two different bills in this coherent and seamless package. We compromised without sacrificing the muscle and teeth of the Senate bill. From my point of view as a Senate conferee, I was most pleased that the judicial review process was kept to a minimum. The current wording is certainly far more restrained than the broad House language which would have provided a field day for lawyers. Their loss is our gain, thank goodness. I would also point out that the conference report maintained the amendment sponsored by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd]. The language forces Congress to vote on an agency's decision on whether or not it can implement a mandate with the money appropriated. This conference report gives Congress the last word, to which I say ``amen.'' Mr. President, one of my favorite Presidents, Harry Truman, was famous for the sign on his desk that said, ``The buck stops here.'' We can learn a lot from those words. For too long, Congress has been passing the buck to the States. For too long, we have been passing the buck and passing the bill. It is time we took responsibility for our own actions. It is time we pulled the plug on unfunded mandates. It is time we passed this conference report, and I hope we will today. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of any time remaining, and I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I agree with that conclusion.