Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by my colleague and good friend from Arizona. I do not do so because I disagree with his goal of making the good work of the Congressional Research Service available to the general public. Nor do I believe that the American people should be prevented from seeing the kinds of documents we use every day to help us make difficult decisions here in Congress. The Senator from Arizona is nothing if not consistent in his commitment to open government, and this current effort, like so many others, is continued proof of his faith in those principles. That said, however, I oppose this amendment because it attempts to solve a problem that really doesn't exist. For years, all Members of Congress have had the opportunity to make CRS materials available to constituents upon request. This arrangement has been beneficial to everyone concerned: citizens receive information on issues of interest; Members of Congress are kept informed about the issues that concern their constituents; and the CRS--which is an extension of Congressional staff and not a public agency--maintains the ability to study and explain difficult issues for its primary audience, the Congress, without external pressure from groups with an interest in the issues that CRS is charged with researching. Of course, as technology has changed, CRS has been able to improve the ways of delivering materials to Congress. While CRS still prints reports and delivers them to Congressional offices by hand and by mail, those same reports are also now available to Members and staff via the Internet. Congress, similarly, can make use of technology and the Internet to distribute CRS materials to their constituents. There is no reason to switch from the procedure of allowing Members of Congress to interact with their constituents with regard to CRS products to a system where CRS responds directly to the public. That is why Senator Warner and I, as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee, recently circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' letter announcing that the Rules Committee will be providing selected CRS documents to the public through a special link on the Committee Web site and inviting Members and Committee Chairmen to investigate the feasibility of doing the same with their Web sites. Although it might seem like a big step for the Rules Committee and other offices to make CRS documents available on the Internet, the truth is that our Web page is nothing more than a new twist on the old method of making CRS documents available to interested citizens. The only difference is that, instead of using what Internet users call ``snail mail,'' Members of Congress can make CRS materials available to constituents at the click of a mouse or the press of a button. What has not changed is the necessary participation of Member offices in the process. Without that participation--without the ability of Members and Committees to respond to constituent requests and to provide CRS products accordingly--CRS risks losing its status as an extension of our staff and the scholarly research and non-partisan analysis that are its hallmarks will be jeopardized. That is why I think the pending amendment--which would remove Congressional offices from the equation and require that CRS prepared and maintain a central public Website for its products--is flawed. What is worse, requiring CRS to put all of its products on the Internet would cost millions of dollars--money that could be put to better use in recruiting new CRS analysts to replace those who will be eligible to retire shortly after the turn of the century. I simply cannot understand why CRS should be saddled with a project of this size when we in Congress already have the means to use existing technology to significantly improve the traditional method of distributing CRS products. Madam President, as Ranking Member of the Rules Committee I have had several opportunities to hear out my colleague from Arizona on this issue. I urge him and any colleagues who support this amendment to follow the lead of the Rules Committee in offering CRS products to constituents via the Internet. As of now, no other Senate Committee-- including the Commerce Committee, chaired by my colleague from Arizona--has taken advantage of the offer by CRS to assist Committee and Member offices with online access to CRS products. Madam President, I have always believed that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it''--and until it is clear that Committee- and member- sponsored online distribution of CRS products is inadequate, I do not think we should expend the energy of the Senate--or the resources of the CRS--on such a questionable solution. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I am not particularly worried about when you have a vote on final passage. I am worrying about cutting off amendments, so that when Monday comes and somebody thinks of another amendment, they will be cut off.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. On the legislative appropriations bill, will there be no further amendments after today if we have to vote on them next week?

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Madam President, may we have order? I know it is tough.

Mr. FORD. Madam President, will the distinguished majority leader yield for a quick question?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I ask Senator Brownback how long he thinks he will take? We have some Senators with time problems, and I want to try to accommodate them. If I know how long he will be speaking, and others, I can probably accommodate them.

Mr. FORD. You are asking for more than 10 minutes. I am wondering how long.

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator be willing to say no longer than 30 minutes?

Mr. FORD. If that is the way we are going then, no one else will get more than 10 minutes.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I understand where the Senator is coming from. I also agree because I have a similar bill. It is at the table. But it seems like, to me, that we want to be fair to everyone. If you are going to be fair to everyone, you ought to be paying about the same. The bonus is nice to have, I understand. But some are eligible over the $75,000 for a bonus. We ought to be trying to help those under $75,000. I think we could equalize the tax situation, do both of the things that you and I would like to do. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand it is: ``My way or nothing.'' Probably what we get is nothing.

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FORD. We do have a marriage bonus that is now for the upper income. The marriage bonus, you know, is quite lucrative. I have a bill to eliminate the marriage penalty also. So I am basically agreeing with what you are trying to do. But when I started developing this, I found out we had a marriage bonus. If we eliminate the marriage bonus, eliminate the marriage penalty, we will come out with a surplus of about $4 billion over the next 5 years. Is the Senator willing to do something along that line?

Mr. FORD. We are not raising taxes.

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. You are already doing that. You are in the tobacco industry. You are attacking the tobacco industry, and it is all about tobacco.

Mr. FORD. You have the floor.

Mr. FORD. You are legislating a tax, and it isn't limited to 1 year, it is ongoing.

Mr. FORD. I know about the haircut, but in the amendment it is $150 million.

Mr. FORD. It is still $150 million out of the taxpayer's pocket.