Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, I was not objecting to that amendment. I understand it is basically agreed to and it has complete offsets, so most people are satisfied with it. The only thing I was trying to do is figure out how much longer it would be and when you think the votes will be occurring.

Mr. FORD. I thank the chairman very much. Amendment No. 578, as Modified

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 107, a resolution commending the University of Connecticut women's basketball team for capping a perfect season by winning the 1995 NCAA women's basketball championship, submitted earlier today by Senators Dodd and Lieberman; that the resolution and preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements appear in the Record as if read.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which will provide authority for the Federal Aviation Administration to issue safety certificates to airports serving commuter aircraft of 10 or more passenger seats. The FAA's authority to issue airport certificates is currently limited to airports serving air carrier aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats. This legislation is a result of a recent study of commuter airline safety conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board, which led the Federal Aviation Administration to issue a series of recommendations. The legislation I am proposing today compliments that regulatory effort by providing specific authority for the Federal Aviation Administrator to insure the safety of commuter airports. Safety improvements called for by new airport certification requirements will be eligible for grant funding consideration under the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. This legislation will not mandate the issuance of airport certificates to commuter airports. It will only provide general authority pursuant to which the FAA Administrator may promulgate appropriate regulatory standards. To do so, the FAA will need to issue a proposed regulation that will undergo a public comment process before any final regulation will be issued as they do with any other safety regulation. I am aware of a serious sense within the airport community with this new FAA authority. I would urge the FAA to initiate a negotiated process with the airport community which has been successful in the past. I understand the FAA is currently organizing a working group of affected aviation groups to assist in defining potential costs and reasonable certification requirements. I would urge the FAA to work with the industry as the goal of all concerned is safety. in that safety regulations are often the result of major accidents. The new authority in this legislation is proactive in nature. This legislation will put in place reasonable safety standards to protect commuter airline passengers before there are any fatalities. Let us not wait until an accident to justify the need for safety improvements. I commend the leadership at the FAA--David Hinson, Administrator and Linda Daschle, Deputy Administrator for this change in attitude. It is refreshing that FAA is looking forward instead of backward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] would each vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me make this suggestion, if I may. I suggest the absence of a quorum and it be charged to the opposition.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. We could go back and forth, and we have Senators standing here who have been standing here the whole time to bring up their amendments. I will not object to 1 minute, but after that----

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] are necessarly absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] would eacy vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr.Conrad], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Senate is not in order. We cannot hear the distinguished chairman.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to recognize Rico Tyler and Cynthia Hill-Lawson, two secondary school teachers from the Commonwealth of Kentucky who were recently presented with Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. As you may know, the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching Program was established over a decade age to recognize and reward outstanding teachers and to encourage high-quality educators to enter and remain in the teaching field. Both Rico, in his work with the astronomy program at Franklin-Simpson High School, and Cynthia, who teaches math at Beaumont Middle School in Lexington, have demonstrated that they are committed to providing a quality education to their students. I am very proud of them--as I am sure their friends, colleagues and family are--for they represent the triumphs in our educational system that often go unheralded. Again, Mr. President, I congratulate Rico and Cynthia for this tremendous achievement and wish them many more years of success in the classroom.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator, and I thank the Chair. Not many people in this Chamber--several, probably--have operated under the line-item veto. As Governor of Kentucky, I was given the opportunity for use of the line-item veto. I had three things I could do. I checked with the legislative research commission to be sure that there have been no changes, or whether they have broadened some. I had three things I could do when an appropriations bill comes to you. You can veto the whole bill. But you can run a line through the item, initial it, then you have to give your reason for that veto, and send it back to the legislature within 10 days. They either sustained or overrode your veto. Second, I had the opportunity to reduce a number from $1 million to $500,000 and give the reason for the reduction. I had 10 days to send it to the legislature. I also had the authority to veto a phrase in the language of the appropriations bill. That is all it was. Simple is better, in my opinion here. Either give the President the authority to line item, initial it, send it back up here, and say ``These are the reasons I had to line-item veto this particular position in an appropriation bill.'' I am beginning to worry that we have gotten to a point where our distinguished friend from West Virginia is calling them billettes. I have heard of ``sermonettes.'' They are probably better than billettes. But we hear all Governors have had this authority. Governors use it. So do many States. Well, we are not modeling after what the Governors have at all. Maybe this is a little bit different, but still we deal with the legislative body, we deal with appropriations bills, and third, we have a responsibility to give the reason, and the legislative body then has the opportunity. I am hoping that when this bill goes to conference and comes back-- and it is going to conference--that it will be a somewhat better bill. There has been a lot of Members that have had enthusiasm for the Domenici-Exon bill legislation and it was voted out. Some could not get together on it, and as we have heard about Henry Clay, Henry Clay was the great compromiser. Come to Lexington, KY, sometime, and see his library. You would be quite impressed with that. Henry Clay said, ``Compromise was negotiated here.'' Well, we have seen no negotiation here except on one side, 49-48 a while ago. When we said all this money that is going to be saved ought to reduce the deficit, there was a lot of blustering going on around here, and they said, ``No, we don't want it to go to the deficit, we want to use it for something else.'' We will see how that comes out. Mr. President, I hope when this bill leaves the Chamber tonight and it goes to conference that the conference will have the wisdom to send back something we can all join in, and have an opportunity to give the President line-item veto. And if this line-item veto we are passing tonight is the one that comes back from conference, and it is finally passed and the President does sign it, I am not sure how long it will last because I was amazed at the statement by my friend from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers. He thought he would have a sense of the Senate that they would save so many acres of timber in order to be sure we had enough paper to be used to all of these 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, billettes that are going to come back. I remember when I was Governor, we had to go get bond issues. We may have to do this for the President. You would have 49 pens you were looking at, and one in your hand, and you would sign on the bottom. So you would write Wendell H. Ford and all those pens go up and down with you, and you would sign 50 sheets, as they would slide across. Then you got 50 more you have to sign, they slide across. That is what you are doing. Maybe we could have a patent on the pens that are going to be used by the President, so when he signs hundreds and hundreds of billettes that he will just be able to use one pen, and one pen will work on all those billettes. It will be an interesting day and an interesting night. The future is not yet here. We will have to wait and see how it comes. I hope this bill leaves here and comes back with something we can all join together on. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from West Virginia give me about 3 minutes?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed for 3 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to say just a few words about my good friend and colleague Senator Exon's announcement on Friday that he would be retiring from the Senate. As soon as Senator Exon announced his decision, the political pundits were predicting who would run in his place, and which party stands to win or lose the most. There will be plenty of time to survey the political fallout. Instead, today we should lament the loss of a dedicated public servant and the factors that led to his decision. Let me underscore the facts that led to his decision. I believe the entire institution of the Senate loses when a devoted public servant like Senator Exon chooses to leave. But more importantly, his reasons for leaving signify an even greater loss than his singular contributions. Citing the ``ever-increasing vicious polarization of the electorate,'' Senator Exon said the ``us-against-them mentality has all but swept aside the former preponderance of reasonable discussions of the pros and cons of the many legitimate issues,'' eroding the ``essence of democracy'' in the process. Refusing to answer the bell for another race, Senator Exon sent out a warning to the citizens of this country that the democratic process has become seriously flawed--that using the ``hate level'' in attack ads as the ``measurement of a successful campaign,'' can only mean the deterioration of the notion of compromise ``for the ultimate good of all.'' It was a price the statesman in him was no longer willing to pay. And there can be no doubt that he leaves here a statesman. President Eisenhower once said that ``The opportunist thinks of me and today. The statesman thinks of us and tomorrow.'' I know Senator Exon came to the Senate looking only to do what was in the best interests of his State and country. He knew that his decisions had to pass the test of time, not simply grab attention on the evening news. He spent each day meeting that test, knowing, as he said last week, that he ``never reached a decision that (he) didn't believe to be in the best interests of Nebraska and the United States of America.'' So perhaps the pundits will put aside their political score cards for a moment, and will consider that in his decision to leave, Senator Exon the statesman was again thinking of ``us and tomorrow.'' I certainly hope so, because his intellect, legislative skills, and commitment to service will be sorely missed in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there are many reasons for protecting the unique symbol of the American flag, from the basic liberties it represents to the promise of a better future. But some of the greatest reasons for protecting the flag occurred thousands of miles away from our own shores. For example, 50 years ago, just days after American troops had claimed victory at Iwo Jima, six soldiers helped raise the American flag on the highest point of the island. You can see a soldier on the far left with both arms reaching skyward. It's unclear whether he's just released the flag pole, or if he's trying to touch the flag he fought so hard for, one last time. And perhaps it was the last time he touched the American flag, for 26 days later, he died on the island he had helped claim. The soldier was Pvt. Franklin Sousley of Kentucky, and his image in this famous photograph not only has frozen in time his historic efforts, but tied them inextricably to the symbolism of the American flag. The flag that flew at Iwo Jima serves as a reminder of how war changes the course of a life, of a nation, of a world, so that even individuals who were never there, recognize that those hours of destruction and suffering have altered the future irrevocably. But Private Sousley's outstretched arms also mirror the actions of the millions who've reached out for all that our flag symbolizes, from the basic liberties written into our Constitution to the dreams of a better future for their families. That is why I believe so strongly that the physical integrity of the American flag must be protected. Back in 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Texas flag desecration statute, ruling that flag desecration was free speech protected under the first amendment. In response to that decision, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act, which was also declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's action made it clear that a constitutional amendment is necessary for enactment of any binding protection of the flag. Up to this point, neither House of Congress has been able to garner the two-thirds supermajority necessary for passage of a constitutional amendment. But because grassroots support for this amendment continues to grow, I have joined with Members on both sides of the aisle to again try passing this amendment. I am hopeful that this time we'll get the necessary votes. Clearly no legitimate act of political protest should be suppressed. Nor should we ever discourage debate and discussion about the Federal Government. The narrowly written amendment gives Congress and the States the ``power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States,'' without jeopardizing those rights of free speech. Fifty years ago, the American flag flying over Iwo Jima literally meant life for the flyers of crippled B-29's who would have died at sea if they had not had the island to land on. Today, the flag that hangs in schoolrooms, over courthouses, in sports stadiums, and off front porches all across America, has a bit of the battle of Iwo Jima woven into its fabric. Mr. President, I would say that's something worth protecting.