Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to talk in a moment about a statement made by the Senator from Georgia. The more things change the more they stay the same. It is just on that side now, not on this side. Last year I listened to all of the speeches that we made that were similar to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. We were filibustered on practically everything, and the bills that were filibustered last year are now 1 through 5. You did a great job. People out there think that we could not do anything. Now you all can do it all. So, we will have a little fun. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it does not, the rule is on our side. I heard that. I would hope that we would be accommodating here and not try to steamroll. We are just getting started. We do not have a bunker mentality yet. And the bunker has not been built. I would think that the speeches that were made last year we can almost go back to the Record and read them, except that side is making them now instead of this side. So we will get around to all these things. Earlier in the debate the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, spoke of the Motor-Voter Act as an example of the type of legislation the unfunded mandate bill is designed to prevent. He argued that if this bill, S. 1, the unfunded mandate bill had been in effect, the Members who had been made aware of the costs of motor-voter when they voted, and it probably would not have passed. That was his statement today. Mr. President, motor-voter is not an unfunded mandate as defined under S. 1. Let me repeat that: Motor-voter is not an unfunded mandate as defined in S. 1. It is not a new bill. I offered it 8 years ago. I am glad it is out here now and we are talking about it. I got two Senators that agreed with me. It has become a large slide out there. I can hardly wait to feel the tidal wave come over me when we finally do vote on it. Eight years ago I got a couple of Senators here to help me. Now, if this bill had been law, S. 1, at the time motor-voter was considered, the motor-voter bill would not have been subjected to a point of order. I want that understood. Contrary to what the Senator from Georgia has asserted, we did know--we did know--what the cost of motor-voter was going to be, as we all know all bills reported by committee have to have a cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. CBO did a very thorough analysis, and even consulted State officials in its review of that bill. Its estimate included the cost impact on the States. CBO estimated the bill to cost the States $20 million to $25 million total. That amount would not have triggered the provisions of this bill. Therefore, by definition, motor-voter is not an unfunded mandate. Furthermore, the CBO analysis found that those direct costs to the States would be offset by savings. For example, CBO estimated that local election officials would save up to $10 million annually because it would reduce the need for extensive temporary staffing close to each election. Also, it estimated an additional savings of $4 million in postage. That is subtracted from the $20 million to $25 million. So this statement of the Senator from Georgia--I hope he will read the bill and look at it and see that motor-voter would not have triggered this bill as now before the Senate. In the committee report on motor-voter, the minority set forth inflated estimates of State costs. Those estimates have not stood up to those States that have gone ahead with implementation, and 37 of them have. Maybe 38 now. The actual cost of States' implementing motor-voter have been much lower than the minority's initial estimates and closer to the costs projected by CBO. Opponents continue to rely on inflated cost estimates, which includes registration rolls. Mr. President, computerization of the registration rolls is not required by motor-voter--not required. What they are trying to do is to load this on the cost and say they have to do it and go out and spend the money, and then they are fussing about unfunded mandates. It is just not true. The Senator from Georgia questioned whether there was any benefit gained by motor-voter. I never claimed at any time, that I can recall, that motor-voter would increase voter turnout. What I claimed was that it would increase the number of registered voters and those that could vote if we got them out. The record on this, I think, is extremely clear. In the first 2 working days in which motor-voter was in effect in Georgia, it added 1,853 new registered voters, almost a thousand a day. In Florida, on the first working day of implementation, 4,640 new registrants--4,640--were registered the first day in the State of Florida. In the first week in Indiana, it was reported that 10 percent of motorists getting new or renewed licenses took advantage of motor-voter and registered. I suggest that these numbers speak for themselves, and it is clear from these figures that motor-voter is working. I suggest--only suggest--that the real concerns of the opponents of the motor-voter bill is the fact that it is working and it is really not the cost of implementation of this piece of legislation. I have never engaged in a filibuster in 20 years. I have used some parliamentary procedures and used some strategy as it relates to the rules of the Senate, but with the reports we have from the States that are involved--and if there is an attempt to put this amendment on this piece of legislation, I will have to object and I will have to object vigorously. I will have to use whatever means are available to me as a Senator to see that as we move along and as things are really happening out there, and that people are being registered and the cost is much less and it does not trigger S. 1, then I feel like we have made a good start in a good direction. Mr. President, I hope I do not have to and I hope that there will not be an attempt to put on an amendment as relates to motor-voter on S. 1. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate for me to say a few words about James Fleming, a man whose knowledge of and respect for this Chamber was matched by few. When he died last week, I lost my most trusted political adviser, my confidant, my dear friend. He was historian, constitutional scholar, purveyor of Kentucky politics, and the unsung hero behind every major legislative initiative in the Kentucky legislature of the 1960's and 1970's. Years later, Kentucky Governors and U.S. Senators alike would seek Jim out, whether he was holding court in Frankfort or his office at 167 Russell. I might add, that it was his habit to being holding court at 7 a.m., much to the dismay of many a late-sleeping lobbyist. But most important, Jim was always the boy from the small town of Ludlow, who fell in love with Edith Murrell Gaines and married her against her father's best judgment. The one who became a mentor to so many legislators and staff assistants; who was so proud of his children, grandchild, and the baby on its way; and who, long before polls and focus groups came into fashion, used the neighborhood bridge club as his political barometer. Those traits never failed him. The papers will tell of Jim's remarkable mind that could recount the vote tally in any county 20 years later and made redistricting an art form. They will tell of the parliamentary wizard who left the opposition hopelessly muddled when they had been duped. And they will tell of the visionary who worked to revise the State's constitution, succeeded at streamlining the workings of the General Assembly and reorganized Kentucky's executive branch. But the people who knew him best will tell of the man who was just as likely to draw analogies from baseball and mystery stories as he was Shakespeare and Aristotle. They'll tell of the man whose love of a good drink was replaced by his love of a good donut, of the devout Catholic who confessed to me last year that he'd run out of things to give up for Lent, and who would always return your books with chocolate smears and notes in the margin with his famous, illegible red scrawl. The Old Testament tells us that ``The price of wisdom is above rubies.'' Surely Jim was a rich man. But if he was rich, we were richer still, because ``The storyteller is the person who creates an atmosphere in which wisdom can reveal itself.'' And Jim had so much wisdom to reveal. Rest assured that Jim's loved ones, his good friends, and his not-so- good friends, will be retelling his stories. It might be the one about his impersonating me up at the Lieutenant Governor's conference in Rhode Island. Others will tell of the time when the television cameras, and Edith Murrell, caught Jim when he snuck out from work to catch an afternoon of racing at Churchill Downs. And perhaps, a few will tell what really went on during those redistricting sessions with the maps spread out on the LRC office floor, or how he was always being mistaken for the ``Senator'' up in Washington. Well, the last one was fine with me, even if it did get him seated for dinner before me once too often. We were always a team. I can't say goodbye before expressing my sincerest thanks to his children Barbara Clair and Mike, along with his granddaughter Laura, and all the family members for sharing a large part of Jim with us. I know there were times when Jim felt he should be with them, but wouldn't leave me. I cherish them much I treasured and will miss this friendship. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial of January 5, 1995 be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand the reasoning--I do not accept it--for defeating this amendment. We are not talking about a House rule or a Senate rule. We are talking about law. We will have in the law a restriction of the Senate and no restriction of the House. The Senate, some years ago, decided that when the taxpayers were paying your air fare and you were a frequent flier--and most of us are--and you accumulated those frequent flier miles, and that belonged to your office. As the rules say, it is Government money, but it applies to your office, so you could use those frequent flier miles to reduce the cost to your office and therefore reduce the cost to the taxpayer. In the House, they have allowed the Congressmen to use the frequent flier mileage for personal use. So they were receiving a personal perk at the expense of the taxpayer dollar. All we are saying here is that we ought to be treated alike, and that the House should not, by rule, as my distinguished colleague from Iowa has said, change. But it is not a matter of law, unless they put it into a piece of legislation. It will be statutory. So if you make a rule, you change a rule. So what I think we need to do is to listen to Senator Glenn. As he says, let us see if we cannot, by the very fact of reducing the cost of our tickets to our district or to our State, because we would not receive the so-called frequent flier mileage--and then our tickets would be reduced and it would be the same. He is not asking that we do it. As I understand it, he is asking that we have a study and make a recommendation, and then the Rules Committee will make the rule that will apply, which would be statutory. And so, Mr. President, it is all right if you use the theory that the House does not tell us how to run our business and we should not tell them how to run theirs. But the House has told us how to run our business on more than one occasion. We are just coming out of the way we keep our books, because it was imposed upon us by the House. It was not done by the Senate, it was done by the House. If we are going to let this one slide and all those on the other side are going to be opposed to restricting the use of taxpayer dollars for personal perks, then I think the more things change around here, the more they stay the same. If those new Senators that come into this body after they ran their campaign on trying to say we are going to straighten the place out and we are going to try to take the Congressmen and Senators' hands out of your pocket, regulations off your back, and our hands out of your pocket, here is one glowing way you can say, ``I am keeping my campaign pledge'' or, ``No, I am not, I am going to let them go ahead and take this perk off the taxpayers.'' So the streets of hell are paved with good intentions. What if they put it into a bill, a rules change, or make it statutory, and it is a bill that does not pass the Senate. They keep on building up these frequent flier miles and can use them personally. There are a lot of things. As the majority leader said--and I take him at his word--if this bill passes the Senate as it is--and apparently all the amendments to it are going to be tabled or defeated--then the House will accept this legislation without a conference, pass it, and send it to the President for signature. So we have missed a grand and glorious chance of doing what is right. If the House, as they say, is going to do it anyhow, why should they object? Why should they object to putting it in this bill that they are going to pass and send on to the President? I do not think it is very good cover saying that we want the House to make their own decision and the Senate to make their own, when over the years we have both made decisions that applied to each body. Some were far more significant than this, but has no more imagery, no more moral underpinning than this one amendment. So we are going to apply it to the Senate statutorily, and the House eventually will get around to a rules change, or maybe put it into a piece of legislation. So I have to say to you that my dad always told me, ``Son, never underestimate the insignificant.'' Never underestimate the insignificant. This is an insignificant, little amendment. But it says a volume. It says a volume. Are we going to stop the use of taxpayer money for personal use? No. We will for ourselves, but nobody else. And so if the House is going to do it, why not do it here? Mr. President, it is hard for me to understand. Just this week, or last week, we voted that we did not want to have lobbyist reform or gift ban proposals here. And those that were vehemently for lobbyist reform and gift bans came out and said, ``We do not want Democrats setting the agenda for us. We want to put in our own bill.'' If that is cover not to vote for lobbyist reform or gift ban, that is still a weak reed. So that is No. 2 this week. That is No. 2 that we have had to vote on. You have looked back, and never underestimate the insignificant. Pretty soon, the insignificant is going to be three, and it is going to be four, and it is going to be five. And we have just started. We are not 10 days old and already that pledge out there and beating of the chest and coming back here and saying what you are going to do--working all night on the House side--is going to be for naught. I am for this. I think it is the right thing to do. I was for it a long time ago. Unfunded mandates I offered to you 6 years ago at $50 million, the same figures. Did I get any takers? No. Five years ago, did I get any takers? No. Now it is one of the big deals. Unfunded mandates. I have been a Governor, and I understand how this egg is never going to be put back together once we scramble it and give the States unfunded mandates. It goes on and on, and it is going to eat us all up, and we are going to be back here trying to reconsider that, because I have had to endure under what Congress does. We pass a bill here and the bureaucrats do not speak. They then legislate it. We are going to have a balanced budget amendment. That is going to pass, but then we, after it passes, will pass legislation to implement it. What is going to be an emergency? I think we are moving too fast and there ought to be some thought given to the fabric that we are weaving here that is going to be a tremendous problem down the pike. So we have had two votes, and there may be a third one before the day is over. There may be a fourth one. But let me remind my friends, never underestimate the insignificant. This is insignificant, and you are going to have to pay for it one of these days when you do not want to do what is right. I hope my colleagues will reconsider this. This is the right thing to do. It is not the wrong thing to do. The only excuse is that we want the House to set their own rules. And this is not a rule; this is statutory. When you put it into the statutes, then you have to take it out. A rule is a lot easier to change. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to reconsider their position and look at what Senator Glenn offered here. It makes a great deal of sense. I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FORD. I will be glad to.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand that the unanimous-consent agreement was given to the Senator from Minnesota and that his amendment would be brought up right after this particular vote. It is my understanding now it will not be necessary to have a recorded vote on my amendment. The Senator from Minnesota is willing to allow us to proceed, provided he will be the next one up. If that is agreeable to the leadership, we will proceed in that manner.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I, too, compliment the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his amendment. As ranking member of the Rules Committee, I pledge to him that we will move forward to try to give him the kind of answers I think he wants and I support. So I pledge to him we will attempt to get this out to the Senator in a reasonable length of time.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of Senator Wellstone be set aside and that the Ford amendment be considered by a voice vote or by unanimous consent, and at the end of that then we go back and recognize the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. You try a lot of things on this side that do not work. We voted overwhelmingly for a lobbying bill, gift bans, and everybody on the other side voted for it, 93 to 5, overwhelmingly. Some go out of here, and the only excuse they had for not voting for it this time is that they want to set the agenda. They want to introduce their own lobbying bill-gift ban bill. Now we are trying to uphold something that is absolutely the right thing to do, and they say we should not impose it on the House. If they have been doing it for a while, why not correct it now? Do not wait months from now. The distinguished majority leader said that this is a bill that would be acceptable on the House side. If it is going to be accepted on the House side, why not have something in there that is right? Let us do the right thing instead of letting it go. If something bad has happened, if something bad is going on, let us correct it now. Let us not wait until we are down the pike. If anyone wants to pass this underlying bill, sure, let us pass the underlying bill, but not by setting up a new, special and separate bureaucracy by Congress for Congress. You go out and tell your constituent tomorrow that you are immune from prosecution. He is not. Tell him about the special committee set up to set your rules, and he does not have any. Tell him about the special counsel you are going to hire for yourself, and he does not have any. Do you think this is applying the laws that you put on the small businessman to Congress? Think again. So if the underlying bill is that bad, why not add something on it that might do a little good? Just stop the use of perks from taxpayers' dollars for personal use. It is not the first time I have tried to do this. Why is it in the Senate? In 1991 we did it. As the chairman of the Rules Committee I tried. I think I was fair to everybody. I do not believe anybody in the Senate can say that I did not attempt to be fair with every Member. A lot of things we tried to prevent. So if you are going to allow the imagery going out of here applying the laws to the Senate and the House that you apply to your constituents, which is not really true because you are setting up something different that is costly, wait until you get on the 1988 Disability Act when we begin to get into title II. Everybody said we have covered it under ADA. We have not. Now we are finally getting around to it. The Russell subway is not handicap accessible, the subway on the House side is not. We have a lot of things to do. I want my colleagues to know that we are setting up a special bureaucracy for Congress by Congress. The more [[Page S644]] things change the more they stay the same. There is one thing we can change: taking taxpayers' dollars and using them for personal perks. I do not care if it has been going on for 40 years. Why should it go on for 41? And if the majority leader is right--and I have to accept his word that this bill will be accepted by the House and not go to conference--then we just delay the personal perks of the Members on the other side. I do not think they object to this. We are the ones that are objecting. I have not had anybody from the House run over here and say: Ford, you cannot do that, you cannot take my perk away from me. I want to continue to get my frequent flier miles so I can take my family to Europe or Hawaii or San Diego or Miami. We want to take a vacation on the taxpayers. If you want to say that is what we want you to continue to do, then vote for Senator McConnell's amendment, and we will just pull ours down. It will not make any difference at all. So I hope people will look at this. The fabric of the legislation has to be accurate. There cannot be a 30-second sound bite in legislation. You can have a 30-second sound bite out in the campaign, but when we develop the fabric of the legislation here, that fabric has to meet where the rubber meets the pavement. It has to be accurate. You said something and now we are going to do it. But this legislation does not do it. I can give you chapter and verse, chapter and verse. There are about 24,000 employees that you are putting under this. You will have to have supplemental appropriations to pay for it--more than once a year, in my opinion. And I am for it, but I think all you have to do is just waive our exemptions and let us do what our constituents have to do. Very simple. Oh, the separation of powers. If you are going to have separation of powers, that is one thing. But separation of powers is so costly under this bill, we will never see the end of tens of millions of dollars we are going to have to spend, because we are doing for Congress by Congress again, and the more things change the more they stay the same. I think in this instance we ought to change it just a little bit and say you cannot use your constituents' tax dollars for personal perks. It is a very simple vote. It will not take long, about 15 minutes tomorrow. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. The other Senator. Mr. President, I think my colleague, Senator McConnell, has a very weak argument. What he is saying is let the House continue to take their frequent flier mileage and use it personally; take your wife and family to Europe on a nice trip, or go out to California on miles earned by official expense. That is number one. Number two, the House says they are going to do this. Fine. I listened very closely to our majority leader, Senator Dole, when he said this bill, in all probability, will be accepted by the House and we will not have to go to conference. So if this amendment is not included in S. 2, then the House will continue for a period of time being able to use their frequent flier miles for personal use. And I do not think the taxpayers want to do that. And, if we approve this modification, or amendment, that my colleague has submitted, then the purpose of Senator Feingold and I is just moot. There is no need of having the amendment, since the Senate already has its rule. I would prefer to keep it in. But nevertheless--and I am aware of the usual [[Page S642]] practice that each House not legislate with regard to the operations of the other House. While this understanding is generally, and I underscore generally, honored, there have been a number of circumstances where it has not. One recent major incident, and I underscore major, was the House insistence that the Senate official office accounts--if you remember that, we are just getting over that, we are just getting over that-- that the Senate official office accounts be modified by adoption of restrictive language in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1991. That, in effect, was a major implementation of new rules by the House on the Senate. That change affected every Member of the Senate, and required the adoption of an extensive interpretive ruling by the Senate Ethics Committee, which my colleague should know plenty about since he is on the Ethics Committee. The net effect of the amendment that deletes the House from this amendment is to permit the House Members to continue to convert frequent flier awards earned with taxpayers' money to personal use. Is this the congressional accountability that we talked about? It would be the only unit of Government that is allowed to do that. The executive does not allow it. The Senate does not allow it. But the House flies anywhere they want to on the perks from taxpayers' dollars. I understand you want to let the House go ahead and do it. It seems to me that if we want to be accountable here--sure we use, on our side in the Senate, those miles that are compiled from official trips back home to have more trips or to reduce the cost of our offices. It is pretty good, $300 or $400 a round trip, two or three trips, save $1,000; save $100,000 in the Senate. It begins to mount up. So the House, with 435 over there, it would be $435,000 that you would get back. You know, just a little bit. So I would say to my friend that if this bill is going to become law--as I understand the majority leader insists that it will, if we do not amend it too much--just to put this in the bill, I do not think the House will vote against it just because we say to them they cannot use taxpayers' dollars for personal use. If you want to vote for that, let the House use it for personal use, you are going to get an opportunity, probably tomorrow afternoon around 2:15, or 2:30. But this amendment would modify the amendment I proposed with Senator Feingold by deleting the reference to the House of Representatives, and the proposal is just not acceptable. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD. I object.