Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Why don't I object to the colloquy of the Senator from Tennessee being entered into the Record, set that aside, so when the colloquy goes in, I will have an opportunity then to present my side of the question; would that be agreeable?

Mr. FORD. So they are withdrawing the unanimous consent request.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes under the unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this House tax language is strongly opposed by the Federation of Tax Administrators. These are the revenue officials from all 50 States and the District of Columbia. They believe this amendment creates a horrible precedent of preempting State tax laws. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in opposition to this language from the Federation of Tax Administrators be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the House tax language and proposed Thompson amendment impose unfunded mandates on the States. Think about this now. Back in 1995 we passed a law on unfunded mandates. This amendment, if it was offered here--but it is in the House and will be in conference-- violates, if not the law, the spirit of the law on unfunded mandates. The House language and the Thompson amendment that was not offered also raise significant constitutional concerns. I ask unanimous consent that an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General from the Commonwealth of Kentucky suggesting the Thompson amendment may be unconstitutional be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, why are we singling out this Federal facility? We really do not know the full scope of this issue and this precedent we are creating by preempting State law. The employees of Fort Campbell wherever they reside--benefit from services provided by the States of Kentucky and Tennessee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet detailing the services provided to all Fort Campbell employees, including those who reside in Tennessee, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, tax legislation, and especially tax legislation that preempts State law, should not be snuck into a defense bill in this manner. I intended to offer an amendment which dealt with this issue and would help educate Senators on the potential broad scope of the precedent being set by the House language. However, in the interest of finishing this bill, I will withhold offering an amendment at this time. However, I wish to alert the managers to my strong objection to such language being included in this bill, or any other unrelated bill. I strongly object to inclusion of such language in the conference report. I urge the managers to protect my interests. I thank the Chair. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan and hope that the majority manager of the bill will give the same attention that I have asked for here.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thought the Senator from Tennessee would be here to do his own business and I didn't realize the Senator from North Carolina was going to make the motion. I prefer that he not make it so I can have an opportunity--I understood the Senator from North Carolina will have an amendment he will propose.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, just entered a colloquy as it related to the tax situation between Kentucky and Tennessee. I wanted to be sure that my remarks on the unconstitutionality of that amendment were brought to the attention of my colleague. Mr. President, there is a provision in the House version of this bill that really astounds me. I am referring to an amendment to title X of the House bill which was offered by Congressman Bryant. I wish to bring it to the attention of the managers. It is a tax issue involving the States of Kentucky and Tennessee. Let me restate that. It is a tax issue--not even a federal tax issue, but a state tax issue--and it is mentioned in the House version of this bill. The House bill contains language which preempts state tax laws and lays out how federal and private sector employees who may do work at the Fort Campbell Army installation should be taxed by states. I think all Senators should be concerned by the precedent set by this language. Let me make a few points relevant to this language. The language in the House bill raises fundamental TAX issues. It is within the jurisdiction of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees. It has no place on this bill. The House tax language involves issues that should be decided among States. Congress should not be dictating state tax policies in a Defense Authorization bill. Congress should not be preempting state tax laws in a Defense bill. At my urging, our Governor's office has contacted the Tennessee Governor's office. Revenue officials from both States have had preliminary discussions in the last few weeks. We should allow this process of negotiation to continue. That is the usual way in which States deal with tax issues like this one. Not on the floor of the House or Senate. The House tax language will cost my State $4 million in lost revenue. The Governor of Kentucky strongly opposes a Congressional attempt to preempt State tax laws in this manner. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of opposition to this language from the Governor of Kentucky be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me quote from a couple of lines from this. We ask the Senate to recognize that throughout the history of income taxation, both Federal and State, workers are taxed by the jurisdiction where the work is performed. Another part of the letter says: The U.S. Constitution imposes substantive constraints on the manner in which States may structure their tax systems. These restraints ensure that the tax imposed meets fundamental tests of fairness in dealing with all citizens. The letter says: Finally, and most importantly, if change is necessary, it is within the power of the States involved to do so. And: The ability to define their tax systems within the bounds of the Constitution is one of the core elements of sovereignty preserved to the States under the Constitution. There is no rationale of precedent here under this situation. Mr. President, Oregon has just worked out the problem between Washington and the State of Oregon, as it should be done. Yet, my friend from Tennessee included Oregon and Washington in his statement. If this language is agreed to, then Tupelo, MS, had better look out because the same thing that is happening in Kentucky will happen to Mississippi, because the same situation occurs near Tupelo from Tennessee, and then there is a park system at the border there. So they would have to, in good conscience, go after two additional States. It was my understanding that the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, was considered offering a similar amendment to this bill. Senators from at least 24 States should be concerned about the precedent this language would set. Any State which borders another State with no state income tax structure should be concerned about the precedent set by this language. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the 24 States that could be adversely affected by the proposed language be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, in fact, I have a partial list of over 240 federal facilities that are on or near the borders of two or more States. The precedent created by this language could affect these and other federal facilities all over the country. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 240 Federal facilities located on or near State borders be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is absent due to family illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is absent because of family illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on July 17, 1996, President Clinton supported legislative language establishing a two-year ``pilot program'' to identify and demonstrate a safe and cost-effective technology for the destruction of chemical weapon munitions stockpiles. The language signed into law by the President directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to designate a program and appoint an executive officer to carry out the pilot program who was not, nor had been, in direct or immediate control of the Army Baseline Chemical Incineration Demilitarization program. The legislation further prohibited the obligation of funds at two chemical weapons stockpile sites--Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky and the Pueblo Depot in Colorado--pending the outcome of the two-year research program. It is Senator McConnell's and my understanding that the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program has been a success in its initial stages. The management team for ACWA has just completed selecting seven technology teams who will conduct further evaluations toward a possible demonstration phase later this year. Based on information received, I am encouraged that at least two of the non- incineration technologies will be available for full scale testing by fiscal year 2000. I am also very impressed with the very effective ``dialogue'' process including local citizens, state regulators, environmental organizations, tribal representatives, and many others in building a consensus in the ACWA program. I'm hopeful this open exchange will help in the eventual deployment and operation of a non-incineration facility, ensuring the days of delay and distraction that have plagued the chemical demilitarization program will soon be over. Because of this success, I believe the ACWA ``dialogue'' will continue as a central part of the decision-making and consensus building in the Chemical Weapons Destruction program. Mr. President, the amendment we introduce today does many things in the area of chemical demilitarization. It directs that the ACWA program must continue its independence from the baseline incinerator program through the next phase of pilot and full scale development. This will prevent any break or pause in the ACWA program by disallowing any transfer of responsibility for the program while making sure it meets the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty (CWC) deadlines. The program will stay under the direct supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. The ACWA program manager will continue to act independently of the program manager for the Baseline Chemical Demilitarization Program. This amendment also provides $18 million additional dollars so the Program manager of ACWA can move forward to meet the CWC deadline of 2007, which can be expanded until the year 2012. The additional funds authorized for chemical demilitarization for fiscal year 1999 will not come from the funds for the alternative technologies ``Bulk Pilot Program.'' Mr. President, I want to thank the leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee for accepting this amendment. I would also like to thank Ms. Monica Chavez and Mr. Richard Fieldhouse of the committee staff for working with my staff in developing this amendment. Also, Mr. Billy Piper, Senator McConnell's military legislative assistant, should be commended for a job well done.

Mr. FORD

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 Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I'm offering this amendment for myself and my Co-Chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Bond, along with Senators Lott, Stevens and Grassely. Last year conferees added language to the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization bill requiring all counter-drug missions conducted by National Guard units to comply with section 2012 of Title 10 and section 508 of Title 32. Before these changes, National Guard men and women supported Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies in a wide variety of ways from transcription and translation of DEA wiretaps to aerial and ground thermal imaging of suspected indoor marijuana growing to maintaining listening and Observation posts along the Southwest Border. But because of changes in last year's bill, National Guard members now can only participate in counter drug missions if the mission contributes to their military speciality skills or MOS. For example, this means a member of National Guard whose MOS is a radio specialist could only work in that speciality or if an airman is a mechanic he or she could only repair an airplane! You won't find anyone in the Guard Bureau or the Department of Defense who has ever claimed that counter-drug duty has a negative impact on the training and readiness of National Guard personnel. In fact, there's empirical evidence that counter-drug duty enhances the military readiness of National Guard personnel. And because counter- drug duty is in addition to the required readiness training, it adds no extra readiness training costs. Our amendment will correct this problem, deleting the provisions added in the Fiscal Year 1998 bill, and allowing the National Guard to continue this supportive role in federal, state and local drug demand reduction, as well as interdiction missions. The amendment would also clarify how National Guard personnel can be used in counter-drug activity when providing support to certain youth and charitable organizations. Our amendment would amend the definition of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities to specify that such activities include drug demand reduction activities. By providing support to youth and charitable organizations as part of state counter- drug activities, demand reduction has been part of the National Guard program since its inception and has had the approval of the Secretary of Defense. Language in last year's Defense Authorization bill presented major problems in the Guard's ability to interact with these groups. Our amendment also says that federal funds provided to a state for counter-drug activity can be used to procure or lease equipment. Current law authorizes leasing, but precludes the procurement of equipment. This forces states to lease equipment even though it would be more cost effective to purchase the equipment. Examples of equipment that would be more cost effective to purchase then lease would be Night Vision goggles, Infrared I.D. equipment and Range Finders. Mr. President, these are just the highlights of the major provisions of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a section by section explanation of this amendment be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.