Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I understand you are talking about fairness here and you are being unfair to those of us who worked so hard.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say this with all respect to the majority leader and to my colleague. It is very difficult to understand what has developed. I thought I understood the rules very well and worked diligently, along with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, and others, including Senator Frist, who worked hard to work out the FDA amendment that is in the bill; all of us worked hard to put this together. I understand the 60-vote rule. I understand that very well, because this amendment by Senator Lugar cannot raise the money. They talked about a lump sum payment and had to change it today because it is 3 years or more. There is no lump sum payment here. You are fooling the farmers, misrepresenting things to the farmer, if the Lugar amendment gets in here. It is the farmer versus the manufacturer. The manufacturer, under the Lugar amendment, will save a billion dollars a year, minimum--a billion dollars a year. You are going to see that check signed tomorrow. You are going to see the press conference tomorrow. You are going to see the farmers come in here tomorrow, because they are opposed to Lugar. You can have all the misgivings you want. There could be ghosts behind every tombstone about the future, but you have to lay groundwork. I say to the majority leader, with all respect, if this is done to us, I am going to make it as difficult as I can to see that the bill is not passed this week, and probably not in June. I believe my responsibility here is to the farmer, not to the manufacturer and not to misrepresent that 40 percent of all the money raised by the McCain bill will go to the farmers under 3 years. Think about that 40 percent. What are you going to reduce? Research? What are you going to reduce? Advertising? What are you going to reduce in order to get that money? Sure, you have to raise it $1.50 to pay for Lugar, and you may not be able to do it then. So here we are, saying to those of us who have worked for months--and I have been on the front porches of grocery stores, in kitchens of farmers, I have been in six States talking to farmers, and this is what the farmers wrote--the LEAF Act. They didn't write the Lugar amendment. I am sorry that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is not going to have a vote. I feel sorry for him, but this is the nature of this institution. This is the nature, this is the rule, and this is the precedent. You are following the rules, that is true. But when it comes down to the farmer versus the manufacturer--and this Lugar amendment will give billions to the manufacturer--then I think that the Senate will have a question of whether they want to support the farmer or whether they want to support the tobacco manufacturer. I know there is nothing I can do, Mr. President. I can object to the unanimous consent, but eventually we will vote on it. Everybody is working hard on the other side to get a bill out of here--just get it out of here. We don't want to touch it, we don't want to fool with it anymore, because what comes out of conference is going to be a minuscule bill. You will have a hard time getting that bill through this body. So rather than starting to take the hide off of folks in the beginning before you even bring the bill up, it seems to me it is a little bit disconcerting. The chairman of the Commerce Committee has been as straight with me and with us as he could be. I find no fault with what he has attempted to do, because some things we can't agree on. But we were not disagreeable. Everything has always been on top of the table with us, and his word has been as good as gold; his word has been his bond. And now the majority leader takes over all this hard work he has done and say to the chairman of the committee, and to us who worked to cooperate, that what you did and your cooperation is for naught. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bond, co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senators Dorgan and Leahy, I am introducing today the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998. Over the past few years, we've had to expend a huge amount of energy fending off attacks to the Guard. Worse, the whole time we're dusting ourselves off and assessing the damage, our opponents deny they've ever laid a finger on us. It reminds me of the boxer who, at the insistence of his trainer, took on the current champ. After the first round, he came back to his corner with a busted lip, and his trainer patted him on the back and said, ``You're doing great,'' then shoved him back out when the second bell sounded. After the second round, he staggered back to his corner with a black eye and a busted cheek, and his trainer said, ``You're doing great, he hasn't laid a hand on you.'' And the boxer replied, ``Well you'd better keep an eye on the referee, `cause someone is beating' the heck out of me.'' Year after year, the Guard has come back to its corner, bruised and battered by the budget process, only to hear Pentagon officials insist they haven't laid a hand on them. I think we all agree that as we enter the 21st Century, the common goal of the U.S. military should be to create and maintain a seamless Total Force that provides our military leaders with the necessary flexibility and strength to address whatever conflicts that might arise. The 1997 QDR should have been the vehicle to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, it fell far short. One analyst described the QDR as ``another banal defense of the status quo.'' There are close to a half million men and women in the National Guard, accounting for about 20 percent of this nation's Armed Forces. Because of their dual federal-state mission, National Guardsmen and women are on hand to serve in both the international arena and in our own backyards. Perhaps more than any other soldier, members of the Guard embody our forefathers' vision of the citizen-soldier. That's because the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard find their roots not only in the history of this country, but equally important, in the communities of this country. The Army National Guard alone provides more than 55 percent of the ground combat forces, 45 percent of the combat support forces, and 25 percent of the Army's combat support units--all while using only two percent of the Department of Defense budget. But if you look at the QDR process, you would think the Guard has outlived its usefulness--that their cost-effectiveness, their flexibility, their readiness are all figments of this Senator's imagination. This contentious relationship got even hotter last spring when leaders of the National Guard expressed outrage at never being given the opportunity to present their case before the QDR and over the Army's failure to be up-front about how deeply they wanted to cut the Army Guard. The outrage was well placed. The Washington Times was right on target when they wrote back in June that The Guard has a greater relevance today than during the Cold War--exactly the kind of relevance the Founding Fathers envisioned when they elected to place the preponderance of the nation's military strength in the state militias. They understand that with its ``dual use system,'' the Guard is the wave of the future, not a relic of the past. While many of us felt blind-sided by the QDR, the fact is it was just one more instance where the Pentagon refuses to give the Guard the status it deserves. I don't believe making the Chief of the National Guard a four star general and a member of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council will solve all of the Guard's problems, but I do believe it would help to change the dynamics of this dysfunctional relationship, and better ensure the Guard's needs are met when the Defense budget is being written, rather than through Congressional intervention. As many of you probably recall, last year Senator Stevens offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to make this change. It was approved by the Senate, but later dropped in Conference Committee. Instead, Conferees agreed to having a Two-Star General from the Guard and one from the Reserves--a position the Guard already has. Since then, I've been working with Senator Bond--my co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus to come up with new legislation reinforcing the important role of both the Guard and the Reserves. The bill would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress regarding the force structure necessary for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve to meet future national security threats. The bill would freeze the end strength of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve at the level Congress approved for Fiscal Year 1998, until September 30, 2000. This freeze will provide Congress a chance to review the force structure report submitted by the Secretary of Defense. The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a master plan for the modernization of the National Guard And Reserve Components to ensure compatibility of equipment with our active forces. Under this legislation, the Secretary must also submit a master plan to Congress on meeting the military construction needs of the National Guard and Reserve Components. This legislation builds on Senator Stevens's amendment to last year's Defense Authorization. It elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Grade of General (4-star) and elevates the Senior Representatives of the Reserves one Grade. These are just some provisions of the bill. My Guard Caucus Co-Chairman, Senator Bond, someone who has been deeply committed to improving the readiness of the Guard, will be outlining other provisions of the bill. Mr President, the Reserve Components are the only contact a majority of Americans have with the military. When they see a neighbor, a child's teacher, or their family doctor representing the U.S. in the international arena or on hand when natural disasters strike, they have a direct link to the military. That bond has remained strong for well over 200 years. And despite resistance from the Pentagon, I believe Congress has no intention of seeing that bond damaged through insufficient funds or lack of resources--from operations and maintenance to pay and allowances to continued equipment modernization and military construction. This is why the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998 needs to become law. Muhammad Ali used to say that not only could he knock'em out, but he could pick the round. Opponents to the Guard and Reserves should be on notice--no matter how much they try and bob and weave, this is the round they're going to go down. Before closing, I'd like to take just a moment to say how much I've enjoyed working with Senator Bond on National Guard issues over the last ten years. We've worked together, along with the other members of the Caucus, in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the National Guard and Reserve components receive the funding these dedicated men and women need to successfully fulfill their role in preserving our national security. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998 be printed in the Record, along with a section-by-section description this legislation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bond, co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senators Dorgan and Leahy, I am introducing today the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998. Over the past few years, we've had to expend a huge amount of energy fending off attacks to the Guard. Worse, the whole time we're dusting ourselves off and assessing the damage, our opponents deny they've ever laid a finger on us. It reminds me of the boxer who, at the insistence of his trainer, took on the current champ. After the first round, he came back to his corner with a busted lip, and his trainer patted him on the back and said, ``You're doing great,'' then shoved him back out when the second bell sounded. After the second round, he staggered back to his corner with a black eye and a busted cheek, and his trainer said, ``You're doing great, he hasn't laid a hand on you.'' And the boxer replied, ``Well you'd better keep an eye on the referee, `cause someone is beating' the heck out of me.'' Year after year, the Guard has come back to its corner, bruised and battered by the budget process, only to hear Pentagon officials insist they haven't laid a hand on them. I think we all agree that as we enter the 21st Century, the common goal of the U.S. military should be to create and maintain a seamless Total Force that provides our military leaders with the necessary flexibility and strength to address whatever conflicts that might arise. The 1997 QDR should have been the vehicle to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, it fell far short. One analyst described the QDR as ``another banal defense of the status quo.'' There are close to a half million men and women in the National Guard, accounting for about 20 percent of this nation's Armed Forces. Because of their dual federal-state mission, National Guardsmen and women are on hand to serve in both the international arena and in our own backyards. Perhaps more than any other soldier, members of the Guard embody our forefathers' vision of the citizen-soldier. That's because the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard find their roots not only in the history of this country, but equally important, in the communities of this country. The Army National Guard alone provides more than 55 percent of the ground combat forces, 45 percent of the combat support forces, and 25 percent of the Army's combat support units--all while using only two percent of the Department of Defense budget. But if you look at the QDR process, you would think the Guard has outlived its usefulness--that their cost-effectiveness, their flexibility, their readiness are all figments of this Senator's imagination. This contentious relationship got even hotter last spring when leaders of the National Guard expressed outrage at never being given the opportunity to present their case before the QDR and over the Army's failure to be up-front about how deeply they wanted to cut the Army Guard. The outrage was well placed. The Washington Times was right on target when they wrote back in June that The Guard has a greater relevance today than during the Cold War--exactly the kind of relevance the Founding Fathers envisioned when they elected to place the preponderance of the nation's military strength in the state militias. They understand that with its ``dual use system,'' the Guard is the wave of the future, not a relic of the past. While many of us felt blind-sided by the QDR, the fact is it was just one more instance where the Pentagon refuses to give the Guard the status it deserves. I don't believe making the Chief of the National Guard a four star general and a member of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council will solve all of the Guard's problems, but I do believe it would help to change the dynamics of this dysfunctional relationship, and better ensure the Guard's needs are met when the Defense budget is being written, rather than through Congressional intervention. As many of you probably recall, last year Senator Stevens offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to make this change. It was approved by the Senate, but later dropped in Conference Committee. Instead, Conferees agreed to having a Two-Star General from the Guard and one from the Reserves--a position the Guard already has. Since then, I've been working with Senator Bond--my co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus to come up with new legislation reinforcing the important role of both the Guard and the Reserves. The bill would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress regarding the force structure necessary for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve to meet future national security threats. The bill would freeze the end strength of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve at the level Congress approved for Fiscal Year 1998, until September 30, 2000. This freeze will provide Congress a chance to review the force structure report submitted by the Secretary of Defense. The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a master plan for the modernization of the National Guard And Reserve Components to ensure compatibility of equipment with our active forces. Under this legislation, the Secretary must also submit a master plan to Congress on meeting the military construction needs of the National Guard and Reserve Components. This legislation builds on Senator Stevens's amendment to last year's Defense Authorization. It elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Grade of General (4-star) and elevates the Senior Representatives of the Reserves one Grade. These are just some provisions of the bill. My Guard Caucus Co-Chairman, Senator Bond, someone who has been deeply committed to improving the readiness of the Guard, will be outlining other provisions of the bill. Mr President, the Reserve Components are the only contact a majority of Americans have with the military. When they see a neighbor, a child's teacher, or their family doctor representing the U.S. in the international arena or on hand when natural disasters strike, they have a direct link to the military. That bond has remained strong for well over 200 years. And despite resistance from the Pentagon, I believe Congress has no intention of seeing that bond damaged through insufficient funds or lack of resources--from operations and maintenance to pay and allowances to continued equipment modernization and military construction. This is why the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998 needs to become law. Muhammad Ali used to say that not only could he knock'em out, but he could pick the round. Opponents to the Guard and Reserves should be on notice--no matter how much they try and bob and weave, this is the round they're going to go down. Before closing, I'd like to take just a moment to say how much I've enjoyed working with Senator Bond on National Guard issues over the last ten years. We've worked together, along with the other members of the Caucus, in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the National Guard and Reserve components receive the funding these dedicated men and women need to successfully fulfill their role in preserving our national security. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998 be printed in the Record, along with a section-by-section description this legislation.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FORD. When the Senator said we had other nominees, and he only listed the judicial, there are other nominees on the Executive Calendar who have no reason to be held. For instance, we have a woman who has been serving for 4 years on the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. She came before the Energy Committee on February 11. She was given the greatest of accolades for the tremendous job she had done, and she is caught up in the holds on everything else. And now 90 days have passed since she was unanimously reported out of the Energy Committee. The Uranium Enrichment Corporation is about to privatize. There is $2 billion, approximately, in this budget that will have to be voted on by that particular individual. They said--the ``they'' being the majority--let her have a contract, just a consultant's contract. And that means she can sit there and listen but cannot say a word or cast a vote. We are about ready to close the deal. So not only do we have the judicial problem, we have other nominations that are vitally important to my State and the State of Ohio of which we have a vital interest. I want to encourage the Senator. I am about to make a unanimous consent request that we bring Margaret Greene up so we might try to do something here to get her moving and on the board so she can continue to make decisions and do the good work she has been complimented for by the Energy Committee. So I thank the Senator.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, take charge and give direction to these Senators.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, I want to take a few minutes to speak on the latest actions by the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to its emergency inspection order of Boeing 737's. Last Thursday, May 7th, the FAA issued an airworthiness directive which ordered the inspection and possible replacement of fuel tank wiring insulation in certain Boeing 737's, 747's and 767's. The FAA order for 737's required immediate action on an estimated 152 U.S. registered Boeing 737-100 and -200 models with more than 50,000 hours of flying time. A second directive also ordered the operators of 264 Boeing 747's and 231 Boeing 767's to inspect wiring within 60 days. Yesterday, Sunday May 10th, the FAA ordered the immediate inspection for all older Boeing 737's with between 40,000 and 50,000 flight hours. The FAA ordered that the aircraft could not be operated in commercial service until mechanics could inspect, and repair, if needed, the fuel tank wiring. The FAA's action on Sunday came about after initial inspections by the airlines found additional evidence of electrical problems in the fuel tank wires. There is no question that the FAA's actions inconvenienced a number of travelers yesterday. The decision by the FAA to issue the emergency order was a tough call, but it was the right call to make. It also demonstrates the FAA's continuing commitment to safety. As Administrator Garvey said ``Safety is our highest transportation priority''. Her actions and words are to be commended. I wanted to come to the floor to recognize the actions of FAA Administrator Garvey. She and her staff acted quickly and decisively. Many of us around here have often taken to the floor to say that the FAA's first priority should be safety. And the actions taken by Administrator Garvey are a clear demonstration to all of us that the FAA is vigilant in improving safety within the aviation industry. The actions are also clear evidence of a change in the culture of the FAA--that the agency is proactive in enforcing safety standards. We should also acknowledge the actions taken by the airlines and the Boeing Company. Working in partnership with the FAA, these inspections were undertaken quickly and as a result, a potentially disastrous situation was averted. I, for one, feel re-assured this morning because of the actions taken by the FAA. I have always been confident that FAA Administrator Garvey would do an outstanding job. Her actions over the weekend have only deepened my confidence in and respect for her, and for the agency.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. En bloc.

Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is absent because of a death in the family.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), is absent because of a death in family.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), is necessarily absent. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is absent because of a death in the family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), is absent because of a death in the family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Would the Senator yield?