Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, what is the unanimous-consent request before the Chair?

Mr. FORD. I have no objection.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1997. This legislation is designed to provide some limited protections for the owners and operators of low-power television, or LPTV. Mr. President, when the Federal Communications Commission created low-power television licenses in the early 1980's, it did so with a simple premise: television stations unable to reach a large area, can still offer a valuable service to our communities. Low-power television stations operate at the higher ends of the broadcast spectrum and serve a more limited area, generally a coverage area of approximately 12 to 15 miles. In addition, LPTV licensees operate as a ``secondary status''. That is, they cannot interfere with the transmission of full power television stations. Since their creation almost 20 years ago, LPTV stations have flourished. As entrepreneurs, LPTV owners and operators have experimented with various kinds of programming. Many have been extremely successful as local, community broadcasters, providing regional news and sports coverage. In fact, LPTV stations have much in common with full power stations. Many offer a full service daily program schedule. Other LPTV stations have predominantly religious, all news, all sports, or all movie formats. Still, many other LPTV stations offer more local and ``niche'' programming because their service areas are smaller, their audiences more targeted. Unfortunately, the transition to the digital television era threatens the viability of many LPTV stations. As their spectrum is reclaimed by the FCC for the purpose of providing the second channel for digital television, some of the LPTV stations may face darkness during the transition to digital television, or afterwards. Let me say, Mr. President, that I have been and continue to be, a supporter of the transition to digital television. I believe the move to digital television is a prudent use of modern technology for the use of a scarce public resource, the electromagnetic spectrum. But I also believe that as we make this transition, good public policy must support the investments made by LPTV licensees. I would note, Mr. President, that a majority of Members of the Senate agreed with me on this point as a number of Members joined me on a March 6, 1997 letter to then FCC Chairman Reed Hundt in which we expressed concerns about the plans for the transition to digital television. And while the FCC agrees that LPTV licensees have been successful and offer a valuable enterprise, there remains regulatory uncertainty for LPTV licensees in the digital age. That is why I have introduced the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1997. This legislation will elevate some LPTV stations from their current secondary status to a newly created Class A license. In so doing, Class A LPTV licensees would be treated under law and FCC regulations like a full power television station. That is, Class A LPTV licensees would assume the same duties and responsibilities as their full power counterparts. To qualify for a Class A license, an LPTV station must broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day, and broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming produced within the market area served by the LPTV station. LPTV stations must be operating under these conditions within the last 2 years before enactment of this legislation and within 6 months of filing for the license. Once an LPTV station obtains a Class A license, the FCC would be required to find spectrum for the station in the new digital television era. Like its full power counterparts, a Class A licensee could not be forced off the air by having its license terminated or rescinded. However, in those instances where the FCC cannot accommodate an LPTV licensee in one market, because of the potential for interference with full power digital transmissions, the FCC is authorized to award the LPTV Class A licensee another license in an adjacent community, or if that is not available, in another community acceptable to the licensee. Lower-power television licensees are willing and prepared to join their full power counterparts in the transition to digital television-- a transition which is technically complex and potentially costly for both full power and low-power broadcasters. But as long as there remains a regulatory uncertainty about the future of LPTV, they will not be able to obtain the investments and capital to make that transition. It is an interesting historic footnote, that at the time LPTV was authorized by the FCC, then FCC Chairman Charles Ferris suggested that one day, LPTV could develop into full power television stations. While this legislation does not elevate LPTV to full power status, I do believe that this legislation addresses a critical issue for LPTV supporters--the development of adequate protections in the digital age for broadcasters who provide a significant benefit to the public. I hope my colleagues, who are also supporters of their community broadcasters agree with me and will lend their support to move this legislation forward towards enactment.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1997. This legislation is designed to provide some limited protections for the owners and operators of low-power television, or LPTV. Mr. President, when the Federal Communications Commission created low-power television licenses in the early 1980's, it did so with a simple premise: television stations unable to reach a large area, can still offer a valuable service to our communities. Low-power television stations operate at the higher ends of the broadcast spectrum and serve a more limited area, generally a coverage area of approximately 12 to 15 miles. In addition, LPTV licensees operate as a ``secondary status''. That is, they cannot interfere with the transmission of full power television stations. Since their creation almost 20 years ago, LPTV stations have flourished. As entrepreneurs, LPTV owners and operators have experimented with various kinds of programming. Many have been extremely successful as local, community broadcasters, providing regional news and sports coverage. In fact, LPTV stations have much in common with full power stations. Many offer a full service daily program schedule. Other LPTV stations have predominantly religious, all news, all sports, or all movie formats. Still, many other LPTV stations offer more local and ``niche'' programming because their service areas are smaller, their audiences more targeted. Unfortunately, the transition to the digital television era threatens the viability of many LPTV stations. As their spectrum is reclaimed by the FCC for the purpose of providing the second channel for digital television, some of the LPTV stations may face darkness during the transition to digital television, or afterwards. Let me say, Mr. President, that I have been and continue to be, a supporter of the transition to digital television. I believe the move to digital television is a prudent use of modern technology for the use of a scarce public resource, the electromagnetic spectrum. But I also believe that as we make this transition, good public policy must support the investments made by LPTV licensees. I would note, Mr. President, that a majority of Members of the Senate agreed with me on this point as a number of Members joined me on a March 6, 1997 letter to then FCC Chairman Reed Hundt in which we expressed concerns about the plans for the transition to digital television. And while the FCC agrees that LPTV licensees have been successful and offer a valuable enterprise, there remains regulatory uncertainty for LPTV licensees in the digital age. That is why I have introduced the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1997. This legislation will elevate some LPTV stations from their current secondary status to a newly created Class A license. In so doing, Class A LPTV licensees would be treated under law and FCC regulations like a full power television station. That is, Class A LPTV licensees would assume the same duties and responsibilities as their full power counterparts. To qualify for a Class A license, an LPTV station must broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day, and broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming produced within the market area served by the LPTV station. LPTV stations must be operating under these conditions within the last 2 years before enactment of this legislation and within 6 months of filing for the license. Once an LPTV station obtains a Class A license, the FCC would be required to find spectrum for the station in the new digital television era. Like its full power counterparts, a Class A licensee could not be forced off the air by having its license terminated or rescinded. However, in those instances where the FCC cannot accommodate an LPTV licensee in one market, because of the potential for interference with full power digital transmissions, the FCC is authorized to award the LPTV Class A licensee another license in an adjacent community, or if that is not available, in another community acceptable to the licensee. Lower-power television licensees are willing and prepared to join their full power counterparts in the transition to digital television-- a transition which is technically complex and potentially costly for both full power and low-power broadcasters. But as long as there remains a regulatory uncertainty about the future of LPTV, they will not be able to obtain the investments and capital to make that transition. It is an interesting historic footnote, that at the time LPTV was authorized by the FCC, then FCC Chairman Charles Ferris suggested that one day, LPTV could develop into full power television stations. While this legislation does not elevate LPTV to full power status, I do believe that this legislation addresses a critical issue for LPTV supporters--the development of adequate protections in the digital age for broadcasters who provide a significant benefit to the public. I hope my colleagues, who are also supporters of their community broadcasters agree with me and will lend their support to move this legislation forward towards enactment.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating the Senate Armed Services Committee for completing their work on the National Defense Authorization Act conference report for fiscal year 1998. Nevertheless, I'm very disappointed that the conference committee was unable to agree on the amendment by Senator Stevens, and 49 of his colleagues, to make the Director of the National Guard Bureau a four- star general and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When I spoke before the Reserve Forces Policy Board back in September, I began my speech talking about Union general, ``fighting Phil Sheridan.'' Sheridan didn't strike people as having the stature of a war hero. He was a bit on the short side. Yet at the head of the cavalry, he was an invaluable leader, helping General Grant win many key battles during the Civil War. His battlefield successes led Abraham Lincoln to joke that at the beginning of the war he thought a cavalry man had to be 6'4". ``But now,'' he said, ``I've seen 5'4" will do ``just fine'' in a pinch. I tell that story because all too often the National Guard is being dismissed out of hand for being nothing more than ``weekend warriors.'' But after seeing their work in international hot spots like Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti, it's clear the Guard will do more than ``just fine'' in a pinch. 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 QDR should have been the vehicle to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, it fell far short. And one analyst went so far as to describe it as ``another banal defense of the status quo.'' There are close to one-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, Guardsmen 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 2 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. Experts have called QDR a ``cold war relic,'' and I agree with them, especially when it comes to the Army. Back in July, the Senate was forced to add $437 million to the Pentagon's budget request just to meet the minimum spending needs of the Army National Guard. While both the Marine Corps and the Air Force have successfully integrated their reserve fighting units into their total combat force, the Army continues to fail to include its National Guard combat troops in national military strategy. To this day, none of the Guard's eight combat divisions is in the Nation's war plans, despite the fact that they have undergone the same training as their active duty counterparts. 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.'' As a classic dual use system the Guard is not a relic of the past, rather the wave of the future. That same article said, ``There is no inherent reason the Guard cannot perform adequately across the range of missions. The Marine Corps and Air Force have demonstrated what can be accomplished when reserves are treated as assets, not rivals * * *. In short, the Guard's proficiency is limited only by resources and creativity--by a standing Army that, for reasons of its own, prefers not to acknowledge it.'' This is not a new battle. And the QDR is just another symptom of a dysfunctional relationship that must change. That's why I believe that after assuring the Reserve forces needs are met in this year's budget. Our biggest priority was to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a four-star general and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Stevens amendment to the Defense authorization bill doing just that. As Senator Stevens said during debate on the amendment, this change ``will help ensure that the National Guard's needs will be met during the formulation of the Department's budget and not solely by the interventions of Congress * * *. It has taken the intervention of Congress each year to get the Guard the money it needs to perform its job.'' The amendment would have gone a long way towards changing that status. When you compare the National Guard with the U.S. Coast Guard, the inequity becomes even more clear. There are an average of 10,000 men and women deployed outside the continental United States by the National Guard every day. And working with an annual budget of $10 billion, the National Guard manages a tremendous amount of equipment and runs 3,360 facilities in 3,200 communities touching every State in the Nation. The Coast Guard, which also has a dual mission, runs an efficient, tight ship. At the head of that ship is a four-star admiral. But what is startling to me is that the Coast Guard is a fraction of the size, with a fraction of the budget of the National Guard. Look at the Marine Corps. Like the National Guard, they serve as a free standing force, maintained under a parent service. Again, with a budget and a troop strength smaller than the Guard, they are under the leadership of a four-star general, and have a seat on the Joint Chiefs. Those changes were made after the Marine Corps came before Congress arguing that to be heard they needed a general's rank, not a colonel's, when dealing with the other services. The Pentagon must recognize that the Reserve components are the only contact the majority of Americans have with the military. When they see a neighbor, a child's teacher, or their family doctor on hand when natural disasters strike or representing the United States in the international arena, they have a direct link to the military. That bond has remained strong for more than 200 years. And despite resistance from the Pentagon, I believe Congress has no intention of seeing that bond damaged through insufficient funds or a lack of resources. But passage of Senator Stevens amendment in the Senate was a sign that we're no longer willing to accept the status quo either. We believe it's a critical first step not only toward giving our citizen- soldiers a seat at the decisionmaking table, but toward creating a Total Force. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the conference committee disagreed with the Senate position of making the National Guard Director a four-star general. Instead the conference ``split the baby'' by establishing what they thought was a new position for the Army Guard and Army Reserve-- two new two-star general positions serving as advisors to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The problem with this decision is that the National Guard already has such a position within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This new language won't solve the problem faced by the National Guard. I hope my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee understand that the issue of a four-star position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not going to go away. I'm also disturbed by the conference committee's decision to cut the National Guard by 5,000 spaces without any corresponding cuts in the Active Duty Army or the Army Reserve. This cut for the National Guard isn't right and it isn't consistent with what we've done on the Defense appropriations bill. That bill, which was just signed by the President, fully funded the Army National Guard. General Sheridan might have been on the short side, but when the smoke cleared at the end of the battle, he sat very tall in his saddle. While detractors might refer disparagingly to our National Guard Forces as weekend warriors, I hope my colleagues will remember that at the end of the day, whether helping families return to their homes after a devastating flood or flying in supplies to war torn countries, they stand just as tall.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee a provision in the DOD authorization bill conference report. These provisions concern depot-level activities and are contained in subtitle D of title III. As the chairman and ranking member know, Louisville is the home to the former Naval Surface Warfare Center Detachment which was closed by the 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. However, in its recommendation, the Commission directed that the workload, equipment and facilities be transferred to the private sector if the private sector could accommodate the workload onsite. The Commission's recommendation has been followed and the former Navy depot was privatized in 1996. The current contract runs through the year 2000 if all the options are exercised. My understanding is that the competition requirements in section 359 of the conference bill would not apply to any workload already privatized at the former depot in Louisville under the current contract or under any recompetition once the current contract expires. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. FORD. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their explanation of section 359 of the conference bill.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant [PGDP] in Paducah, KY. On October 20, 1997, Industry Week Magazine recognized the Paducah facility as one of ``America's 10 Best Plants'' from among 275 plants nominated for the honor in 1997. According to Industry Week, a national publication which annually salutes the top performing manufacturing facilities in North America, the dual purposes of the competition are ``to recognize plants that are on the leading edge of North American efforts to increase competitiveness, enhance customer satisfaction, and create stimulating and rewarding work environments; and, to encourage other North American managers and work teams to emulate the honorees by adopting world-class practices, technologies, and improvement strategies.'' There is no question that the Paducah facility, a federally owned nuclear fuel enrichment plant managed by Lockheed Martin Utility Services, meets these criteria. In fact, it is a model for any manufacturing plant in any industry in the country. Over the past 10 years, the Paducah plant has nearly tripled output from 2.3 million units per year to 6.8 million units per year. And this amazing increase in productivity was achieved using existing equipment and machinery. Similarly, the percentage of production units in-line has risen from 57 percent of capacity in August 1993, to an impressive 96.9 percent in April 1997. To top it all off, the Paducah facility boasts 100 percent on-time delivery for the past 5 years with a zero product defect rate. Now that, Mr. President, is what quality American manufacturing is all about. On July 25, the Clinton administration gave formal approval to move forward with privatization for the U.S. Enrichment Corporation [USEC], the Government entity that currently owns PGDP. Hopefully, this process will be completed early in 1998. As I have maintained for the better part of 10 years, privatization will not only enable Paducah to utilize cutting edge technologies to keep it competitive in the world uranium market, it will also keep thousands of productive employees on the job well into the next century. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``Lockheed Martin Utility Services'' be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago President Clinton vetoed 38 projects in the military construction appropriations bill. Two of those projects were in Kentucky, one at Fort Knox and one at Fort Campbell. These projects were included despite the fact that neither one fell within the administration's criteria for a veto. That criteria included projects not requested in the budget, that would not substantially improve the quality of life of military service members and their families, and that would not begin construction in 1998 because the Department of Defense reported that no architectural and engineering design work had been done. Both the qualification range at Fort Knox and the tactical equipment shop at Fort Campbell were requested in the Army's 5-year plan, both have well over the necessary amount of design work completed, and both could begin construction in 1998. Over 50 percent of the design work is completed at Fort Knox and with funding, construction would begin in 1998. This project replaces 10 1940 vintage multipurpose small arms training ranges which generate high costs for maintenance and use--into one modern multipurpose range. This project was the number two construction priority for Fort Knox. The Fort Campbell tactical equipment shop project is in the second phase of an effort to replace World War II era buildings. With 90 percent of the design work completed, construction can also begin as soon as the money is made available. Mr. President, the projects at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox were included in the appropriations bill because the Army considered them priorities. And while I am for getting rid of government waste as much as anyone else, these two projects clearly do not meet that criterion.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order? What was the motion?

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Inhofe]. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. FORD

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

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

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand there is some time left to discuss the nominee?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in voicing my strong support for the nomination of William Kennard to serve as Chairman and member of the Federal Communications Commission. With the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission faces the daunting challenge of being a regulatory agency that will promote a deregulated telecommunications industry. The FCC requires a leader who will be able to charter the agency and the industry through these unchartered waters. Mr. Kennard brings a keen understanding of the telecommunications industry and superb academic credentials to the agency. His years of experience as the FCC's general counsel have provided him with the experience and insight to hit the ground running. I am confident that he has the leadership qualities to effectively lead the multi-member agency and to forge the consensus needed for the FCC to accomplish the goals of the 1996 act. He will being keen intellect, good judgment, and common sense to the office of Chairman and to the agency as a whole. I believe that Mr. Kennard is an outstanding nominee. I am convinced, through my personal experiences of meeting him as well as from discussions from around the entire telecommunications industry, that he will serve with distinction. I strongly support his nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I look forward to working with Chairman Kennard in the future and offer him my congratulations on his confirmation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is necessarily absent.