Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1058.

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Ford, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, I send an amendment to the desk.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, last week when I filed this amendment regarding the application of the process of safety management to distilleries, I started working with the Labor Department and particularly the OSHA division of the Department of Labor. When PSM regulations were developed as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, however, I don't believe these regulations were meant to apply to the distilled spirits industry. Clearly, OSHA disagrees with my position, but after discussing the issue with OSHA and Labor Department officials, I have decided to withdraw my amendment. I want to clearly thank Secretary of Labor Herman for her leadership--and she exercised it very well--in finding a way to resolve this issue. So, under the compromise we have reached today, the Secretary has agreed to make a review of the PSM's as it relates to distilleries, a key part of OSHA's revision of the PSM contract. During the review, OSHA has agreed not to cite the industry under this standard. I also want to commend the distilled spirits industry, whose exemplary record on safety helped make this compromise possible. It is my hope that OSHA and the industry will put this temporary suspension to good use by working together to determine the extent to which PSM should apply to this industry. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I think it is in order that I ask for the regular order on amendment No. 1078.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Would the majority leader yield?

Mr. FORD. Is there any doubt that we will have two votes as it relates to judges following whatever occurs on your unanimous consent request? I think that we need to alert your side and ours.

Mr. FORD. If the majority leader will yield, it is my hope that everyone has been notified that we are going to vote. I hope we would not start until such time as we feel like both sides have been notified. This side is all right.

Mr. FORD. You mentioned you were going to have one.

Mr. FORD. There will be a rollcall vote on this?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. FORD. Can the Senator help me a little bit in the position that I find myself? We are sitting here with the Federal judges--almost 100 vacancies around the country. And they have to pass a litmus test before we can ever get them to the floor so we might approve them so that justice might be done and not delayed. Now we find this amendment before us saying that we want to interfere in the courts that are already there. My fear is that democracy, as we know it, is being deleted, in my opinion, because of the meddling with the Federal courts and the delay of the appointment of judges and the interference of statutory provisions that would tell the judge what to do and what not to do. That is not what this country was founded on. It was founded on justice by judges, and you have the ability to go to court. Now we are saying you can't. Am I right or wrong? Have I lost something here, or have I found something on which my fear might be substantiated?

Mr. FORD. Am I right if what I see here is that we are trying to say that this is a bad union here that is going to get taxpayer dollars to have an election? So, therefore, we are going to interfere. The issue is emotional. No question about it. But we are going to interfere with the courts, and we will diminish the courts. Isn't it time for thoughtful people to try to protect the judiciary here so that even though the question may be sensitive it may be a tough vote--we have had tough votes before. A lot of times they are not easy votes. But this is one I think we have to look beyond to the long-term harm that might be done to the judiciary. Am I all wrong in this?

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I questioned earlier the distinguished Senator from Maryland as to a real problem that I have as it relates to the amendment that has now been submitted by the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Idaho. My friend from Alabama, the junior Senator, has been a prosecutor. He has a great case. All of a sudden the Congress of the United States blows him out of the water because we don't believe what he is pursuing there is in the best interests of politics. So, now we are confronted with a question that is in the courts and we are trying to make a judgment here to supersede what might be in the courts. Do we have a right to do that? I am sure we do. But in this Senator's feeling about this institution and this country, we have three separate branches. And those branches must set on their own bottom, as we would say down in west Kentucky. We should let them make their decision. I think this is a very dangerous position. The emotion of the amendment is good. We have a big, bad union here that we don't want to spend any more taxpayers' dollars to see that they have a noncorrupt election. We want a noncorrupt election, but we don't want to spend any money. We made an agreement in 1989 under the Bush administration. There is no question about that. Let it be under President x's administration. The question still flies: Do we then, by our actions here, micromanage the courts? We are about a hundred judges short in this country now. The majority will not let those judges come to the floor. Maybe 1 or 2 or 3, hopefully 4 we might get out, with 35 to 50 being held hostage. So, what we have done, what we are doing tonight, even though the image here is one thing, the end result is another. If there ever was a question that you must put aside, however you feel, I think it is important that we support the system that has made this country great. And that is not micromanaging the Federal courts. One of the things the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has always attempted to do is follow the procedure and the precedent on the separation of powers. He just has helped take a piece of legislation through the courts on line-item veto. And we are getting ready to do it again. So the courts will make a decision on what this body has been able to do. Now we are trying to take the position that we want to do this ourselves, in lieu of what the courts are about to do. I know the big bad union, and spending taxpayers' money and all that, is a pretty good issue. But, to me, to this Senator, there is a much deeper question as it relates to the three branches of Government and the strength of this great land of ours in that we are attempting now to usurp those things that we will go out and beat our chests about back to our constituents how great we have been doing to try to protect them as consumers, those in our States or districts, as our constituents. Yet we are tonight, in my judgment, trying to usurp the power of the judiciary. In my opinion, if I sign a contract, it ought to be valid. Then to have a valid contract canceled by the legislative body just doesn't seem to me to be in the right direction. I hope my colleagues will look beyond the emotion of the question and be sure that their judgment does not usurp the strength and foundation of this great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.