Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. It reminds me of the military, the teeth and the tail. I believe the teeth here have been pulled.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FORD. Madam President, am I correct that 5 minutes is now running on the debate on the Harkin amendment with 2\1/2\ minutes equally divided?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to put in the Record at this point a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Senator Cochran, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there is no time agreement on this amendment, as I understand it.

Mr. FORD. Substantial.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rob Mangas and Jim Low of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1033.

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 936

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. FORD. Mr. President, nearly 3 months ago, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration voted to begin a preliminary investigation to determine the factual basis, if any, for a contest of the 1996 Senate election in Louisiana. I want to take a few minutes today to review where the committee stands in this matter, how we got there, and why I believe it is past the time to bring an end to this investigation and to dismiss the petition of Louis ``Woody'' Jenkins contesting the November 1996 Senate election in Louisiana. The Rules Committee is currently faced with a decision: whether or not to allow an election contest to proceed, under the Senate's authority and duty under the Constitution, without any evidence of fraud or irregularities affecting the outcome. This is not the first such decision the committee has faced in this matter. Senators will recall that the initial bipartisan report of the committee's outside counsel found no evidence to support the claims in the petition, and suggested only the most limited review to determine whether or not Mr. Jenkins' more sensational claims of paid multiple voting had any merit. My colleagues will also recall that the committee, on a party-line vote, rejected that recommendation and moved forward with a substantially broader investigation at dramatically increased costs. Subject to a protocol negotiated by outside counsel for the majority and the minority, committee Democrats agreed to participate in a joint investigation. Two teams of attorneys, accompanied by active duty and retired FBI agents, were dispatched to New Orleans, while here in Washington a pair of highly skilled Government Accounting Office [GAO] detailees reviewed tens of thousands of documents subpoenaed from state and local election officials in Louisiana. In addition, Committee staff spent countless hours conferring with counsel, establishing procedures for the investigation, assisting GAO with its review, and managing the day-to- day operations in New Orleans. In the course of the joint investigation, over 130 subpoenas were issued; key witnesses were interviewed, in some instances more than once; voters were contacted in an effort to validate their election day sign-in at the polls; numerous election officials were interviewed; and hundreds of documents were produced by both Mr. Jenkins' and Senator Landrieu's campaign organizations. What has the committee learned as a result of all this effort, which has cost the taxpayers well in excess of the $250,000 originally budgeted, Mr. President? We have learned that there is no evidence--I repeat, no evidence, Mr. President--of any fraud or irregularity on election day in Louisiana that would have affected the outcome of this election. We have learned that key witnesses to alleged vote buying and multiple voting were paid and schooled in fabricating their stories-- none of which were confirmed by other records--and may have even been threatened once they revealed the truth about the attempt to mislead this committee. Those allegations of witness tampering which occurred after the election have been referred to the proper law enforcement officials for review. We have learned that virtually none of the thousands of so-called ``phantom votes'' identified by Mr. Jenkins exist, nor are they corroborated by the mounds of election documents subpoenaed. We have learned that numerous other so-called irregularities in the election are not violations of the Louisiana Election Code, but are simply technical violations or are so insignificant that Louisiana State law would not recognize them as a valid basis for overturning an election. Some have suggested that the committee suspend the investigation until such time as the law enforcement authorities conclude their separate investigations into allegations of witness tampering. I believe such sentiment--which I would like to believe is the product of caution and not partisanship--is misguided. Investigations of criminal tampering with committee witnesses are not designed to turn up evidence that is relevant to, let alone sufficient for, a finding by the Senate that but for fraud or irregularity, the 1996 Louisiana Senate election would have been decided differently. Specifically, evidence that witnesses were paid after the election to lie about illegal activities that did not occur, did not affect the outcome of the election itself, and would not be a basis for overturning the election. I would like to respond to the allegation, made by Mr. Jenkins, at least one of my Republican colleagues on the committee, and Mr. Jenkins' attorney that the Democrats on the committee are hostile to this investigation and have decided to kill it for partisan reasons. In response, let me remind my colleagues and everyone else present about the time line in this case: After his defeat on November 5, 1996, Mr. Jenkins claimed that his loss was due to massive voting by dead or incompetent voters. He also alleged that certain African-American precincts in New Orleans had turned out at greater than 90 percent--in one case at more than 100 percent--and in support of Senator Landrieu. Both allegations proved false after petitioner sought a court order for death and incompetency records--which yielded nothing--and after an Orleans Parish official revealed that no precinct had turned out at more than 82 percent and that 8 of the top 10 precincts had been majority-white and supported Jenkins in the election. On November 14, 1996, Jenkins then brought a State law election challenge, making no mention of dead or incompetent voters or abnormally high turnouts. Instead, he alleged that so-called precinct audits prepared by volunteers from election records--which themselves were produced under court order--yielded thousands of phantom votes and mismatched signatures on election documents, plus evidence of improper assistance by poll workers. Jenkins dismissed his own suit, citing an inability to gather sufficient evidence--despite the judge's offer to extend the statutory deadline for filing an amended complaint. On December 5, 1996, Jenkins filed a contest petition with the Senate--which he then amended on December 17--in which he restated his allegations of phantom voting and mismatched signatures, adding a serious of sensational allegations of vote buying, multiple voting, fraudulent voter registration and other election fraud, as well as a laundry list of other complaints including vote hauling, malfunctioning voting machines, failure of poll workers to identify voters, and campaign finance violations. After Senator Landrieu responded on January 17, 1997, Mr. Jenkins filed a response on February 7, 1997, reiterating his earlier allegations and presenting more supporting material to the committee. Eventually, Mr. Jenkins' submissions to this committee totaled over 9,000 pages. Key portions of this material were blacked out by Jenkins to obscure the names of individuals claiming to have participated in or having witnessed fraud on election day. In response to these extensive submissions, the Rules Committee retained two outside counsels to wade through the material and make a recommendation to the committee regarding the sufficiency of the petition. On April 8, 1997, counsel presented the committee with a report recommending dismissal of the bulk of Jenkins' allegations, with counsel to conduct a limited investigation into the most sensational allegations of vote buying, multiple voting, and fraudulent voter registration. On April 15, 1997, Mr. Jenkins testified against the bipartisan report, claiming that it would result in the committee overlooking or ignoring serious evidence of fraud and irregularity in the November 1996 election. On April 17, the Rules Committee--on a party-line vote--rejected the counsels' report and instead initiated a wide-ranging investigation. Although the committee Democrats disagreed strenuously with the decision to open up the scope of the investigation, we agreed to continue to participate in a bipartisan investigation. Beginning the next week, our outside counsel met with the majority's choice of outside counsel, and together they drafted a protocol not only to guide our investigation but to serve as a basis for the detail of FBI agents and GAO personnel to the committee on a nonpartisan basis. The agents were especially important, because Mr. Jenkins refused to turn over his documents to the committee or our outside counsel--including the crucial names of his fraud witnesses--until he was assured that they would be delivered to FBI agents detailed to the committee. On May 12, the majority and minority chief counsels traveled to New Orleans to select space in the Federal building to serve as temporary committee office space. Chairman Warner subsequently requested a 60-day lease of the space which expires on July 31. On May 13, committee staff were joined in Louisiana by members of both the majority and minority outside counsel teams. The group conducted interviews with the Governor, the leadership of the Louisiana Legislature, the secretary of state, the commissioner of elections, and the State district attorney for East Baton Rouge. It was during these interviews that the then-lead attorney, Richard Cullen, advised that the 45-day investigative period began that day. During the week of May 19, with the concurrence of committee Democrats, Chairman Warner issued over 130 subpoenas to Louisiana election officials. The vast majority of the subpoenas were answered in a timely manner. On May 30, 1997, again with concurrence of committee Democrats, Chairman Warner issued subpoenas to political committees affiliated with both Senator Landrieu and Mr. Jenkins. Senator Landrieu delivered her documents on June 3, the deadline for delivery in New Orleans, but Mr. Jenkins--despite having months to prepare documents in support of a case brought at his behest--sought and received an extension until Monday, June 9. Meanwhile, GAO evaluators detailed to the committee had begun work on June 2, 1997, reviewing petitioner's allegations of the existence of more than 7,400 so-called phantom votes in the November 1996 Louisiana senate election. Included in the materials Mr. Jenkins submitted on June 9 was a substantial revision of the phantom vote totals downward to just over 5,700 votes--less than the margin of difference in the November election. Nevertheless, Mr. Jenkins continued to express the belief that upon further scrutiny, the election records would yield enough phantom votes to more than make up the difference. As has been widely reported, we now know from the GAO evaluators detailed to the committee that this is not true. In fact, GAO detailees have concluded that further investigation of the allegations they have reviewed to date would be unwarranted. Back in New Orleans, investigators were interviewing individuals named in the unredacted materials finally provided to the committee by Mr. Jenkins on June 9. Within a week, a disturbing pattern emerged. Not only were the allegations of fraud untrue, the witnesses revealed that they had been paid by agents of the petitioner to tell their stories. Subsequently, on June 20, committee investigators discovered that at least one of these witnesses had been threatened, by agents of Mr. Jenkins, and told to reaffirm their original stories of fraud. For his part, Mr. Jenkins denies paying any witness and claims no knowledge of any payments by his agents for testimony. Once I learned that the only evidence of election fraud in this matter was clearly false and purchased by agents of Mr. Jenkins, I decided that I could not, in good conscience, continue Democratic participation in the joint investigation. On June 23 I advised Chairman Warner of my concerns. On June 25, the committee Democrats announced our withdrawal from the investigation. On that same day, June 25, I asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether the witnesses were threatened in violation of Federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505, which prohibits obstruction of a Senate investigation. It is my understanding that Chairman Warner subsequently made a similar referral to the Republican district attorney for East Baton Rouge Parish, Mr. Doug Moreau, who has scheduled interviews with both the witnesses and the agents of Mr. Jenkins who allegedly paid them to lie. According to press reports, Mr. Moreau and his staff are also currently reviewing allegations that poll workers may not have followed the Louisiana Election Code to the letter. Mr. Jenkins has said that he supports these parallel investigations, but believes that the Rules Committee should continue its probe as well. I should add that when committee staff and the two teams of outside counsel met with Mr. Moreau on May 13, he advised them that his office had neither the resources nor the expertise to conduct a full-scale investigation of alleged election fraud that may have occurred in the 1996 Senate election fraud that may have occurred in the 1996 Senate election. Mr. Moreau was also reluctant to state unequivocally that his office, located in Baton Rouge, had jurisdiction over alleged criminal activity in New Orleans Parish. And yet, that is exactly what Chairman Warner has requested Mr. Moreau to investigate. Based upon the review of evidence to date, it is unfair for petitioner or anyone else to claim that Democrats want to kill this probe prematurely. This case has consumed over 7 months, hundreds of thousands of dollars--not to mention hundreds of thousands more in the parties' legal fees, a portion of which they are customarily reimbursed by the Senate--and countless hours of staff time. After all this expenditure, the investigation has produced no evidence--none at all-- that would support continued investigation, let alone action by the Senate to overturn the election. Finally, in the interest of fairness I believe we should remember our colleague Senator Landrieu, who has faithfully continued serving the people of Louisiana while patiently enduring countless allegations and months of uncertainty in order for the Rules Committee to pursue each and every one of Mr. Jenkins' charges--none of which have produced a shred of credible evidence. As has been widely reported, I am currently involved in negotiations with Chairman Warner and other members of his caucus regarding the appropriate way to close this investigation in an orderly fashion. Whatever resolution we reach on this issue should, in my opinion, first, acknowledge that the investigation to date has produced no evidence of any fraud, error, or irregularity in the 1996 Louisiana Senate election, and second, set a fixed, firm date on which the Rules Committee will meet to vote on whether to terminate the investigation and dismiss the petition of Mr. Jenkins. I join my entire Caucus in expressing our full and complete support for our colleague, Senator Mary Landrieu, and call on Chairman Warner and members of the majority to end this investigation and remove the unjustified cloud of doubt overshadowing Senator Landrieu and the elected officials and good people of Louisiana.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] and the Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me thank my good friend from Alaska. As he says, this will not be an easy decision, but he is not one that backs off when he thinks it is right. So, Mr. President, as cochairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I rise to ask my colleagues to support the amendment of the senior Senator from Alaska, elevating the National Guard Bureau to a four-star general and including that position as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Just a few weeks ago, I pointed out to my colleagues the Army's refusal to consult with the leadership of the National Guard Bureau or the leadership of the Army Guard during the consideration of the QDR. When asked about this oversight by the press, the Army spokesman responded, ``There is an Army Reserve colonel and a Guard colonel here in our offices. They get to weigh in on the issues.'' You do not need extensive knowledge of military affairs to realize that a colonel does not pull much weight against a group of active duty Army generals protecting their turf. Mr. President, there is no excuse for the poor working relationship between the active Army and the Army National Guard. However, I believe the leadership of the active Army does not consider members of the Army National Guard as soldiers on equal footing. Instead, they treat the men and women of the Army National Guard with indifference. The active duty generals seem to forget that the men and women of the Army Guard have undergone the same--I repeat, the same--training as their counterparts. The situation is even more ridiculous when you consider that 50 percent of the entire Army National Guard are men and women coming off active duty with the Army. I also believe that, if this amendment becomes law, there would not be a constant need for offsite agreements between the Army and the National Guard. Just recently, I was briefed by the Army on the latest offsite meeting between the Army and the Guard--an off-site meeting that was held after it was brought to Secretary Cohen's attention by Senator Bond and I that the Guard had been left out of the QDR process. In that briefing, I was told the Army and the Guard had reached an agreement. But I pointed out to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, who briefed me, ``I have little faith in the outcome of such an agreement when the Army still hasn't lived up to the 1993 off-site agreement.'' Of course, that point may be moot, as I now have been informed that the Chief of Staff of the Army is unhappy with the agreement and, to date, has refused to sign off. So, Mr. President, this kind of runaround is exactly why we need Senator Stevens' amendment. The Army National Guard currently--I want my colleagues to listen to this--provides more than 55 percent of the ground combat forces, 45 percent of the combat support forces, 25 percent of the Army's combat supply units, while receiving--guess what?--only 2 percent of the Department of Defense budget. Now, let me repeat that. The Army National Guard currently 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 supply units, while receiving only 2 percent of the Department of Defense budget. You will hear from some of our colleagues that the Army National Guard divisions have no fighting missions. They will be telling the truth, but they won't be telling all the truth. That is because the active duty Army leadership has simply refused to give the Guard a war fighting mission. They have refused to do so despite the fact that the active Army's attrition rate--get this--is 36 percent. About half of those are joining the National Guard. They have been trained. The attrition rate in the Army Guard is somewhere around 15 percent. The question my colleagues should be asking is, How many active duty Army divisions are at full strength versus the Army Guard divisions? So, Mr. President, this amendment will ensure that the National Guard and all its attendant forces will have a voice in the Department of Defense's senior decisionmaking process when it comes to defense strategy, force readiness, and allocation of resources. In the end, I hope that when my colleagues hear arguments like, ``there are two colonels here in our offices that weigh in on issues,'' they will remember that their simply being in the room isn't enough. You have to have a seat at the table and a voice that carries some weight. That is exactly what this amendment we have before us today does. So I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and help us pull up a chair for the National Guard Bureau and give them a voice that can be heard loud and clear at the Defense Department's decisionmaking table. I want to underscore one other thing. Already 47 Senators have cosponsored this amendment, and many more will come on board. I hope that we understand that the overwhelming sentiment of this body is to support Senator Stevens' amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 420, As Amended

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

Mr. FORD

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

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

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

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