Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the only point I would like to make is that under the situation as it now stands as it relates to the DOD bill, there is at least one conflict. Unless it is worked out overnight, or by noon tomorrow, it would be very difficult to move to that piece of legislation. I think everything is all right as it relates to going to the intelligence bill. I think everybody understands it. But for the Record, we would be hard pressed, or I would be hard pressed not to recognize Senators on my side and your side.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Since there is no other Senator here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Byrd's sense of the Senate Resolution on the issue of climate change. A few weeks ago I was back in Kentucky and my youngest grandson, Morgan, wanted some help on his math homework. At first we were both stumped over the list of word problems his teacher had assigned. Then, after all those years, a lesson one of my teachers taught me came back. She taught us to cut out all the extraneous words in those problems. Once we'd stripped it down, she promised we'd have a clear-cut math problem we could recognize how to solve. It wasn't long before Morgan and I had zipped right through those problems. I think my colleagues will find the same method will work with the Global Climate Change Treaty that's currently being negotiated. It sounds complicated and impressive when you first look it over, but once you strip away all the extraneous language, it comes down to this simple equation. Rules benefitting the economies of developing nations plus rules penalizing the economies of developed nations add up to a big fat zero in net gains for the global environment. That's because only developed nations would be legally bound by the treaty hammered out by negotiators--the so-called Berlin Mandate. Developing nations are off the hook. Right now, developed nations and developing nations have about equal levels of carbon emissions. But within five years of the deadline, developing nations will have more than 1\1/2\ times the 1990 level of the developed world. So when you subtract all the half-baked environmental promises, you find the equation is heavily weighted against America and especially against American workers. That's because the United States will have to make the steepest reductions and suffer the costliest and most damaging consequences. Preliminary estimates put the loss at 600,000 jobs each year. And 600,000 jobs is probably a low estimate, because the treaty creates an enormous incentive for American businesses to shift more and more jobs overseas, to avoid the expensive emission reductions that U.S. businesses will have to meet. The impact in Kentucky could be especially bad. Not only would miners working in the coalfields of Eastern and Western Kentucky suffer job loss, but many of the businesses and factories that have created a golden triangle in Northern Kentucky would be forced to close. And every single Kentuckian will face higher electric bills and higher gas prices. But what should really make you scratch your head over this puzzler is that when you add it all up, we won't get a cleaner environment. We won't stop global warming. We won't even get reduced carbon emissions. That's because every ton of reduced emissions in the United States and other developed nations will be made up--and then some--in the developing world. So, here's a quick math review. You've got a treaty with devastating consequences for the American economy. You end up with virtually no environmental benefit. Stripped down it looks like nothing more than a massive foreign aid package paid for with American jobs. It's clear that many American interests are being neglected by our negotiators and that we must come up with a better solution for the problem of global emissions. Time is limited for the Senate to act to make it clear that the treaty, as currently reported, will get a failing grade. A December signing ceremony is already set for December in Kyoto, Japan. Mr. President, I believe my colleague, Senator Byrd's resolution is the right method. It sets commonsense parameters for our negotiators to work from to assure that any treaty meets the goal of reduced emissions without penalizing one country over another. And next time my grandson grumbles about why he has to learn things he'll probably never use again, I'll just remind him that when you get right down to it, even the most complicated global policy problems can be solved with some simple math.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, we are all familiar with the parameters of the upcoming tax debate. The budget deal provides for $85 billion in net tax cuts over 5 years, and $250 billion in net tax cuts over 10 years. Within those dollar limits, there's a strong desire to provide tax cuts in four areas: first, capital gains relief, second, estate tax relief, third, a $500-per-child tax credit, and fourth, education tax initiatives. But if you add up all the current proposals in each of these areas, you go way over the $250 billion mark set by the budget deal. Cheaper alternatives must be found. I have had an interest for several years in providing capital gains relief for family farmers and small family businesses where the parents wish to pass along to their children the operation of the farm or the business. Earlier this year, Senator Gregg and I each introduced capital gains tax reduction legislation which was based on a similar objective: The longer you have held an asset, the lower your capital gains rate will be. We call this the sliding scale capital gains tax reduction. Since then, we have gotten together, and produced a product which we believe combines the vest features of both of our bills. And we're introducing that legislation today. The Ford-Gregg approach is a bipartisan compromise that will allow the tax cut package to move forward consistent with the budget deal. The Ford-Gregg bill achieves the following objectives shared by all capital gains cut advocates: First, it cuts the capital gains rate in half for individuals; second, it does not discriminate among types of assets; and third, it keeps things relatively simple. In addition, the Ford-Gregg bill meets the following additional objectives: First, it costs less than half as much as the major capital gains proposals; second, it rewards long-term investment over short-term speculation; and third, it's bipartisan. Remember, the budget agreement calls for $250 billion in net tax cuts over 10 years. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the major capital gains proposal pending in the Senate (S. 2) would cost $129 billion over 10 years--eating up more than one-half of the net tax cut amount. On the other hand, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that the Ford- Gregg sliding scale proposal would cost only $45.2 billion over 10 years. This is a better approach. It is a bipartisan approach. It's better public policy because it rewards long-term investment. It costs less than half as much. And it will make life a whole lot easier for the tax writing committees in the weeks ahead. And that is the message we will be delivering as the final tax package is being written.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, we are all familiar with the parameters of the upcoming tax debate. The budget deal provides for $85 billion in net tax cuts over 5 years, and $250 billion in net tax cuts over 10 years. Within those dollar limits, there's a strong desire to provide tax cuts in four areas: first, capital gains relief, second, estate tax relief, third, a $500-per-child tax credit, and fourth, education tax initiatives. But if you add up all the current proposals in each of these areas, you go way over the $250 billion mark set by the budget deal. Cheaper alternatives must be found. I have had an interest for several years in providing capital gains relief for family farmers and small family businesses where the parents wish to pass along to their children the operation of the farm or the business. Earlier this year, Senator Gregg and I each introduced capital gains tax reduction legislation which was based on a similar objective: The longer you have held an asset, the lower your capital gains rate will be. We call this the sliding scale capital gains tax reduction. Since then, we have gotten together, and produced a product which we believe combines the vest features of both of our bills. And we're introducing that legislation today. The Ford-Gregg approach is a bipartisan compromise that will allow the tax cut package to move forward consistent with the budget deal. The Ford-Gregg bill achieves the following objectives shared by all capital gains cut advocates: First, it cuts the capital gains rate in half for individuals; second, it does not discriminate among types of assets; and third, it keeps things relatively simple. In addition, the Ford-Gregg bill meets the following additional objectives: First, it costs less than half as much as the major capital gains proposals; second, it rewards long-term investment over short-term speculation; and third, it's bipartisan. Remember, the budget agreement calls for $250 billion in net tax cuts over 10 years. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the major capital gains proposal pending in the Senate (S. 2) would cost $129 billion over 10 years--eating up more than one-half of the net tax cut amount. On the other hand, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that the Ford- Gregg sliding scale proposal would cost only $45.2 billion over 10 years. This is a better approach. It is a bipartisan approach. It's better public policy because it rewards long-term investment. It costs less than half as much. And it will make life a whole lot easier for the tax writing committees in the weeks ahead. And that is the message we will be delivering as the final tax package is being written.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, over the last few days, I have been reading in newspapers and hearing on radio and television about the Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR] and the so called National Defense Panel [NDP]. The QDR is supposed to be a comprehensive assessment of current military strategy and force structure, as well as outlining a vision for the future. However, experts have called this QDR ``A Cold War Relic'' and when it comes to the Army, I agree with them. I truly believe the citizens of Kentucky and the American people deserve the best national defense strategy the Nation can afford. Yet the Active Army wants to cling to their 10 divisions, while simultaneously calling for a new Base Closure Commission. This is especially ironic when you consider that during the 1995 Base Closure Commission, the Active Duty Army leadership insisted the Army could not afford to close any more bases. This was just 2 years ago. The Base Closure Commission said not to have another Commission until the year 2001. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to read page 3-2 of the 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission's report to the President, which says `` * * * The Defense Department will be implementing the closures and realignments of the 1995 and prior Commissions through the end of this decade. The requirement in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act that all Closures be completed within 6 years means that the closures from the 1995 round will not be completed until 2001. For that reason, the Commission recommends that the Congress authorize another Base Closure Commission for the year 2001 similar to the 1991, 1993, and 1995 Commissions.'' I understand this is still the view of our former colleague Alan J. Dixon, the Chairman of the 1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The Active Army argues that they are going to cut the Active Force by 15,000 men and women. But my colleagues shouldn't be fooled. When you look closely, you will see that the 15,000 troops the Army wants to cut are nothing more than ghosts. What you have are 15,000 positions in the Active Army that have been left empty the last few years. So the question remains: where does the Army plan to put these ten divisions--with no real reductions--if they close bases? How do they meet their budget target, while simultaneously protecting their general officer slots and keeping their 10 active divisions? Their answer? Cut the Army National Guard by approximately 38,000 people. That is a 10 percent reduction of the entire Army National Guard Force Structure. This is the very same Army National Guard, Mr. President, that 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 support units, while only using 2 percent of the Department of Defense budget. Why, my colleagues might ask, would the Active Duty Army leadership do such a thing? Well lets look. First, the Army leadership argues that the Guard divisions have no war fighting missions. This is true. But the Guard divisions have no war fighting missions because the Active Duty Army leadership has failed to give them a war fighting mission. And the reason they don't give them a war fighting mission is because then they would have to explain why they still wanted to keep 10 active duty divisions. Also the Active Army does not consider members of the Army National Guard as soldiers. Instead they treat the men and women of the Army National Guard with contempt. These Active Duty types seem to forget that the men and women of the Army National Guard have undergone the same training as the active duty forces. Fifty percent of the entire Army National Guard are men and women coming off active duty with the Army. The generals in the Active Army should look at their own figures regarding retention of their active duty members. The annual attrition of the Active Army is 36 percent, the attrition in the Army Reserve is 34 percent, while the attrition in the Army Guard is only 18 percent. Perhaps what is most frustrating to me is the fact that the Active Army refused to consult with the Army Guard during the QDR. When asked about this oversight by the press, the Army spokesperson responded that ``there is an Army Reserve colonel and a Guard colonel here in our offices. They get to weigh in on the issues.'' You don't need an extensive knowledge of military affairs to realize that a colonel doesn't pull much weight against a group of active duty Army generals protecting their turf. Mr. President, there should be no reason for the poor working relationship between the Active Army and the Army National Guard. I look at the strong working relationship between the Active Air Force and Air National Guard and wonder why can't the Army have this kind of relationship. I look at the great relationship the Active Duty Marine Corps has with its reserve units and wonder why not the Army and the Guard? Mr. President, Company A, 4th Tank Battalion, 4th Marine Division [REIN] which was deployed to Saudi Arabia in December 1990 is stationed at Fort Knox. This company of outstanding reservists was selected to lead the attack by the 6th Marine Regiment into the battle for Kuwait. This outstanding Marine Corps Reserve unit fought along side their active duty comrades and did a great job. They were able to work side by side with their active duty counterparts because the Marine Corps Reserves play a vital role in the Marine Corps military strategy and because the Marine Corps integrates both reserve training and education with their active counterparts. There are a number of plans I have been told about which could save more than $2.5 billion a year for the Army. They envision elimination of two Active Divisions. Two divisions could come out of Europe, and the Army could fly brigades from the United States to Europe on a rotational basis to serve a 3-month tour. The Army could take the equipment from these divisions and modernize Guard Divisions and give the Guard Divisions the war fighting missions of the two eliminated active divisions. Remember, Mr. President we have a Marine Corps that we can send anywhere in the world. We can do the same with the Army. Look at the 101st, the 82d, the 10th Mountain, and the 3d Infantry Division. These are tough Active Duty Forces that the 15 enhanced National Guard Brigades and the 8 National Guard Divisions can support. Given these tight fiscal times, I hope all my colleagues remember that an Army Guardsman can be kept combat ready for an annual cost of $17,000, while an active duty soldier costs more than $80,000. The Army Guard, just like its Active Duty counterpart, is trained for combat. Up to this point, I have tolerated the Active Army's all-too-obvious bias. Yet the QDR represents the final straw. Some of my colleagues want to wait for the National Defense Panel to do their review and report to Congress. I was a cosponsor of the amendment that called for this panel. When Senator Bond and I agreed to cosponsor the amendment creating the Defense Panel, we did so only after we had received assurances that someone with a Guard background would be on the panel. Mr. President, the National Defense Panel has been turned into a joke. It is nothing more than a warmed-over version of the failed Roles and Mission Commission--a Commission that spent more money in 2 years than the Base Closure Commissions spent in 5 years. No one other than the outgoing Deputy Secretary of Defense has been interested in anything the Roles and Mission Commission reported and it should come as no surprise that this Commission also did not have a Guard representative. So what we have is a National Defense Panel appointed by the outgoing Deputy Secretary of Defense consisting of individuals from our cold war days who have no background in working day-to-day with the National Guard. Even my friend Senator McCain, an author of the amendment that created the National Defense Panel, expressed his disappointment with the lack of imagination in appointing the members of this Panel. I think it's high time we put a stop to this childish bickering between the Army and the National Guard. The Active Duty Army needs to get its act together and accept the National Guard as an equal partner so they all can be the best Army they can be. Mr. President, I ask unamious consent that the following articles, one from the National Guard magazine by Maj. Gen. Richard C. Alexander, be printed in the Record following my remarks, also that two articles from the Armed Forces Journal, May 1997, issue by former Congressman G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery and a second article by John G. Roos. I hope all my colleagues will read these articles.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. And it be charged to the majority.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Tom Clopton of Cave City, Kentucky, who has been selected as the Kentucky Small Business Person of the Year by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Tom is the President and CEO of Tekno, Inc., a manufacturing company in Cave City. He started the company in 1989 with nothing more than a home computer and his personal savings. Today Tekno is a premier designer and manufacturer of material handling, factory automation, and specialty machinery systems for industrial applications. Tekno's success is remarkable. Annual sales have grown from $354 thousand in 1989 to nearly $13.2 million in 1995. Revenues have increased nearly four thousand percent in just seven and a half years. This remarkable growth has resulted in Tekno being ranked as one of America's fastest growing privately owned companies for three consecutive years, 1994-1996. Not only have Tom's business and managerial skills fostered the growth of a productive company, his ingenuity and engineering skills have enabled him to acquire 13 patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, he has patents pending in both Canada and Mexico. And as any good boss will do, Tom attributes much of his success to his employees. He knows that happy employees are productive employees and he makes every effort to ensure that Tekno provides a pleasant working environment. In return, his employees take pride in their job and are quick to volunteer for extra hours when urgent tasks need to be completed. And finally, I want to say that Tom's dedication and commitment to his customers, employees and community sets an example for every small business. I am happy that Tom is being recognized for all of the good work he has done. I congratulate him on this significant accomplishment and wish him many future years of success.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Equally divided.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Pat Sellers, a congressional fellow assigned to Senator Daschle, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on Senate Concurrent Resolution 27.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is interesting to listen to those who are now so interested in tobacco and kids. They say, ``Will you support Joe Camel or Joey?'' For months and months and months we have had a bill here that would embrace all of FDA regulations, that would do everything to prevent kids from smoking. Nobody wants to get on it. Nobody wants to help. We get rid of Joe Camel. We get rid of the Marlboro Man. All you want is an issue. You do not want to solve the problem. So, yes, we can get emotional about kids. I have voted for 22 long years for kids. I am a grandfather with five grandchildren, and I am not going to do anything to harm them. They do not smoke. I do. That is my business. I am an adult. They are underage. So why can't adults make a decision and let us go ahead and try to accomplish those things that will stop youth from smoking? Do you think a 43-cent-a-pack increase is going to stop kids from smoking? They will just find cheap tobacco and bring it in here and reduce the price of cigarettes. You want to do away with the program? Let them grow tobacco from fence row to fence row. Tobacco gets so cheap you cannot raise it, and cigarettes go to a quarter a pack. They are using kids here and not trying to solve a problem. That is what irritates me. I am from a tobacco-growing State. It is $3 billion every year to my farmers. And 69 percent of those farmers have other jobs. It is a husband, wife, and family income. But you do not want to do that. You want to try to eliminate all that. You do not want to try to stop kids from smoking. You want to stomp up here-- ``Every day 1,000 more will die.'' Those are your words.

Mr. FORD. Where in the world have you been to try to stop it? Nowhere. You just want to increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes, on a pack of cigarettes to stop kids from smoking. That is it. That is what you are saying. But there is a bill here to get rid of it. No one wants to join in that effort. So it is kind of tough for me, coming from a tobacco State, trying to do what everybody here is talking about, except let the adults have a choice. I think that is what it ought to be. But, no, we want to add the tax on. We want to reduce by 35 percent--I heard the Senator from Massachusetts say it is only one-third of 1 percent of the budget. It reduces 35 percent of the tax cut. That is a pretty healthy hunk. One State gets $29 million under this bill of the so-called Kennedy- Hatch. And it is $1.4 billion additional taxes to that State. So they do not come out ahead. How do they come out ahead? They have to match if they voluntarily accept it. Under this bill, they have to match. And they are mandated--mandated--on what they do once they accept it. I do not understand. People talk about trying to save kids. You have an opportunity to do it. But, no, they want the issue. They want the issue. Bigger Government, less tax cuts, but they do not want to get at the real root of the thing and try to begin to work. For months now--month after month after month--you refuse to join with some of us, even from tobacco States, that want to stop kids from smoking. All you want to do is make an issue out of it and say, I want to choose between Joe Camel and Joey. That is not true, because I have given every Senator here an opportunity to put Mr. Joe Camel where he belongs, and the Marlboro Man. I have made my choice. I want the adults to have a choice and kids not to smoke. But all you want to do is have another issue and pound and pound and pound here to try to unravel a balanced budget amendment on the backs of the children on the basis you want to make a choice between Joe Camel and Joey. I have made my choice. I am for Joey. I have been for him for 22 years. But you act like I cannot join in trying to help reduce the ability of children to smoke. It is there. So I just want everyone to know that if you want--want--to help Joey, help me get rid of Joe Camel. This does not get rid of Joe Camel. This does not get rid of the Marlboro Man. It just increases the cost of smoking to the lower income, just increases the cost to the lower income and unravels a balanced budget. One-third of 1 percent--you reduce 35 percent of the tax cuts in this bill. I hope my 5 minutes are up. I am beginning to sweat.