Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to extend my personal thanks to the Kentucky Air National Guard for a job well done. When the U.S. Air Force chose the Kentucky Derby Festival's annual Thunder Over Louisville celebration as one of the high points in a year-long celebration of the Air Force's 50th anniversary, the Kentucky Air National Guard proved to be the perfect hosts. They not only brought in all the aircraft, but coordinated all the different services. Thunder Over Louisville has already gained a reputation as a one-of- a-kind air show and fireworks display. But I think everyone agreed that this year will be hard to top. The performances were truly spectacular, but much of the success is also due to the tremendous job the city, the Air Force, the Derby Festival and the Kentucky Air National Guard did to assure the event ran smoothly and safely. Called ``Wild Blue Thunder'' in tribute to the Air Force's 50th Anniversary, it was the world's largest show of its kind in America, both for the fireworks display and for the air performances. The fireworks were reported to be larger than the opening and closing of the Atlanta Olympics combined and of the Inaugural fireworks. The impressive show culminated in an 11,000 waterfall of fireworks off the Clark Memorial Bridge. The television and radio commercials for Thunder Over Louisville use the tag line ``you haven't seen anything until you've seen everything.'' The Air Force and other armed services certainly pulled out all the stops with air performances showcasing the ``Thunderbirds USAF Aerobatic Team,'' the F-117 A Stealth Fighter, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the SR-71A Strategic Reconnaissance Plane, the B-1B Long Range Strategic Bomber, F-14 ``Tomcat'' jet fighter, the A-10 Warthog Tank Killer jet fighter, the F-15 ``Eagle'' jet fighter, the T-33 ``Thunderbird,'' and Apache and Blackhawk helicopters. The performances were not only a great source of entertainment, but also were a tremendous learning experience for spectators of all ages, especially about Kentucky's homegrown talent. Kentucky's 123rd already has an impressive list of accomplishments under their belt. And I've come to the Senate floor time and again to commend them on their exceptional work in places like Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda. But as part of the Derby Festival's spectacular display, the 123rd got to show off for the hometown crowd. 650,000 Kentuckians saw first- hand the 123rd's skill and expertise with the C-130Hs, getting a better idea of how important this unit is to the overall operations of this nation's active duty Air Force. And that will make my job much easier this year if Pentagon officials start making moves to pull any of the 123rd's C-130Hs. Mr. President, let me close by thanking the 123rd for their hard work and their hospitality. I know the true test of their abilities happens when they are far from home. But it's nice to remind everyone at home just how lucky we are to have such a talented, committed group of service people right here in Kentucky.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

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. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent, because of the severe disaster conditions in their States.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I just want to make one thing clear, and I am not a lawyer, not even a famous banker.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent due to severe disaster condition in their States. I further announce that the Senator from California [Ms. Boxer] and the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] is absent due to illness.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent due to the severe disaster in their States. I further announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] is absent due to illness. I also announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. FORD. And this is from both Senators.

Mr. FORD. That takes care of both. I understand the Senator from Alaska says a contract is binding, but the content of the contract is what binds you. Therefore, if the contract says certain things, you are bound to what the contract says. I think the Senator is evading, in my judgment, the content of the agreement.

Mr. FORD. But we have every obligation, because we pass the law, to be sure that the legislative language, the legislative history is understood by the courts also.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], are necessarily absent due to severe disaster conditions in their States. I further announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] is absent due to illness.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 70, submitted earlier today by Senator Daschle and others, that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. Further, that any statements relating thereto be placed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to pay tribute to a man who simply could not have worked any harder on behalf of the Kentucky college he has represented for the past 20 years. A native of Harrodsburg, KY, Dr. John Begley returned to Kentucky in 1977 as head of Lindsey Wilson College in Columbia. It's hard to believe that the school John leaves today is the same one he came to 20 years ago. Back then, Lindsey was just another struggling junior college. Today, it's the fastest growing liberal arts college in Kentucky. Back then, enrollment hovered around 222 students. Today, 1,372 students look to Lindsey for the tools to shape their futures. Back then, the school operated on a $600,000 a year budget and took in no more than $50,000 a year in donations. Today, Lindsey has a $14 million budget, pulls in $1.3 million annually in donations and raised $18 million in a 5-year capital campaign. But perhaps most remarkable is that under John's leadership, the college has in no way sacrificed quality. Instead, they have strived for, and by all accounts achieved excellence. In addition to 15 baccalaureate majors, the college instituted a masters in counseling and human development. Within just 2 years, the accrediting arm of the American Counseling Association ranked the masters program as one of the top 12 counseling programs in the Nation. In an area of the State struggling for economic advancement, John made sure the college met the unique needs of Appalachian families. That meant making sure the college was readily accessible to area residents looking for the resources they needed to better their lives. With eight satellite branches, south central Kentuckians of all ages and from all walks of life can take advantage of the educational and job training opportunities at Lindsey. In addition to academic excellence and steady financial growth, John always looked toward improving the quality of student life. One way he did that was through athletics. With 14 athletic teams and a men's soccer team that has won back to back NAIA national championships--the first Kentucky college to do so in 45 years--the college has struck an important balance between excellence in academics and student life. Clearly, John's successes came with the help of hundreds of hard working colleagues, a community receptive to the college's needs, and a student body that took pride in their college's successes. But there can be no doubt that John's leadership pulled those forces together and created something really wonderful--something all Kentuckians can look on with pride. Mr. President, I know I am not alone in wanting to thank John for leaving the college not only with a firm foundation from which to keep building, but a standard of excellence that will serve generations of students and faculty for years to come.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, last month in western Kentucky, about 200 citizens of Marshall County packed a junior high school auditorium, taking time out from their busy schedules, to learn more about the proposed Clarks River Wildlife Refuge. So many people were there because it marked the first time they had an opportunity to voice their opinions on a refuge that would go, literally, through their backyards. Backers of the refuge had crafted a proposal and sought funding without any input from the people who owned the land. I first called the Senate's attention to this refuge last year, during consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill. I made it clear that I'm not necessarily opposed to the creation of a wildlife refuge in western Kentucky. What concerned me then and concerns me now is that those who farm about 7,000 acres within the proposed boundaries of the refuge haven't been heard on whether they support the refuge. As one farmer said to me in a letter last year, ``no one seems to listen to what the majority of the landowners and farmers, who are directly involved, are saying.'' Well, Mr. President, I'm listening. During last month's hearing, one farmer asked for a show of hands, of the landowners present, who supported the refuge. Three hands went up. When he asked how many landowners opposed the refuge, about 60 hands went up. What's worse, when a farmer asked how many landowners had been contacted to determine support for the refuge, the Government officials admitted that not a single landowner had been contacted--despite the fact that the creation of the refuge will depend solely on the number of willing sellers. Today I am introducing legislation to correct this practice. My bill would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to contact for an independent, non-biased survey of landowners within the boundaries of any proposed refuge. If the survey shows that a majority of the landowners support the refuge, then the Service would be free to proceed with land acquisitions to create it. If not, then the Service would be prohibited from taking additional steps. Mr. President, my bill is simply common sense: Creating a wildlife refuge depends on the willingness of landowners to sell their property to the Federal Government. We should first determine if there are enough landowners willing to sell enough land to actually create the refuge before we begin to make purchases. It doesn't make sense to draw up plans for a wildlife refuge if there won't be enough land available to create it. Mr. President, the people of western Kentucky have asked, repeatedly, for their voices to be heard. My legislation will ensure that they will be, and that future refuges respect the wishes of affected communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me add my voice to this for just a moment. For many of us who have chemical weapons stored in our State-- and there are a good many States--this piece of legislation becomes highly important because certain language we hope to be in this treaty will allow us to look for alternate sources other than burning or destroying by burning. And so particularly in my case, where we have the nerve gas, this treaty becomes vital to us. And to have it timely considered becomes a very important aspect of alternative sources under this international treaty. So I am here pleading for my constituency to eliminate the so-called chemical weapons. We are being held up for reorganization of the State Department, reorganization of United Nations, this thing or that thing. We are held up when we have a deadline of April 28 and we have people out there worried about chemical weapons and how you destroy them. We have the answer under this piece of legislation, but we cannot go forward with it. Mr. President, I hope you will listen to my friend from New Mexico, that there is going to be an effort to bring this piece of legislation up because of the deadline. If we worried about deadlines, we would have a budget. We do not have a budget. But this is an international treaty, and it has a deadline. And for one, I do not want to miss it because of the chemical weapons that need to be destroyed and the way they are to be destroyed so that we might protect your constituents. I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, when the 94th Congress convened in January 1975, I was 93d in Senate seniority. When the 105th Congress convened this past January, I was 12th. What a difference 22 years make. My 22 years of service to the people of Kentucky, as their U.S. Senator, has been during a remarkable period in history. We have witnessed the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall. We have witnessed a technological boom that was unthinkable 22 years ago and we've witnessed the growth of democracy in practically every underdeveloped nation in the world. We have also seen the cost of a college education skyrocket. We have seen the cost of medical care skyrocket. And last but not least, we've seen the cost of a political campaign skyrocket. The average cost of a U.S. Senate race in 1974, the first year I ran, was less than $450,000. In fact, $437,482. The average cost of a Senate race last year was approximately $4.5 million. There is no job, especially the job of public servant, that is worth or deserves the effort necessary to raise and spend that much money. The job of being a U.S. Senator today has unfortunately become a job of raising money to be reelected instead of a job doing the people's business. Traveling to New York, California, Texas, or basically any State in the country, weekend after weekend, for the next 2 years is what candidates must do if they hope to raise the money necessary to compete in a senatorial election. Democracy as we know it will be lost if we continue to allow government to become one bought by the highest bidder, for the highest bidder. Candidates will simply become bit players and pawns in a campaign managed and manipulated by paid consultants and hired guns. Because of the political money chase, Washington, DC is fast becoming the center of our lives, not our people back home. The money chase has got to stop. We must reform the system so that ordinary, everyday people, who want to run for political office and make our country a better place are able to do so. I have spent a good part of my Senate career and political life working to nudge and, occasionally shove our party back toward the center of the political road. I came to Washington as a moderate Democrat, believing then as I still do, that the will of the people comes first. I've tried to be a moderate voice and will continue to do so. I love our country too much to let the extremists ram their agenda down our throats. There are many challenges facing the Senate and our party as we march into the next millennium. More than ever, I want to be involved in addressing some of them. I am not in the business to get my name in lights or to appear on the national TV talk shows or make headlines in the national newspapers. My philosophy has always been and will continue to be keep a low profile, work behind the scenes with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and come up with a solution that benefits everyone. Compromise is not a dirty word. I plan on working this way in the months ahead. Now of a more immediate and personal concern. Do I run again for another term in 1998? My health is good, my mind is sharp, and I enjoy what I do as much as life itself. However, because my mind is sharp, it is quick to remind me that I am 72 years old and I will be 74 in November of 1998. The good Lord has a plan for every one of us, even me. My heart says that my love affair with the people of Kentucky is not over. My head says it has been a long ride and a good ride but now it is time to pass the reins on to a younger generation. Today I will lead with my head and not my heart. So the time has come for me to announce that I will not be a candidate for reelection in 1998. As you try to understand my decision, let me ask you to do something for me, if you will. Don't say that I'm ready to go because I'm not and, frankly, I never will be. I still get goose bumps every time I look up at the Capitol dome on my way to and from work. You can say that my reelection campaign would be my most expensive race ever. I do not relish--in fact, I detest--the idea of having to raise $5 million for a job that pays $133,000 a year. To reach that mark, I would have to raise $100,000 a week, starting today, for the next year. Please don't say that my time has passed and I should be put out to pasture, because I don't believe that it has. The political philosophy that I embrace is just as relevant today as it was when I first entered public life 30 years ago. It is a philosophy centered on the fact that most Kentuckians cherish personal freedom more than either a liberal agenda or a competing conservative agenda that just uses Government in a different way to promote its goals. I thank the people of Kentucky from the bottom of my heart for giving me the chance to be their voice for these four-plus terms here in the U.S. Senate. I have been blessed with good friends and dedicated supporters all around my State, who have been there time and time again when I have called for their help. No one serves the people alone. He or she must have a good, bright, hard-working staff for support. I have been blessed with an abundance of such a staff. They have proven themselves more than capable of handling any situation thrown at them. Their unequaled loyalty and total devotion to their work, especially in handling constituent services, both in my district offices and here in Washington, is proven time and time again. My staff is simply the best, as the thousands of constituents who have used them will attest. In announcing last month that he would not run again, my good friend and colleague, John Glenn, put it in perspective when he said, ``There still is no cure for the common birthday.'' I believe that 100 percent, and I want to leave here knowing that I have a lot more birthdays to celebrate with my family. Now, speaking of family, no one--and I repeat, no one--could ask for a more supportive and loving family than mine. My wife, Jean, has been my anchor for over 50 years. My children, Shirley and Steve, have had to grow up with an absentee father a lot of the time. But they know in their hearts how much I love them. I plan on helping them in the years to come the way they have been there for me all these many years. As for my grandchildren, I can't wait to spend more time with them and, hopefully, learn a thing or two from them. I'll finally have the time to dote on them and spoil them the way a grandfather is supposed to do. Mr. President, let me close by reading the last paragraph from a poem entitled ``A Year,'' which I have carried with me for many, many years. My son had it right when he wrote this back during his sophomore year at Frankfort High School. He is now married and has three lovely sons and, still, he had it right much earlier than I thought he did. This is the last of four paragraphs, referring to the seasons: Another year has passed, the days not slow or fast, Burned deep within our brain, its memories will ever remain, And although you look back and stood, wishing there had been more good, No one can change the seasons, 'cept God, and he's had no reason. I thank the Chair for giving me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed for 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. You went back to the rules.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, can I get into this for a minute? I don't think we accepted the enlargement of it. It was more to carry it out than to enlarge it.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit an executive resolution placing conditions on the Chemical Weapons Convention with respect to this Nation's Chemical Demilitarization Program. Muhammad Ali used to say that not only could he knock 'em out, but he could pick the round. There is no doubt in my mind that when the fight's over, we will knock 'em out on the issue of alternative technologies. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of picking which round incineration goes down for good. That means every time we have an opportunity--or see an instance where the Army might try to bob and weave--we've got to be ready to get our punches in. I believe the passage of the Chemical Weapons Convention could present the Army with just such an opportunity to bob and weave on searching for alternatives to incineration. Fortunately, the White House has agreed to placing additional conditions on the treaty which should stop any of the Army's attempts to duck out on their responsibility. The head of the National Security Council, Sandy Berger, has sent me a letter agreeing to my language placing conditions on the Chemical Weapons Convention. The letter not only makes it clear to the world and to the Army the President's commitment to exploring alternatives to incineration, it further clarifies the relationship between the Chemical Weapons Convention and our Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program. I also have a copy of a letter from the President to Secretary of Defense William Cohen reiterating his strong support for finding alternatives to incineration that are safe and environmentally sound. Why is this language so important? First, back in 1989, as part of the Defense authorization bill, Congress set an arbitrary deadline of 2004 for the destruction of all chemical weapons. That date conflicts with the Chemical Weapons Convention which calls for destruction 10 years from the date the treaty is signed, which would be 2007. While it should be clear to everyone involved that the treaty date supersedes the congressional mandate, we don't want to give the Army a reason to bob and weave. Second, 30 days from signing the treaty, signatories are required to submit their plan for destruction. Because the Army is already incinerating chemical weapons in the United States and has already invested billions in this method, this is the plan they will submit 30 days after the treaty has been signed. Under my language, this treaty requirement will not preclude the United States from going through with a different method than what is originally submitted. Without my language, we have no protection against the Army holding up the official plan as a defense against looking for alternatives. Third, many in the Nation were very concerned the Army would see the 10-year deadline as an excuse, claiming they simply wouldn't have the time to explore alternatives. In fact, the treaty allows any country to request a 5-year waiver. Under my language, the United States would automatically request that extension if an alternative method can be found. The condition to the treaty states that if ``the President determines that alternatives to incineration are available which are safer and more environmentally sound, but whose use would preclude the United States from meeting the Convention time lines, the President shall consult with the Congress on whether to request to the Executive Council of the OPSW for an extension of the Convention's destruction deadline.'' Finally, adding this condition to the treaty is crucial to the effort to find alternative methods because last year's appropriations language not only has to be renewed every single year, but fails to address the treaty's deadline. Year after year, we're going to be faced with fighting the funding aspect out on the House and Senate floor, with no guarantee of winning. But with my language attached to the treaty, the search for alternative methods won't be left entirely up to a yearly floor battle. That's because I will have effectively closed any loophole related to treaty deadlines that might allow the Army to avoid searching for alternative technologies. In closing, let me say that up until this point I have withheld support for the Chemical Weapons Convention. But because I have been able to negotiate these critical protections of the exploration of safe, affordable, and environmentally sound alternatives to chemical weapons incineration. I will now put my support behind the treaty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the President to Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and a letter sent to me by the Acting Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Sandy Berger, be included in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order?