Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, millions of people watch the Kentucky Derby because it is a spectacular moment of chance. When the 123rd Run for the Roses takes place May 3, that's what the spectators will see--a riveting 2 minutes when anything can happen. What they won't see are the thousands of small details that go into making that moment one that goes down in sport's history. While thousands of people work to make the Kentucky Derby and the festival events a success, Kentuckians know that for the past 17 years one man has stood out in his commitment and drive to nailing down every last derby festival detail. That man was Dan Mangeot, the Kentucky Derby Festival's long-time president. He died in February, leaving behind a legacy and equally important, many, many devoted friends and colleagues. Described by some as a ``legend'' and by others as a ``father figure,'' Dan did the impossible. He took a legendary event and somehow made it even better. Under his management, attendance at derby festival events doubled to 1.5 million, while the economic impact on the community grew from $17 million to $53 million. When Dan decided to focus on something, the outcome was inevitably a huge success. Whether it was selling more derby pins--going from a few thousand a year to 600,000 a year--or instituting a derby festival poster--a regular award winner--he knew how to deliver. But Dan was about more than ringing up financial successes. He knew how to create a sense of community ownership in an event. Every year the entire community not only had a sense of pride in the festival activities surrounding the derby, but a stake in seeing them succeed. Dan couldn't imagine doing things differently. Community ownership translated into a board of directors truly representative of Louisville's diversity. And when it came to awarding contracts, he worked to ensure that minority-owned firms weren't shut out. It's true the derby is about the fastest horses in the world. But for Kentuckians it's also about showing the world the Commonwealth at her finest. And thanks to Dan that's what the world saw. Mr. President, let me close by expressing my deepest thanks to Dan's family for sharing such a great man with us. I know I speak for all Kentuckians when I tell Dan's family how very sad we are for their loss.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to first thank Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, the entire Finance Committee, and its staff, for acting quickly on reinstating, for a short term, the taxes that fund the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. Many of you may not be aware of how the FAA is funded, or how critical its mission is to our economy. The FAA receives its funds from two sources--the general fund and the airport and airway trust fund. The trust fund, up until December 31, of last year, was supported by a series of excise taxes--a 10 percent ticket tax, a 6.25 percent freight waybill tax, a $6 international departure tax, and two noncommercial aviation fuel taxes. For Fiscal Year 1997, the appropriation for the FAA was $8.563 billion. A total of $3.1 billion comes from the general fund, and $5.3 billion from the trust fund. One thing many of us fail to really comprehend is how important aviation is to our economy. We know that a safe and efficient air traffic control system, and a well functioning FAA, are key components to our economy. The President recently recognized the importance of aviation to our country by stepping in to stop a strike at American Airlines. Let me put some numbers out to explain how critical aviation is--the total annual impact of aviation to our economy is $771 billion. That is a staggering figure, but we all know that travel for business and travel for tourism are key components of our local economies. Failure to reinstate this tax will bring the FAA effectively to a halt. Yes, the air traffic controllers would be paid, as would the other FAA staff. But, my colleagues should understand that no money-- absolutely no money, would be available to buy new air traffic control equipment and to fund airport development. This is not a simple problem. The FAA has under contract billions of dollars for new equipment. If the FAA is not able to pay its contractors, it will have to give them adequate notice to shut down the programs. This means more than not buying a piece of equipment next week, but shutting down existing programs underway. The lawyers will be suing each other for years. I want to also state that last year, this body worked hard to pass an authorization bill for the FAA. As those of you that were here will recall, we stayed in session an extra week to get that bill through. That bill was and is important because it set a course for doing something different for the FAA--fundamentally changing the way it does business and how we fund that agency. The long-term funding question remains unanswered. To answer that question, this body voted to establish a 21-member Commission. The work of the Commission must move forward, and it must be done expeditiously. With reconciliation looming, any change in the current system--a new tax system or a new user fee system--must be worked out now. The entire aviation industry must agree to how much money the FAA needs, and who, and how to pay for it. I know that many of my colleagues share this view, and look forward to working this matter out with them. The lapse in the ticket tax and the uncertainty over funding, is something our high technology, safety organization--the FAA--cannot afford. Our constituents and families cannot afford it either.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] and the Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FORD. Does the Senator know where Clem Haskins got his training? Western Kentucky University. He was also a coach at Western Kentucky University. I am tickled to death that he gave such improvement to the great State of Minnesota.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada for allowing me the time to speak. I compliment him for his courage, for his ability, and for his tenacity. We have seen that before. We have never needed it any more than we do right now. Mr. President, just before I came up I was going through some letters that came into my office today. You always see something personal which just happened. Here is a fellow--I will not use his name--who said, ``I truly am concerned about my future as a citizen of the United States of America.'' He also adds, ``I am worried about my future. Will there be any Social Security money left for me to have and live on after I am retired?'' The concern is there. If you want a balanced budget, vote for the Reid amendment. Tomorrow you will have 70-some-odd votes. Now we are scrambling to get one more trying to pass it and force it down people's throats. In 1983, I had to cast a very, very hard vote. That is when we increased the taxes on Social Security. We did it so it would be there for the so-called baby boomers. We developed a surplus on purpose so they would be taken care of in the outyears. Now we find that, if this balanced budget amendment is passed as is without the Reid amendment, it will be a piggy bank that will not stand the crowbar of balancing the budget. They will break that piggy bank and use that Social Security money like it is going out of style. And I will not vote for a balanced budget amendment that desecrates the Social Security vote I cast in 1983. How many would have voted with Senator Dole when he came from that commission if he had told us that someday this money will go for welfare reform, that someday this money will go for foreign aid, and for other programs? I doubt seriously if it would have passed at that time. No. Here we are now with a balanced budget amendment that says to those that we have committed to--the senior citizens--that we are not going to cut them. But what happens to those that come after those that are on Social Security now? They are almost there. What about your children and my children that are 45 and 48 years old? They have been required to pay higher taxes. Some of them pay more Social Security than they pay withholding taxes. Now we are saying to them that in your older age for Social Security retirement it will not be there if this passes. There is one thing that ought to make everybody shiver. There is a possibility of the courts telling the legislative bodies to raise taxes and not to issue checks. So then we come subservient, and we are not a three-part Government any longer. Under this amendment the courts can tell a legislative body what to do. If that doesn't send chills up your spine, if that doesn't tell the people of this country that nonelected, appointed-for-life people, are going to tell a legislative body, the Congress, what to do--that ought to send shivers up and down the spine of every American. We have been here for over 200 years; the best and strongest country in the world. And we are about ready to say the system that brought us to this point is about to be eliminated; the system that brought us to this point today is about to be eliminated because of the possibility of the courts telling the Congress to raise taxes and not to issue checks; things of that nature. Oh, we will hear the crocodile tears, the Reagan-Bush memorial over here on my right, you know. We hear all of that. But I say to my friends that I made a commitment. It is called the Social Security trust fund, and I gave my word, and the trust of the people of this country in this Congress ought to be upheld. In the last Congress, the Senate voted 83 to 17 to adopt a sense-of- the-Senate amendment stating that Social Security should not be cut in order to balance the budget. Protecting the Social Security trust fund is not jut a seniors issue, according to this letter from this young person. We have promised not to reduce benefits for current Social Security beneficiaries in order to balance the budget, but what about this young person's concern about whether they will be able to secure Social Security based on what we have in this balanced budget amendment. Let me just go back to the possibility of what the courts might do. I do not think there is anyone in this body who wants the courts telling us what to do and how to do it. They will interpret whether it is constitutional or not. That is their prerogative. That is the way the system works. But I tell you when we pass an amendment that says the courts have the authority to run this country--unelected, appointed for life--I have some real concerns. ``Will there be any Social Security money left for me when I retire?'' this young person writes. ``I am truly concerned about my future as a citizen of the United States.'' I say to that young person, my vote will secure Social Security for her or him or whoever it might be out there, and I want their future as a citizen of the United States to be brighter. We can balance the budget, as the President says, if we cast the vote. I yield the floor.

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

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 Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent attending a family funeral.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on this the 188th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America and one of Kentucky's greatest native sons, I am introducing legislation to expand the boundaries of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site to include Knob Creek Farm, Lincoln's boyhood home from the ages of 2 to nearly 8. Located in Larue County near Hodgenville, KY, Knob Creek Farm is where President Lincoln learned some of his earliest lessons of life; lessons which helped mold the man who would go on to lead our Nation through one of the most important and trying periods in American history. I feel it is appropriate to honor the legacy of this great leader by including Knob Creek Farm in the National Historic Site. Under this legislation, the cost of acquiring Knob Creek Farm would not fall to the American taxpayer, but would instead be borne by the private sector. The National Park Trust, a private land conservancy dedicated to protecting America's natural and historical treasures, has been raising private funds and is currently negotiating to purchase the 228-acre family-owned farm, located approximately 10 miles from the existing Historic Site. After acquiring the farm, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the trust would donate the land to the Park Service. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' Well, Mr. President, I think Knob Creek Farm represents just such a morsel, and including it in the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site will allow current and future generations of Americans to share in the rare educational value of this historical property. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing capital gains legislation which I believe has the possibility of breaking through the impasse we have had on this issue for the last several years. My proposal is based not on political rhetoric, but on conversations I have had with constituents who support a commonsense approach on this issue. My legislation would provide a sliding scale for capital gains relief, lowering the rate at which capital gains are taxed, based on how long the assets have been held. For every year an asset has been held, the applicable rate would be reduced by 2 percentage points. Assets held for more than 1 year would be taxed at no higher than the current 28 percent. Assets held for 2 years would be taxed at no higher than 26 percent. And so on, down to a rate of 14 percent. Assets held for more than 8 years would be taxed at a maximum rate of 14 percent. I am introducing the legislation with three objectives in mind. First, I believe our efforts should be directed toward helping family farms and small family businesses. We do not need additional proposals to assist real estate speculators or those who specialize in putting Wall Street deals together. Most capital gains proposals we have considered in recent years provide a disproportionate benefit to those making six-figure salaries and above. It should be clear by now that we cannot pass a capital gains proposal that primarily benefits the wealthy. In my experience, those middle-class families that should be the focus of the debate get lost in the shuffle. Second, using this proposal, I intend to work with others interested in the issue to attempt to develop a bipartisan coalition with middle class families in mind. There are few lasting legislative changes that have not been developed in a bipartisan way. This is particularly true in the area of tax policy. Capital gains reform has been a hot button campaign issue for several years, often being used in an attempt to secure partisan advantage. I think it is time to move beyond this stage. There are plenty of Members on both sides of the aisle interested in providing capital gains relief. I think we should attempt to find middle ground that takes into account the views of both Democrats and Republicans interested in this issue. Third, we must face budget realities. It appears likely that any capital gains proposal which can pass this Congress must be included in an overall balanced budget package as part of a reasonable level of tax relief. Some of the capital gains proposals considered during the last Congress were estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to result in more than $40 billion being added to the Federal deficit over 7 years, requiring enormous offsets. Even the modified proposal included in the reconciliation package vetoed by the President was scored by CBO at more than $35 billion. I believe this is more than we can afford in the context of balancing the budget. It also seems to be far more than what is needed to target relief to middle-class families, and especially farmers and small businesses. I am also aware of the criticism by some on the other side of the aisle that certain Democratic capital gains proposals are picking and choosing among certain types of assets, and therefore picking and choosing winners and losers. My proposal avoids that criticism. It would apply to all types of assets that are covered under current law. It is nondiscriminatory. However, because of the sliding-scale benefit based on the holding period, I believe the impact will be to provide the greatest benefit to middle-class families like those farm families and small businesses I have in mind. So, Mr. President, it is my hope that this concept will be taken seriously in the spirit of reaching a bipartisan compromise on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart which demonstrates the operation of this capital gains proposal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on this the 188th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America and one of Kentucky's greatest native sons, I am introducing legislation to expand the boundaries of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site to include Knob Creek Farm, Lincoln's boyhood home from the ages of 2 to nearly 8. Located in Larue County near Hodgenville, KY, Knob Creek Farm is where President Lincoln learned some of his earliest lessons of life; lessons which helped mold the man who would go on to lead our Nation through one of the most important and trying periods in American history. I feel it is appropriate to honor the legacy of this great leader by including Knob Creek Farm in the National Historic Site. Under this legislation, the cost of acquiring Knob Creek Farm would not fall to the American taxpayer, but would instead be borne by the private sector. The National Park Trust, a private land conservancy dedicated to protecting America's natural and historical treasures, has been raising private funds and is currently negotiating to purchase the 228-acre family-owned farm, located approximately 10 miles from the existing Historic Site. After acquiring the farm, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the trust would donate the land to the Park Service. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' Well, Mr. President, I think Knob Creek Farm represents just such a morsel, and including it in the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site will allow current and future generations of Americans to share in the rare educational value of this historical property. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing capital gains legislation which I believe has the possibility of breaking through the impasse we have had on this issue for the last several years. My proposal is based not on political rhetoric, but on conversations I have had with constituents who support a commonsense approach on this issue. My legislation would provide a sliding scale for capital gains relief, lowering the rate at which capital gains are taxed, based on how long the assets have been held. For every year an asset has been held, the applicable rate would be reduced by 2 percentage points. Assets held for more than 1 year would be taxed at no higher than the current 28 percent. Assets held for 2 years would be taxed at no higher than 26 percent. And so on, down to a rate of 14 percent. Assets held for more than 8 years would be taxed at a maximum rate of 14 percent. I am introducing the legislation with three objectives in mind. First, I believe our efforts should be directed toward helping family farms and small family businesses. We do not need additional proposals to assist real estate speculators or those who specialize in putting Wall Street deals together. Most capital gains proposals we have considered in recent years provide a disproportionate benefit to those making six-figure salaries and above. It should be clear by now that we cannot pass a capital gains proposal that primarily benefits the wealthy. In my experience, those middle-class families that should be the focus of the debate get lost in the shuffle. Second, using this proposal, I intend to work with others interested in the issue to attempt to develop a bipartisan coalition with middle class families in mind. There are few lasting legislative changes that have not been developed in a bipartisan way. This is particularly true in the area of tax policy. Capital gains reform has been a hot button campaign issue for several years, often being used in an attempt to secure partisan advantage. I think it is time to move beyond this stage. There are plenty of Members on both sides of the aisle interested in providing capital gains relief. I think we should attempt to find middle ground that takes into account the views of both Democrats and Republicans interested in this issue. Third, we must face budget realities. It appears likely that any capital gains proposal which can pass this Congress must be included in an overall balanced budget package as part of a reasonable level of tax relief. Some of the capital gains proposals considered during the last Congress were estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to result in more than $40 billion being added to the Federal deficit over 7 years, requiring enormous offsets. Even the modified proposal included in the reconciliation package vetoed by the President was scored by CBO at more than $35 billion. I believe this is more than we can afford in the context of balancing the budget. It also seems to be far more than what is needed to target relief to middle-class families, and especially farmers and small businesses. I am also aware of the criticism by some on the other side of the aisle that certain Democratic capital gains proposals are picking and choosing among certain types of assets, and therefore picking and choosing winners and losers. My proposal avoids that criticism. It would apply to all types of assets that are covered under current law. It is nondiscriminatory. However, because of the sliding-scale benefit based on the holding period, I believe the impact will be to provide the greatest benefit to middle-class families like those farm families and small businesses I have in mind. So, Mr. President, it is my hope that this concept will be taken seriously in the spirit of reaching a bipartisan compromise on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart which demonstrates the operation of this capital gains proposal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. We have a list, a bushel basketful, just like you have, and these Senators want time. They have been told they could get time, and we expect to get them time.

Mr. FORD. Well, maybe we want to object to all of it, then, if we can't----

Mr. FORD. I understand you will work it out if you work it out your way. I just want us to have an opportunity to get involved in this. How do you intend to work it out?

Mr. FORD. Why can't the leader be asked tonight? We can suggest the absence of a quorum and see if we can get an answer tonight.

Mr. FORD. Do I have the Senator's word that, at 2 o'clock tomorrow, this side will be notified as to the time available for us to allow our colleagues to have time in morning business--and it won't be 5 minutes; some will want more than 5 minutes. Some will want 15. I see on here that of the 1 hour you have, you have 65 minutes assigned. So you stretched it a little bit here. If you could do that on all the hours, maybe we can get more business done.

Mr. FORD. I expect, at 2 o'clock, for us to be informed tomorrow as to how much time will be available to us and how many of my colleagues will be able to speak.

Mr. FORD. As long as it is a matter of record and you understand where I am coming from.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I know the majority leader loves to hear himself talk. The rest of us would like to hear him, too. Will you have order in the Chamber.

Mr. FORD. The reason I did that, Mr. President, is because the majority whip does not want to do that. He likes to hear me do it.

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