Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, shortly before closing his office, our dear former colleague, Howell Heflin, asked that I insert in the Congressional Record a speech made by Greg Reed, national commander of the Disabled American Veterans, at a banquet held in Birmingham the day before Veterans Day. I would agree with Senator Heflin that Mr. Reed's speech is an excellent one, and I would ask for unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, if there ever was a statement that the American people should listen to, that was just given by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina. He is here with institutional memory about what transpired and why--the intent. Now we find ourselves where this couple of words, balance the budget, supersedes all the work that has been done, cuts it off at its knees, so to speak, the Social Security trust fund. I think the people of this country, once they understand what the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, has just said, they will not be so interested in passing this particular balance the budget amendment. I am one of those the other side criticized last time, I am one of the six. I changed my vote from balance the budget to against it. Why wouldn't I? Listen to Senator Hollings, that is the reason I changed my vote. I have a responsibility to the seniors. We promised them we would not cut it or increase it to balance the budget, and we voted 83 to 16 last year saying that. That was just last year. Was that a political gimmick? Was that a campaign slogan? Or did we really mean it? I hope 83 of us really meant it. But we voted 83 to 16, saying we shall not raise or cut the Social Security in order to balance the budget. I do not know where we are coming from. You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time. So what we are trying to do here now is fool the American people, saying to balance the budget it is going to give tax cuts, it is going to give interest rates cuts, it is going to do all these fabulous things. But we turn right around and break our word to the American people. During the last debate on a balanced budget amendment, the other side of the aisle proposed not touching the Social Security trust fund until the year 2008. Don't touch it until 2008. That was a tacit admission that the Republicans planned to utilize the trust funds--and I make that plural--to balance the budget. As my distinguished friend from South Carolina said, the money in the Social Security surplus, $71 billion in this year alone and accumulating to nearly $3 trillion by the year 2019, will be too tempting, Mr. President, for a Congress bound by the Constitution to balance the budget. Once the Constitution is amended to require that, and I quote--and you heard it from the Senator from South Carolina--``total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.'' Social Security, I say to my friends, is placed in imminent danger, and it is likely that any attempt to exclude Social Security trust funds by implementing legislation--statutory language, that is--would be deemed then unconstitutional. So, protecting the Social Security trust fund is not just a seniors issue. We promised not to reduce benefits--voted here for current Social Security beneficiaries--in order to balance the budget. We are just not going to do it. But what about future retirees? Using the trust fund to offset other spending undermines generational equity, because under this scenario, total Government expenditures in any year, including expenditures for Social Security benefits, could not exceed total revenues collected in the same year. That would mean that Social Security surpluses could not be used to cover the benefit costs of the baby-boom generation when it retires. We raised the taxes in 1983. We made a difference, so we would be able to cover. So now we say we can't expend more than we take in, and the trust fund is there so we can do it. So, therefore, we break our word to generations yet to come, as the Senator from South Carolina said to the occupant of the chair. The benefits, instead, would have to be financed in full by the taxes of those working in those years. Using the Social Security surplus to pay for other spending programs would not only bankrupt Social Security, but would leave a system that needs long-term reform in order to meet the growth of future retirees virtually worthless. We need to reform and protect the Social Security trust fund in order to fulfill our contract of retirement security to working Americans. You make a dollar and they take out your Social Security trust fund payments--all of it. Excluding the Social Security trust fund from a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is an important first step in fulfilling our contract with our working Americans and with those who want us to balance the budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, pertaining to that bill I have just sent to the desk, Mark Twain used to tell the story about a businessman known for his ruthlessness. The man once told him that before he died he wanted to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, climb Mount Sinai, and read the Ten Commandments aloud at the top. ``I have a better idea,'' Twain said. ``Why don't you stay home and keep them.'' As I reintroduce my legislation to combat youth smoking, that is the same message I would like to send to the antitobacco zealots. They are more than happy to shout from the mountaintop their message against youth smoking, but I have a better idea--sit down and make it happen. The antitobacco advocates talk forcefully about the numbers of teenagers who begin smoking every day. In citing those figures, those advocates are nothing short of negligent if they reject my legislation and allow this issue to be delayed indefinitely by a court fight. They will clearly be choosing delay over compromise, self-promotion over certain progress. The fact of the matter is that while they are willing to spend millions of dollars on glitzy ad campaigns, they are not willing to spend any energy forging a compromise. They will not even come to the table. That kind of hardheadedness may mean they can enjoy the limelight a little bit longer, but what about the kids they say they want to protect? Back in August, just a day after receiving word that the administration was set to sign off on FDA's new regulations on youth smoking, I stood before a gathering of the Kentucky State Farm Bureau and told them that this was an issue that would be decided either in the courts or in Congress. I told them that without a doubt, the voice of the Kentucky farmer stood a much better chance of being heard in Congress. But, what my colleagues and the American people need to understand is that our children also stand a much better chance if we solve it in Congress. That is why I am back to reintroduce legislation to solve the problem of youth smoking. Why legislation over regulation? Because FDA regulation is tantamount to years of court wrangling, creates an entire new bureaucracy at a time of Government downsizing, and perhaps most disturbing to farmers, goes well beyond what is needed to target youth smoking. The Federal Register notice accompanying the regulation says, ``FDA intends to classify cigarettes and smokeless tobacco at a future time, and will impose any additional requirements that apply as a result of their classification * * *'' If farmers look to FDA interpretation of that language, they see a grim future for tobacco. Bringing in the FDA also creates a whole new bureaucracy when tobacco is already regulated by at least seven Federal agencies. Listen to these. They are regulated by USDA, they are regulated by HHS, BATF, IRS, SAMHSA, EPA, and FTC. If you want to know all those initials, I would be glad to do that. SAMHSA is important. That is the so-called Synar amendment, our departed colleague from Oklahoma, that he passed, as it related to youth smoking and set up criteria for States. My State has passed a law to meet the requirements of the SAMHSA legislation produced for and by our late, departed Congressman. My legislation seeks to reach the same goal, but under the framework already in place, which is the SAMHSA law. But what should be most disturbing to all Americans about taking the regulatory route is the fact that the regulation will amount to nothing more than rhetoric, because it will inevitably be tied up in court for years and years over constitutional questions. What this problem calls for is reason, not more rhetoric. That is why I introduced legislation last year, and that is why I am introducing legislation this year. My legislation represents serious, enforceable measures to combat teenage smoking. But it does not interfere with the legal, private decisions of adults, nor does it trample on the first amendment's protection of free speech. The same cannot be said for FDA regulations, which have already sent advertising, tobacco industry and FDA lawyers scrambling to the courts, setting up for lengthy legal challenges, where the fight will go on for years and years. Even if FDA jurisdiction is upheld in the pending North Carolina lawsuit, litigation is still sure to go for years and years, with the problem of teen smoking continuing unabated. My legislation is an effort to reach what I believe should be our common goal, reducing youth smoking, but reaching that goal within the limits set down by the Constitution, without creating a new bureaucracy, and most important, reaching it today rather than tomorrow. The bill I introduced last year and the bill I am introducing today would ban outdoor advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products within 500 feet of schools, prevent advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products in publications with any significant youth subscribership, and prohibit sampling of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to young people. I believe the bill I introduced last year was sufficient to reach our common goal. However, this year I have broadened that legislation to accommodate many of the other provisions of the FDA regulations, including a ban on advertising at sports and entertainment events attended by youth, and requiring the presentation of photo ID for the purchase of tobacco products. Many of our stores today are requiring photo ID. This will make it a law that they must present a photo ID for the purchase of tobacco products. In many areas, my legislation actually goes beyond FDA regulations. For example, my bill bans both paid tobacco advertisements or props in movies and cigarettes or smokeless tobacco advertising in videos, video game machines, or family amusement centers. My legislation this year is different from last year's legislation in one other important way. I believe it can represent a bipartisan effort to solve the problem. In the end, that might be the most important difference because, as my colleagues are well aware, no major tobacco legislation has ever been approved without bipartisan support. Mr. President, antitobacco advocates--Democrats and Republicans--all share a common goal: reducing the number of youths smoking. If we put our collective efforts together resolving that problem rather than advancing personal agendas, I believe we can solve the problem. I look forward to doing so this year in the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. Mr. President, I know that I am suspect because I am here representing a tobacco-growing State. But let me tell you that the University of Kentucky commissioned a poll, and almost 90 percent of the people in my State oppose youth smoking. I am not here representing just tobacco people, I am here representing my constituents who say that youth should not smoke. All we are trying to do is make it an adult decision, trying not to create another layer of bureaucracy to stop youth smoking sooner than later. If these people who are antitobacco or antismoking want to really help, come to the table. Let's sit down and work these things out. Put it into law. The President will sign it, I have no question about that. But if we send this to the President, we get it signed, and it goes into force, we can stop it sooner than later. Five years from now it will still be in court. We have had some first-amendment questions before the Court recently--last year--that shook up the whole thrust of the FDA regulations. So I am here with an honest effort, only armed with the silver tongue of the truth, as I have heard it said, but I would like for everyone to know that this is a serious, honest effort on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the youth of this country that we get on with the business that we were sent here to do and to make this effort meaningful, and meaningful in the direction I think all of us want to go. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, pertaining to that bill I have just sent to the desk, Mark Twain used to tell the story about a businessman known for his ruthlessness. The man once told him that before he died he wanted to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, climb Mount Sinai, and read the Ten Commandments aloud at the top. ``I have a better idea,'' Twain said. ``Why don't you stay home and keep them.'' As I reintroduce my legislation to combat youth smoking, that is the same message I would like to send to the antitobacco zealots. They are more than happy to shout from the mountaintop their message against youth smoking, but I have a better idea--sit down and make it happen. The antitobacco advocates talk forcefully about the numbers of teenagers who begin smoking every day. In citing those figures, those advocates are nothing short of negligent if they reject my legislation and allow this issue to be delayed indefinitely by a court fight. They will clearly be choosing delay over compromise, self-promotion over certain progress. The fact of the matter is that while they are willing to spend millions of dollars on glitzy ad campaigns, they are not willing to spend any energy forging a compromise. They will not even come to the table. That kind of hardheadedness may mean they can enjoy the limelight a little bit longer, but what about the kids they say they want to protect? Back in August, just a day after receiving word that the administration was set to sign off on FDA's new regulations on youth smoking, I stood before a gathering of the Kentucky State Farm Bureau and told them that this was an issue that would be decided either in the courts or in Congress. I told them that without a doubt, the voice of the Kentucky farmer stood a much better chance of being heard in Congress. But, what my colleagues and the American people need to understand is that our children also stand a much better chance if we solve it in Congress. That is why I am back to reintroduce legislation to solve the problem of youth smoking. Why legislation over regulation? Because FDA regulation is tantamount to years of court wrangling, creates an entire new bureaucracy at a time of Government downsizing, and perhaps most disturbing to farmers, goes well beyond what is needed to target youth smoking. The Federal Register notice accompanying the regulation says, ``FDA intends to classify cigarettes and smokeless tobacco at a future time, and will impose any additional requirements that apply as a result of their classification * * *'' If farmers look to FDA interpretation of that language, they see a grim future for tobacco. Bringing in the FDA also creates a whole new bureaucracy when tobacco is already regulated by at least seven Federal agencies. Listen to these. They are regulated by USDA, they are regulated by HHS, BATF, IRS, SAMHSA, EPA, and FTC. If you want to know all those initials, I would be glad to do that. SAMHSA is important. That is the so-called Synar amendment, our departed colleague from Oklahoma, that he passed, as it related to youth smoking and set up criteria for States. My State has passed a law to meet the requirements of the SAMHSA legislation produced for and by our late, departed Congressman. My legislation seeks to reach the same goal, but under the framework already in place, which is the SAMHSA law. But what should be most disturbing to all Americans about taking the regulatory route is the fact that the regulation will amount to nothing more than rhetoric, because it will inevitably be tied up in court for years and years over constitutional questions. What this problem calls for is reason, not more rhetoric. That is why I introduced legislation last year, and that is why I am introducing legislation this year. My legislation represents serious, enforceable measures to combat teenage smoking. But it does not interfere with the legal, private decisions of adults, nor does it trample on the first amendment's protection of free speech. The same cannot be said for FDA regulations, which have already sent advertising, tobacco industry and FDA lawyers scrambling to the courts, setting up for lengthy legal challenges, where the fight will go on for years and years. Even if FDA jurisdiction is upheld in the pending North Carolina lawsuit, litigation is still sure to go for years and years, with the problem of teen smoking continuing unabated. My legislation is an effort to reach what I believe should be our common goal, reducing youth smoking, but reaching that goal within the limits set down by the Constitution, without creating a new bureaucracy, and most important, reaching it today rather than tomorrow. The bill I introduced last year and the bill I am introducing today would ban outdoor advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products within 500 feet of schools, prevent advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products in publications with any significant youth subscribership, and prohibit sampling of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to young people. I believe the bill I introduced last year was sufficient to reach our common goal. However, this year I have broadened that legislation to accommodate many of the other provisions of the FDA regulations, including a ban on advertising at sports and entertainment events attended by youth, and requiring the presentation of photo ID for the purchase of tobacco products. Many of our stores today are requiring photo ID. This will make it a law that they must present a photo ID for the purchase of tobacco products. In many areas, my legislation actually goes beyond FDA regulations. For example, my bill bans both paid tobacco advertisements or props in movies and cigarettes or smokeless tobacco advertising in videos, video game machines, or family amusement centers. My legislation this year is different from last year's legislation in one other important way. I believe it can represent a bipartisan effort to solve the problem. In the end, that might be the most important difference because, as my colleagues are well aware, no major tobacco legislation has ever been approved without bipartisan support. Mr. President, antitobacco advocates--Democrats and Republicans--all share a common goal: reducing the number of youths smoking. If we put our collective efforts together resolving that problem rather than advancing personal agendas, I believe we can solve the problem. I look forward to doing so this year in the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. Mr. President, I know that I am suspect because I am here representing a tobacco-growing State. But let me tell you that the University of Kentucky commissioned a poll, and almost 90 percent of the people in my State oppose youth smoking. I am not here representing just tobacco people, I am here representing my constituents who say that youth should not smoke. All we are trying to do is make it an adult decision, trying not to create another layer of bureaucracy to stop youth smoking sooner than later. If these people who are antitobacco or antismoking want to really help, come to the table. Let's sit down and work these things out. Put it into law. The President will sign it, I have no question about that. But if we send this to the President, we get it signed, and it goes into force, we can stop it sooner than later. Five years from now it will still be in court. We have had some first-amendment questions before the Court recently--last year--that shook up the whole thrust of the FDA regulations. So I am here with an honest effort, only armed with the silver tongue of the truth, as I have heard it said, but I would like for everyone to know that this is a serious, honest effort on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the youth of this country that we get on with the business that we were sent here to do and to make this effort meaningful, and meaningful in the direction I think all of us want to go. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask it be appropriately referred.

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

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am proud to stand before you and my colleagues today to recognize the 175th anniversary of the founding of the Kentucky Dominican Sisters. They are the oldest group of Dominican Sisters in the United States and I am pleased they chose to put down roots in Kentucky. It was a time in our Commonwealth's history when the rural communities were sometimes forgotten. But nine pioneers took it upon themselves to help meet the needs of those in rural Kentucky. They made a commitment to the community to serve through service, prayers, and study--a commitment which has lasted 175 years. It was this group of women who laid the foundation for the Kentucky Dominican Sisters of today. The Sisters responded to the needs of their time. They nursed soldiers in Kentucky during the Civil War and established hospitals for residents who previously traveled miles for emergency care. As the times have changed so have the needs of citizens of Kentucky. But the Sisters are still answering those in distress. My regret today is that I can only highlight some of their recent work including working with persons living with AIDS, assisting refugees to resettle and advocating for food, shelters and health care for not only the people of Kentucky, but for those throughout our great United States. On April 4, 1997, Sisters from around the United States will gather at their Motherhouse in Springfield, KY, for a weekend of celebration. Mr. President, I ask you and my distinguished colleagues to join me in honoring the Kentucky Dominican Sisters for 175 years of service.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming wishes to speak, and I don't want to get in his way, but I will need more than 5 minutes, so I will wait until others are through so I can get my time on the floor in addition to the 5 minutes. So I alert the Chair to that. Thank you. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Breast Cancer Protection Act introduced earlier today by my friend the Democratic Leader, Senator Tom Daschle. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation to provide women with breast cancer the best care and health coverage available. I come here not as an authority on this subject, but as one of the many Americans who have been touched by this disease. My own daughter is a breast cancer survivor, as is a former staff member. Unfortunately, another member of my staff for 18 years, Martha Moloney, was not so lucky. After a long battle with breast cancer, she died in November 1995. It is for these women, and the thousands of others affected by this disease, that I lend my support to this effort to ensure all women with breast cancer are treated with dignity and respect. Rather than being rushed out the door hours after a breast cancer surgery, women deserve to consult with their physician to determine the appropriate hospital stay. That is why I am supporting the Breast Cancer Protection Act to provide a minimum hospital stay of 48 hours for mastectomies and 24 hours for lymph node removals. Over the past 10 years, the length of hospitalization for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery has decreased significantly. Today, hospitalization time for patients undergoing mastectomies has dwindled to a mere 2-3 days, down from 4-6 days, 10 years ago. Under pressure to cut costs, surgeons have been instructed by managed care companies to perform lymph node dissections and even mastectomies as outpatient surgery. I have heard stories about companies that require patients to be sent home a few hours after their surgery, even though they may be in severe pain, groggy from anesthesia, and have surgical tubes still in place. Some companies have even denied women hospitalization on the day of their surgery. These situations place doctors in the difficult position of having to choose between delivering the quality care their patients deserve and a penalty for failing to follow an insurer's guidelines. Mr. President, women with breast cancer suffer not only from physical pain but also emotional and psychological trauma. They should not have to worry whether their physician is struggling to comply with an arbitrary length of stay guideline or their own best health interests. The Breast Cancer Protection Act will help ease their anxiety by ensuring that crucial health decisions are left in the hands of doctors and patients, not accountants. I am pleased to support this important effort to provide women with breast cancer the thorough health care coverage they deserve. Mr. Johnson. Mr. President, I am proud and grateful to be here today as a co-sponsor of The Beast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 1997. I am proud because this bill is the right thing to do--it's a common sense measure that protects women undergoing breast cancer treatments. And I am grateful because, as the husband of a woman who has suffered from breast cancer, I know that every step makes a difference in preserving and protecting the quality of life for those afflicted with this disease. As health care costs spiral out of control, more and more decisions are being made based on the bottom-line rather than on the needs of the patient. A twenty-four hour stay is not always long enough for a mother and newborn child. And a twenty-four hour stay is often not long enough for a woman who has undergone surgical treatment for breast cancer. I know this not just from literature or fact sheets or discussions with health care professionals. I know that twenty-four hours isn't long enough for everyone because I helped my wife home from the hospital after her cancer surgery. With tubes running everywhere, we brought her into our home twenty-two hours after her surgery. Many families aren't equipped to give the care needed. And many women aren't well enough to give themselves the care needed. An additional twenty- four hours in the hospital can decrease the risk of infection, allow women to rest more comfortably, and ensure that any crucial health care decision is being made in the best possible environment. My wife and I are not alone. Nearly one out of every eight women will develop breast cancer. Approximately, 185,000 women will be diagnosed with the disease this year. Sadly, more than 44,000 women will also die from this disease in the next 365 days. The numbers of those afflicted with this disease must decrease, but the options must increase. These are our grandmothers, our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our wives. They deserve the best that we can give. This bill does not do it all, but, as we look for a cure and other innovative treatments, it is part of a package to ease the pain of this invasive disease. I will do all that I can to make sure this bill becomes law.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, as we begin a new Congress, we begin with the hope that the bipartisanship that existed at the end of the 104th Congress will carry through the 105th Congress. Together, Democrats and Republicans were able to put aside partisan differences and pass meaningful and important legislation, from raising the minimum wage to the Kennedy-Kassebaum health care bill, to the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and the airport improvement program, and adding additional funds to education. Madam President, I think in not only the minds of some in this body but the general public, one glaring example where we fail to come together is campaign finance reform. While the American people saw that we can work together to pass legislative solutions to everyday problems, the American people also saw our failure to restore integrity to our political system with the passage of campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, this last election cycle once again demonstrates that we need fundamental campaign finance reform. This last election cycle demonstrated that the money chase continues. Only this time, the pace was more intense. Preliminary figures from the Federal Election Commission for the 1996 cycle are astounding. Fundraising by the Republican and Democrat Parties--``parties'' I underscore--in the period from January 1, 1995, through November 25, 1996, totaled $882 million. That represents a 73- percent increase over the same period for the 1992 Presidential election cycle. The largest increase in funding and spending by the parties was soft money. The Republican National Committee raised $141.2 million, a 183- percent increase over 1992's $49.8 million. Republicans spent $149.6 million compared to their spending in the 1992 election cycle, an increase of 224 percent. Democrats raised $122 million, a 237-percent increase over 1992's $36.5 million, and spent $117.3 million, a 250- percent increase over 1992 when Democrats spent $32.9 million. Madam President, the money chase does not stop there. Based on reports by the Federal Election Commission, congressional candidates-- that includes the House and the Senate--spending may be at an all-time high. Totals for both the House and the Senate general election candidates show they raised $659.6 million, an 8-percent increase over 1994. That is in addition to the other money that I am talking about. So we are nearing the $2 billion figure as it relates to spending in campaign finance in campaigning. One thing we will become in the House and the Senate will be bit players in the political aspects of this country--bit players because money will put us on television and money will do the work for us. So the big player will become the consultant, will become television, become advertising, and so we will become bit players in this stage called the American political system. An average winning Senate candidate in all 34 races this past election spent $4.4 million. Compared to 1994, this represents, by the way, an 8-percent decrease. However, the States in which Senate races were held in 1996 included most of the smaller and less populated States. Nevertheless, when you break down the $4.4 million per race, that means the average a candidate would have to raise is approximately $13,969 each week for 6 years. Someone dismissed that figure by saying that most candidates raise approximately 80 percent of their funds in the 2 years prior to the election. If you accept that statistic, then the amount you have to raise each week occurring in that 2-year period is almost $34,000. With those statistics, one would be hard pressed to argue that there is no money chase. Some have suggested that we simply do not spend enough in our elections. They have even been so bold as to suggest that we should spend more. They say we spend more on bubble gum than we spend on elections. Well, this is not about bubble gum. This is about running this great country of ours and keeping it on the right track and a leader of the world. How much more can we spend, Madam President, when you have to raise $13,000 a week for every week of your Senate term? How can we say that we are truly doing the people's business? The more time that we have to devote to raising money, the less time we have to commit to our constituents. That is certainly the perception of the average citizen. I argue that this is one area where the perception is the reality. Furthermore, Madam President, I suggest that the more money raised and spent in our elections does not necessarily mean that we have better campaigns. Al Hunt recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that the more candidates spend, the more negative the campaign. No, Madam President, I do not believe the answer is more money in our election. Rather, I believe, that the solution for real and effective campaign finance reform must include spending limits. The terms of those limits should be open to negotiation and discussion. In the end, there cannot be any real and meaningful reform without spending limits. Changing the current system is difficult. You can understand why someone opposes changing the status quo because it is a system that got them in office, and by and large keeps them in office. I recognize that spending limits pose constitutional difficulties. I believe that we can craft a system of voluntary spending limits that will sustain constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court. I also believe that in order to restore the integrity of our political system, imposing spending limits is the right course of action. If we must--and I underscore if we must--then it might be worth the task to amend the Constitution. The fact is, Madam President, when it comes to putting an overall cap on candidate spending, the Congress is way behind the curve. Just this past November, I believe the voters in the great State of Maine passed a ballot initiative that would impose spending limits on their State races. I direct the attention of my colleagues to my own home State of Kentucky. In 1995, we had our first gubernatorial election with spending limits, $1.8 million. The previous election was $12 million. Overall, these reforms in my State worked well for the candidates and for the voters. The Kentucky system has a general election spending cap of $1.8 million. Everyone agrees the Kentucky system still has some problems and some loopholes that need to be addressed. But on the whole, I think the candidates and the electorate approved of the spending limit plan. In fact, spending limits in the Kentucky race changed the overall course of the election. With a limit on the amount they could spend, both the Republican and the Democrat candidates had to revise the campaign play book. Spending limits put a premium on debates. A premium on debates--think about that. You try not to debate your opponent in this day and age, you try to stay away from him because he is unknown, the people are not knowledgeable. So you do not want to give him any publicity, so you do not want to have debates, maybe one or two on educational television that maybe nobody would watch while there is a basketball game, football game, or baseball game going on at that time. I have seen it. I played that game. I am no spring chicken at this game. I am still spry, but no spring chicken. In fact, the spending limits put a premium on debates and joint appearances across our Commonwealth. The candidates didn't fly; they drove because it saved money. They were looking for every Rotary Club, Lion's Club, every J.C. Club, whatever groups were together. They were wanting to express their desires and hopes for the future of our great State. Overall, I think most Kentuckians were pleased with the results, because the candidates came and talked about issues rather than being on television. The net result was a better informed electorate and therefore a better campaign. So, Madam President, I believe that the terms of spending limits should be open to negotiation. All items should be on the table for discussion. But I believe that we simply cannot have effective and meaningful reform without the restriction of limits that one might spend in a campaign. In addition to spending limits for congressional campaigns, meaningful reform also requires us to close the soft money loophole. As I mentioned earlier, we saw a dramatic increase by the national parties in the raising and spending of soft money. We also need to address issues like independent expenditures and issue advocacy. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court require the Congress, I think, to reexamine the current law. We cannot prevent an individual or group of individuals from engaging in political activity independent of a candidate or political party. But we can make sure that such activities are truly independent and that those expenditures are adequately and fully disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. We will hear a little more about the hand-off funding as we proceed into the debate on campaign finance reform. If you don't understand hand-off funding, see me or listen to one of my speeches. I will try to tell you what that is. Finally, Madam President, I believe that we need to examine the structure and authority of the Federal Election Commission. If we are going to have an agency charged with a mission to enforce our campaign finance laws, then I believe it is incumbent upon us to make sure that the FEC has the authority and the means by which to execute that authority. As the former chairman of the Rules Committee and now ranking member, I have sat through countless hearings on the issue of campaign finance reform. I can go back to the archives of the Rules Committee and produce volumes and volumes and volumes of testimony and printed records of hearings where the committee received testimony from Members, from professors, from campaign consultants, and all the election experts you could ever think up. We can easily identify the problems. The question is, Are we ready to try to work on solutions? The problems are there and we understand them, but are we ready to work on solutions? Madam President, with all due respect, we do not need more hearings on these issues. We know all too well what the problems are. We need to sit down together--and I underscore together--to craft the solutions. In the past, campaign finance reform has been an issue that has received too much lip service. We can no longer afford to let the opportunity to enact meaningful reform pass us by. The time to act is now. I hope that we can move forward and make campaign finance reform one of the first and lasting accomplishments of the 105th Congress. I know that many of my colleagues share a similar commitment to reforming our campaign finance laws. I look forward to working with my colleagues. Hopefully, through this campaign finance reform, we can restore trust and we can restore integrity to our electoral system by enacting meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, I want to use the 5 minutes that has been assigned to the minority, and I ask unanimous consent I have such time as I need beyond that.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair very much.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Thank you.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, in bringing this conference report before the Senate. Let me also join with him in paying compliments to our staff and to the many individuals who have assisted us. As Senator McCain has said, we have worked long and hard for 2 years now. It has been a bipartisan effort. We have had our disagreements, but we have not been disagreeable. We have pushed and pulled, and finally we have come to the point now where this bill is about to be passed. The conference report before us today reauthorizes various programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, namely the Airport Improvement Program [AIP]. The AIP program provides the necessary Federal funds for the continued investment in our airport and airways infrastructure. The current authorization for the AIP program expires on September 30. Without this reauthorization bill, the FAA would be unable to fund many worthy aviation infrastructure projects. We cannot let that happen. As we prepare to enter into a new fiscal year, the FAA needs this reauthorization in order to move ahead with the funding of many important airport improvement projects. AIP projects include construction and maintenance of airport facilities, including runways; construction of control towers; the installation of radar equipment and construction of radar facilities; and the acquisition and installation of navigational devices. Mr. President, investment in our aviation infrastructure is at a critical point. The FAA's forecasts for the aviation industry project tremendous growth by the turn of the century. Those forecasts project an average increase of 3.7 percent in domestic passenger traffic by the year 2007. One of the big growth areas will most likely be in the regional and commuter industry. In 1995, regional and commuter air carriers carried 53.7 million passengers. By the year 2007, the FAA projects these same carriers to carry 96.9 million passengers--an annual growth of 5.4 percent. Today, our airports are at or near capacity. Many are struggling just to keep up with today's demands. With these growth projections for the next 10 years, the Nation s entire aviation system will face even more challenges on an already heavily burdened system. The problems posed by the growth of air traffic will be further burdened as aircraft manufacturers move toward the development of even larger wide body jets. Recently, both Boeing and Airbus Industries announced plans to introduce new airliners capable of carrying over 600 passengers. The introduction of these aircraft will require major improvements at our Nation's airports just to accommodate the size of these aircraft. These are just a few of the many reasons that we need to pass this conference report. We cannot let the AIP program lapse. We must continue to support many worthy airport construction and improvement projects that will help to sustain and support the growing demand for air carrier services, both passenger and cargo. During the Senate s consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill, I argued that we should keep our reauthorization simple and short. That is, we should not undertake any change in the formulas for entitlement and discretionary grants and that we should have a one year reauthorization. Part of the reasoning for this was my belief that we need to examine the best means by which to reform the FAA. The Senate bill included provisions which would establish an independent assessment of the funding needs for the FAA. Under the terms of the Senate bill, the independent assessment would study the funding needs of the FAA within one year and report to the Congress. At that time, the Congress would have recommendations and options for the long-term financing solutions of the FAA. Then, with the reauthorization of the FAA and the AIP program, we would be able to create a better funding system for the AIP program. However, given the late date at which we are considering this bill, we recognized that our efforts to try and have an independent assessment on the FAA s financing could not be accomplished prior to the expiration of the AIP authorization. We have compromised with the House, which had a three-year authorization, and have decided that we will have a two year authorization. With a 2-year authorization, we have accepted the provisions of the House that will modify the funding formulas of the AIP program. Under the provisions of the conference report, this bill will provide more entitlement funds for airports throughout the country. Each airport under the AIP program is entitled to Federal funding, based on the number of passenger emplanements. The bill eliminates a number of discretionary funds and redistributes those funds to the airports as entitlements. In addition, under existing law, there is a $325 million pure discretionary fund. The FAA has the ability to use those funds to put together larger projects for airports of all sizes. This bill will reduce that pure discretionary fund to $300 million. I would note that I am somewhat concerned that the amount of money set aside for noise has been reduced from $164 million to $134 million. However, I recognize that some of the discretionary monies may be used for that purpose. I am pleased that this conference report also includes the FAA reforms which were included in the Senate bill. As I mentioned, the increased demands on the air transportation system require the Congress to re-examine the way in which the FAA is managed and funded. The FAA is predominantly funded through the airport and airway trust fund. The monies which are in the trust fund are distributed among specific programs and functions, including the FAA s operations account, the facilities and equipment account, research, the engineering and development account, as well as the Airport Improvement Program. The trust fund is supported solely through revenue derived by a 10 percent passenger ticket tax, interest paid on Treasury certificates, and other taxes associated with air travel and aviation. However, on January 1, 1996, the aviation excise taxes lapsed. That lapse in taxes resulted in a loss of $500 million a month in trust fund revenues. With the enactment of the minimum wage and small business tax credits act, the aviation excise taxes were reinstated, but only to the end of this calendar year. This experience has highlighted some problems and concerns with the FAA. Without a steady and reliable source of revenue, the FAA cannot fulfill its mission to promote a safe and reliable aviation system. Both the Senate and the House bills had separate panels to examine the issues of safety and security in the National air transportation system and the financing of the FAA. The conference report adopts both task forces to separately examine these issues. The conference report adopts the Senate provisions which creates an 11-member panel to conduct an independent assessment of the FAA financing and cost allocations through 2002. This independent panel shall include individuals who have expertise in the aviation industry and who are able, collectively, to represent a balanced view of the issues which are important to all segments of the aviation industry, including: general aviation, major air carriers, air cargo carriers, regional air carriers, business aviation, airports, aircraft manufacturers, the financial community, aviation industry workers, and airline passengers. This independent assessment is required to complete its work within 12 months. At which time, the panel will make a report to the Secretary of Transportation. The Senate bill included some provisions for expedited consideration of these recommendations. However, during the Senate's consideration, at the request of the Finance Committee, those provisions for expedited consideration were modified to provide for an automatic sequential referral to the Senate Finance Committee. The Senate bill also included similar expedited procedures for the House. Unfortunately, during our conference, the House conferees objected to the inclusion of any expedited procedure for the House. Consequently, the provisions included in the Senate bill for expedited procedures in the House are not included in this conference report. I will admit that I am somewhat reluctant to include provisions in a bill that bind only one House of the Congress. The expedited procedures that were originally included in S. 1994 as reported by the Commerce Committee were designed to make the Congress act quickly to address the crucial funding needs of the FAA and our aviation infrastructure. Without these expedited procedures, I am concerned that in 2 years time, we may find ourselves in the same position we are in today. During the conference, our House counterparts gave us their assurance that the House would act expeditiously in considering the funding recommendations of the independent panel. I appreciate the commitments from our House colleagues. I can assure the Members of the Senate that when we get to the point that a comprehensive FAA financing reform package is presented to the Congress, I will be equally dedicated to the expeditious consideration of that proposal. Mr. President, this funding study will build upon personnel and procurement reforms already in place at the FAA, which were included in the Transportation Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. In addition to the independent study on funding solutions for the FAA, the bill also includes provisions for the creation of a Management Advisory Council. Mr. President, I think we all acknowledge that the FAA has been an agency with its problems. Some of that criticism is well-deserved. But, I think that most Members will also acknowledge, that under the current leadership of Administrator David Hinson and Deputy Administrator Linda Daschle, the FAA is beginning to respond to the challenges. We want to build on these improvements and we want to enable the FAA to improve its management so that it is prepared to face the challenges of the 21st Century. The Management Advisory Council [MAC] will be composed of 15 members to provide the Administrator with input from the aviation industry and community. Membership on the MAC will include representatives from all government and all segments of the aviation industry; all of whom will be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members of the MAC should be selected from individuals who are experts in disciplines relevant to the aviation community and who are collectively able to represent a balanced view of the issues before the FAA. It is important to note that selection for MAC membership is not required to be based on political affiliation or other partisan considerations. Among the issues that we expect that the MAC to examine are: air traffic control modernization; FAA acquisition management; rulemakings and cost-benefit analysis; review the process by which the FAA determines to use advisory circulars and service bulletins; and a review of old rules, including FAR part 145. The conference report also includes the Senate bill's provisions on improving safety and security in our air transportation system. The tragedy of TWA flight 800 has forced us to once again re-examine our aviation security measures. As we all know, following the TWA tragedy, President Clinton created the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security and asked that Vice President Gore head this commission. The President should be commended for the swiftness of his actions and his determination to improve our aviation security and safety. The President moved quickly to reassure the traveling public and the Nation, that we continue to have the safest air transportation system in the world. I appreciate and applaud the efforts of the President and the Vice President on this issue. The so-called Gore Commission issued an initial report to the President on September 9. That report made a number of recommendations including the purchase of explosive detection equipment; the placing of security equipment at our major airports; increasing the use of passenger profiling through the use of existing data bases and air carrier computer reservation systems; criminal background checks and FBI fingerprint checks for all security screeners and other airport and airline personnel with access to secure areas; increasing funding to be used to facilitate a greater role for the U.S. Customs Service and other law enforcement agencies; designate the National Transportation Safety Board to deal with the families and relatives of crash victims; and provide additional funds for the training of airport security screeners. The conference report adopts a number of the recommendations of the Gore Commission which required legislative action. I am pleased to say that within our conference, there was unanimous support for the Senate s provisions on safety and security. Title III of the conference substitute includes legislative language that will give the FAA the legal authority to undertake and implement the recommendations of the Gore Commission. These provisions include the following: A report by the Administrator of the FAA to the Congress on how to transfer certain security responsibilities of the air carriers to the Federal Government. Under current Federal law, air carriers are responsible for the security and screening procedures at airports. The Gore Commission and other experts believe that aviation security is a national security issue. As the Federal Government will be asked to assume more responsibility, we believe it is prudent to have a careful study of this issue to examine how and to what extent the Federal Government should assume these duties. This report will be due to the Congress within 90 days of enactment of this bill. The FAA will certify companies that provide security screening at our Nation's airports to ensure uniformity and consistency in screening operations. The certification process is intended to improve the training and testing of security screeners through the development of uniform performance standards. It will accomplish many things: A study on the detection of weapons and explosives conducted by the FAA and the National Academy of Sciences. Require criminal background checks on all individuals who will be responsible for the screening of passengers and property as well as any other individual who exercises a security function associated with baggage or cargo. In addition, this bill directs the FAA to conduct periodic audits on the effectiveness of these criminal record checks. Direct the FAA to require the interim deployment of commercially available explosive detection equipment. Direct the FAA to work with the intelligence and law enforcement communities to assist the air carriers in developing a computer- assisted passenger profiling program. Report to the Congress on a pilot baggage match program if such a program is undertaken as a result of the Gore Commission. Mr. President, I think it is important to note that the Gore Commission has not completed its work. In fact, the review of aviation security and safety is a dynamic and evolving process. While we have attempted to include security provisions within this bill, it is anticipated that the Congress will be considering further security recommendations and enhancements as the Gore Commission continues its work. In addition to the provisions included in this bill, the conferees adopted a House provision which establishes an aviation safety task force. This task force will be required to submit a report to the FAA which sets forth a comprehensive analysis of aviation safety. This task force is not intended to duplicate the work of the Gore Commission. Rather, it is intended and anticipated that the safety study will build upon the experience and recommendations of the Gore Commission. As this bill includes provisions relating to improving security systems throughout our air transportation system, it also includes provisions which ensure that the FAA's highest priority is air safety. Following the ValuJet tragedy, there was intense scrutiny of the FAA's mission in promoting air safety. Much of that attention focused on the so-called dual mandate of the FAA to promote air commerce and air safety. Both the Senate and House bills included provisions which would clarify that the FAA's highest priority is the promotion of a safe and secure air transportation system. This provision does not require any changes to the management, organization, or functions of the FAA. Rather, it corrects any public misconceptions that might exist that the promotion of air commerce by the FAA would create a conflict of interest with the FAA's safety mandate. In addition, this bill includes provisions to assist the FAA in its safety mission by clarifying the way in which safety and accident information is classified by the National Transportation Safety Board. Under the provisions of the bill, the NTSB will develop a classification of accident and safety data in a manner that will provide clearer descriptions of accidents with air transportation. In addition, the NTSB is directed to widely disseminate this information. As we note in the conference report, one way in which this information could be widely publicized by the NTSB is through the Internet. I hope that once the NTSB develops the new classification system, it will consider placing its reports on the NTSB web page. The conference report also includes provisions which direct the NTSB to take the lead in assisting the families of victims of air disasters. Recent experiences have demonstrated that it is of tremendous comfort for the families of victims to have someone addressing their concerns and needs. While the Senate bill included a provision on family assistance, the House bill did not. However, the House did consider and pass a separate bill, H.R. 3923. The conference report has adopted that bill as the basis for the provisions of the conference report. This section not only requires that the NTSB establish a program to provide family advocacy services, but also directs that all domestic air carriers submit their disaster plans to the NTSB. The NTSB will develop guidelines for such plans which are intended to serve as a guide to other air carriers. Mr. President, this conference report is an omnibus aviation bill. In addition to the FAA reform provisions and reauthorization of the AIP program, it includes provisions on the sharing of pilot records; provisions on child pilot safety; strong provisions prohibiting airport revenue diversion; provisions relating to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority; and provisions which support and enhance the Essential Air Service Program. There is one provision included in this conference report which concerns me and that relates to the creation of a pilot program for the privatization of airports. When we considered the FAA bill in the Senate, I expressed my strong reservations and objections to the privatization of airports. I am a strong opponent to the privatization of airports because I believe that it will result in the diversion of airport revenue and will harm air carriers and general aviation. In addition, many of these airports were built with substantial Federal funds. Despite my strong objections to privatization--and I might add, the strong objections of the Senator from Arizona--the conference report includes a pilot program for privatization. It is important to note that this is a pilot program for 5 airports. At the insistence of the Senate, the pilot program includes a number of provisions which address the concerns about revenue diversion. The pilot program will only permit long-term leases of commercial airports. The Secretary of Transportation must agree to the privatization plan and at least 65 percent of the air carriers must agree to the plan. This protects other air carriers at commercial airports where a dominant carrier may control 65 percent of the landed weight. That means that a dominant carrier cannot control the fate of an airport. While the pilot program permits AIP grants, it requires a 60-percent match of private money. The Secretary of Transportation can disapprove a plan if he finds that privatization would result in anticompetitive or unfair and deceptive practices. I want to assure my colleagues that the inclusion of a pilot program for privatization in this conference report does not mean that this Senator's opposition to privatization has been lessened. We have made an accommodation to our House colleagues who strongly support this idea. We have compromised on this issue. That is what a conference committee is supposed to do--to fashion acceptable compromises so that legislation can be enacted. And in making those compromises, you have to give a little. And sometimes you have to accept things with which you may have opposed. Compromise is hard. As Henry Clay used to say, ``Compromise is mutual sacrifice.'' Well, Mr. President, I may be somewhat bruised and hurt by this compromise, but this bill is too important to fail because of my opposition to privatization. We have created a 2-year pilot program with many protections. We will have the opportunity to review whether this program truly brings new investment and capital from the private sector as the supporters of privatization claim. I want to assure my colleagues that I will be vigilant in my attention to the developments of this pilot program. Overall, Mr. President, I believe that this conference report is an excellent bill for the FAA and for the entire aviation community. This conference report represents the bipartisan efforts on the part of the House and Senate, between Members and staff. Many long hours were spent to create this conference report. That hard work has produced a conference report that I am proud to support. I am proud of the work of our staff for their dedication to produce this conference report. On a personal note, this is somewhat of a bittersweet moment for me. As many of my colleagues know, a year ago, my longtime aide and aviation expert, Martha Moloney, passed away after a very courageous battle with breast cancer. Many of the provisions of this bill include proposals that Martha and I considered and proposed for many years. I know that many of us miss her and her experience and advice. I am sure that she would be equally proud of the efforts that we have made today. And if I may, I would like to dedicate this bill to her memory. Mr. President, this bill truly is a must pass piece of legislation. It is a comprehensive and bipartisan bill that deserves the support of the Senate. In addition, the administration has been intimately involved in the development of this bill and strongly supports its provisions. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting adoption of the conference report. Mr. President, I want to add a personal note to the discussion on the FAA bill. Yesterday, Senator Stevens expressed his gratitude to David Hinson for all of his work at the FAA. David has worked hard to bring us a new FAA. He has worked hard to correct many of the past mistakes. New equipment is being installed and the system is being modernized. Without his thoughtfulness and devotion to aviation, many of the changes at the FAA would not have occurred. I also want to thank Linda Daschle, the Deputy Administrator. Linda has spent her career in the aviation field, and the FAA has benefited from her experiences. There were many long nights and heated debates over this aviation bill. Throughout those negotiations, Linda kept pushing all of us forward. I may not have always agreed with her, but in the end, her strength and conviction wore us all out. Without her efforts, this bill would not be before this body today. The staff of the FAA and DOT also must be thanked for all of their efforts. David and Linda are keenly aware of the dedication of the FAA staff. Steve Palmer and the DOT staff watched over us constantly, to make sure that all issues were address appropriately. The Vice President's efforts also cannot go unmentioned. The President and Vice President are extremely interested in ensuring that the air traffic control system is modernized and that the system is as safe and secure as possible. We have worked with the President's and Vice President's staff throughout this process, and I appreciate the aid and advice provided. Finally, I want to thank my House colleagues, who worked with us for many long nights to craft a compromise on critical Aviation issues. Mr. Shuster, Mr. Duncun, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. Lipinski, and their staffs, are to be congratulated for a good aviation bill. I also want to note that Congressman Oberstar and I have waged a few wars together on the aviation front over the years. This time, but for one or two provisions, we had another good meeting of the minds. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent on official business.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to bring to my colleagues attention a very grave situation involving the illegal diversion of revenues at Los Angeles International Airport. As I understand it, the Mayor of Los Angeles transferred $31 million from the airport treasury to city coffers last week. Senator McCain and I have worked together on legislation to prevent illegal revenue diversion. During our deliberations, we were very aware of the City of Los Angeles' efforts. I want to make clear that the action taken last week is clearly illegal. The amount paid is apparently based on an age-old dispute over how much the airport owes the city. I understand that the debt has already been repaid to the city once. The Secretary of Transportation must recognize that he has the tools to enforce the law against illegal revenue diversion. First, he has the power to withhold grants for other, nonaviation purposes. The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act contains even broader discretion for the Secretary and I urge him to send the message, loud and clear, that revenue diversion will not be tolerated. Under our bill, the Secretary may withhold grants and apportionments from any airport sponsor, or any multimodal transportation agency to which the sponsor is a member, if the sponsor diverts revenue illegally off of the airport. Furthermore, the Secretary is empowered to redeposit that money with the airport. The Secretary should exercise this authority and restore the money to LAX so that the important safety and security work needed on the airport can move forward. Finally, I want to state that H.R. 3539 contains a pilot program for five airports. It would allow the Secretary to approve a long-term lease, which would include permitting revenue diversion. The conferees were very concerned about the ability to divert revenues under a privatization scheme. However, Los Angeles was the real concern. As a result, we limited the number and type of airports eligible for the pilot program. The Secretary should be aware that a large airport that continually frustrated the clear intent of Congress would clearly not meet the criteria for privatization contained in H.R. 3539.

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. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], is absent on official business.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent on official business.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I voted, reluctantly, for the continuing resolution. Clearly, we had to pass this measure because, without it, vital government functions would have shut down and hard-won investments in education and other Democratic priorities would not be made. We are here, on the last day of the fiscal year, passing a massive omnibus bill, because the majority party has failed to do its work. Instead of moving through the normal appropriations process, with the opportunity to consider individual bills and amendments, we were forced to vote, up or down, on a bill put together in only the last few days. I object to this process because it does not allow the consideration of the resolution's specific provisions that ought to be debated separately and out in the open. I have a particular interest in one of those provisions, Mr. President, because it affects my constituents in western Kentucky. I am referring to the bill's earmark of $3 million to create a national wildlife refuge in the Kentucky Counties of Marshall, Graves, and McCracken. Earlier this month, I announced my intention to offer an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill that would have redirected this $3 million to another wilderness area that is sorely underfunded, the Land Between the Lakes. In the interest of keeping the government open, I aid not offer that amendment today, but I would like to take a moment and explain what is at issue for the people of western Kentucky. We have been told, Mr. President, that the provision in the continuing resolution is needed because Kentucky is the only state without a national wildlife refuge. This is simply not the case. In fact, large parts of two Federal wildlife refuges--the Ohio River Islands and the Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuges--lie within Kentucky. Together, they total about 2,200 acres. In addition to these areas, there are numerous state-run wildlife refuges and wilderness areas in Kentucky. So when supporters of the refuge tell us that Kentucky is the only state without a refuge, they're not telling us the whole story. When we pass this continuing resolution, Mr. President, we will be appropriating $3 million for the refuge. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tells me that it'll cost another $17 million to actually create the refuge. Supporters of the refuge will be back next year, and the year after that, looking for more money. Meanwhile, the Land Between the Lakes, a 170,000 acre preserve located just 15 miles away from the proposed refuge, continues to go begging. Due to budget cuts over the last several years, the main north-south roadway through the Land Between the Lakes has fallen into disrepair; the Brandon Springs Resident Center, which serves underprivileged and disabled children from around the nation, has been forced to put needed repairs on hold; and the Youth Station, which provided environmental education for children, including my own grandchildren has closed its doors. Mr. President, we will probably hear that the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA] got everything it asked for regarding the Land Between the Lakes. Don't be mislead. Last year, the TVA put together an options plan for how to commercialize the preserve and replace the federal money it receives. Now, the plan to commercialize was soundly rejected by Kentuckians. However, the plan points out that, simply to keep the Land Between the Lakes running would require $11.5 million annually. Reducing basic services to include only basic camping, limited lake access and the like would cost $6.5 million. And how much was appropriated for the Land Between the Lakes this year? Only $6 million! And out of that $6 million is a $900,000 bill for security that used to be paid for by the TVA. Clearly, funding for the Land Between the Lakes is far from adequate. And without federal support, the Land Between the Lakes will be forced to go commercial. I will not stand by and let that happen. What is likewise galling to me, Mr. President, is that the people who live in and around the area of the proposed refuge don't support it. The head of the Marshall County Soil and Water Conservation District told me that ``our opposition to making a federal wildlife refuge of the East Fork of Clark's River stems from the overwhelming opposition of landowners and tenants in the proposed area.'' This statement is borne out by the letters and phone calls I have received and by articles in local papers like the Paducah ``Sun'' and the Murray ``Ledger-Times.'' A constituent from Benton told me that ``farmers and others affected by the proposed refuge should be consulted. We have not been contacted.'' It is possible that sometime today, supporters of the refuge will again bring out a list of 57 groups that support the refuge. As I have said before, I am sure each one is a fine organization. But not one is from the affected counties and the closest one is a hundred miles away from where the proposed refuge would be located. Now, I want to be clear: I am not opposed to the creation of another national wildlife refuge in Kentucky. But I am opposed to creating a wildlife refuge that endangers the funding for the Land Between the Lakes and doesn't have the support of the Kentuckians who will be affected by its creation. A constituent from nearby Crittenden County told me that ``it's hard to believe that LBL would continue to be properly funded with the addition of a $20 million refuge.'' He's right. We should, in the words of Marshall County's judge-executive, ``take care of what we've got before we open'' a new nature preserve. Unfortunately, Mr. President, by including this $3 million earmark in the continuing resolution, we aren't taking care of what we've got. We are taking on another obligation at a time when we are hard-pressed to meet existing responsibilities. I hope that next year, the Senate will be able to consider all thirteen appropriations bills in the normal process so that these matters can be discussed out in the open. The people of western Kentucky deserve a chance for their voices to be heard.