Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I say to my friend from Illinois, is he aware that this piece of legislation, on this amendment he is referring to, was in the ICC statutory provisions prior to the reorganization and putting ICC in the Department of Transportation?

Mr. FORD. In the legislation also, I say to my friend from Illinois, there is a statement which says that it shall not be narrowed or broadened; it should remain the same. With that language as it relates to the transfer of ICC, that means everything will stay the same. The bill would not have gotten out of conference, in my judgment, if this amendment had not been on it. Now we find, with an amendment on it, it may not get through Congress. So all of us were in a catch-22 position. But it is very obvious from the legal aspects--I am not a lawyer, but I am on the jury--all of the legal experts say that the express part of the ICC has been used, has been used several times, has been tested. So leaving this out of the legislation is what persuaded some of us to try to be helpful. I want to get the bill passed. I understand that. But I think you will find that the scorched Earth policy is one that will just keep us here for a while. The Senator from Alaska, even though he is a candidate--he is up for reelection--is willing under the circumstances to encourage his leadership for us to stay here. The point is, does the fight get completed in a reasonable time or do we have the fight prolonged? I hope, if we are going to have the fight, that the Senator and his colleagues, the two or three others, whatever number it might be, give us an opportunity to have a cloture vote tomorrow and proceed with the passage of this legislation or the defeat of it. I hope he will get in that posture so we can do these things the bill purports to do and we can go on home. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona allow me to ask the Senator from Illinois a question without his losing his right to the floor?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment that the banking provisions of the omnibus appropriations bill currently before us fails to include a very important licensing provision for bank insurance sales. Over the past few weeks, I have heard from hundreds of insurance agents in Kentucky who believe it is only fair that all professionals who sell insurance, regardless of what institution one may be affiliated with, be licensed by the appropriate State agency. Regretfully, in the push to leave town and adjourn for the year, the negotiators failed to include this important measure in the banking provisions of the appropriations legislation. The State licensing question recognizes one simple straightforward issue--the commonsense notion that anyone selling insurance should be licensed. No one questions the fact that lawyers, doctors, real estate agents, and other professionals must pass examinations and be licensed by the appropriate State authority. Insurance agents are professionals, whether they work for a bank or an insurance agency. I see no distinction. Mr. President, the licensing standard would establish an important safeguard to ensure fair competition in the insurance marketplace. Allowing bankers or any other professional to escape licensing standards represents an unfair advantage over insurance professionals who have diligently met such standards for years. Anyone selling insurance to consumers, bankers and agents alike, should be sanctioned by the proper State authority. Perhaps more importantly, Mr. President, this issue is about more than a level playing field for insurance agents. It is about confidence and trust. By requiring licensing for insurance sales, Congress will reassure American consumers as they seek insurance protection for their families, homes, automobiles, and their lives, that their agent has a license, meets State education requirements, and all appropriate qualifications. This is no small consideration. I believe American consumers rely on and trust the individuals they consult for financial decisions, whether that individual is an insurance agent, lawyer, or a realtor. We must ensure that minimal standards are met in order to preserve this important confidence. Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that Congress will address this important issue next year when we return. I believe it is about common sense and fairness. However, above all, this issue represents sound, public policy and would safeguard the trust consumers place in insurance professionals. Again I say, Mr. President, I hope that Congress will take action soon after we return next year to ensure this trust continues. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I would add to my colleague from Oklahoma's remarks that the IRS position defies common sense. Requiring airlines to capitalize the cost of inspection and repairs in compliance with FAA safety regulations that merely maintain the normal operating condition and useful life of the aircraft would be like requiring a taxicab company to capitalize the cost of oil changes on its cabs because an oil change extends the useful life of the engine. It simply does not make any sense. The U.S. airline industry has the best safety record in the world. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I know first hand how hard this body and other Federal agencies have worked to encourage and help maintain and improve that enviable safety record. It seems to me, that the IRS is working at cross purposes with its sister agencies and the Congress.

Mr. FORD

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.

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I say to my friend, the continuing resolution is nothing new. Sometimes it is for a short period of time; sometimes it is for longer. I think this is the first time we have had a continuing resolution with appropriations bills that have never been to the Senate. There are four of them. So we do not have to leave here. As I said last night, we do not have to leave here. We are still getting paid whether we are up here or not. You still draw your salary. So we do not have to leave here. We are being paid. I do not think we are earning our keep if we do not do our job. And so here we are with a continuing resolution with appropriations bills that are a must. Throw everything else aside. Appropriations bills are a must to operate government. The Defense bill conference report I do not think is here yet. We are going to try to wrap all that CR in that so we cannot amend it. What kind of game are we playing here? And so everybody is checking their list to see if they have their little project in the CR. If they did not get it in the CR, they are fussing. So let us get it out in the Chamber and start looking at it. I tell you one thing we might do to stop all this. Have a 2-year budget. I have been trying to get it for 8 or 10 years now. We now have a 1-year budget process and 1-year oversight. You can make all the changes in a 2-year budget you can make in a 1-year budget. If you have an emergency, you can correct it. If you have a flood or earthquake or hurricane, whatever it might be, you can have a method by which you can change that. So let us have some oversight in 1 year. We have a budget for 2 years. We would not be up here with this logjam backed up to the wall and trying to go home, trying to go home without doing the people's business. I know we are not in the majority, and so therefore we have very little control. So the majority wants to get out of town. With their record, I would want to get out of town, too. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I listened to my counterpart on the Republican side as he has talked about the parks bill. I have not been in the negotiations, but I know something about the negotiations. I understand several offers have been made in an effort to work out this piece of legislation. However, it has always come back, it is all or nothing. I know it is very easy to pull on the strings of emotion here saying that these items for our retiring Members need to be done and that you are trying to get them done for retiring Members, but it is what kind of meat you put on that skeleton of projects for retiring Members. Now, you can use this all you want to. Hopefully, we will be able to work out something, but when you say it is all or nothing at all, I have been very concerned about the number of bills that have come out of the Energy Committee in the last 2 years. We have not been very productive, I think, and then all of a sudden at the end, next to the last day, we get a humongous bill. And so the offers have been made. The struggle is still available. And if it is not all or nothing, I think we may be able to sit down and work out a little Henry Clay. Henry Clay was the great compromiser. Henry Clay said compromise was ``negotiated hurt.'' Well, let us sit down and hurt a little bit and get a bill out here that is in the best interests of the country instead of saying, if you do not take this, you do not get anything.

Mr. FORD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I am just very pleased we can pass one that I will not have to object to. So, therefore, I have no objection.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. You got that right.

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the distinguished majority whip asked me about this one earlier, how we could get it cleared. And I had given that information. So we are working on this bill. And until we get an answer back from your side, I must object. But I think we are moving in the right direction. I object, Mr. President.

Mr. FORD. A quid pro quo here.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think this is another one they are still trying to work out. But on behalf of Senators on my side, I must object.

Mr. FORD. I say to my friend, I don't know either. I am doing like he does. He has some friends on his side who object. I have them on my side. I understand everyone is feverishly working on a lot of things. The push to get out of here soon may cause us to get out later. So I hope we can all work together. I thank my friend.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, this is the Small Business Act, as the majority leader said, and the Small Business Investment Act. Several Senators on both sides have been trying very hard to work out an amendment that would be agreeable to everyone here. As I understand it, they are very close. Under those circumstances, Mr. President, I must object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I think negotiations are still available. I hope we can use the same procedure we did with the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill: have an agreement before it is referred back to conference. I think that is still doable. I would not say to my friend to throw it over his shoulder and forget it, that is the end of it. I think we ought to continue to try to work it out and have an agreement worked out prior to sending it back. I think it can be worked on.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on behalf of this side of the aisle, I object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators on my side, I object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is one of the items in the so-called Presidio parks bill that is being attempted to be jerked out. I think if we are going to agree on one, we ought to agree on all or agree on the bill. So, therefore, I must object.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on November 14, 1995, the Congressional Research Services issued a report authored by C. Stephen Redhead and Richard E. Rowberg entitled Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk. This report was prepared in response to multiple requests from congressional offices and presents an analysis of the potential health effects of environmental tobacco smoke [ETS]. Consistent with statutory requirements for CRS work, this report was prepared in a nonpartisan, unbiased manner and is an excellent example of the professional and academic quality of CRS work. The report calls into question some of the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency with regard to ETS. Not surprisingly, some of the conclusions contained in the report have proven controversial. Subsequent to the release of the report, one of the authors of the report made statements to the press regarding the conclusions of the report. Reports of the author's statements have appeared in several newspapers. It appears that his statements have been either misconstrued or taken out of context in an apparent attempt to discredit the results of the report. In a letter to me, dated March 19, 1996, Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, CRS, clarified that, based on conversations with the author, news reports were either misleading or inaccurate. Further, Mr. Mulhollan stated that CRS continues to stand by the findings of the report. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter from Dan Mulhollan, dated March 19, 1996, be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I say to my friend, you can put this bill into the continuing resolution now.