Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I will be happy to yield.

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

Mr. FORD. No question about it.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I know there will be an objection after I make my statement, and I regret that. We have worked long and hard to bring this FAA reauthorization bill to the floor. I have worked years on it, along with the occupant of the Chair. We have security in there. We have funding for airports. We have the money to cover letters of intent. All of this is extremely important. And one item in this bill is going to bring it down. I wish it was not in there. I wish we did not have it, but it is there. And I hope that those that object to that portion of it would just give us an up-and-down vote. The House did that. And why we could not have an up-and-down vote--based on the content of the bill, if you are opposed to all of this, all the funding for the airports, all the security, and opposed to all the money going to your airports, opposed to essential air service, all these things, then you have to vote no on the whole bill for this one item.

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. That is fine.

Mr. FORD. Go ahead.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we are getting into a position where everybody seems to think we have to get out. Our salary still goes on. We still get paid whether we are here or not. I think we might as well stay here and earn our keep. We do not have to get out tomorrow. We do not have to get out Monday. We do not have to get out next Friday. We can go ahead and pass a continuing resolution and we could stay here and pass some bills or we can give a short-term continuing resolution for 3 or 4 days and we can work things out. But we appear to be pushed up against a wall: you have to get out, got to do this, or it is dead. There is no such thing, unless the majority leader wants to take us out, and then things are dead. I feel like we are being pushed awfully hard here just because tomorrow night we want to get out or Monday we want to get out. I understand everybody wants to go home and campaign. Let them go home and campaign, and the rest of us can stay here and work. That suits me fine.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to make one comment about the express carrier we got the objection on to the FAA. I have been advised by legal counsel--not representing either side in this controversy--that every fact of law has sustained the express portion of the ICC bill. It was to be in there because nothing should be narrower or wider. Nobody should get anything when they pass the ICC legislation. So I understand where we are coming from, and I understand whose fight it is in. I hate to be in the catch-22. We can stay a while if that's what they want to do, offer a cloture petition, and we will have 30 hours, and we can drive right on. I don't mind staying here. I don't want to any more than anybody else. But if that's the way the game is going to be played, I understand how to play it. If we get 60 votes, then we will have to vote on it. If we have to vote on it and we pass it, then it goes to the President. That is the end of it. If you want to stay around a while, keep objecting to this one, file a cloture petition, we will get cloture and get our 30 hours and do our thing around here, Mr. President.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, these last few days mark the last that we will have the pleasure of working with some of the most talented and dedicated Senators to have served in the U.S. Senate. That's because 13 of our finest Members will be retiring this year. Recently, former Senator Warren Rudman wrote that ``As a Senator I had enjoyed sitting down with colleagues like George Mitchell, Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley, Joe Biden, and Ted Kennedy and saying, `We have a problem here--let's find a way to solve it.' They were Democrats, to the left of me politically, but just because we saw things differently I didn't question their morality or their patriotism. I didn't come to Washington to cram things down people's throats or to have people cram anything down my throat. I thought the essence of good government was reconciling divergent views with compromises that served the country's interests.'' All of the Senators retiring at the end of this Congress have set their moral compasses in the direction of compromises to best serve the country's interests. In doing so, they have served their constituents, the U.S. Senate and the Nation well. They understood that the arbitrary labels many are so insistent to place on each other, in the end, fall short and are inadequate to describe an individual's commitment to country. That in fact, to weigh a life, a community's future or a country's needs, a different type of scale is required. In a pluralistic society such as ours, there are many ways to confront a problem and arrive at a solution. These fine Senators recognized that their job was to reach a principled position amidst all of these often conflicting choices. Henry Kissinger put it another way saying, ``The public life of every political figure is a continual struggle to rescue an element of choice from the pressure of circumstance.'' They saw that the preoccupation with these labels is what grips us in gridlock. And that paralysis can cripple a nation's ability to solve its problems and move forward. With their fine guidance we have been able to move beyond gridlock on issues of great importance to the everyday lives of all Americans from health care reforms to important budget and spending questions, energy, immigration, the elderly, and judicial matters. When judging the choices they've made, I believe history will look back on their service with great respect and admiration. Over and over again, when confronted with conflict or when called upon for leadership, they insisted that their decisions answer the larger questions: Will it stand the test of time for our country? Will our country gain strength from this decision? Time and again, their guidance has resulted in policies that have come to define our country and the common vision we hold as a nation. In closing, Mr. President, I want to extend my personal thanks to Senators Sam Nunn, Nancy Kassebaum, Howell Heflin, David Pryor, Claiborne Pell, Jim Exon, Hank Brown, Alan Simpson, Paul Simon, Bill Bradley, Mark Hatfield, Bennett Johnston, and Bill Cohen for a job well done and my wishes for continued success in the future.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, is it in order to take some time as in morning business?

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, Kentucky writer and farmer Wendell Berry wrote that: Though I would just as soon get along without it, a humbling awareness of the complexity of moral issues is said to be a good thing. If such an awareness is, in fact good-- and if I, in fact, have it--I have tobacco to thank for it. Like Berry, any awareness I have of moral complexities is also thanks to tobacco. Now I know there are some people who don't think there is anything at all complex about the tobacco issue. For them it is simply money versus morality. For them there is no family business, there is no tradition, there is no farmer. And perhaps most disturbing--there is no appetite for reason. That is something that we seem to be in short supply of here, from those who are determined to regulate an industry out of business to those who would rather play politics than protect our farmers. These opportunists are thinking only of themselves and today, rather than all of us and tomorrow. And in the process, teenagers keep smoking, farmers fret about their futures, and the litigation continues. I will admit that when it comes to Kentucky, I can be as hard as a bull's head. But, on the issue of teen smoking, I have been as reasonable as they come. I am one of the biggest defenders of tobacco, yet 1 year ago I, Wendell Ford, introduced legislation putting severe restrictions on the tobacco industry in an effort to reach a reasonable solution to the problem of teen smoking. Today, a full year later, none of my friends on the other side of the aisle have joined as a cosponsor or offered other legislative options. And this is not my first attempt at reason on the issue of youth smoking or on the issue of the health effects of smoking by any means. Mr. President, when I was Governor back in 1973, I worked with the legislature to create the Tobacco Research Board and authorized the University of Kentucky to begin an intensive research program directed toward ``proving or disproving questions about health hazards to tobacco users . . ..'' In 1984, I sat down at the table and came up with reasonable warning labels for tobacco products. In 1992, I sat down at the table and hammered out an agreement on a national minimum age for the purchase of cigarettes. We backed those SAMSHA purchasing requirements with teeth, to ensure States did everything they could to enforce the law. In 1994, I was right at the table when my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, decided to offer his pro kids bill, prohibiting smoking in any building that receives Federal funds and to which children have access. I did not stand in the way. I sat down at the table time and again because like everyone else, I am against youth smoking. But I also sat down at the table because I realized that inaction was not a solution to the problem of youth smoking, just as it is not a solution today. Don't get me wrong. I am as angry as I can be that the FDA is being given jurisdiction over tobacco. Bringing in the FDA will only create a whole new bureaucracy when tobacco is already regulated by at least seven Federal agencies including USDA, HHS, BATF, IRS, SAMSHA, EPA, and the FTC. I have it right here, Mr. President, a stack of all the current Federal tobacco laws and regulations--oh, about 18 inches tall--and this does not even include the tens of thousands of pages of State tobacco law and regulations. And now with the new FDA regulations, I can add another 200 pages from the Federal Register to this stack here on my desk. But despite my frustrations and complete opposition to FDA regulation, I know that simply ignoring the problem is not going to fly, just as putting tobacco out of business is not going to fly. The only answer is a legislative solution. Unfortunately, instead of working with me over the past year to come up with a legislative solution for our farmers, many in Congress have chosen to use the FDA regulations as a campaign rallying cry. But while they are stonewalling to win the tobacco farmers' vote today, where will they be if the courts rule against our farmers tomorrow? They must be prepared to answer for their inaction. Anyone who says this can be solved with one vote at the polls in November is not shooting straight. That is because everyone familiar with this issue knows that the FDA would have been sued if they took this action, and they would have been sued if they took no action. I do not care who you have in the White House next January or holding the gavel here in Congress, you have a problem that is going to be solved one of two ways--in the courts or in Congress. It's a fact that farmers have a bigger voice in the Halls of Congress then they do in a court room. We are forcing farmers to play Russian roulette with the court system and giving them an uncertain and ambiguous future. It has been clear to me--and should be clear to others--that we must have a legislative solution for our farmers. We need a legislative solution because FDA jurisdiction has been rejected by the courts in the past, because the question of FDA regulation may be tied up in litigation into the next century, and because many aspects of the FDA regulation go beyond what is needed to target youth smoking. With good reason, tobacco supporters are most troubled by this last reason--that the FDA regulations go beyond what is necessary to target teen smoking. We do not believe Dr. Kessler's desire to reduce smoking is his only motivation for regulating tobacco, and the regulations themselves further undermine his credibility on the issue. Let me quote, Mr. President, from the Federal Register notice accompanying the regulation: . . . FDA intends to classify cigarettes and smokeless tobacco at a future time,-- Classify cigarettes and smokeless tobacco at a future time? and will impose any additional requirements that apply as a result of their classification. . . . It does not sound like they are just after youth smoking. Like me, my farmers want to know exactly what that means for tobacco. According to Dr. Kessler, a pretty grim future. Back in February 1994 in a letter concerning FDA authority over tobacco, he wrote: A strict application of these provisions could mean, ultimately, removal from the market of tobacco products containing nicotine at levels that cause or satisfy addiction. Only those tobacco products from which the nicotine had been removed or, possibly, tobacco products approved by FDA for nicotine-replacement therapy would then remain on the market. Documentation like this makes Dr. Kessler's interest in the narrow issue of teen smoking suspect to say the least. In fact, his public statements and testimony in 1994 are full of references to FDA regulations, but never in the limited context of youth smoking. I don't think I am alone in fearing that the sympathetic issue of youth smoking has become a convenient vehicle for darker ulterior motives. A legislative solution is clearly needed to prevent Dr. Kessler from promoting his agenda under the guise of youth smoking. But that legislative solution will come only if all the players are sitting at the table ready to negotiate. It has never worked any other way with tobacco. Congressman Baesler and I have had legislation out there for a full year. What it represents is a good starting point for protecting tobacco farmers' interests instead of leaving the decision to some court that we have no control over. But, while we've got Members willing to protect NASCAR and rodeos with legislation, we've found little support from other tobacco State Members to try and help our farmers. Congressman Bliley has gone so far as to say this is a question for the courts, not Congress. Think about it. This year two of the largest tobacco companies have come out with even tougher proposals than mine in an effort to have a legislative solution that keeps FDA out of the business of regulating tobacco. Some will dismiss the tobacco company's action as public relations. I call it being reasonable. They too, have found little support. This should be a team effort but instead has turned into partisan conflict that has wasted an entire year and weakened our overall strength in the fight to save the youth from smoking and to protect our farmers. Mr. President, I introduced my legislation because I am fiercely opposed to Government interference in the legal decision of adults in this country. I introduced this legislation because I believe someone needs to truly look out for the tobacco farmers' interests. I introduced this legislation because I believe the problem of teen smoking calls for reason, not rhetoric. Over and over again, I have sat down at the table and tried to come up with solutions for my farmers. For this past year I sat at the table alone because others would rather play politics. I believe the decision to stay away will have long-term implications for the future of tobacco farming and for the well-being of the industry as a whole. Mr. President, Dr. Kessler was able to introduce his regulations because he said cigarettes were a device. Now he has made the thumb and two fingers a device because he says smokeless is included in that. So if you dip and get some tobacco, then your thumb and two fingers become a device--a device. So, cigarettes are a device, your thumb and index fingers are a device. Something about this is wrong, Mr. President. After the November election is over, I am sure it will get out of the political arena as some try to bilk the tobacco companies for all the campaign funds they can get and they try to bilk the poor tobacco farmer out of a vote. Once November 5 is past, maybe we will be able to find someone willing to sit down at the table. I was chastised in a letter I received yesterday for being in the position I am in. They say that--taking their numbers--3,000 young folks start smoking every day; that is over 1 million a year. With the litigation of these regulations being in the courts 3 to 5 years, say 5 years, they themselves have allowed over 6 million young people to start smoking, instead of sitting down trying to work out something reasonable that can stop it. Now, you say you are trying to protect the farmer. I am, but I voted for every piece of legislation that has come through here to help prevent youth smoking, from labeling to smoke-free schools. I voted for SAMSHA, which is imposed upon the States. Where are those who want to do something for youth? All they want to do is run ads in the newspapers against my colleagues. They want to write big stories and have a lot of money in their till so they can get out there and beat their chest about how wonderful a job they are doing, while they are letting youths go down the tubes and the tobacco farmer go down the tubes. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, those affected by this issue, come reason together. Reason together so we can return to our farm families not only a sense of security and stability but a sense of dignity about the work they do. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. The Ledger-Times reminds us that the refuge and the project at Land Between the Lakes would provide very similar services and that the creation of the refuge will put future LBL funding at risk. Mr. President, supporters of the refuge have compiled a seemingly impressive list of endorsements. But listen to who is on the list: Mall Interiors, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Pride, Inc. I have no doubt that these are fine organizations, but how are they qualified to speak to a proposed wildlife refuge in western Kentucky? Of course, there is also a list of Kentucky environmental organizations who support the refuge. But again, you will not hear the name of a single county or county organization in or near the proposed wildlife refuge that supports it. In fact, the closes organization is located over 80 miles and five counties away from where the refuge would be located. We should listen to the people of western Kentucky before creating a refuge that currently includes at least 7,000 acres of cropland. What will happen to that cropland? What about the communities and families in and around the refuge? At a minimum, we should be holding official public hearings in the community and inviting public comment before establishing a wildlife refuge instead of creating it through an appropriations earmark. Mr. President, my amendment redirects the bill's earmarked funds toward Land Between the Lakes projects that already enjoy wide support in Kentucky. First, my amendment provides $2.25 million for the repair and maintenance costs of ``the Trace,'' which is the north-south roadway in the Land Between the Lakes. Over 2 million people visit the LBL every year and they ought to be able to get from one end to the other on a decent, safe road. Second, my amendment directs $275,000 to repair the Brandon Springs Resident Center, which serves as a youth camp for underprivileged and disabled children. Brandon Springs is a great resource that we need to protect and preserve, but its facilities are inadequate and overextended. We need to make a commitment to Brandon Springs, not just for children from Kentucky, but for the children who come from Tennessee, Alabama, the Carolinas, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Virginia, and Ohio for a real wilderness experience. This is not just a local operation. It is a national operation, Mr. President. Last, my amendment directs $475,000 to provide water and sewer service and disabled access for the youth station in the Land Between the Lakes. Mr. President, it was heartbreaking to see this facility closed due to lack of funds, which gave kids the chance to live in the great outdoors and learn how to be good stewards of our natural resources. Until it was closed due to lack of funding, the youth station provided environmental education to thousands of schoolchildren, including my own grandchildren--and I have that personal experience, Mr. President--as well as adults. Teachers came to youth station to receive valuable training in environmental education at the facility and took that information back to their students. If the center is reopened, I understand that at least two different universities in the area have offered to assume the operational and programming responsibilities of the facility, which will allow programs to continue with virtually no Federal cost. I have letters of support for what I propose today, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, when the Senate returns to the consideration of the Interior appropriations bill, I intend to offer an amendment that would redirect the bill's earmark of $3 million to create a 20,000 acre national wildlife refuge in western Kentucky. On Monday, the Senate approved the energy and water appropriations bill that, due to budget constraints imposed by this Congress, will not adequately fund an important, existing environmental project in western Kentucky called the Land Between the Lakes. LBL is a 170,000-acre preserve located just 15 miles east of the Interior bill's proposed wildlife refuge. I fail to see the logic of what some people are proposing here: inadequately fund one outdoor facility, the Land Between the Lakes, on Monday, and then, just days later, try to appropriate funding for a new facility just 15 miles away. In Marshall County, where most of the proposed refuge would be located, the judge/executive has asked me, ``why don't we take care of what we've got before we open a new nature preserve?'' I could not agree more. The fact of the matter is that we are not taking care of the Land Between the Lakes. Its appropriation has dropped by one-third since 1994 even as millions of dollars' worth of maintenance projects pile up. The rider in the Interior appropriations bill will ensure that LBL and other wilderness projects continue to go begging in years to come. That is because the $3 million earmarked in the Interior appropriations bill is just a fraction of the $15-20 million it will cost to actually create the refuge. That is not just me talking. Those estimates are from the Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. So, Mr. President, supporters of the earmark will be back next year, and the year after, looking for more money for this new project. What is worse is that Kentuckians living in the surrounding counties do not even support the proposed wildlife refuge created by the bill. I have already mentioned the statement of the Marshall County Judge executive. Well, the Marshall County Soil and Water Conservation District has also gone on record, saying, ``Our opposition to making a Federal Wildlife Refuge of the East Ford of Clark's River stems from the overwhelming opposition of land owners and tenants in the proposed area.'' The sentiment if the same in Murray, KY, located in the adjacent county of Calloway. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Murray Ledger-Times.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am not opposed to the creation of a wildlife refuge, as proposed in the bill. What concerns me is the idea that we here in the Senate can or should designate thousands of acres of cropland--over 7,000 acres of cropland--as a wildlife refuge without even consulting affected farmers. What concerns me is that we would make this designation without consulting or seeking the consent of the affected localities. What concerns me is a proposal that results in Kentuckians writing to me to say, ``no one seems to listen'' isn't that something?--``no one seems to listen to what the majority of landowners and farmers, who are directly involved, are saying.'' With my amendment, we will be listening to the people of western Kentucky. My amendment, unlike the proposal in the bill, has the support of citizens in Kentucky who live around the Land Between the Lakes and helps to preserve a vital natural resource we already have. I urge my colleagues, if we get to the Interior bill, that they support the adoption of my amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have checked with the participants in this piece of legislation. It may be some time before they will be able to start their deliberation. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed for up to 10 minutes, as in morning business.

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Pressler, be added as cosponsors of this amendment by Senator Exon.