Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this amendment bothers me and many of my colleagues very much. As my friend from Nevada has said, we were briefed. After that briefing, there was no objection whatsoever. Now we want, without any other consideration--many of us not having had the opportunity to hear the briefing--to vote to open up Pennsylvania Avenue. I think it has been important that, in the years that I have been here and when we have had to make hard decisions, we err on the side of safety. I do not want any of those living or working in the White House to be exposed. There are a lot of things the Secret Service has told us that cannot be public. The Senator from Minnesota knows that. He will not reveal that because he cannot. One of the reasons that Pennsylvania Avenue was closed was because of that unavailable information. If you want to take the blood on your hands and say, ``We want to open up that 800 feet of pavement up there,'' and something occurs after that, then you are not going to do it with my vote. I want the safety of the First Family. I want the lives of those people who work there day and night to be as safe as possible. I do not understand what is going on here. I really do not understand it. Oh, I can go back in history. I can quote Henry Clay. I can do lots of things. But today is today, not history. Today we have the problems. Today we have terrorists operating in this country. They will tell you that much. I have been there when we had to put out agents in many of the ports, waterways, and airways to check on people departing other parts of the world. To say we want to take an opportunity here this afternoon to possibly eliminate the safety of the First Family? If President Bush had been reelected and he made this decision, the Senator from Minnesota would not be standing. He would not be standing making this effort today. It is because another President is in the White House he is making this decision. This is grandstanding. I read the articles in Minnesota. They say he is more interested in 800 feet of pavement in Washington, DC, than he is the big issues of Minnesota. That is in his papers. I just paraphrase it. But why do we want to possibly jeopardize the lives of the people that are running this country? That is No. 1. I suspect, if those people who had answered him on the web had the ability to listen to the Secret Service and their briefing of the leadership of this Senate, they would change their minds. So I encourage my colleagues not to vote for this. Let us have another briefing. Let us try to do the right thing. Let us not expose people, particularly the President and his family and those who have the responsibility of leading this country. So, Mr. President, I am hopeful the Senator will be kind enough to withdraw this amendment and let us sit down and try to understand the problems that are there. You cannot tell the American people all the problems that were given to us by the Secret Service. There are a lot of things you just do not do. And the decision was made based on that. I am one who believes, after you weigh the facts, you err on the side of safety. So I believe the right vote here today is to table the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota and let us have an opportunity, if there is a need for it, to have more scrutiny, more input, and do the right thing. I was there yesterday afternoon, along with leadership from both sides. I did not see anybody protesting. I did not see anybody walking up and down Pennsylvania Avenue with signs saying, ``Open this street.'' I saw people enjoying it, walking back and forth across the street, looking at the White House, not being interfered with at all, did not have to worry about the traffic, were enjoying the park. I thought it was a right congenial group. There was no one there protesting the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue, and they were there from all across this great land of ours and foreign countries. So, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to table this amendment.

Mr. FORD. So, Mr. President it has been the response of what you put on the web not what the Secret Service put on the web and therefore is a political grandstand.

Mr. FORD. On the Worldwide Web the Senator is talking about, that you got 1,300 responses, and so forth, did they respond to your explanation of Pennsylvania Avenue or were they responding to the Secret Service's explanation of closing it?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, does the Senator have a copy of his amendment at the desk? We need a copy.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD. Madam President, I stand in strong opposition to the Amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain]. This amendment would not allow for the authorization of construction projects that are of immediate need to those who continue to serve us so well. I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment for these reasons. The Senate Armed Services Committee used stringent criteria to ensure that all projects authorized were determined to have met these criteria. These criteria are known to the members of the committee as the McCain Criteria. We, the members of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee funded all of the projects that had previously met these criteria and were recommended by the Authorization Committee. The projects that have been authorized are necessary to maintain the stability of our National Guard and Reserve and to continue to enhance the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Of the $600 million in construction projects that this amendment would eliminate, $368 million or over 60 percent of this amount is designated for the construction of National Guard and Reserve projects; and additional $189 million is directly designated to build military family housing, to improve the quality of life of our service members. Nearly all of this $600 million reduction directly attacks the projects that the administration annually neglects. It is our specific task to look independently at all the Military Construction needs of the country. The list that we receive annually from the administration continues to overlook projects that we are known to support, and compelled to include in our bill, in order to maintain the strength of our fighting force. The administration does not have exclusive wisdom to determine the finality of this list. A rubber stamp by our committees would take away the legitimacy of its oversight. Without the $600 million included in this bill, the Guard and Reserve will again be shortchanged, quality of life for our service members would be greatly deterred, and the committee's need would be repudiated. I encourage my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. This amendment is very simple, and as I understand, is acceptable to both sides. During the 1997 Fiscal Year budget deliberations at the Pentagon, a decision was made to reduce the Air National Guard C-130 fleet by ten aircraft. Two aircraft would be taken from each of the five units in the States of Kentucky, West Virginia, California, North Carolina and Tennessee. However, the Air Force has initiated an Inter-theater Lift Analysis to determine the impact of the C-17 on the C-130 requirements. Furthermore, the Air Force has not yet completed its C-130 Master Stationing Plan. My colleagues and I believe it is premature to reduce the Air National Guard C-130 fleet below current levels until both of the studies have been completed and the comprehensive Total Force airlift requirements have been approved by Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Adjutant General of Kentucky, Gen. John R. Groves, Jr. General of the Kentucky National Guard immediately following my remarks.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] would each vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am sure that we all have high standards for accuracy on this floor, and therefore I wish to comment on certain statements which have been made in recent days. On June 7, the junior Senator from Oklahoma mistakenly represented that the Senate had voted on a version of the balanced budget amendment in the 103d Congress that was ``identically the same'' as the version voted on in the 104th Congress. He then mistakenly inserted into the Congressional Record copes of two resolutions when he represented to be ``the two resolutions that we voted on * * *.'' In fact, he inserted into the Record copies of the resolutions as introduced, but not as amended and actually voted on by the Senate. The two resolutions which were ultimately voted on contained language differences concerning judicial review. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota and I had a colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma. As we pointed out then, the language differences were not the primary reasons for our votes in opposition to the balanced budget amendment in the 104th Congress. Our opposition stemmed mainly from the dramatic change in the interpretation of section 6 of the proposal concerning implementing language--regarding the intention to count the annual surplus in the Social Security trust fund. However, since the Senator from Oklahoma was attempting to portray the issue in a simple black-and-white fashion--as two votes on identical proposals--we sought to clarify for the Record that the representations he made were flat out wrong. Last Friday, the junior Senator from Oklahoma again took the floor to discuss this matter. He stated that, after all, the two resolutions really were ``exactly the same thing'' since both added language dealing with the issue of judicial review. Therefore, even though the language was different, certain Senators ``turned right around and actively opposed the same exact language in a balanced budget amendment'' that they had earlier supported in 1994. The junior Senator from Oklahoma then quoted the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, who authored a 1995 amendment on judicial review. What the Senator from Georgia actually said on February 28, 1995 was that his amendment on judicial review was ``similar to the Danforth amendment we agreed to last year and the Johnston amendment, which was defeated last week'' by a vote of 47 to 52. I ask unanimous consent that the Danforth amendment from 1994 and the Johnston and Nunn amendments from 1995, each of which amends section 6 of the balanced budget amendment, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FORD. As the Senator from Georgia noted, all three amendments are similar. The Senator form Oklahoma says the Danforth and Nunn amendments are ``exactly the same thing.'' Yet last year he voted against the Johnston amendment, which also dealt with judicial review. Perhaps the next time we are discussing identical proposals on the balanced budget amendment, the junior Senator from Oklahoma can inform all of us concerning what was so different about the Johnston amendment on judicial review to justify his different positions. I would think he would consider it to be the same exact language. The junior Senator from Oklahoma continues to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Audrey Tayse Haynes to the National Institute of Literacy Advisory Board. Audrey Tayse Haynes, a fellow Kentuckian, is a distinguished community and business leader. She currently serves as the executive director of Business and Professional Women U.S.A. and the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Foundation. Audrey's credentials are outstanding and her background in education is exemplary. Aside from receiving her bachelors degree and her masters degree in social work from two of Kentucky's finest institutions of higher education, Spalding University and the University of Kentucky, Audrey served as the executive director of the Kentucky Literacy Commission from 1989 to 1993. In addition, she has served as a member of both the Kentucky State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education and the National Association of Literacy Directors. She has also received the honor of being a distinguished recipient of the Martha Wilkinson Education Award. Audrey Tayse Haynes has made significant contributions to the Commonwealth of Kentucky through her tenure as director of human resource development for the Kentucky Department of Mental Health and Retardation, as director of prevention and training programs at training and development resources and as a chemical dependency counselor. The combination of Audrey's background in education and human services with her excellent leadership ability make her an ideal candidate for the National Institute of Literacy Advisory Board. I wholeheartedly support this nomination and urge my colleagues to vote to confirm this deserving nominee. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, on Friday the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and I had an exchange about the inaccuracy of certain statements made by the Senator from Oklahoma regarding the debate over the balanced budget amendment. During that exchange, the Senator from Oklahoma inserted into the Record copies of the original versions of Senate Joint Resolution 41 from the 103d Congress, and House Joint Resolution 1 from the 104th Congress. The Senator from Oklahoma represented that these were the two resolutions that we voted on--Senate Joint Resolution 41, in 1994, and House Joint Resolution 1, in 1996. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota indicated that the two resolutions we voted on were not identical, since language known as the Nunn amendment was added to House Joint Resolution 1 regarding judicial review, and that this was new language from the resolution voted upon in 1994. The Senator from North Dakota asked unanimous consent to insert into the Record the language which was actually voted on by the Senate. After the Senator from Oklahoma twice reserved the right to object, the Senator from North Dakota withdrew his request. I have since had time to review the Record, and found that Both resolutions inserted into the Record by the Senator from Oklahoma were incorrect. In other words, neither of the resolutions which he put into the Record were actually voted upon by the Senate. The Senator form Oklahoma put into the Record the balanced budget amendment proposals as introduced, in order to claim the Senate voted on identical proposals. However, both resolutions were subsequently amended in different ways. The 1994 resolution was modified to limit judicial remedies to declaratory judgments and other remedies authorized by Congress. This modification was dropped altogether in House Joint Resolution 1, as introduced in 1995. However, this resolution was then also amended by the Senate through the Nunn amendment, which prohibited judicial review entirely. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions which were actually voted upon by the Senate in 1994 and 1996--neither of which were inserted into the Record by the Senator from Oklahoma--be inserted at this point.

Mr. FORD. Second, Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma and I had an exchange on the Senate floor because after I heard him quote from my 1994 floor statement, I believe he was quoting my statement in an inaccurate and distorting manner. The Senator from Oklahoma was quoting my statement in support of the Reid-Ford-Feinstein amendment which protected the Social Security trust funds, and making it sound like I was speaking in support of the underlying Simon-Hatch version of the legislation, which does not protect Social Security. Madam President, after reading Friday's Record, I found that the Senator from Oklahoma's quoting of my 1994 statement was even more selective and misleading than I had first realized. I ask unanimous consent that my actual full statement, as reproduced in the Congressional Record on March 1, 1994, and the version quoted by the Senator from Oklahoma be printed in the Record. Those who wish to read these can draw their own conclusions about whether I was quoted accurately.

Mr. FORD. Lastly, Madam President, let me just note that every provision of the Constitution is subject to interpretation. I am sure that the Senator from Oklahoma does not agree with every Supreme Court decision interpreting the words of the Constitution--even though it may involve different interpretations of the same language. In 1994, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, gave specific assurances that he would work in support of, and even cosponsor, implementing legislation to require Congress to balance the budget without counting the annual Social Security surplus. He even submitted a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service with the opinion that it would be legal and appropriate for Congress to pass such legislation. This memorandum is reprinted in the March 1, 1994, Congressional Record along with the debate By contrast, in 1995 we saw proposals from leading proponents of the balanced budget amendment spelling out how much of the Social Security surplus they would count year by year. As I stated last year and again last week, this was an enormous shift in the interpretation of the resolution and a major factor in my decision to not support the balanced budget amendment without further assurances about Social Security. It is my hope that debate on the Senate floor in the future will be conducted at a level which respects the opinions of fellow Senators on all issues. It is the least that our constituents expect of us.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, The amendment that I offer to House Concurrent Resolution 172 conforms the language of the resolution to the authority sought by the sponsors of the Olympic Torch Relay. The plans for the relay has been modified since the introduction of the original resolution in the House. This amendment reflects those changes. It is my understanding that the House leadership is prepared to accept this amendment and will expedite action on this measure when it is received in the House. Consequently, this amendment will not result in any delay of the Olympic Torch Relay events. I commend my colleague from Georgia, Senator Nunn, for his efforts to facilitate this event and thank my colleagues for their assistance.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. No, you quoted others saying ``looting,'' and now the Senator from Wyoming is using the words ``IOU's'' for T-bills. It is just a matter of how you express yourself.