Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I understand that. But we do know that if the leaders would make a decision and give us the time for a stand-alone vote on it, these two items would not be on the immigration bill. And as we have seen both sides do in the past, you take an opportunity when it is presented to you. All I wish to know is if the Senator would agree that if the leaders would give us an opportunity to vote on minimum wage and the opportunity to vote on a sense of the Senate as it relates to the balanced budget, not using Social Security, that they would not be on this bill.

Mr. FORD. The Senator from Wyoming understands better than most why the minimum wage amendment is being placed here. That is about the only place we can get a chance to do it. He understands that well. And also the sense of the Senate on the balanced budget amendment, not using Social Security. He understands that question well. Could it not be worked out and taken off the bill? If a time agreement to vote on this bill--on those two questions be agreed to in 30 seconds, they would both be off the bill, would they not?

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota. I think everyone should have listened to my friend from South Carolina. He has been there from year one. He knows the history of it. He understands it, and he says it straight. I listened to my good friend from New Mexico, chairman of the Budget Committee, one of the smartest financial wizards in the Senate. I believe, honestly and sincerely, that he knows how to operate to be sure that Social Security funds are not used. He says he only wants to use them for calculation. He does not touch the fund, the taxes; he does not touch anything. If you do not touch them, why use them? If you do not touch them, why use them? We have a contract with the people of this country. Social Security is doing better. There are 8.4 million new jobs, all of them paying into Social Security. Things are beginning to look a little better. But if we take Social Security funds to balance the budget, then we are deceiving the American public. I voted for a balanced budget every time except the last time because, before that, it excluded Social Security funds. This last time, it included Social Security funds. You had at least seven more votes--we would be in the seventies on the balanced budget amendment had you said we exclude Social Security moneys. So when you say you are not using them, you will not spend them, you are not going to touch taxes, there ought to be a way, and there should be a way, that we can pass a balanced budget here without using those funds. I hope my colleagues will listen to Senator Dorgan and Senator Hollings and that we approve this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I suspect my time has expired. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this country has undergone tremendous changes over the last few years as a result of military downsizing and base closures. Making the transition has proved very difficult to communities all across the country and today, in an effort to ease that transition, I am introducing legislation with original cosponsors Senators Coats, Lugar, Hutchinson, and McConnell directed at specific problems we've seen with privatization of these bases. I know many of my colleagues are aware of the job loss that results from downsizing. That is because many jobs have become obsolete or redundant. But, there's also a whole other category of affected employees, whose skills and expertise are still needed by the military in the same roles, but in new privatized facilities. Under the 1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), these employees are still eligible to work for the Federal Government and receive a Federal pension. However, this would defeat one of our major goals in privatization-- to save the taxpayer money. The idea under privatization is to continue utilizing these workers' much-needed skills, but in the private sector, at a reduced cost to the taxpayer. Yet, by sending these workers out into the private sector, we are asking a huge portion of them to give up their retirement benefits. These workers are in a catch-22. If they move into the privatized facilities, where they would be performing the same mission and jobs as they had as Federal employees, they lose hard-earned pensions. If they remain in the Federal Government, they could face lower paying positions, while the community loses those workers altogether. With little incentive to move into the private sector, these employees could create a vacuum that private contractors are unable to fill. Under that scenario everyone loses: Highly skilled workers will be underemployed and underpaid. Private contractors won't be able to meet the challenge of taking over government facilities. And the taxpayer will foot the $390 million cost-avoidance bill the Navy estimates the government faces if they have to keep these workers on the payroll and deal with the failure of privatization. This problem was brought to my attention when the Louisville Naval Ordnance Station began the process of privatization, where unlike other base closings, moving the work would be a far greater cost than privatizing. But, it is a problem faced by workers in the same situation all across the country. That is why I am introducing legislation to provide a deferred annuity for those Department of Defense employees who are targeted for privatization, but stand to lose their benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). With this legislation, we can make good on the promise our Government made with these employees when they entered Government Service, and assure private contractors that a skilled work force will be available to them when they assume control of former Defense Department facilities. Most Federal employees hired before 1984 participate in the CSRS, while workers hired after 1984 belong to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Unlike CSRS, FERS is a portable plan, allowing a Federal employee to move between Federal and non-federal employment, without significantly penalizing the accrual of Federal benefits. Unfortunately, CSRS participants do not enjoy this same flexibility, because CSRS is a single component defined benefit plan. Because CSRS-covered employees are forced to separate from Federal employment before they're eligible for an immediate annuity, they see their federal retirement benefits lose considerable value. And, employees who withdraw their retirement contribution not only forfeit all benefits, but also cost the government money up front. I think we can all agree that privatization is a key component of reorganizing our defense priorities in this post-cold-war era of military downsizing. But, I believe my legislation is critical to ensuring that privatization works. It can accomplish these goals by providing a deferred annuity with indexing pension benefits for CSRS Department of Defense employees. Their positions will be immediately transferred to contractors assuming the workload designated for privatization. In this way we can provide a very restricted, but common sense way of keeping our military infrastructure running smoothly as we embark on military privatization's maiden voyage. And perhaps equally important, my legislation sends a clear message to this work force that their loyalty and dedication did not go unnoticed. These workers provided our men and women in uniform with the finest maintenance, supply and logistics system in the world. The best way we can repay this commitment to excellence is to uphold the Federal Government's end of the contract made when these workers first entered Government Service. That's in the workers' best interest and in the best interest of the Nation. I would also like at this time to thank Mrs. Carolyn Merk of the Congressional Research Service for her outstanding professional work in helping craft this legislation that we're introducing today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on amendment numbered 3681, I am recorded voting ``yea.'' Since it will not change the outcome of the vote, I ask unanimous consent to be changed from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this country has undergone tremendous changes over the last few years as a result of military downsizing and base closures. Making the transition has proved very difficult to communities all across the country and today, in an effort to ease that transition, I am introducing legislation with original cosponsors Senators Coats, Lugar, Hutchinson, and McConnell directed at specific problems we've seen with privatization of these bases. I know many of my colleagues are aware of the job loss that results from downsizing. That is because many jobs have become obsolete or redundant. But, there's also a whole other category of affected employees, whose skills and expertise are still needed by the military in the same roles, but in new privatized facilities. Under the 1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), these employees are still eligible to work for the Federal Government and receive a Federal pension. However, this would defeat one of our major goals in privatization-- to save the taxpayer money. The idea under privatization is to continue utilizing these workers' much-needed skills, but in the private sector, at a reduced cost to the taxpayer. Yet, by sending these workers out into the private sector, we are asking a huge portion of them to give up their retirement benefits. These workers are in a catch-22. If they move into the privatized facilities, where they would be performing the same mission and jobs as they had as Federal employees, they lose hard-earned pensions. If they remain in the Federal Government, they could face lower paying positions, while the community loses those workers altogether. With little incentive to move into the private sector, these employees could create a vacuum that private contractors are unable to fill. Under that scenario everyone loses: Highly skilled workers will be underemployed and underpaid. Private contractors won't be able to meet the challenge of taking over government facilities. And the taxpayer will foot the $390 million cost-avoidance bill the Navy estimates the government faces if they have to keep these workers on the payroll and deal with the failure of privatization. This problem was brought to my attention when the Louisville Naval Ordnance Station began the process of privatization, where unlike other base closings, moving the work would be a far greater cost than privatizing. But, it is a problem faced by workers in the same situation all across the country. That is why I am introducing legislation to provide a deferred annuity for those Department of Defense employees who are targeted for privatization, but stand to lose their benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). With this legislation, we can make good on the promise our Government made with these employees when they entered Government Service, and assure private contractors that a skilled work force will be available to them when they assume control of former Defense Department facilities. Most Federal employees hired before 1984 participate in the CSRS, while workers hired after 1984 belong to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Unlike CSRS, FERS is a portable plan, allowing a Federal employee to move between Federal and non-federal employment, without significantly penalizing the accrual of Federal benefits. Unfortunately, CSRS participants do not enjoy this same flexibility, because CSRS is a single component defined benefit plan. Because CSRS-covered employees are forced to separate from Federal employment before they're eligible for an immediate annuity, they see their federal retirement benefits lose considerable value. And, employees who withdraw their retirement contribution not only forfeit all benefits, but also cost the government money up front. I think we can all agree that privatization is a key component of reorganizing our defense priorities in this post-cold-war era of military downsizing. But, I believe my legislation is critical to ensuring that privatization works. It can accomplish these goals by providing a deferred annuity with indexing pension benefits for CSRS Department of Defense employees. Their positions will be immediately transferred to contractors assuming the workload designated for privatization. In this way we can provide a very restricted, but common sense way of keeping our military infrastructure running smoothly as we embark on military privatization's maiden voyage. And perhaps equally important, my legislation sends a clear message to this work force that their loyalty and dedication did not go unnoticed. These workers provided our men and women in uniform with the finest maintenance, supply and logistics system in the world. The best way we can repay this commitment to excellence is to uphold the Federal Government's end of the contract made when these workers first entered Government Service. That's in the workers' best interest and in the best interest of the Nation. I would also like at this time to thank Mrs. Carolyn Merk of the Congressional Research Service for her outstanding professional work in helping craft this legislation that we're introducing today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I might have 2 minutes.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from Utah.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. The third will be 10 minutes. The first vote is 15 minutes, the next two votes will be 10 minutes each.

Mr. FORD. Six minutes.

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am not sure. Could you give me just a second?

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, as I understand, prior to the final vote?

Mr. FORD. Six minutes on each side?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senator from North Dakota was prevented from speaking on the Senate floor. They recessed the Senate in order to prevent him from speaking. I know the majority leader has certain privileges that other Senators do not have--leader's time, recognized first, and all that. But I think the majority leader made a mistake in trying to gag a colleague yesterday. We are here, expecting to vote every 30 minutes, on an amendment or reconsideration--recommittal on this terrorism bill, and the majority leader comes in, as is his right--I do not say he did not have the right--but we talk about telecommunications and we talk about Bosnia. Yet, the Senator from North Dakota could not talk about Social Security and balancing the budget. So, I want the Senate to know that some of us observe that. I believe the majority leader made a mistake. I think he realized he made a mistake. And we should not attempt to gag anyone here on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there is a scene in the movie ``Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid'' where the heroes, successful and unchallenged for years, suddenly find themselves chased by an unshakeable posse. Each time the posse reappears, the pressure builds on the heroes and they feel a little less invincible, their pursuers' skills a little more impressive. ``Who are those guys?'' they keep asking. Over the 3 weeks leading up to the weekend of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Championships' final four, fans found themselves watching upset after upset, crossing off one favored pick after another, scratching their heads and saying, ``Who are those guys?'' Those upsets are testament to the incredible talent we saw on display during the NCAA championships this year. And the incredible pressure. That's why after going through nickname after nickname for his team, the University of Kentucky's Coach Rick Pitino finally settled on the ``untouchables,'' because they never let any of that pressure touch them. Game after game during the tournament, those players came out professional, poised, and untouched by the pressure that had the most devoted of Wildcat fans cautious in their predictions for Monday night's final outcome. But as Sports Illustrated pointed out, not even the magnificently courageous Syracuse team they would suit up against on April 1, 1996, would be able to shake the Cat's unapologetic defense. In the end, even the upset magic that was in the tournament's air from the first jump ball, was simply no match for their depth and their talent. The fans were right to ask ``Who are those guys?'' But, the Wildcats have a coach that knew how to take raw talent, combine it with an unmatched professionalism, sportsmanship, and some downright dangerous weapons--from Derrick Anderson's three-pointers to Walter McCarthy's thunderous dunks to Ron Mercer's slashing drives to Anthony Epps' ball handling--to turn back the challengers, one by one. And of course there was Tony Delk. He had 7 three-pointers and 10 rebounds in the final game against Syracuse's scrappy Orangemen. But, as he bent down to help up a fallen Syracuse player, he came to epitomize not just the outstanding playing that marked this tournament, but the outstanding sportsmanship as well. But, this was one player's victory. Those five starters weren't the whole team by any means. With no player averaging much over 20 minutes per game the whole season, the Wildcats succeeded because of their ability to rely on one another's strengths, no matter what a player's position in the lineup. That's because this was a team in every sense of the word, with a depth and wealth of talent that was the envy of the entire NCAA. Rick Pitino said more than once that his players checked their egos at the door. And because of that, when they went back out that door, they went as winners. They rib us a bit about taking our basketball too seriously in Kentucky. And apocryphal stories about fans being buried in their Wildcat sweat suits or calling on Coach Pitino to help settle their marital spats, sometimes make it seem so. But, when you see a team of such gifted athletes work together in a way that seems almost effortless--and combine it with a professionalism on and off the court that makes them true role models to their peers and their young admirers--then Kentucky's devotion to her basketball doesn't seem misplaced one bit. The University of Kentucky's year was marked by one amazing statistic after another. They not only had a 34 and 2 record--the best record since the 1953-54 Cats went 25 and 0, but at one point had strung together 27 consecutive wins, the longest in the country. And they finished a very, very tough SEC regular season undefeated, the first time that's been done in four decades. The Wildcat's average margin of victory in the NCAA tournament was 21.5 points per game--the fourth best margin of victory in the history of the game. And, while the players' incredible talent and the unmatched coaching skills of Rick Pitino are enough to assure that no one will be asking ``who are those guys?'' about the Kentucky Wildcats anytime soon, I believe it is only right that the U.S. Senate should be on record saluting their accomplishments. And so I urge my colleagues in joining me in the adoption of a resolution commending the University of Kentucky basketball team.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is absent because of illness.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], and the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], and the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is absent because of illness.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is absent because of illness.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] are necessarily absent.