Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] is necessarily absent. The results was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it has been said that freedom always entails danger. So perhaps we here, in a country that has seen our share of battles on behalf of liberty and democracy, should not be surprised by China's latest action against Taiwan. It is no coincidence that China has planned to hold missile tests off of Taiwan's coast during that country's first democratic Presidential elections. But despite China's predictable behavior, it is no less a violation of all that we hold dear to us here in this freedom-loving country. China's latest act of coercion will accomplish nothing more than to further tarnish her image as a country whose human rights abuses seem to know no borders and no boundaries. This latest action comes at a time when Taiwan is about to embark on what democratic countries as our own often take for granted--the free and open elections of our leaders. By conducting missile tests off the shores of Taiwan--the third testing since Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hut visited the United States last June--China is not only effectively shutting down the two largest commercial ports in Taiwan, it is sending a message to the people of that country that their liberty is constantly in jeopardy. I want my colleagues to be aware that these tests not only will affect Taiwan's exports and imports in the short term, but are bound to have long-term effects as well. Some analysts put the loss at as much as 20 percent for both imports and exports. Those are losses that will be felt around the world, including my home State of Kentucky here exports to Taiwan ran close to $73 million in 1994. This does not even begin to touch on the repercussions for the financial markets from the predicted selling of the Taiwan dollar to driving share prices into a further slump. These financial backlashes will be long felt both in Taiwan and around the world. And yet, these fiscal concerns probably are not foremost on the minds of a nation who fears first for the safety of her people. One account I have read says that nobody trusts the accuracy of Beijing's weapons, and that even the slightest misfire could hit inhabited areas. Even if these weapons are unarmed, the impact would be enormous if smashed into Taiwan. Mr. President, let me close my asking my colleagues to remain ever alert to China's actions against this fledgling democracy. They have made their coercive intentions abundantly clear and we should not waver in our belief that nations must adhere to a certain international code of conduct. I would also call on the administration to continue to monitor the People's Republic of China and to take the necessary steps toward assuring that China understands, in no uncertain terms, that Taiwan must be afforded its due respect in accordance with that international code. As the leader of the free world, we can do no less than send a clear message of how this behavior is simply unacceptable.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], and the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I did not want to interrupt anything. Could I have 5 minutes?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. FORD. Well, could I have 5 minutes?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I think we all ought to listen to the Senator from North Dakota. I think the Senator from North Dakota laid it out very well and if we listen to what he says and the direction he wants to go, he has within him the American dream. It was instilled in him as a boy. He could be my son. That's the difference in age. I hope I have instilled into my son that he has that opportunity. But, Mr. President, our Nation's economy is strong and it is growing. Home ownership, when you read the records, is at its highest rate in 15 years. Mr. President 7.8 million new jobs have been created in the last 3 years. And the administration's 1993 economic plan has cut the deficit nearly in half. However, for the first time--and I underscore first time--in our country's history, productivity is surging but real wages for workers are declining. That is unacceptable. That is just unacceptable, that productivity is surging and real wages for workers are declining. The majority of Americans are working longer and harder, as my friend from North Dakota said, without the promise of higher wages or job security from their employers. The days of having one parent at home with the child, or children, are becoming a distant memory for many, many families in this country. American working families need both parents' incomes now, in order to make ends meet. The number of two-worker families rose by more than 20 percent in the 1980's and more than 7 million workers--think about this--7 million workers are holding more than one job. At least two. The largest increase in population of working spouses was among families earning the least money. There is no question the standard of living of American working families is declining. Workers have invested their hard work, their time--and let me underscore--loyalty to the company they work for, and employment in the companies, and are being repaid with layoffs, downsizing, and relocation by these same employers. The American dream is fast becoming a distant vision for many American working families. Society is changing with the growth in technology. Computers are replacing jobs that were once done by hand. We need to change the outlook for the American work force by adjusting our education and training opportunities to reflect the needs of the marketplace. We can no longer view the development of a skilled work force separately from development of the business community. By adjusting to the needs of the business community we can provide our workers with good jobs at real wages. Government cannot solve this problem alone. Let me give an example. In my home State of Kentucky the business community, the educational community and local leaders are working together through school-to-work, and work force development programs, to create jobs for the future. We are creating high-technology jobs at high-technology wages. This is a partnership: Education, partnership with business; partnership with government. Government cannot be all things to all people but it can be an honest partner. Kentucky has taken the approach that students not entering college should have both a high school diploma and certified skills, enabling them to enter the work force at a living wage. So, Mr. President, in order to prepare our work force of the future we must maintain the tools such as school-to-work that have succeeded in places like my State of Kentucky. The President has requested that funding for school-to-work be restored and I think it should be in the next continuing resolution. I ask my colleagues to support this add- back, which will assist 27 States in building statewide school-to-work transition systems. I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues, Senator Bingaman, Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan. I feel their report addresses issues that are foremost in the minds of American families. I read the other day a statement, I do not know who to attribute it to, but I am going to repeat it. ``A cut in education never heals.'' A cut in education never heals, and in there lies our responsibility.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of reasons why the Whitewater Special Committee should get on with its work and be limited. But this evening I am going to take a different approach that I think my colleagues ought to consider that has nothing to do with the facts of the investigation. That may seem strange, but I have been chairman of the Rules Committee with a strong responsibility; I am now ranking member of the Rules Committee with a strong responsibility. So, Mr. President, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to let my colleagues know what the actual costs are and what the prospects of getting the money might be. Mr. President, under title II of the United States Code, it gives the Committee on Rules and Administration the exclusive authority--I underscore ``exclusive authority''--to approve payments made from the contingency fund of the Senate. No payment may be made from the contingency fund without the approval of the committee. I think that is pretty clear. Inherent in that authority is the responsibility to assure that there are adequate funds--adequate funds--in the contingency fund to cover the various expenses of the Senate. This is just one. We are affecting every committee chairman in the Senate. I will get to that in a minute. Senate Resolution 227 before us today authorizes funds to be paid from the inquiries and investigation account within the contingency fund of the Senate. During the meeting of the committee on this resolution, I raised the concern that there may be insufficient funds within this account to support an open-ended extension of the Whitewater Special Committee at an additional amount of $600,000. Similarly, the full Senate should consider whether there is adequate funds in this account to provide for the extension. Not to consider this issue, in my opinion, Mr. President, would be irresponsible. First, let me advise my colleagues that the actual cost of extending the special committee is considerably more than $600,000. Senate Resolution 227 authorizes--and I quote--``additional sums as may be necessary for agency contributions related to the compensation of employees of the Special Committee.'' The original resolution, Senate Resolution 120, was silent on how agency contributions were to be paid, but was amended, Mr. President, to provide retroactively that additional sums may be provided to pay these expenses. So, really the original amount is now well over $1 million. The $900,000, $950,000 is well over $1 million. We will get to that in a minute. Any agency contributions include such expenses as the employer's share of health insurance, life insurance, retirement, FICA tax, and the employer match for the FERS thrift savings plan. For standing committees, the rule of thumb for figuring agency contributions is about 26 percent of payroll. It is my understanding that the percent incurred by the special committee might be slightly more than that. But let us consider the 26 percent. So, Mr. President, based on 26 percent of payroll expense, the additional cost to the taxpayer and expense to the contingent fund of the extension of the Whitewater Special Committee could be upward of $150,000 more than the $600,000 that is being requested, bringing the actual total to over some $750,000. I should also point out to my colleagues that the same is true of the $950,000 authorized under Senate Resolution 120. The retroactive amendment to Senate Resolution 120, which provided additional funds to pay for agency contributions, could cost upward of $247,000. So we have a $950,000 figure. Then we have to add $247,000 to that. That comes out of the contingency fund. That could bring the initial cost of the special committee, as we add it up, to be well over $1 million to date. So, Mr. President, in reviewing the financial state of the inquiries and investigations account, I am advised there is an estimated $2.3 million unobligated in this account for this fiscal year. I am concerned that this is not a sufficient balance to allow the Senate to authorize another $600,000 or more in expenses for continuation of the Whitewater Special Committee and have sufficient resources to meet other obligations of the Senate. Overtime is coming, whether you like it or not. We voted for that. Offices are already paying overtime. If you have been listening to the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant-at-Arms, they are very concerned about overtime. We think that will be a minimum of 4 percent for committees. That is over $2 million. If you take Whitewater out of that contingency fund, you add on the other expenses that are necessary, you have a fund that is short, that is absolutely short. We will not have money. You jeopardize every committee in the U.S. Senate. Let me advise my colleagues as to the expenses that are paid out of this account. These expenses include all salaries and expenses of the 19 standing committees, special and select committees, including the allowance for a COLA, if authorized, and the employer's share of all committee staff benefits. I go back and repeat, that means FICA, life insurance, health insurance, retirement, and the match for contributions to the FERS thrift savings plan. In addition, all salaries and expenses of the Ethics Committee are paid from this account. Also, the initial $950,000 for the special committee, plus agency contributions, were paid from this account. As my colleagues are well aware, we are now subject to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Just last week--and I repeat myself here--we heard from both the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant-at-Arms that they anticipate a substantial amount of overtime costs. The Rules Committee has heard from committee chairmen and ranking members who are facing the potential of substantial amounts of overtime costs without any funds budgeted to pay these costs. If the Senate should find it necessary to authorize additional funds to pay overtime expenses of committees, these expenses would be paid from the inquiries and investigations account of the contingency fund. While we have no history of overtime costs for Senate committees, it is clear that we will incur overtime costs before the end of this fiscal year. Based upon the current projected surplus in this account, if we should fund the extension of the special committee at the recommended level, we would have only about a 3-percent-of-payroll cushion for paying overtime expenses. This may be dry, and you may not be interested in what I am saying, but when you run out of money and your staff cannot be paid, you go back and remember what I said on this particular date. We simply cannot authorize an additional $600,000 in expenses from the contingency fund at this time. Doing so means nothing less than choosing between funding our obligations to our committee staff and hiring more consultants and issuing more subpoenas for more documents that have proven no wrongdoing at all. Let me be very clear. My colleagues may be choosing between paying COLA's, overtime expenses and the employer's share of health insurance, life insurance, retirement, and other items for our staff, or the consultant fees for an open-ended fishing license. Moreover, while an amount is theoretically budgeted for the expense of the Ethics Committee, that committee has unlimited budget authority, which is funded out of this account. While the Ethics Committee funding needs vary from year to year, investigations in the recent past have required substantial expenditures for hiring outside counsel. Again, my colleagues need to be aware that there are numerous important and unforeseen expenses that must be paid from the contingency fund. Mr. President, during the Rules Committee consideration of Senate Resolution 270, I offered two amendments which we believe provided sufficient time and funding to complete the business of the special committee without jeopardizing benefits to committee employees. The first amendment would have both reduced the additional funding for the Whitewater Special Committee and limited the ability to obligate expenses to be paid from the contingency fund after May 10, 1996. This amendment would have reduced the funding for the special committee from $600,000 to $185,000, with a corresponding reduction in the amount which can be used for consultants under this resolution from $475,000 down to $147,000. It would also have prohibited obligated expenses from the contingency fund after May 10, 1996, and based upon prior experience, it is clear that the additional witnesses and hearings the special committee wishes to call could be accommodated within that amount. However, with virtually no debate, that amendment was defeated on a party-line vote 9 to 7. The second amendment that was offered would have reduced the additional funding for expenses and salaries of the special committee without the sunset date. This amendment would also have reduced authorization from $600,000 to $185,000, with a corresponding reduction in the amount available for consultants from $475,000 to $147,000. So with this resolution, if adopted, we would go out and get private consultants and pay them $475,000, almost half a million dollars of taxpayers' money to come in and help us gin up some more subpoenas, for all the telephone calls for the total State of Arkansas. This amendment would have allowed the special committee to complete its work without jeopardizing the funding of the other 19 Senate committee budgets and the benefits of the employees who work for those committees. Again, that amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. We are going to be here after Whitewater. The committees are going to be functioning after Whitewater. Staff is going to have to be paid on all the committees after Whitewater. But I tell you, when you dilute this fund--and we are going to have to have a line item, I say to the ranking member, for the new procedures of the Senate, and it is going to be a humongous amount of money. Some of it may start this year, and we will not have the amount of money necessary to complete. Let me be clear that we are not suggesting the special committee not be allowed to finish its work. I am only urging that we be responsible with the American taxpayers' money and be responsible to our staff by limiting both the life and the additional funding of the special committee to an amount that will not jeopardize the quality or, more important, the obligations of the Senate contingency fund. The American people will best be served if we reach a reasonable compromise for the extension of the special committee. So I urge the leadership on both sides of the aisle to make an effort to try to arrive at a compromise that will give us an opportunity to be sure that the contingency fund is not diluted. Mr. President, I just reiterate that we authorized $950,000 for Senate Resolution 120 and over $220,000 in addition to that which we had to pay. That is this unobligated--the little quotes that we get at the end of the bill. This one will be well up there, too, and well over the $600,000 that the chairman of the committee is asking for. What I have done here is to alert my colleagues to the possibility of jeopardizing the contingency fund, the possibility of jeopardizing our ability to take care of the other 19 committees to pay what the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate have said they are very concerned about--overtime. Overtime is tough, and it is going to get tougher. When we have approximately 3 percent left in the contingency fund, then I think we are on the verge of depleting that contingency fund. So I hope my colleagues will look at that; that they will see that it will take more money from the committees than is absolutely necessary; that this committee can wind it up by May 10; that we cannot dilute the contingency fund. I am very concerned, not for myself, not for the Senators, but I certainly am concerned for those who work for us on our committees every day and put in a good job, work hard and long, and they are entitled to have the overtime, because we now made it law. So, therefore, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield? I apologize, but I think it is timely.

Mr. FORD. I do not know that anything was before the Rules Committee yesterday.

Mr. FORD. I think that is correct.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I answer that? There was a meeting of the Rules Committee called yesterday afternoon at 3:30, and it was postponed. There has been no other meeting called of the Rules Committee.

Mr. FORD. No, sir.

Mr. FORD. There was no quorum. There were only three Senators there this morning at any one time.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, would the Senator have some idea how much legal expense by the individual witnesses--I saw a story in the paper today. We begin at $50,000 and $60,000 and $400,000, and individuals are being called before the Whitewater Committee that are absolutely scared to death, had no idea of what is going on, had nothing to do with anything. Yet, they are advised to get an attorney, and they hire an attorney, and they cannot pay their mortgage. They have to borrow money to pay their attorneys' fees. We keep on keeping on, keeping on, and we are absolutely ruining families financially, calling all these people that have no relevance to the committee business at all. Has that ever been added up?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, that is somewhat different from the Ethics Committee or a grand jury investigation. When staff is called to go before the committee, to have representation, the Senate pays for that. The Senate furnishes attorneys. If the Senator himself or herself is not involved, then the Senate pays for the legal counsel. So what you have here is that in certain instances we pay--we, being the taxpayers--pay for the legal counsel. In this particular case it comes out of the individual's pocket, hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I think that we are making a real mistake here, crushing families financially for the political whim of a few individuals.

Mr. FORD. An oversight meeting, from 9 o'clock until 1:30. Then there was another one this afternoon at 2, and it went on until about 4 o'clock.

Mr. FORD. Only with unanimous consent of the Senate. We were beyond-- the 2 o'clock period was beyond the 2 hours. The committee hearing was only for oversight. It would have had to have been expanded this afternoon. This morning, I am not sure. I had not given it any thought.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this morning the Department of Transportation announced an open skies agreement with Germany. Access to Germany, as Secretary Pena has recognized, is critical. I want to recognize the effort by the administration and the Secretary is aggressively pursuing an open skies agreement with Germany. The agreement today does three things. First, it will enable our carriers to satisfy consumer demand this summer. Second, the Secretary and the German Government also will sign an important safety agreement. Finally, the two countries have initialed an open skies agreement. The open skies agreement is the 10th with a European country and is a big step forward in our efforts to liberalize aviation agreements in Europe. Germany is the second largest European market. I caution my colleagues not to get over-confident--countries like the United Kingdom are not likely to jump on the bandwagon quickly. Each country and market differs. We also must focus on Japan, which I will discuss at a later date. This open skies agreement is a major step forward. With all of the praise forthcoming today for the administration and Secretary Pena, I want to raise one issue. The effective date of the open skies agreement is triggered by favorable treatment of an application for antitrust immunity by Lufthansa and United. I have been assured that the request will be treated separately, and that the two matters are not linked. I know the Departments of Justice and Transportation will review the request thoroughly. I would have preferred that consumer benefits of an open skies agreement not be held hostage to a subsequent and independent review of the antitrust issue. This open skies agreement, as the Secretary recognizes, is an important one. I hope that this agreement, and others in the future, are able to be implemented without extraneous issues encumbering the process. I am certain Secretary Pena shares my views and I congratulate him on this breakthrough today.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, shortly after Christmas, the New York Times printed a very one-sided portrayal of the National Guard. In that article, a senior Defense Department official is quoted as saying, ``There's a lot of the Army National Guard that's just irrelevant to our strategy. It's kind of like a welfare program for weekend warriors. * * *'' Aside from being grossly inappropriate, the statement is simply not true. Change is inevitable--not just for the Guard but for this Nation's military structure as a whole. And, while the Guard is prepared to face those new challenges, as we go forward, I'll continue to be guided by my unequivocal support for the Guard and by the knowledge that the Guard is in no way the problem, but rather the key to the solution. I can also assure my colleagues that some nameless, faceless bureaucrat who equates the Guard--with its stellar performances in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Haiti, the Sinai, and Bosnia--to a handout, will not be determining the Guard's fate. Instead, the Guard, sitting down as equals with the Army, will determine that future. That's the message I delivered a few weeks ago to the Adjutants General Conference, that's the message I delivered when the Governors met here for their annual meeting, and that's the message I bring to you today. Because when representatives of the National Guard sit down at the negotiating table with the Army, I intend for both the Governors and Congress to be solidly behind them. Our common goal has been to maximize the Guard's role both during times of war and peace, and to assure the Guard is ready and accessible. That goal has not changed. But, we must assure that this goal can adapt to the changing global, economic, technological, and political environment. I think that the Guard's accomplishments put us in an excellent position as we head into this debate, and ask the question, ``What are the military needs of this country, and how can we best meet them?'' We've already proven we can conform to the changing global demands being placed on our military. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, ``We can't be everywhere. We can't do everything. But where our interests and our values are at stake--and where we can make a difference--America must lead. We must not be isolationists or the world's policeman. But we can be its best peacemaker.'' The Guard has proven itself 100 percent as a necessary and vital part of America's peacekeeping force. Any discussions about the Guard's future must recognize the interdependability of the regular Army and the Guard, rather than continuing to see them as having separate missions. The Air Force and Air Guard are a perfect example of how we can make this integration work. Serving anywhere around the globe, there is no distinction between these two Air Forces. They fly as one, they work as one, and they succeed as one. Another issue often mentioned is the changing technology and its impact on our military makeup. Again, the Guard is keeping pace with the changing demands. I'll use this opportunity to brag on Kentucky a bit. Our western Kentucky training facility, in conjunction with the high-technology training available at Fort Knox, puts Kentucky and the National Guard at the forefront of this country's military training. Last year, 16,000 soldiers trained there. But, those numbers represent just the beginning in a long line of soldiers who will receive the best, state-of-the-art training this country has to offer. The Kentucky Guard is certainly not alone in its ability to adapt to new high-technology opportunities and demands. And, who better than our citizen-soldiers with their added professional skills, to meet the high-technology challenges of the future? We've seen how these additional skills constantly come into play--a chief of police providing the know-how to set up policing operations in Haiti is just one example--and we'll see it when the Guard uses its outside expertise for the high-technology military of the future. In the end, Mr. President, our greatest pleasure comes from budget realities and growing fiscal restraints. Last year, we essentially had to go in and write the Guard's resource and training needs into the budget. But, our hard work paid off and our priority items--Air National Guard force structure, military technician manning and the Army Guard operating funding--survived. This year, things will get even more difficult. And as General Baca conceded a few weeks ago, we'll not only have to confront the issue of force structure, we'll have to accept change. But, the Guard can be the architects of that change. In drawing up the plans for that change, I think we should be guided by the Adjutants General Association president, General Lawson's words. As he said last September, ``We may need less military, but we don't need the military less.'' Assistant Secretary of Defense Deborah Lee is right on target when she points out that our units cost 25 to 75 percent of active-duty counterparts. ``Making greater use of the reservists makes good sense in an area of shrinking budgets. This means that instead of reducing the Reserve components in the same direct proportion as the active components, more use should be made of reservists to control peacetime costs and to minimize the risks associated with active drawdown.'' And that last point is very important. As the executive officer of a Cobra helicopter squadron put it, ``If you dissolve units like this, it would take years to rebuild that ability if you ever needed it again.'' Major General Philbin put it another way: ``Since few conflicts evolve as anticipated, where would those reserve component forces be found if the Guard combat divisions are deactivated? The Army Reserve? Not structured for combat. Another draft? No time, since the Pentagon pundits are forecasting, however unrealistically, conflicts that arise like lightning bolts and are successfully concluded in a flash.'' When we go to the table to hammer out a new covenant with the Army, we must bring to the table our willingness to see changes to force structure. But we shouldn't leave behind our commitment to a relevant, viable and ready Guard that maintains a balanced force of combat, combat support, and combat service support, along with an equal level of command support to maintain balance across the Nation. These items will not be negotiable. We're at a crucial juncture that will have long-felt repercussions for the National Guard and the Nation as a whole. But I hope we've reached that juncture, with Congress behind the Guard, with the Governors behind the Guard, and most important, with the American people behind the Guard. That's because the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard find their roots in the history of this country, but equally important, in the communities of this country. If you look behind the words in the Guard's theme--``Capable, Accessible, Affordable''--what you'll find are average folks who've struggled through some of the worst disasters imaginable. They understand that taken together, these three words define with simplicity and clarity, the important dual Federal-State function of our National Guard, the decisive role they've played in our Nation's history, and will play in our Nation's future. And taken together, they decree what the Guard has been, what they can be, and what they will be. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to assure that the Guard continues to play a major role in this Nation's military structure and mission.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is necessarily absent.