Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we should keep it going. It is the ninth amendment.

Mr. FORD. I do not know. I have not seen it. Apparently, the Budget Committee ranking member is willing to accept it.

Mr. FORD. That would be the Senator's prerogative.

Mr. FORD. We just now got it.

Mr. FORD. We do not even know what it is yet.

Mr. FORD. We just got it. We do not know who to go to here or to have debate or if we want to even debate. This is getting completely out of hand, and we are not doing it properly. We are not being fair to either side. I think that we should stop now and go back and get it in order. And we will have ours. You had the first three, and then we get one, and we can tell you who that is and what it is about. But I think we ought to take a few minutes, get them in order so we will know and we can have a decent 5-minute debate on each amendment on the floor. Now, I think the Senator from New Mexico agrees with me because he has been a little bit frustrated by not being able to get them in the order in which he told me that we were going to get them. So, Mr. President, I urge that we just take some time to get the amendments, because we do not know what the Senator from Colorado is going to offer, except the question mark. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. The only thing we have on the Brown amendment is a question mark?

Mr. FORD. Third tier.

Mr. FORD. Now, am I to understand that there will only be 10 out of the 17 that the Senator will give us?

Mr. FORD. That is a question mark on the list the Senator gave to us?

Mr. FORD. Brown is a question mark?

Mr. FORD. We have a Brown amendment, and Senator Brown is not even on the list of 17 given to us. And the first four that were given to us-- --

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just a minute? We were looking for what these amendment are. Can we have those? It just says ``Finance Committee amendment,'' and we do not know what it is. We need a little bit of information. That was required of us last night. I thank the Chair. I am grateful to the Senator. I thank him. Amendment No. 2964 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the need to raise the Social Security earnings limit)

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. So we are caught in the dilemma here now that if the Republicans take a full hour and we do not take but say 10 minutes, then we lose 25 minutes of which they could get on the next amendment. It seems like there ought to be some other way. If we did not want to use our time or the Republican side did not want to use their time, we could save that for an amendment we would like. But the rules are the rules, and I understand.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the question is, What happens if the Democrats just take 10 minutes? They lose half of 50 minutes, which is 25 minutes?

Mr. FORD. Will the chairman of the Budget Committee answer a question?

Mr. FORD. Now, this amendment has 2 hours. At the end of the 2-hour period, an amendment in the second degree, which would have an hour, would be in order; is that right?

Mr. FORD. We have set both of those aside in this agreement here, and we have an amendment in the first degree.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. FORD. As I understand it, we have a motion before the Senate and then we have a first-degree amendment. We do not have an amendment in the second degree here; is that right?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished majority leader, when do we vote? Are all the votes going to be stacked? It appears to this Senator that once you debate an amendment, you debate the second- degree, you ought to vote on it and then we lose--maybe that is what you want to do--but it seems to me that once an amendment is debated, if there is a second-degree amendment, that is debated and, at that point, we ought to vote on it rather than keep stacking. I know you are trying to work out an arrangement here, but something is going to be retroactive based on whatever the agreement might be. I just hope that at some point we will get to where we can vote and get that part behind us. We understand probably the numbers of the votes, but there might be a surprise or two in this.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I do not believe that the bill has been laid down yet this morning. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, in 1987, a study was made of a major bridge connecting my State of Kentucky and the State of Indiana. It was determined--this was on a major highway--that the bridge's life would be no more than 15 years as it related to the ability to carry major loads. At that time, Gov. Wallace Wilkinson decided that he would do everything he could to replace that bridge, and $10 million of Kentucky money was put up front. To make a long story short, the people of that area approached then Congressman William H. Natcher, who was on the Appropriations Committee in the House, and was chairman a little bit later of the Appropriations Committee in the House. And after much study and discussion, in order to speed up the ability to have the funds as it related to that particular bridge, it was decided that it should become a demonstration project. Otherwise, it could have been delayed for a long, long time. The bridge was then designated, through Congressman Natcher's effort, as a demonstration project, and the construction started through the design, and almost 7 miles of road now has been built. That road has been built up to the river bank. The approach has been built on the Indiana side. And two piers have been built in the middle of the Ohio River. Mr. President, Congressman Natcher was an unusual individual. Using his influence in the Appropriations Committee, he could have funded this bridge up front, some $80 million, the State paying the balance. But instead of doing that, Congressman Natcher would only take what was necessary for that one 12-month period, leaving the balance of the money then for his colleagues on the committee to use as they saw necessary. Unfortunately, the death of Congressman Natcher eliminated a powerful voice and one who could be depended upon to fund the bridge. After the demonstration projects were eliminated on the House side and on the Senate side, Congressman Natcher was able to get some money in the bill as it related to appropriations and directed a line item for this particular bridge. After Congressman Natcher's untimely and unfortunate death, no funds were included on the House side as it related to the bridge. I worked with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee here in the Senate. We were able to make a modest contribution to the construction. Now we have a budget going through the House and Senate with not one thin dime in there for that bridge. As I said, there has been a lot of work done, four lanes now, for 7 miles on the Kentucky side, right up to the river bank. On the other side, the approach has been constructed by the State of Indiana. Two piers stick out of the Ohio River. We say, no, we are not going to finish or complete that bridge, with $58 million already expended. I have an amendment I wanted to put on reconciliation to fund the bridge because it is a very necessary bridge because we are getting close to the day when the present bridge will not be able to carry traffic. That means trucks will have to go at least 100 miles out of their way in order to make deliveries in order to serve our area. It is very important to the economic development of both the northern part of western Kentucky and the southern part of Indiana, a very key economic development tool, the life of that particular area. In checking, Mr. President, on this particular amendment, I understand that the Budget Committee--which has the right to do so-- would make a point of order against my amendment and that it would require 60 votes, a supermajority, in order for me to pass the amendment. Of course, I know I cannot do that. There are things in this life that you realize cannot be done. You accept that and move on. Well, I accept this for the moment. I accept this for the moment. We are going to revisit this question time and time again because it is an abomination for a major highway to have a major bridge constructed to a point--two piers sticking out of the Ohio River--and not a dime to complete it. My State is not a wealthy State, but the money is available by the State to pay for its part, and it has paid more than its part in the designation of the highway to the bridge and the four-lane facility, and the bridge will be a four-lane facility and has been recognized as one of the outstanding designs for not only design but safety that we have had in this country. Mr. President, I regret the attitude of the Budget Committee. At least I thought I might have a fighting chance to be able to secure the funds for this bridge. However, if the Members on the other side stick together, then I have no chance. I just wanted the record to reflect this morning that my constituents and those in Indiana are being denied infrastructure, that $58 million of our tax dollars have been spent, and they say, ``No, we will not build the rest of it.'' It seems to me that it is no longer a demonstration project, with $58 million having been spent, the piers being built in the river, and the span now is all that is lacking. This new majority here in the Congress has said to my people, ``We are not going to finish it. It is up to you.'' They even reduced the funds to my State by some $45 million for this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, and they say, ``Just take it out of your funds and build it.'' Well, that is not easy to swallow. I do not intend to see my people denied something that is real, something that is necessary, and something I do not think you could hold fault with, take umbrage with, because of its need, and we are in the position which we are in. Mr. President, I will file my amendment. I will not call it up. I want it to be on record. It will be there. I will offer it this afternoon, at least file it at the desk and let my colleagues know of my interest and how much damage they are doing to the commerce from south to north that goes through Tennessee, Kentucky, on into Indiana, that hooks up with interstate highways. It will cause major economic devastation to our area. Many companies that have built there, that have come there, have been depending on this mode of transportation because trucks are important to the new development of new businesses that have come into that area. Mr. President, again, I regret that the majority has said to my people and those in southern Indiana that we are just going to let the piers stick out of the river like two sore spots and not complete the bridge. Mr. President, I imagine my 5 minutes are up. I know the Chair is patient, and I appreciate that, but I did want the record to reflect that I am very disappointed in the way that the constituents in Indiana and Kentucky have been treated in this particular budget for this particular item. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, over the next few days, we will be debating the logic of a $245 billion tax break that adds to the deficit and cuts dangerously deep into critical programs for middle-income Americans-- from Medicare to education. My Republican colleagues will justify adding to the deficit and making those cuts by striking the familiar refrain that these tax breaks will boost the economy. But Mr. President, those tax breaks are not only jeopardizing important investments in our future economy like education and job training, they're jeopardizing critical infrastructure improvements that mean much more to local economies than a tax break for America's wealthiest few. One of those infrastructure projects is a bridge linking my home State of Kentucky with Indiana. Without a doubt, the Natcher Bridge would mean much more to the local economies of Kentucky and Indiana than this tax break. From the increased interstate commerce to making the region more attractive to future businesses, industry, and tourism, the Natcher Bridge is a long-term investment for every Kentuckian and Hossier. But, unfortunately, it was sold down the river for a tax break for a wealthy few. I have filed and had planned to offer an amendment to the Budget Reconciliation bill authorizing funding for the Natcher Bridge connecting Kentucky to Indiana. It would be offset by reducing the Republicans' $500 per child tax credit from the proposed income cap of $110,000 to $100,000. However, it's my understanding that the same Republicans who killed this bridge project, will also raise a point of order against my amendment. That means I would have to get a super majority for approval of my amendment. Without that huge road block, I think I could have persuaded my colleagues on the merits of finishing this project. That's right. Not starting this project--but finishing this project. It's a little bit like the young officer who pointed to the place on the map he planned to have the troops cross the river. ``Excellent,'' remarked this superior, ``but your finger is not a bridge.'' Well neither are two piers sticking out of the Ohio River. Nearly $56 million in State and Federal funds have been spent on this bridge so far. Along with that financial commitment you'll find the initial stages of a new 7.4 mile, four-lane section of U.S. 60 that should--and I stress should--connect with a 4.7 mile highway leading to the bridge. We began this bridge project back in 1988, because the current bridge was deemed incapable of dealing with future capacity, fated to become functionally obsolete. Because of the serious capacity concerns, we had to find the quickest and most efficient way to allocate funds--a demonstration project. Kentucky was very lucky to have Congressman William Natcher working diligently to get yearly funding for the bridge. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to get total funding for the bridge in just 1 year. But at the time, that would have been over $80 million in Federal funds and Mr. Natcher just wasn't that way. He didn't want to take any money away from other States, and leave them in a pinch. He just took what was essential to the bridge's progress each year. With his passing, the job of securing funds became much harder, but certainly not less worthy. Despite the fact that it was not included in the House Transportation Appropriations bill last year, I was able to secure the next installment. That's because my colleagues recognized at the time that the Natcher Bridge was a critical link in our national infrastructure. That hasn't changed. And, ending this project now--with nearly $56 million already invested--would be a considerable waste of Federal and State funding, not to mention all but shutting the door to the economically important I-64 corridor for these communities. While I will not be offering this amendment today, I will be offering it in the future. Because the communities on either side of the river, and those businesses counting on that corridor for moving their goods safely and efficiently, know that building this bridge should come before providing a tax break to those making $110,000.