Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving right to object, I will not object.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me express my appreciation to the Senator from Colorado for his working with Members this evening in order to arrive at what we think is a reasonable conclusion to his desire. I think and hope that it will reach what he is attempting to reach without having a confrontation. He has been very gentlemanly about it, and I do appreciate it. I hope that and believe that both sides will accept his amendment now and that we can move on to other amendments. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. FORD. I understand the Chair. The Senator has the right to modify his amendment without asking unanimous consent. I will not object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand where my friend from South Dakota comes from. But there is part A and part B under Medicare. Part A, we talk about the trustees and their reports. They gave us two reports. One is a $136 billion surplus today in part A; but in 7 years it will be down to minus $6 billion. Under part B, there is $17 billion in surplus today; and 7 years from now it will be $25 billion in surplus. The President has put out that he would want $89 billion in part A to make Medicare solvent for 10 years, and he has asked for a little bit more to make Medicare solvent. We agree with the problems of solvency. The President has three members on the board of trustees, or the commission, that reports to all of us annually. And so we have given a proposal. We do not want to take $270 billion out over 7 years. We do not want to cut another $240 billion out of Medicaid. So when you look at that, the reduction in the budget comes out of health care--comes out of health care. And something, in my opinion, has to be wrong when we are looking at children to be hurt, we are looking at the elderly to be hurt. And yet the headline in the Nashville Tennessean is, ``The GOP Plan Has Coddled the Rich and Socked It to the Poor.'' That is big 2-inch headlines across the banner of that newspaper. So when you say we have not given a program, it is out there. It is out there. And we are not scaring our old folks. We are trying to protect them. So, a little bit--a little bit is a whole lot better than trying to reach a tax cut. $240 billion is a figure we all want to remember--$245 billion. That is a tax cut. When you cut the expenditure of Government to balance the budget, that is one thing. And we are all for that. I am for it. But then you say you want to give a tax cut, that means you have got to cut more. So the problem now is not balancing the budget; the problem now is $245 billion that will be a tax cut. If we can get around to not using that or not giving it to the ultrarich, I think the balanced budget and the programs would go through very smoothly. There is no big argument about making Medicare solvent, no argument at all, but it is giving a $245 billion tax cut to the most wealthy in this country while you take a big hunk out of Medicaid. And I see the Alzheimer's patients under Medicaid, I see the Alzheimer's patients under Medicare. There are a lot of people in this Chamber that probably can use Medicare. I am of that age, others of that age. But the problem results in a $245 billion tax cut. If we did not have that, we would not have the problem. The ads would not be running. We would already have the appropriations bills out. We would be waiting for the conference to come back. We probably could meet our deadline of October 1 for the budget. I understand my time is probably up, and I thank the Chair for his friendly greetings. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, would the Senator from South Dakota withhold that motion?

Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed as in morning business for 2 minutes.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the Senator from California [Ms. Feinstein], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2615, As Modified

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2589

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. May we have order, Mr. President?

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2592

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today the Senate begins the debate on meaningful reform of the Federal Aviation Administration. With the introduction of the Air Traffic Management System Performance Improvement Act of 1995, we have fashioned a bipartisan approach with the administration on how to achieve the long term goal of maintaining the world's safest air transportation system. We could use a lot more bipartisan approaches to problems. The aviation industry is no different than the general public--they want rational solutions to difficult problems--not political cat fights. I began to search for ways to reform the FAA many years ago and in 1987, introduced S. 1600, a bill that would have made the FAA an independent agency. However, the problems today are different than those that prompted S. 1600. Today's problems are not about micro- management and internal disputes. The issue today has two parts--money and efficiency. The bill today addresses those issues in many ways. First it sets in motion a series of new systems to fund the agency, new systems for its people and programs. My goal is not to merely cover a funding problem, but to use money to derive a better agency. As a result, the fee systems that are to be set up will be difficult to design. No one wants to create discincentives. For example, in authorizing the FAA to collect fees for certification work, I want to make sure the FAA focuses its resources on what is needed. If the FAA chooses to merely use the certification fees as a means to [[Page S 13545]] raise revenue, they may choose to function like lawyers and charge by the hour, not by the product or value of the service. No one wants to encourage the FAA to run up bills for the sake of raising money. There is much work that needs to be done to assign fees. The industry, the FAA, the Department and the Committee need to continue to work out the best way to accomplish our goal. However, all parties must bear in mind that under the current set of assumptions, the FAA will need approximately $59 billion through 2002. However, under the budget resolution calls for only $47 billion. Somehow, we have got to recognize what this $12 billion gap means. To put it in perspective, it could mean the closure or elimination of many services that are now provided. Like many situations, when we begin to downsize, the smallest communities tend to bear the brunt of cuts. Air traffic control towers at small airports, which are critical to the economic development of our small communities, could be the first to go. Flight service stations that handle general aviation traffic also could be on the first list of closures. In addition, do any of us really want to think of an air traffic control system with fewer controllers than we have today? If current trends are correct, by the year 2002, we will have a 35- percent increase in passenger traffic, and an 18-percent increase in operations. Absent financial reform, the FAA will experience a 14- percent decline in funding. These statistics will mean only one thing-- an FAA without an ability to meet its safety mission and without adequate funding to meet air traffic control demands. Today, the Chicago center in Aurora experienced its second outage in recent months. I know the National Transportation Safety Board is looking into ATC problems now, but we must recognize that without the ability to modernize, and quickly, problems like Chicago may reoccur. With respect to the bill, it does not create a corporation, nor does it make the agency independent. Instead, the bill strikes a balance. Regulatory and budget issues will be coordinated between the Secretary and the Administrator. In other areas such as personnel and procurement, the Administrator will have authority. These changes are important and will change how FAA manages its business. The goal, and one we all share, is an FAA with the ability to act quickly, and be able to count on funding. The bill today asks many segments of the industry for help in supporting the FAA's mission. I do not ask airlines, manufacturers, and others for their financial support lightly and I know that bill be controversial. But something has got to change. I have a choice--I can look at the FAA, and the budget assumptions and do nothing, or I can work to make sure that the safety of the traveling public is protected. After 21 years in Congress, having spent many years as Aviation Subcommittee chairman and now ranking Democrat, I can tell you that we have got to act. The bottom line, unfortunately, is that the travelling public simply can not count on funding for the FAA under the drive to balance the budget. To those that will object, we will continue to work with you on FAA reform. There is much we agree on, and a lot of work to be done. I also want to point out that while the House bill differs from the bill we are introducing today, we share a common goal--a better FAA.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2527

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. The Chair can call names.

Mr. FORD. They are major, though.

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. And I say to my friend, the majority leader, there are some that are very involved, and the floor manager here understands that very well. We have not been able to check about the time limits on food stamps. If we could do sequence, then work out the time agreements after that, I think that would be best. But as far as agreeing to a time as it relates to these amendments, it would be very difficult for us to do it at this time unless we could get all of those Senators that are involved and interested in the particular amendments that are going to be brought forward. We are talking about basically six amendments here, and one of them you cannot give a time agreement on; one you have the time agreement for an hour on the three; but then that does not include time in opposition, so 2 hours. I would be put in a very untenable position to having to object. I see the minority leader is here, the Democratic leader is here now. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisana [Mr. Breaux] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.