Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order. She deserves to be heard.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley- Braun], the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is absent on official business. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] would vote ``aye.'' I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley- Braun], the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] are absent on official business. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Mosely-Braun] and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would each vote nay.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley- Braun], the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is absent on official business. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] and the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley- Braun] would each vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Change of Vote

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a question? Did I understand him to say that following the disposition of the cloture vote on Dr. Foster, however that turns out, that we move back, then, to the highway bill?

Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. FORD. I wanted to be sure about that. There was some discussion earlier that we might set the highway bill aside and go to S. 240. I thought it would be much better to finish the highway bill and then go to S. 240.

Mr. FORD. All right.

Mr. FORD. What about S. 240?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator, and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I, like Senator Dole, oppose Dr. Foster's nomination to be Surgeon General. However, I refuse to become a pawn in Senator Gramm's Presidential politics. This cloture vote has Presidential one- upmanship written all over it, and it is a disservice to the American public. I agree with my colleague who said this vote represents the first Republican primary. This is about Presidential politics, pure and simple. If we had played by these rules in the past, James Watt would not have become Secretary of the Interior, Ed Meese would not have become Attorney General, Samuel Pierce would not have been HUD Secretary, Clarence Thomas would not be on the Supreme Court, and Robert Bork would not have had an up-or-down vote. Mr. President, I will vote against Dr. Foster, but I think he is entitled to a vote. I agree with those who say we should vote to invoke cloture so then we can vote for the nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I announce that the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Biden], the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. Breaux], the Senator from California, [Mrs. Feinstein], the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. Pryor], and the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] 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. FORD

Mr. FORD. As the majority leader indicated as it relates to the line--item veto, I voted for the line-item veto when it left here because I think it is important that we put that into the structure. When I spoke earlier, just before passage of the line-item veto legislation, I tried to tell my colleagues that the proposal that left here, in my opinion, was too cumbersome; that if we had the Interior appropriations bill that we had last session, there would be 2,040 pieces of legislation under that one bill. Then the President would have to sign 2,040 pieces of legislation in order to either sign them or veto them or line item it, however it might be. So it really is not a line-item veto; it becomes a multiple choice. It reminds me when I was Governor that we would have a commission authorized, the Governor, to go to New York to sign bonds for highway projects, or whatever it might be. They give you one pen and there would be 49 other pens up there and you sign your name down here and the other 49 pens would work and all those bonds would move aside and then you sign them again. That is basically what we are trying to do, I think, or cause the President to have to do once these pieces of legislation come up for line-item veto. When I was Governor I had three options. I had line-item veto. The three options: one, I could line item it and send a message to the legislature why I had vetoed or line itemed that particular piece of legislation or that item in that legislation. The legislature could consider it. They could either sustain the Governor's veto or override it. The second option I had was to reduce an amount. If we did not need to spend all of it--we had a 2-year budget, we did not need to spend all that money in the first year. We could reduce it, and you draw a line through it, initial it, send a message to the legislature, and they could either sustain or override the veto. The third option I had was to line item a phrase. That may be a direction--``You cannot use any money for so and so,'' or ``If you are going to use money, you have to do it this way.'' The Governor had the right to eliminate a phrase. Those are the only three things. It was simple, direct, and the legislature had an opportunity to sustain or override the veto. What I am asking tonight, as the conferees were appointed for the line-item veto legislation in conference, is that they look very seriously at what the Senate has done in sending their piece of legislation to conference. I think simpler is better. It is easy, it is direct. A message must come. And that message, then, can either be accepted or declined. Either sustain the veto or override the veto. I think that is what we ought to do. Mr. President, I voted in support of the line-item veto when it left here in the hopes that it would be reduced and made somewhat simple so we could line-item veto, we could partially veto --or a phrase; it does not have to be all. A line-item veto, when you try to explain it to your constituents back home, they think that gives the President the right to take some pork out of the budget. Right now he has to sign 2,040 pieces of legislation for one appropriations bill. Just one. We are getting into thousands and thousands of pieces of legislation. I think that is wrong. I hope the conferees will take into consideration my remarks tonight. I would be glad to work with them in any way. And several in this Chamber have had experience as Governors using the line-item veto. In my 4 years as Governor, it was seldom even considered. It can be done and I think it can be done in the right sort of way. I thank the Chair for its courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the language and the words of my distinguished friend [[Page S 8656]] from Louisiana. Having been a Governor, I understand what the Federal Government can do to you or for you. What we are trying to do now is to dump this problem off onto the States. It is the biggest unfunded mandate that I have seen in all the time I have been here. Just send the package down there minus 20 or 30 percent and say we have cut the budget and we sent all our problems to the States. The States now can do whatever they want to. And I can see a Governor out there having an opportunity to use some of this money that would be very politically helpful to him or to her. The welfare and the welfare program in the various and sundry States would not be helped. This is a question that everybody has read. People want welfare reform. They want it done sooner than later. But the idea of sooner, of just saying we are going to send it all down to the States and we are going to cut 20 to 30 percent of the funding and let the States have at it, I think, is the wrong attitude. We all need to sit down because I think all of us, both Democrat and Republican, would like to come up with a reasonable solution to welfare reform. If we can do that, that will be, I think, a star in the crown of the 104th Congress. I urge my colleagues to sit down with us and try to work out something that would be acceptable. I think we have a good package. If it is passed, I think it would be helpful to the future. There would be other good ideas. So let us put them in the same basket. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Moseley-Braun be added to the cloture motion filed with regard to the nomination of Dr. Foster.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. The Senator from California used the rate increase of 40 percent. That was from GAO sending out a postcard and asking you to respond. And only those responded that had a very low increased rate. Some areas went as high as 200 percent. And I can name those to you. So 40 percent is a low figure. And I think we ought to remember that and pay attention to the Senator's amendment.

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for just 1 minute?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, he may be giving away the dome on the Capitol Building. We want to know.