Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Again, I thank the Senator from Montana and wish him luck in this effort next year. The community broadcasters of the nation have earned a permanent place on the broadcast spectrum.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the 105th Congress is likely to adjourn without enacting S. 1427, the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1998. Even so, I want to provide my colleagues a status report on the bill and advise them of the prospects for passage next year. The principal purpose of S. 1427 is to provide permanent ``Class A licenses'' for low-power broadcasters. Currently these broadcasters have secondary status, which means that they can be bumped from their place on the spectrum by a full-power station. Without permanent status, these broadcasters have a hard time obtaining long-term capital. After introducing this legislation last year, I worked with the staff of the Federal Communications Committee to refine the bill. In pursuing this matter, I have sought to provide a degree of certainty for low power broadcasters without creating any unintended consequences for other users of the spectrum. The result, which was reported from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on October 1, has achieved that goal. The core mission of low power broadcasters is to provide programming for local communities that are not served by full power stations. These under-served communities may be in rural areas or in large metropolitan areas. In my state, we have a low-power station that provides programming that is geared to the interests of rural Kentuckians. However, in Washington, D.C., low power broadcasters provide Spanish language programming to meet the needs of the Hispanic population in this area. The FCC has recognized the unique role that community broadcasters play in providing programming to under-served audiences. Earlier this year, when I asked Chairman Kennard for his comments on the legislation, he responded favorably. Chairman Kennard said, ``Having reviewed the legislation, I have no major concerns with the bill.'' Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator McCain, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator Hollings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and my other colleagues on the committee for their support of this legislation. As of today, 13 members of the Commerce Committee have joined as cosponsors. Also I want to express my appreciation to Senator Burns, the chairman of the Communications Subcommittee. Senator Burns has cosponsored S. 1427, and he has advised that he will introduce this legislation when the 106th Congress convenes next year. I thank my colleague for his continued interest in and support for community broadcasters. I am very pleased to leave this legislation in the capable hands of the Senator from Montana.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Bumpers), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, in the closing days of the 105th Congress, it appears that S. 1802, a bill to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Board, may not be enacted into law. I hope that the STB is not penalized in any way for the failure of Congress to enact S. 1802. In fact, I want my colleagues to know that Linda Morgan, the current chairman of the STB, is well respected within the Senate on both sides of the aisle. She was a valued member of the staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for several years. The work ethic, honesty and balance that she demonstrated as a member of the Committee's professional staff have been evidenced also at the STB. Linda Morgan and her staff have handled a significant number of complex matters in a timely, thorough manner despite very limited resources. Just one example of the Board's evenhanded approach is the exhaustive review of the acquisition of Conrail by CSX and Norfolk Southern. This transaction will yield significant competitive and environmental benefits, not only in Kentucky but throughout the Eastern United States. The Board's evenhanded, professional approach in reviewing this major transaction and assessing the public benefits is indicative of the excellent work that Chairman Morgan and the Board have done since its creation. As a result, I support S. 1802 and hope that the bill could still become law before the conclusion of the 105th Congress. Also, I urge the Administration to renominate Ms. Morgan for an additional term as Chairman of the STB. She is a proven, well-qualified public servant, and she has earned the opportunity to complete the work that she has started.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. In the event of an oil spill, a responsible party not only must manage the cleanup of the oil and the civil liability resulting from the spill itself, but also must protect itself from the criminal liability that now exists due to the available and willing use of strict liability criminal laws by the Federal Government. Managing the pervasive threat of strict criminal liability, by its very nature, prevents a responsible party from cooperating fully and completely in response to an oil spill situation. The OPA90 ``blueprint'' is no longer clear. Is this serving the objectives of OPA90? Does this really serve the public welfare of our nation? Is this what congress had in mind when it mandated its spill response regime? Is this in the interest of the most immediate, most effective oil spill cleanup in the unfortunate event of a spill? We think not.

Mr. FORD. In the maritime industry's continuing effort to improve its risk management process, it seeks to identify and address all foreseeable risks associated with the operation of its business. Through fleet modernization, personnel training, and all other reasonable steps to address identified risks in its business, the industry still cannot manage or avoid the increased risks of strict criminal liability (again, a liability that has no regard to fault or intent). The only method available to companies and their officers to avoid the risk of criminal liability completely is to divest themselves from the maritime business of transporting oil and other petroleum products, in effect to get out of the business altogether. Furthermore, strict liability criminal laws provide a strong disincentive for trained, highly experienced mariners to continue the operation of tank vessels, and for talented and capable individuals from even entering into that maritime trade. A recent editorial highlighted the fact that tugboat captains ``are reporting feelings of intense relief and lightening of their spirits when they are ordered to push a cargo of grain or other dry cargo, as compared to the apprehension they feel when they are staring out of their wheelhouses at tank barges'', and ``that the reason for this is very obvious in the way that they find themselves instantly facing criminal charges * * * in the event of a collision or grounding and oil or chemicals end up in the water''. These views were eloquently expressed as well by two tank vessel masters in a recent House hearing on strict criminal liability for oil pollution. Certainly, the federal government does not want to create a situation where the least experienced mariners are the only available crew to handle the most hazardous cargoes, or the least responsible operators are the only available carriers. Thus, the unavoidable risk of such criminal liability directly and adversely affects the safe transportation of oil products, an activity essential for the public, the economy, and the nation.

Mr. FORD. As my colleague from Louisiana has most ably demonstrated, OPA90 is working in a truly meaningful sense. To prevent oil spill incidents from occurring in the first place, OPA90 provides an enormously powerful deterrent through both its criminal and civil liability provisions. Moreover, OPA90 mandates prompt reporting of spills, contingency planning, and both cooperation and coordination with federal, state, and local authorities in connection with managing the spill response. Failure to report and cooperate as required by OPA90 may impose automatic civil penalties, criminal liability and unlimited civil liability. As a result, the number of domestic oil spills has been dramatically reduced over the past eight years since OPA90 was enacted. Coast Guard statistics reflect that in 1990 there were a total of 35 major and medium oil spills, seven of which were major spills. In 1997, as a direct result of OPA90, there were no major oil spills and the number of medium spills had been reduced to eight. In those limited situations in which oil spills unfortunately occurred, intensive efforts commenced immediately with federal, state and local officials working in a joint, unified manner with the industry, as contemplated by OPA90, to clean up and report spills as quickly as possible and to mitigate to the greatest extent any impact on the environment. OPA90 has provided a comprehensive and cohesive ``blueprint'' for proper planning, training, and resource identification to respond to an oil spill incident, and to ensure that such a response is properly and cooperatively managed. OPA90 also provides a complete statutory framework for proceeding against individuals for civil and/or criminal penalties arising out of oil spills in the marine environment. When Congress crafted this Act, it carefully balanced the imposition of stronger criminal and civil penalties with the need to promote enhanced cooperation among all of the parties involved in the spill prevention and response effort. In so doing, the Congress clearly enumerated the circumstances in which criminal penalties could be imposed for actions related to maritime oil spills. In particular, OPA90 properly imposes criminal liability for negligent violations and provides for punishment of up to one year imprisonment and/or fines between $2500 and $25,000 per day. The punishment for each knowing violation was increased by OPA90 to up to three years imprisonment and/or fines between $5000 and $50,000 per day. Furthermore, OPA90 added and/or substantially increased criminal penalties under other pre-existing laws which comprehensively govern the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products.

Mr. FORD. As my colleague from Louisiana well knows, most liquid cargo transportation companies on the coastal and inland waterway system of the United States have embraced safe operation and risk management as two of their most important and fundamental values. For example, members of the American Waterways Operators (AWO) from Kentucky, Louisiana, and other states have implemented stronger safety programs that have significantly reduced personal injuries to mariners. Tank barge fleets have been upgraded through construction of new state- of-the-art double hulled tank barges while obsolete single skin barges are being retired far in advance of the OPA90 timetable. Additionally, AWO members have dedicated significant time and financial resources to provide continuous and comprehensive education and training for vessel captains, crews and shore side staff, not only in the operation of vessels but also in preparation for all contingencies that could occur in the transportation of oil products. As of today, more than 90 percent of the tugboats, towboats and barges owned and operated by AWO member companies are in compliance with the AWO Responsible Carrier Program (RCP), a program developed by the towing industry, on its own initiative, to improve the overall safety, efficiency, and quality of its marine operations. The RCP, complemented by advanced training programs such as the ground breaking wheelhouse resource management and simulator training program for towboat operators, is greatly enhancing the professionalism of mariners engaged in the transportation of oil products. Mr. President, I know that the commitment to marine safety and environmental protection by responsible members of the oil transportation industry from Kentucky and elsewhere is real. They continue to work closely with the Coast Guard to upgrade regulatory standards in such key areas as towing vessel operator qualifications and navigation equipment on towing vessels. That commitment is demonstrated by industry-driven safety initiatives like the Responsible Carrier Program mentioned above and the Coast Guard-AWO Partnership, which brings the leadership of the industry together with government to solve marine safety and environmental protection problems.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, to illustrate Senator Beaux's point, please permit me to present a scenario that highlights the dilemma faced by the maritime oil transportation industry in Kentucky. Imagine, if you will, that a company is operating a towing vessel in compliance with Coast Guard regulations on the Mississippi River on a calm, clear day with several fully laden tank barges in tow. Suddenly, in what was charted and previously identified to be a clear portion of the waterway, one of the tank barges strikes an unknown submerged object which shears through its hull and causes a significant oil spill in the river. Unfortunately, in addition to any other environmental damage that may occur, the oil spill kills one or more migratory birds. As you know, under OPA90 the operator must immediately undertake coordinated spill response actions with the Coast Guard and other federal, state, and local agencies to safeguard the vessel and its crew, clean up the oil spill, and otherwise mitigate any damage to the surrounding environment. The overriding objectives at this critical moment are to assure personnel and public safety and to clean up the oil spill as quickly as possible without constraint. However, in the current atmosphere the operator must take into consideration the threat of strict criminal liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, together with their attendant imprisonment and fines, despite the reasonable care and precautions taken in the operation and navigation of the two and in the spill response effort. Indeed, in the Coast Guard's recently issued environmental enforcement directive, the statement is made that ``[t]he decision to commit the necessary Coast Guard resources to obtain the evidence that will support a criminal prosecution must often be made in the very early stages of a pollution incident.'' Any prudent operator will quickly recognize the dilemma in complying with the mandate to act cooperatively with all appropriate public agencies in cleaning up the oil spill, while at the same time those very agencies may be conducting a criminal investigation of that operator. Vessel owners and their employees who have complied with federal laws and regulations and have exercised all reasonable care should not continue to face a substantial risk of imprisonment and criminal fines under such strict liability statutes. Criminal liability, when appropriately imposed under OPA90, should be employed only where a discharge is caused by conduct which is truly ``criminal'' in nature, i.e., where a discharge is caused by reckless, intentional or other conduct deemed criminal by OPA90.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Maryland.

Mr. FORD. I say to my friend from Idaho, I have 15 minutes. The Senator from Maryland would like to have a couple of minutes. I ask my time be extended so I can give him up to 5 minutes.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to give everybody some time, but I don't have but 15 minutes myself. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might have 20 minutes so I can yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I do not object.

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I am sure I won't. Let me check for just a moment.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and will take my time later because some here need to go ahead. I am happy to yield. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to make a few brief remarks, share a few thoughts, and express my heart felt thanks to a number of individuals who have made my life in the Senate a little bit easier and a little bit more enjoyable than it otherwise would have been. I have been privileged to serve in this body since December 28, 1974. As I look back, it is amazing how much progress we have made as a country during that period. The average life expectancy in this country has increased by 4 years. The average per capita income after adjusting for inflation, has risen 40 percent during this time period. The portion of adults with at least a high school diploma has risen from about two-thirds of adults to more than four-fifths. The percentage of adults with at least a bachelor's degree has risen from 14 percent to 25 percent. So we are living longer and healthier lives, we are wealthier, and we are better educated. And the quality of life has improved in many other ways as well. We have an almost unlimited ability to communicate. The developments with computers in recent years have been almost breathtaking. Children understand computers at an early age--often before they even start school. The percentage of homes with computers keeps rising. We have cell phones and laptops and cable TV and satellite dishes and fax machines. Our access to information is better and faster than ever. We have opportunities to travel more, live in bigger homes, and eat more nutritious meals. We spend more on entertainment than ever. But Mr. President, our challenges are probably greater than ever. I entered the Senate at the beginning of a period of deep cynicism and distrust of government, having just come through the Vietnam war and Watergate. We have always had a very healthy distrust of government in this country, but 1974 was an especially troublesome time. And I have witnessed a fascinating national debate on the role of government during the period since. The cynicism from Watergate evolved into a crisis of confidence in our country, and a growing feeling by some through the 1980's that government was the major source of many problems in our society, not the solution. But the debate of the role of government has continued to evolve. I think we are at the point today where there is a fairly broad consensus among Americans about certain aspects of government. There is a consensus about certain things that Americans want from their government--a strong defense, the best educational system in the world, managing the economy in an efficient way, including balanced budgets, low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, and the least amount of taxation and regulation possible. Americans want fair rules in the workplace and the marketplace, from family leave to fair trade to basic consumer protection. They want an adequate infrastructure to sustain a successful and growing economy. And they expect minimal safety and health protections, from law enforcement to food and drug safety to providing health care for the elderly and the poor. I have found that almost all of my colleagues want these things as well. We often differ on the best approach, or the best philosophy, for meeting these goals and providing what our constituents want, but we are all basically after the same things. Some of my colleagues on the other side of aisle still use the rhetoric from the 1980's about being for lower taxes and smaller government. Who could be against that? But most of these same colleagues are also for all of the things I just mentioned. They would agree with me that these are all things that our constituents demand and expect us to address. We all want the smallest government possible, but we want government to deliver on all of these things. So it is a challenge for all of us. And the future challenges for the next Congress and beyond will be even more complex. I mentioned earlier that we are living longer. The standard retirement age has not gone up since I came to the Senate. In fact, the average private sector retirement age has gone down. But we live longer. The percentage of the population age 65 and older is up to about 13 percent today, and is projected to continue to grow. During my tenure in the Senate, I have seen federal spending on Social Security grow from $64 to $380 billion. I have seen Medicare spending increase from $13 to $220 billion. And roughly half of Medicaid spending, which has gone from $7 to $100 billion in the budget, is attributable to nursing home care. These three areas alone--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--have gone from about 25 percent of the total budget to roughly 42 percent of the total budget. Without question, the major budget issue in the next few years is how we deal with the costs associated with the elderly. And it is a quality issue as well. Many of the same trends which are currently affecting managed care in the private sector will certainly affect the quality of medical care received by the elderly. I wish we had made more progress in these areas before my time in the Senate expired. I wish my colleagues well in addressing these issues and urge them to do so earlier rather than later. I know many colleagues share my sentiments. The other area I would urge my colleagues to address is the financing and operation of campaigns. Here is an area that has changed dramatically during my 24 years. When I announced my retirement from the Senate, I mentioned the two ``M's,''--Money and Meanness--as major reasons why I chose not to run again. Now that we are in the midst of the current campaign season, I believe even stronger about this issue. As reported in the newspaper yesterday, PACs have collected almost $360 million in the last 18 months. We all like to say that the money does not influence how we vote and how we think, but, truthfully, it is a matter of degree. There needs to be a stronger ethic of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest. We need more of that in politics--much more of it. Senators who solicit campaign contributions and then within a very short period of time are casting votes and making decisions on matters which greatly affect both the contributors and the Senator's constituents place themselves in very difficult situations. It goes to the heart of our system of Democracy, and whether it works or will continue to work. There has got to be a better way. There are also a lot of ideas around here on how to make a better way. I can only hope some of these ideas are translated into law in the very near future. So, Mr. President, I wish may colleagues well. I will miss the institution dearly. I will miss the daily interaction with my colleagues, many of whom have become such dear friends to me. Let me thank you for your friendship. And lastly, let me thank staff. My personal office staff, both here and in the state offices, have been like family to me. I have tried to treat them that way, and it has been mutual. The committee staff and floor staff I have been privileged to work with over the years have all been great to me as well--they make this place run and make us all look good from time to time. I thank them all for their support and service to our country. This country would not be nearly what it is without office, committee and floor staff. As I leave the Senate, please know that I will keep you all in my thoughts and prayers, and wish all of you good luck and happiness in the years to come. Mr. President, for perhaps the last time, I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, as the 105th Congress comes to a close, I want to take a moment to say thank you to my fellow colleagues who, like me, will be retiring this year. I came to the Senate in 1974 with Senators Glenn and Bumpers. It was a different time, when campaigns were still won by going door to door, when the Senate itself was much more open to compromise and bipartisanship. Despite the changes in the Senate, Senator Bumpers has continued to be a voice for his State, never giving up the fight for something in which he believed. And when the Senate itself began to listen, they began to respond. In fact, after fighting 19 years to reform the National Parks concessions operations, he finally won approval of the legislation on last Thursday. And while it's true the Senate long ago lost its reputation as a place of eloquent debate, my colleague from Arkansas has proven time and again the power of words with his skillful oratory, whether the issue was arms control, education or balancing the budget. In all my years here in Washington, I was never so moved as I was by a speech he gave on preserving the Manassas, Virginia, Civil War Battlefield. He not only changed votes, but he reminded his colleagues and the American people that our greatest strength lies in our ability to give voice to our beliefs and to our constituent's concerns. Like Mark Twain who came into this world with Halley's comet and left this world with the return, Senator Glenn came into the public eye with his historic orbit around the earth and he will close out his public career with another historic flight into space. In between, he's demonstrated over and over that he's truly made of the ``right stuff.'' As the ``Almanac of American Politics'' wrote, he is ``the embodiment of the small town virtues of family, God-fearing religion, duty, patriotism and hard work . . .''. And over the years, he has brought the same fight and determination that made him a brilliant fighter pilot to his efforts to expand educational opportunities, increase funding for scientific research, to clean up nuclear waste sites, promote civil rights and to make our government more efficient. Despite their long list of contributions in the Senate, perhaps their greatest contributions to this nation are still to come. Senator Bumpers has talked about going back to Arkansas to teach and Senator Glenn has said once he gets back down to earth, he'll work to steer young people toward public service. I can't think of a greater honor than to say I've served alongside these two men and shared their vision of a better America. I also want to thank my two retiring colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We may not have always agreed on which road to take, but I believe we always shared a deep commitment to our country and its betterment. Whether you agree or not with Senator Coats' position on the issues, everyone in this chamber will agree he's willing to roll up his sleeves and do the hard work necessary to accomplish his goals. He's brought the same tenacity to the Senate that found him at three percent in the polls when he began his first congressional bid and had him winning by 58 percent on election day. He got that win the old- fashioned way, organizing block by block and pressing his case one-on- one. Senator Kempthorne has only been a part of this institution for just one term, but he has already proven that he can work with his colleagues to pass laws, like the unfunded mandates bill, in a place where it's often easier to move mountains than a piece of legislation. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 was a perfect example of his ability to bring together scientists, activists on both sides of the issue, and public health experts to craft legislation that each one had a stake in seeing succeed. So while he may have spent just a short while in these Halls, he demonstrated that it is only through compromise that we can achieve solutions in the best interest of the nation. So Mr. President, let me tell my fellow retirees what a privilege it has been to serve with you over the years and how grateful I am for your commitment to public service and the American people.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair very kindly. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me thank my distinguished friend from Montana for his kind remarks. I understand Montana a little bit. My mother's brother married a lady from Montana and she persuaded him to move there. So I have been to Montana on many occasions and have enjoyed the friendship, the rugged mountains, the pristine areas and the big blue sky. I have enjoyed it very much--and the trout are not bad when you catch them and have a shore dinner. I understand Montana and I can understand why you love it. I can understand why anything we might copy from you would make our State a little bit better. I say to my friend from Montana, I thank him for his kind remarks. I thank him for his friendship. I thank him for his ability to sit down and talk things through where we might move forward and help the country and talk about those things we couldn't agree upon at a later date. I thank him for his friendship.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, a few moments ago the distinguished assistant Republican leader was on the floor chastising the President, chastising Democrats, chastising people that were trying to be helpful or influential, and I heard him say more than once, ``Get on with our business.'' Mr. President, this is October 10th and the budget for next year should have been completed April 15 of this year. April, May, June, July, August, September, October--we still don't have a budget. We are running on last year's budget. Somehow or another, this train hasn't been running as efficiently and as effectively as some think it should. If you haven't had a budget, it makes it difficult to set the levels for next year's spending. We are already into the next fiscal year by 10 days and we only had one appropriations bill on the President's desk. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma says let's get on with our business; then he says that the President should not be involved in negotiations. Mr. President, I have been around here 24 years. I have never gone through any negotiations involved with the White House that they didn't call me. I have gone to the White House to talk with President Reagan; I have gone to the White House to talk with President Bush in order to try to find a way to be helpful, and they were trying to find a way to persuade me to be helpful. I don't see anything wrong with that. And I don't believe the President wants to veto bills. That is one reason that everybody agreed to the group--if that is a good term, or the Members of the group--so they might be able to work out bills that can be signed. I don't see anything wrong with the administration playing a part in what they believe is the proper course. We talk about a budget. Going back to 1993, there wasn't a Republican that voted for President Clinton's budget at that time. I wonder how those now who are saying we have a great surplus can be breaking their arm patting themselves on the back for that great vote that they didn't cast in 1993. The President has every right to be part of the negotiations. I wanted to say to my colleague who had to leave, what is wrong with wanting more for education? What is wrong with wanting to improve our school system? What is wrong with having smaller classes? What is wrong with having more teachers? I don't see anything wrong. What is wrong with seeing that every child that leaves the third grade can read? What is wrong with that? The 21st century will be full of technology and we have to have educated children. So what is wrong with trying to improve education in this country? Public education teaches 90 percent of all of our children. It has to be the best educational system we can give them. We need to be able to improve education all across this country. How in the world can the Senator from Oklahoma say that the Federal Government will appoint their teachers? We give money to the States. The States, then, make the selection. The States, then, set the criteria. The States, then, have the vacancy. The States do that. I have never known a Federal Government to hire a teacher in my State. I have been Governor. I understand writing a budget. I understand what we do. I still understand it. But I don't believe the Federal Education Department hires teachers in my State or any State. So we are not telling them who to hire and who not to hire. That is just a straw man, or whatever, to try to say we don't want Big Brother involved. We sure want Big Brother's money, we sure want Big Brother to pay it, but we don't want them to have anything to do with any kind of guidelines. So, when we come out on the floor and chastise the President and the administration for wanting to work out pieces of legislation, you talk to the farmers in the Midwest, talk to farmers in my State; they have had a tough several years. Sure, it may have been less a year ago than it is now and times have changed. We have had a bad summer. We have had real problems. So why not help our farmers? So, Mr. President, I suggest to those who want to come to the floor and have press conferences saying that the administration ought to stay out of our business and we will pass the legislation, well, where is it? Where is the legislation? What have we passed? The Patients' Bill of Rights? No; that was killed yesterday. Education? No. Where are the bills they were supposed to pass? ``Let us get on with our business,'' the Senator from Oklahoma said. Well, let's get on with our business. Here we are on Saturday, and we are lucky we are not in on Sunday afternoon. We will be here Monday. That is a holiday. They set a sine die date of October 9, and we don't even have the appropriations bills done. So let's not be too harsh on the administration for wanting to try to get it done. I regret that I am here. I wish all 13 appropriations bills had been on the President's desk and signed before October 1, which begins the fiscal year. I remember how hard Senator Robert Byrd, when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, worked to be sure that all 13 of the appropriations bills were on the President's desk by September 30. And they were. That is what we are supposed to do. Those are the rules. So, Mr. President, I hope that over the weekend we can find some way that those who are responsible for the appropriations bills can bring them together, that they will find a way that we can say we have worked together, that we have used Henry Clay's advice and we have compromised. Henry Clay said, ``Compromise is negotiated hurt.'' Negotiated hurt. Clay said, ``You have to give up something and it hurts, and I have to give up something and it hurts. Once we agree, then I am willing to sign a social contract.'' Clay was saying he was willing to support legislation to move the country forward and on another day we will argue the things we had to give up. So that is what we are all about here --the Henry Clay era of compromise, and the ability to sign a social contract and move forward in the best interest of this country. I hope that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel by the end of the week. I hope to be here to cast a vote in favor of a compromise and agreement that will make this country a better country. It is my last one, Mr. President. I would like to see as good a piece of legislation in all areas passed, so that when we look back on this session, we will have said we did a good job. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Fort Campbell Tax Fairness Act. This legislation is designed to restore some sense of balance and maintain some level of fairness in the taxation of individuals who work at the Fort Campbell military installation in Kentucky and Tennessee. My colleagues may recall that earlier this month, an unprecedented provision was included in the Defense Authorization bill which granted special tax status for a single site--Fort Campbell--to Tennessee residents who work on the Kentucky side of the border. Even worse, the provision in the Defense bill preempted State tax law. It preempted the ability of my State to administer its own tax laws in a fair manner, and in a way in which the State determined was fairest and best. The provision adopted in the Defense bill exempts Tennessee residents who work in Kentucky at Fort Campbell from paying Kentucky state income taxes. This special exemption was snuck into the House version of the bill, and then maintained in the conference committee. It is extremely unfair. Mr. President, the Congress has no business dictating to States how they should administer their own tax laws. This is a matter for the States to determine by themselves. The basic principle of taxation is that income is taxed at the location where it is produced. There are exceptions to this rule, but generally they are worked out among and between States themselves. The only other exceptions of which I am aware relate to federal employees with a unique interstate aspect to their jobs, like members of the military or Members of Congress, or other employees with a special interstate job situation, like Amtrak employees or those involved in constructing interstate highways. I have never heard of a special State tax exemption for private sector employees at a single site. That is, I had never heard of it until I saw this year's Defense Authorization bill. But Mr. President, the provision in the Defense Authorization bill is a one way street. It preempts Kentucky state law for Tennessee residents who would otherwise be taxed within Kentucky's borders. But there is no comparable preemption of Tennessee state law for Kentucky residents who are taxed at Fort Campbell within Tennessee's borders. As a matter of basic fairness, if Tennessee residents are to be granted a special tax exemption while on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell, Kentucky residents should be given equal consideration while on the Tennessee side of Fort Campbell. In addition, it is currently the case that unemployment compensation for any Tennessee residents who work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell are paid out of Kentucky tax dollars. This should no longer be the case now that Tennessee workers are being given a special tax status and are exempt from Kentucky laws. My legislation attempts to correct these new inequities created by the passage of this year's Defense Authorization bill. First, it would direct that Tennessee sales taxes imposed on the Tennessee side of Fort Campbell apply only to Tennessee residents. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the Defense Authorization bill, asserted that no such taxes are currently collected at Fort Campbell. Therefore, he should have no objection to this provision whatsoever. However, I have been informed that Tennessee sales taxes are in fact collected from private business operations within the Fort Campbell boundaries. So this provision is badly needed as a matter of fairness. Second, the legislation clearly states that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has absolutely no obligation to continue paying the unemployment benefits of Tennessee residents out of Kentucky tax dollars. Since Tennessee residents have been given this special tax status and preemption of State laws, Kentucky should no longer have any liabilities should these workers become unemployed. Those claims should be the responsibility of the State of Tennessee. Mr. President, I have always attempted to fiercely defend the interests of my State during my 24 years in the Senate. The special tax preemption provision tucked into the Defense Authorization bill was one of the most unfair provisions imaginable, singling out my State for unfair treatment. I realize the time is short in the current session, and the odds of enacting this legislation are not great in the days ahead. However, I am introducing this bill to go on the Record in advocating fairness for my State. It is my hope that when the Congress reconvenes vigorously pursue efforts to pass this legislation and correct an unfairness which has been imposed upon my State.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, all across America, people from every walk of life carry a vision in their heads and in their hearts of the perfect community--of the kind of place where they can raise their children and their children can in turn raise their children. There's no doubt that everyone's picture would look different, based on our own experience. But I feel certain they would have many elements in common. We want safe neighborhoods. We want to be economically secure. And we want to keep our families healthy. These are the building blocks of a liveable community, and the City of Louisville has played an important role in helping to put them into place, serving as a model for inner-city revitalization. The city has rehabilitated and built hundreds of housing units, they've created new jobs and businesses, and more families are building stable, productive lives. East Russell, an inner-city Louisville Neighborhood, has seized the nation's attention by creating a renaissance in that part of the city, bringing it new life and vitality. Rightfully so, this revitalization project has received attention by mayors and elected officials all over the United States. The University of Louisville's Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods (SUN) is devoted to making inner city neighborhoods healthy and safe places to live. The project is located at the Center for Urban and Economic Research at the University of Louisville. One of the biggest accomplishments of this project has been building affordable houses for residents with a strong cooperative effort by the entire staff, including the University of Louisville, CityBank, and Telesis, along with many community organizations. Mr. President, the SUN staff--including its Director, Dr. John Gilderbloom and students from the University of Louisville --and SUN community partners have already done so much to strengthen our inner city communities and boost the hopes and spirits of the people living there. I would ask that my colleagues join me today in commending their work to make our cities ``dream places'' to live and for their continued commitment to the greater community. And as they host their conference the week of October 15th through the 17th, we wish them the best of luck in their continued efforts.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me thank my good friend, the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, for reading this letter. I didn't know it was coming. I really do not know how to respond to it, except to thank my staff. We claim to do a lot of things around here. And if we did not have loyal, faithful, hard-working, dedicated, intelligent staff, not only in our offices but here on the floor, we would not get accomplished near as much as we do. So I thank them from the bottom of my heart. And I hope that in the last few days I will not get so cantankerous that they will want to expunge the Record of this letter.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) would vote ``no.''