T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, reacting to a proposal which I am about to introduce in bill form, a columnist and cartoonist on the Seattle Post Intelligencer wrote, in yesterday's edition of that newspaper: My English friend, Carolyn, having recently arrived in the United States from London, asked me to explain how Americans decide who will be their President. We were at a social occasion just before I headed up to New Hampshire to witness the process firsthand. The longer I rambled on, detailing the haphazard series of primaries and caucuses, the influence of media expectations and money, the nearly endless campaigns that begin almost as soon as the winner of the previous round has been inaugurated, the more I thought how bizarre it must sound to a person from another country. . . To the extent that the word ``system'' implies rationality and forethought, we really do not have a system for choosing nominees for president of the United States. This bill also reflects a cartoon that this same individual had in the newspaper about 3 or 4 weeks ago. In that cartoon, several of the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton are ``Brainstorming at the Constitutional Convention.'' Ben Franklin turns to his colleagues in jest and rattles off an idea for a Presidential election system, with the following statement: ``The President shall be chosen from among those persons who can hone complex ideas into simplistic sound bites, defame the character of their opponents, hide their own blemishes from an intrusive swarming press corps and''--get this!--``win the most votes from a tiny number of citizens in a remote corner of New England!" While this was simply a newspaper cartoon figure, it nonetheless comes all too close to describing the way in which we pick nominees for President of the United States at the present time. A relatively small handful of voters in two or three States are wooed for more than a year while the rest of the country is ignored, and the influence of their votes, or even their sound bites on radio and on television, has a disproportionate impact on the way in which we nominate our Presidents. At the same time, it means that the candidates must have very narrow platforms, appealing to this not highly representative group of American citizens. It also has the paradox, or had the paradox this year, of requiring major candidates to ignore States that somehow or another are deemed to be less influential. We saw an example this year when most of the candidates skipped primaries and caucuses in Louisiana and Delaware for fear of upsetting States that, for an extended period of time, had gone earlier than they did. This is absolutely ridiculous, and we need a new and better system. We need a system that empowers and enfranchises all of the citizens of the United States equally; that treats the nominating process in both parties as being vitally important to the future of democratic institutions in the United States; that does so fairly; that causes the campaigns to speak about major national and regional issues on a much broader focus than they have at the present time. So, this is the time, it seems to me, when all of this is green in our memories, that we should begin the process toward a new system. As a consequence, the bill that I am introducing today, together with my distinguished friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], creates a simple system of regional primaries. There will be four regions, each including either 12 or 13 States, all required to hold primaries respectively on the first Tuesday in March--incidentally, today--the first Tuesday in April, and in May, and then in June, with the regions rotating first position, second position, third position, fourth position over four cycles, or 16 years. So the people in each region would go first once every four Presidential elections and last every fourth Presidential election. The delegates would be bound for at least two ballots on the vote for the candidate to carry their State, or their congressional district, and leave the rules as to how the votes are divided to be determined by each individual State. So the people of each State will have an equal opportunity to participate in and to influence the nomination in that process. Instead of 4 or 5 percent of the people of the United States having a disproportionate impact on the outcome, all of the people of the United States will have an equal opportunity, and, equally significant, the candidates for President will have had the campaign in all corners of the United States and in every State to be affected. I believe, Mr. President, it will probably give a slightly greater advantage to those candidates who are not independently wealthy or do not have huge campaign chests because, with 12 or 13 primaries going on at the same time, they could attempt to establish a niche in one or two or three of those States and become well known, win one or two, and be major candidates by the time the second round comes around. Not at all incidentally, Mr. President, it would place the nomination process a little bit closer to the national convention, and that perhaps would slightly shorten the entire process. I think, in summary, Mr. President, that we should do everything we possibly can to improve the nomination system for President and see to it that all of our people have equal opportunity to participate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I would indeed withhold, and also for the Senator from Vermont, if he wished to speak to the conference report.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, are we still on this bill? What is the issue before the Senate at this time?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, reacting to a proposal which I am about to introduce in bill form, a columnist and cartoonist on the Seattle Post Intelligencer wrote, in yesterday's edition of that newspaper: My English friend, Carolyn, having recently arrived in the United States from London, asked me to explain how Americans decide who will be their President. We were at a social occasion just before I headed up to New Hampshire to witness the process firsthand. The longer I rambled on, detailing the haphazard series of primaries and caucuses, the influence of media expectations and money, the nearly endless campaigns that begin almost as soon as the winner of the previous round has been inaugurated, the more I thought how bizarre it must sound to a person from another country. . . To the extent that the word ``system'' implies rationality and forethought, we really do not have a system for choosing nominees for president of the United States. This bill also reflects a cartoon that this same individual had in the newspaper about 3 or 4 weeks ago. In that cartoon, several of the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton are ``Brainstorming at the Constitutional Convention.'' Ben Franklin turns to his colleagues in jest and rattles off an idea for a Presidential election system, with the following statement: ``The President shall be chosen from among those persons who can hone complex ideas into simplistic sound bites, defame the character of their opponents, hide their own blemishes from an intrusive swarming press corps and''--get this!--``win the most votes from a tiny number of citizens in a remote corner of New England!" While this was simply a newspaper cartoon figure, it nonetheless comes all too close to describing the way in which we pick nominees for President of the United States at the present time. A relatively small handful of voters in two or three States are wooed for more than a year while the rest of the country is ignored, and the influence of their votes, or even their sound bites on radio and on television, has a disproportionate impact on the way in which we nominate our Presidents. At the same time, it means that the candidates must have very narrow platforms, appealing to this not highly representative group of American citizens. It also has the paradox, or had the paradox this year, of requiring major candidates to ignore States that somehow or another are deemed to be less influential. We saw an example this year when most of the candidates skipped primaries and caucuses in Louisiana and Delaware for fear of upsetting States that, for an extended period of time, had gone earlier than they did. This is absolutely ridiculous, and we need a new and better system. We need a system that empowers and enfranchises all of the citizens of the United States equally; that treats the nominating process in both parties as being vitally important to the future of democratic institutions in the United States; that does so fairly; that causes the campaigns to speak about major national and regional issues on a much broader focus than they have at the present time. So, this is the time, it seems to me, when all of this is green in our memories, that we should begin the process toward a new system. As a consequence, the bill that I am introducing today, together with my distinguished friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], creates a simple system of regional primaries. There will be four regions, each including either 12 or 13 States, all required to hold primaries respectively on the first Tuesday in March--incidentally, today--the first Tuesday in April, and in May, and then in June, with the regions rotating first position, second position, third position, fourth position over four cycles, or 16 years. So the people in each region would go first once every four Presidential elections and last every fourth Presidential election. The delegates would be bound for at least two ballots on the vote for the candidate to carry their State, or their congressional district, and leave the rules as to how the votes are divided to be determined by each individual State. So the people of each State will have an equal opportunity to participate in and to influence the nomination in that process. Instead of 4 or 5 percent of the people of the United States having a disproportionate impact on the outcome, all of the people of the United States will have an equal opportunity, and, equally significant, the candidates for President will have had the campaign in all corners of the United States and in every State to be affected. I believe, Mr. President, it will probably give a slightly greater advantage to those candidates who are not independently wealthy or do not have huge campaign chests because, with 12 or 13 primaries going on at the same time, they could attempt to establish a niche in one or two or three of those States and become well known, win one or two, and be major candidates by the time the second round comes around. Not at all incidentally, Mr. President, it would place the nomination process a little bit closer to the national convention, and that perhaps would slightly shorten the entire process. I think, in summary, Mr. President, that we should do everything we possibly can to improve the nomination system for President and see to it that all of our people have equal opportunity to participate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on February 2, the citizens of Seattle and of Washington State were dealt yet another low blow in their continuing struggle to maintain three professional sports franchises in Seattle. Unfortunately, it now seems that just as one team reaches the pinnacle of success in Seattle, another outsider owner of a local team decides that he no longer wishes to call Seattle its home. Last Friday, the owners of the Seattle Seahawks announced their intention to move the team from Seattle even though they have 10 years remaining on their contract with King County. Why are they leaving? The Seahawk owners cite inadequate playing facilities and a lack of local government and community support. Lack of support? Consider the numerous years of sell-out crowds in the Kingdome. Consider the local and State subsidies that have supported this organization. If there is no community support, why did the Seahawk organization retire the No. 12 jersey? The number was retired in honor of all the Seahwawak fans who have long served as the ``twelfth man'' on the Seahawks playing field. Lack of support? As many of my colleagues may know, a great deal of my political career has been focused on maintaining a presence of professional sports franchises in Seattle. My involvement started late one evening in 1970, when the owners of the Seattle Pilots baseball team loaded their moving vans and headed east to Milwaukee, WI, after only 1 year in Seattle. As Washington State attorney, general, I successfully sued the American League to bring a new baseball club to Seattle in 1977-- the Seattle Mariners--a suit that also resulted in the creation of the Toronto Blue Jays. During its first 17 years of existence, the Mariner organization faced many of the expected challenges that confront any new sports franchise. This young baseball team was only able to produce two winning seasons in its first 17 years. While the adversity continued on the field, the difficulties facing the franchise off the field quickly became even more owerwhelming. The Mariners organization suffered increasing financial losses, fueling speculation that the team would leave Sattle. All of the succession of Mariner owerns were underfunded outsiders unable to take the risks necessary for success. Finally in 1992, the threat became a reality, and the owners of the Mariners announced their intentions to move the baseball team to Florida. The fans, myself included reacted. A provision in the Mariners' contract with King County prohibited the midnight-loading of the moving vans. This local-option provision required that prior to any relocation to another city, the team first be put up for sale for 120 days and sold to any local buyers with a reasonable offer. With on 2 weeks left before the 120-day period expired, local business and community leaders, myself included, were able to secure the local resources to purchase the Mariners and keep the Mariners safe at home. Last fall, after 18 long years, the fans of Washington State, and the team they fought so hard to keep, were finally rewarded when the Seattle Mariners won the American League Western Division Title. This championship fever should be the reward for fans when they dedicate themselves to supporting a professional sports team, not what is currently happening in Seattle and Cleveland. Unfortunately for the fans of professional sports team, today's loyalty and gratitude given to professional teams is being returned with seriously harsh slaps in the face. Looking for news of a sports franchise relocation? Just open a newspaper. Within the last 18 months, two professional football organizations have moved cities and three more have announced their intentions to move prior to the 1996 season. Mr. President, something has got to be done to bring some stability back to professional sports. Some question the role of the Government in professional sports leagues. I do not. Professional sports franchises rely on Federal tax dollars, participate in interstate commerce, and affect millions of people across the country. I have no doubt that there is a role for the Federal Government in creating standards and expectations of behavior. That is why I have cosponsored the Fans' Rights Act with my colleagues from Ohio, Senator Glenn and Senator DeWine. The Fans' Rights Act, S. 1439, seeks to restore stability and integrity to the current chaos that marks franchise relocations. It does this by giving professional sports league officials the ability to enforce their own rules through a limited antitrust exemption. This limited exemption will ensure that league officials can block franchise relocations they believe not to be in the best interests of their sport. The bill also provides for a 180-day notice period before any team can move. During that time, public hearings must be held, at which time a home community would have the opportunity to induce the team to stay. Finally, the Fans' Rights Act would prohibit the outrageous practice of teams buying the league's approval of a proposed relocation. Current practices allow the paying of relocation fees to the leagues and individual teams prior to the vote by the individual team owners to approve the move. The bill would require that the relocation fee be paid only after the vote of approval has taken place. The era of professional sports teams moving, only to leave behind fans, businesses, and communities who have invested emotional and financial support must come to an end, and this legislation attempts to do just that. As chairman of the Consumer Subcommittee within the Commerce Committee, I intend to hold hearings on Fans' Rights Act sometime in early March. I will seek testimony from commissioners of all four professional leagues, player representatives, team owners, and elected officials from cities impacted by franchise relocation. When this bill comes to the floor, it is also my intention to offer an amendment to include a provision similar to that that kept the Mariners in Seattle in 1992. Essentially, this provision would require a team to be put up for sale to local owners for 120 days prior to any relocation at a price to be set by arbitration. Fan loyalty and local support must be rewarded with local ownership, not the removal of the team. Unfortunately for the Seahawk fans, even if we could enact the Fans' Rights Act into law tomorrow, this legislation will not reverse the clock in Seattle. The decision to relocate the team has been made, although a lawsuit is pending against the organization is a King County Superior Court, an action I believe likely to succeed. I have been invited by King County Executive Gary Locke to serve on a small task force of business and community leaders who will work together to ensure that professional football in Seattle does not become part of Seattle's fading history. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend King County Executive Gary Locke, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, and members of the King County Council for all of their efforts thus far to save the Seahawks. In closing Mr. President, I would like to send a message to sports fans in Washington State and around the country. While we are in the midst of troubling times with sports teams coming and sports teams leaving, I would like to assure each of you that your loyalty to professional sports franchises will not go unrewarded. Throughout the 8 weeks of the Mariners playoff excitement this fall, the residents of Seattle and the citizens of Washington State were part of an amazing roller-coaster ride that reached beyond anything that could ever be expected from professional sports. The great sense of community pride and support toward a single team, however, must be rewarded with loyalty from the team back to the community. The Seattle Mariners displayed this loyalty in their final game of the season, when all of the Mariner players came out of the clubhouse 20 minutes after game's end, to applaud the 58,000-plus fans who had encouraged the team during the championship run. Mr. President, the Seahawks will not move and, I believe, Cleveland will not be deserted by the NFL either. Mr. President, every fan deserves the opportunity to applaud his or her local sports team, and for loyalty from the owners in return. I hope that passing the Fans' Rights Act can begin to recognize that fans are equal players in the world of sports.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, it seems to me in the last 24 to 48 hours, we have taken one or two steps forward in our quest for a truly balanced budget, a balanced budget that will pay great dividends to future generations of America in lower interest rates, better jobs, and higher incomes. And at the same time, at least one major step backward. That major step backwards, of course, is what the President of the United States has submitted as a budget for fiscal year 1997. This yellow booklet really should not carry that title because it obviously does not meet the requirements of a budget submission under the law. To the extent that it does give an outline of the President's priorities, however, it is clearly a status quo document. All of the difficult decisions, the heavy lifting, is left until after the completion of the term of the President who will be elected this fall. So, while it does not represent a step forward on the part of the President, it also, one must confess, does not represent a step backward either. It consolidates the modest gains that were attained through five separate budget submissions on the part of the President for the current year. The overwhelmingly significant step forward, however, was the work by the National Governors Conference, which now unanimously has reached a detailed statement of principle on both Medicaid and welfare reform, one that has been agreed to by both Republican and Democrat Governors across the country, one that raises the very real possibility of breaking the budget deadlock in which we find ourselves at the present time. I cannot possibly be too laudatory of the tremendously difficult task that the Governors have undertaken and the great degree of success they have reached. Madam President, we need a balanced budget for our children and for our grandchildren. We need reforms in Medicare and Medicaid for our seniors and for others who are less fortunate and cannot afford to pay for health care services themselves. We need welfare reform for all Americans for a more just and equitable system. And we need tax cuts for hard-working American families. All of these remain our goal. But two of the most difficult now are the beneficiaries of intervention on the part of the National Conference of Governors in such a way that the entire logjam may now possibly be broken and that, before the end of the current continuing resolution on March 15, there is the very real possibility of a wonderfully genuine move toward a budget that will lead to a very real balance by the year 2002 without gimmicks and without postponing all of the hard questions for 4 more years. The final element in this equation was the report yesterday that the Medicare part A trust fund is going bankrupt much more rapidly than we had thought during our debate during the course of the last year. Instead of being in the black last year, it was in the red, 1 year earlier than was predicted just last April. That fact makes more urgent the reform of Medicare and the Medicare trust fund so that this trust fund will be there after the turn of the century for all of those over the age of 65 who depend on it. It causes to be even more modest in the long term the reforms in Medicare that were included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, regrettably vetoed by the President, and makes more urgent a set of reforms that will protect Medicare for our seniors in the future and will more equitably distribute the burden for paying for Medicare among all of our citizens--both those working and those retiring. So, all in all, in spite of the President's refusal to recognize these new facts in this so-called budget document, I believe that this week represents real progress toward an honest balanced budget, a budget that will be good for all Americans, that will lessen the burden of debt on future generations and increase their opportunities, their jobs, and their income. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my Democratic colleagues say we need a farm bill. They could not be more correct. The simple solution: vote for the Craig-Leahy substitute amendment. Last week the Senate voted on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1541, which contained the agriculture provisions included in the Balanced Budget Act that, unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues opposed and the President vetoed. I am disappointed that the Senate was unsuccessful in limiting debate on this legislation, which would have moved this body one step closer to passing a farm bill. Today I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put party politics aside and vote for farm legislation that has the support of both Democrats and Republicans; the Craig/Leahy substitute amendment. The Craig/Leahy substitute amendment represents a bi-partisan approach to farm legislation; farm legislation that will allow our farmers to farm to the marketplace and not to Washington, D.C. bureaucrats' farm legislation that will provide flexibility, predictability, simplicity, and opportunity for the American farmer; and farm legislation that will give certainly to farmers, their bankers, and to the taxpaying public. Simply put Mr. President, the Craig/Leahy compromise will give U.S. farmers the positive reforms they need in order to respond to the demands of emerging world markets. Members of both parties have debated the need for a farm bill for nearly ten months. My advice to my colleagues is simple: by supporting the Craig/Leahy compromise today we can have a farm bill that is supported by farmers across the country; a farm bill that provides genuine flexibility and a smooth transition into the market-responsive agriculture of the next century. The alternative, Mr. President, is the status-quo. That, Mr. President, is simply unacceptable to farmers in my State of Washington and across the country. American farmers deserve better--they deserve a program that will provide certainty and flexibility. It is time to put party politics aside and vote for farm legislation that has support from both sides of the aisle. Vote for the Craig/Leahy substitute today and give our farmers what they deserve: a farm program will allow them to farm according to the marketplace and stop the Federal government from telling them what crop to plant, when to plant, and how much to plant. Washington does NOT know best--these decisions belong to the farmer, not the Federal Government. Voting for the Craig/Leahy compromise, Mr. President, is common sense In closing Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from Washington State Farm Bureau, representing over 6,000 farmers and ranchers in my State, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I may be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in dealing with highly complex and technical legislation, two requirements seem to me to be essential. The first is that those who have an interest in the legislation and have conflicts among themselves over what is most desirable, express their views so that Members can evaluate conflicting arguments and attempt to reach the truth. Each of these interest groups gives lip service to the consumer interest and to competition, but it is only by testing the groups' competing ideas against one another that the consumer interest and competition can truly be served. That has clearly been the case in connection with the many year debate over telecommunications legislation. There were myriad interest groups. They had highly conflicting interests. I believe that we have reached good accommodations in connection with almost every one of those conflicts. But the second and even more important requirement for dealing with legislation of this type is that the Members who deal with the issue in the committees, and particularly those who are in charge, keep the public interest as their objective. In this connection, I want to say how much that has been the case with the junior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] during his leadership in this process. Most particularly, however, I offer my appreciation to Senator Pressler, who was willing to listen to everybody, but be the prisoner of no one, in arriving at the right answers in connection with this bill. He did so in the Senate proceedings, and he did so as chairman of the conference committee. The fact that we are here today passing, nearly unanimously, this important piece of legislation is a real tribute to him. Personally, Mr. President, I should like to note two aspects of this comprehensive legislation. I have a great interest in the competitive nature of the wireless industry, and I am gratified that most of my suggestions in that connection, to strengthen the industry's competitive position, have been accepted. I am also delighted that we were able to protect our American children and the power of our American parents through the V-chip provisions and through other provisions, which will give more authority to family members to supervise what their children see. Other details, obviously, cannot be gone into at the present time. This is a fine piece of legislation. As a result of the great work of our leaders, it will create employment for many tens of thousands of Americans, and ensure that telecommunications will be a cutting-edge industry in this country for many years to come. I would like to clarify, and express my understanding, of a somewhat confusing provision in the bill regarding uniform pricing of cable rates. The conference report changes the uniform rate requirement in two essential ways. First, section 301(b)(2) of the legislation sunsets the uniform rate structure requirement in markets where the cable operator faces effective competition. The second change to the uniform rate requirement is the addition of language that permits cable operators to offer bulk discounts to multiple dwelling units or MDU's. The language in this section permits cable operators to offer bulk discounts to MDU's, ``except that a cable operator of a cable system that is not subject to effective competition may not charge predatory prices to a multiple dwelling unit.'' I understand that there has been concern that this somewhat awkwardly worded section implicitly condones predatory pricing once there is competition in a market, or for subscribers who do not live in MDU's. Clearly it is not the intent of Congress to supersede the Sherman Act by allowing cable operators to engage in predatory pricing at any time or under any circumstances. In fact, the legislation includes a general antitrust savings clause in section 601(b). This clause guarantees that antitrust concerns still will be addressed in the telecommunications industry.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today Senator Glenn and I are introducing a limited, but important piece of legislation. This legislation will provide a solution to a vexing problem that afflicts many of the most distinguished not-for-profit group medical practices in this country, such as Virginia Mason Clinic in Seattle, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland. Our Nation's not-for-profit medical practices, which include teaching hospitals, community clinics, and integrated health systems, perform essential public services. They provide significant charity care to our Nation's poor and elderly, offer some of the finest medical education and training in the world, and are acknowledged leaders in medical research. Furthermore, not-for-profits perform these public services while maintaining a well-deserved, international reputation for medical excellence. Despite their excellent delivery of essential medical services, tax laws restrict not-for-profit group medical practices from offering their medical professionals a level of deferred compensation that is competitive with that available to physicians in the for-profit sector. These limits on deferred compensation exist even though medical professionals in nonprofit practices already sacrifice substantial personal benefits and competitive salaries in order to serve the most needy in their communities. This sacrifice on the part of nonprofit physicians has potentially damaging repercussions for society when physicians leave the nonprofit sector for the benefits of the private sector. Today, we seek to remove some of the disincentive that exist for medical professions to enter into the nonprofit area of health care. The bill we are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide a limited exemption from IRC section 457 to eligible group medical practices. This amendment would increase the dollar limitations for members and employees of those practices, index the deferred amount for inflation, and exempt eligible medical group practices from limitations of section 457(c)(2). By providing nonprofit, teaching, medical centers the ability to offer deferred compensation packages to their professions at levels that are competitive with the for-profit sector, our nonprofit medical centers will be able to recruit and retain the caliber of individuals whose training skills, and expertise are crucial to the often inner- city or rural patients they serve.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Craig, Dole, Lugar, Cochran, and Grassley, supporting a farm bill that will let our farmers farm according to the marketplace and stop the Federal Government from telling our farmers what crop to plant, when to plant, and how much to plant. These decisions belong to the farmer--not the Federal Government. On September 30 of last year the farm bill expired. Farmers in my State of Washington and across the country need to know what the farm program will be. They cannot wait any longer. Currently, farmers in my State are meeting with their bankers, making plans for this year's crop, determining their financial situation, and evaluating their equipment needs. As my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, said on Tuesday, ``farmers of this country deserve to know what the farm program will be this year and they need to know as soon as possible.'' The senior Senator from Iowa is correct. We cannot in good conscience delay in passing a farm bill. We owe it to the American farmer to take action. Farmers in my State tell me that they want less Government, less red tape, and less paperwork. Farmers in my State simply want more flexibility; they want the Federal Government out of their lives. A market transition style farm program gives them what they have asked for and provides a seven year transition to full market-oriented farming. A market transition style farm program could not come at a better time. Many important developments have taken place since the completion of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. I believe that GATT will continue to open new world markets for the United States, and with a farm program that allows our farmers to farm according to the marketplace we will provide them with the flexibility they need to respond quickly to the demands of emerging world markets. A market transition style farm program also moves us towards a balanced budget, saving nearly $13 billion in budget outlays over 7 years. Since 1969, the last year in which there was a balanced budget in this country, we have piled debt on our shoulders and on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren of almost $5 trillion. That means, Mr. President, that a child born today inherits an obligation of some $187,000 during his or her life simply to pay interest on the national debt. This statistic alone starkly illustrates not just the fiscal and financial necessity, but the moral necessity of a sharp change in direction. This country can no longer continue goods and services for which it is unwilling to pay. If we do not change the way we do things here in Washington, DC, our children and grandchildren will suffer terribly. If we do balance the Federal budget we will provide American families and American farmers with better jobs, higher wages, lower interest rates, and economic certainty. All of this means more money in the pockets of American farmers. One thing is for certain, Mr. President: we must balance the budget and we must balance it now. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I support my colleagues, Senators Craig, Dole, Lugar, Cochran, and Grassley, as we work together to provide American farmers with the flexibility they need to do what they do best: provide healthy, safe, and abundant food for families around the world.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, every Senator is aware that the continuing resolution now before the Senate represents a less than perfect solution to the impasse over the unsigned fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. As chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I'd like to take a moment to discuss why the Interior bill remains unsigned, and why I am beginning to question whether we will be able to enact a bill this year. Our system of Government is based on checks and balances. To enact legislation and govern effectively, cooperation, and compromise are required. Indeed, the President made cooperation and compromise the central theme of his State of the Union Address Tuesday night. Sadly, there seems to be little cooperation and virtually no compromise with regard to the Interior bill. Despite the fact that House and Senate negotiators have made many significant changes to the bill to address the President's concerns, the administration has shown little willingness to accommodate a number of serious congressional policy concerns. Unfortunately for those agencies funded by the bill, this refusal will result in continued uncertainty and reduced funding. In many cases, the agencies hit hardest by continued operation under continuing resolutions are the very agencies for which the administration expresses its support. The administration's demands include complete elimination of a number of legislative provisions, as well as additional funding for a variety of programs. The House and Senate remain willing to consider additional funding for some Interior programs should such funding become available as part of a broader balanced budget agreement. But in the absence of such an agreement, the subcommittee cannot simply print additional money to fund the President's wish list and agree to send the bill to our children and grandchildren. Without a budget agreement, any increases for favored programs must be offset within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. The administration is well aware of this fact, but has not made a single proposal to reallocate funds within the bill to benefit the programs it has identified as priorities. This is not a constructive approach. Neither has the administration proposed compromise language to resolve the legislative provisions in dispute. It simply continues to insist that such provisions be removed entirely--refusing to recognize that these provisions address real problems and concerns, expressing little appreciation for the many compromises already made by Congress, and scarcely acknowledging that some provisions objectionable to the administration have already been dropped altogether. As we have moved through the various steps of the appropriations process, the Interior subcommittees have consciously taken into account the administration's policy statements and the President's veto message of December 18. A deliberate effort was made to address the administration's concerns as well as the concerns of many Members of the House and Senate. I think it is worth reviewing just how far we have come in addressing the administration's objections.

Mr. GORTON. I fully agree with the Senator from New Mexico that routine operations should continue under this continuing resolution.

Mr. GORTON. The continuing resolution we are about to adopt fulfills a commitment to continue reasonable funding of those departments and agencies for which regular appropriations measures have not been signed into law. It also fulfills our commitment to eliminate significant uncertainty for Federal workers who will stay on the job through the resolution's coverage period, seeing that the Federal Government continues to operate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today Senator Glenn and I are introducing a limited, but important piece of legislation. This legislation will provide a solution to a vexing problem that afflicts many of the most distinguished not-for-profit group medical practices in this country, such as Virginia Mason Clinic in Seattle, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland. Our Nation's not-for-profit medical practices, which include teaching hospitals, community clinics, and integrated health systems, perform essential public services. They provide significant charity care to our Nation's poor and elderly, offer some of the finest medical education and training in the world, and are acknowledged leaders in medical research. Furthermore, not-for-profits perform these public services while maintaining a well-deserved, international reputation for medical excellence. Despite their excellent delivery of essential medical services, tax laws restrict not-for-profit group medical practices from offering their medical professionals a level of deferred compensation that is competitive with that available to physicians in the for-profit sector. These limits on deferred compensation exist even though medical professionals in nonprofit practices already sacrifice substantial personal benefits and competitive salaries in order to serve the most needy in their communities. This sacrifice on the part of nonprofit physicians has potentially damaging repercussions for society when physicians leave the nonprofit sector for the benefits of the private sector. Today, we seek to remove some of the disincentive that exist for medical professions to enter into the nonprofit area of health care. The bill we are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide a limited exemption from IRC section 457 to eligible group medical practices. This amendment would increase the dollar limitations for members and employees of those practices, index the deferred amount for inflation, and exempt eligible medical group practices from limitations of section 457(c)(2). By providing nonprofit, teaching, medical centers the ability to offer deferred compensation packages to their professions at levels that are competitive with the for-profit sector, our nonprofit medical centers will be able to recruit and retain the caliber of individuals whose training skills, and expertise are crucial to the often inner- city or rural patients they serve.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Craig, Dole, Lugar, Cochran, and Grassley, supporting a farm bill that will let our farmers farm according to the marketplace and stop the Federal Government from telling our farmers what crop to plant, when to plant, and how much to plant. These decisions belong to the farmer--not the Federal Government. On September 30 of last year the farm bill expired. Farmers in my State of Washington and across the country need to know what the farm program will be. They cannot wait any longer. Currently, farmers in my State are meeting with their bankers, making plans for this year's crop, determining their financial situation, and evaluating their equipment needs. As my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, said on Tuesday, ``farmers of this country deserve to know what the farm program will be this year and they need to know as soon as possible.'' The senior Senator from Iowa is correct. We cannot in good conscience delay in passing a farm bill. We owe it to the American farmer to take action. Farmers in my State tell me that they want less Government, less red tape, and less paperwork. Farmers in my State simply want more flexibility; they want the Federal Government out of their lives. A market transition style farm program gives them what they have asked for and provides a seven year transition to full market-oriented farming. A market transition style farm program could not come at a better time. Many important developments have taken place since the completion of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. I believe that GATT will continue to open new world markets for the United States, and with a farm program that allows our farmers to farm according to the marketplace we will provide them with the flexibility they need to respond quickly to the demands of emerging world markets. A market transition style farm program also moves us towards a balanced budget, saving nearly $13 billion in budget outlays over 7 years. Since 1969, the last year in which there was a balanced budget in this country, we have piled debt on our shoulders and on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren of almost $5 trillion. That means, Mr. President, that a child born today inherits an obligation of some $187,000 during his or her life simply to pay interest on the national debt. This statistic alone starkly illustrates not just the fiscal and financial necessity, but the moral necessity of a sharp change in direction. This country can no longer continue goods and services for which it is unwilling to pay. If we do not change the way we do things here in Washington, DC, our children and grandchildren will suffer terribly. If we do balance the Federal budget we will provide American families and American farmers with better jobs, higher wages, lower interest rates, and economic certainty. All of this means more money in the pockets of American farmers. One thing is for certain, Mr. President: we must balance the budget and we must balance it now. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I support my colleagues, Senators Craig, Dole, Lugar, Cochran, and Grassley, as we work together to provide American farmers with the flexibility they need to do what they do best: provide healthy, safe, and abundant food for families around the world.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe late on a Friday evening, with very few of the public listening or watching, the Congress of the United States is about to accomplish an extraordinary feat. We have passed, or are about to pass automatically, a series of resolutions which will solve the immediate crisis before us, a crisis in the day- to-day administration of many of the agencies of our Federal Government. It is that crisis, of course, which has occupied the minds and hearts and the time of many Members of Congress, of almost all of our Federal employees, and of much of the administration over the course of the last several weeks. And it is an accomplishment in itself, given the controversial nature of the issues before us. From the perspective, from the point of view of the long-range interests of the people of the United States, however, that accomplishment pales by comparison with the near commitment we now have to a proposed balanced budget from the President of the United States, a goal we have sought unanimously on this side of the aisle, a goal sought by many on the other side of the aisle, for an extended period of time, for at least all of calendar year 1995. It is a goal which was, of course, not attained by the original budget the President of the United States submitted to Congress, by the revisions last summer, or by any of the further revisions which have taken place during the course of this debate during the fall and winter of 1995 and in 1996. Now, however, the full restoration of the administration of various departments of the United States depends upon the submission by the President of the United States of just such a balanced budget. These proposals do not require any particular content in that balanced budget, but they do require, and I believe will obtain, a set of proposals from the President which can be compared at that point by Members of Congress, by the news media, and by the people of the United States, with the various proposals the Republicans have made, including the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 recently vetoed by the President of the United States. Just why it has taken this extended period of time, why the President has so resisted meeting us on common ground, a common ground from which we all hope a valuable compromise can be reached, is difficult to understand. Clearly Members of the Democratic Party can meet the challenge of proposing a balanced budget using honest figures which presumably meets each of the priorities on which they place so much weight with respect to health care, the environment, education, and the like. Conservative Democrats in the House produced such a budget many weeks ago. The leadership of the Democratic Party here in the Senate made such a proposal before the Christmas recess. Now, much of the debate has revolved around the insistence of Republicans on a balanced budget using figures provided by the Congressional Budget Office. The overwhelming attention of the White House and of many of its supporters has been toward a list, included in the last balanced budget requirement, respecting adequate funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, the national defense, and a number of other activities of the Federal Government. But there is a very real distinction between those two parts of that November resolution. The determination of whether or not a proposed budget, whatever its specific content, is in fact balanced under the projections of the Congressional Budget Office is a pure question of fact. Either it is or it is not. The Congressional Budget Office, basing its judgment on certain assumptions, makes a series of mathematical calculations and tells us whether, in its view, in the year 2002, the budget will be balanced. The answer is yes or no. There is, given the nature of the requirement, no valid difference of opinion as to whether or not a particular budget is balanced. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 included such a balance. Later proposals by the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, are balanced in that fashion. The so-called bipartisan proposal set forth by Senators Chafee and Breaux and a number of others reaches such a balance. The Democratic leadership proposal reaches that balance, as does conservative Democrats' budget in the House of Representatives. Whether or not a particular budget adequately funds Medicare, Medicaid, education, the national defense, or does the right thing with respect to taxes, with respect to working Americans, however, is a question of opinion. It is the view of this Senator and the view of the Senator from New Mexico that each of those goals was and is appropriately met by the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Members on the other side of the aisle and the President do not agree. Presumably, they feel that each of those goals is met by the Democratic leadership budget proposal. They feel, evidently, that it deals appropriately with the tax burden on middle-class working Americans, even though that proposal increases taxes overall in order to reach balance. I disagree with that proposition as they disagree with my views on various spending programs. But these are matters of opinion; these are matters which obviously are subject to compromise. What we have gained at this point is the implicit agreement that the President of the United States, now for the first time, will join the conservative colleagues in his party in the House, his leadership in the Senate, and make his proposal, presumably with specific policy judgments with respect to each of these spending items--to the national defense, to our tax structure --that will meet the objective requirements of the Congressional Budget Office. Only when we have these figures is there any real chance that we will succeed in reaching a middle ground that will objectively lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002 and subjectively, presumably in the minds of those Members of Congress who vote for it in both parties and the President who signs it, meet these other policy objectives as well. So, Mr. President, I am not here to apologize and say that this is the best job we could do. I find it at least slightly amusing that we are accepting lock, stock, and barrel what the House of Representatives has proposed with respect to the specific language in these various resolutions. But, on the other hand, I think it is safe to say that we probably would not have reached this conclusion this quickly had it not been for the actions earlier this week and late last week by the distinguished majority leader in saying that we had to get out of the dilemma in which we found ourselves. It does seem to me, however, that given the nature of the immediate crisis we face, as well as our overall goals of balancing the budget, that we have not done a slap-dash job, we have not done a second, or third-best job. We have done the job right. We will have solved the immediate crisis, and we will have made a gigantic step toward that magnificent goal of balancing our budget; of ending the practice of spending money today on things that we want and sending the bills to our children and grandchildren; of giving them higher incomes, as now is almost a common opinion of economists throughout the United States, by lowering the burden of debt which they will be required to carry; by making their futures brighter and making their futures brighter our own as well.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to listen to my friend from Nebraska. Mr. President, I will be happy to listen to my friend from Nebraska. I am not in that much of a hurry and he always has wise counsel.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, earlier this year the House of Representatives passed by substantially more than a two-thirds majority a constitutional amendment which would have mandated a balanced budget in the year 2002 and in every year thereafter. Later in the Senate of the United States that constitutional amendment was defeated by a single vote. The reason, of course, that the constitutional amendment had that kind of prospective application was that to undo the disparity between spending and revenue which has built up over the years, contributed to by administrations both Republican and Democratic, would in all probability require that amount of time. Since many of the Members in both Houses who voted against that balanced budget in the year 2002 did so on the stated ground, at least, that Congress should take responsibility into its own hands and balance the budget without what they called the crutch of the constitutional amendment, Members primarily on this side of the aisle took that counsel seriously. That was the origin of the drive toward a budget resolution and a series of changes in our laws which would bring the budget into balance by that year. Mr. President, I do not know what Members of this body will think in the year 2003 or 2004 and 2005, and it was for exactly that reason that I voted in favor of that constitutional amendment, so that the kind of games of backloading, about which my distinguished friend from Nebraska complained, simply could not take place in the future. In fact, Mr. President, I am quite optimistic that a Congress will soon be elected wiser in that respect than this one, a Congress that does in fact submit such a constitutional amendment to the people. In the meantime, however, Mr. President, I believe that it would be an accomplishment beyond anything dreamed of by more than a handful of Members of our predecessor Congresses actually to pass a series of laws that would create that balance in the year 2002. And it is to that end that we have been driving over the course of the last 6 months and more. It was that goal which we finally thought, believed, hoped that the President of the United States had joined when he signed a law creating a continuing resolution before Thanksgiving Day which included the statement that there would be a balanced budget using honest numbers derived by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year, a year that is almost over. The disappointment, the bitterness, here and elsewhere, the shaking of faith, the faith that has caused interest rates to drop by a full 2 percent over the last year, the faith that has sustained our economy, the shaking of that faith in recent days has been derived, Mr. President, solely, I am convinced, from the failure of the administration to meet the obligation which it entered into jointly with those of us here in Congress. This Congress passed a balanced budget, a set of proposals that would balance the budget by the year 2002. Every Member who voted for that budget believed not only that obligation, but every one of the other priorities set forth in our continuing resolution just before Thanksgiving with respect to the protection of Medicare, the more favorable tax treatment of working Americans, education, the environment, the entire list. It was perfectly appropriate, I suppose, for the President to disagree with that proposition. That is what makes up political debate. It is perfectly appropriate for Members of the other party to disagree with that proposition. What was inappropriate was the absolute, total, complete, abject failure to come up with an alternative that met their priorities, and met the legal requirement for balance using these honest figures. It is for that reason, and one other that I will mention in a moment, that we have this second crisis, this second partial shutdown of the executive branch. Now we are given hope once again that in a relatively short period of time between this evening and the end of the year in fact we will be able to work out a truly balanced budget using the honest figures, the conservative figures supplied by the Congressional Budget Office. Perhaps--perhaps--tomorrow we will see for the first time, for the first time a submission by the President of the United States that meets those requirements, and then we can join in a discussion of how significant the tax reductions for working Americans should be, how dramatically we should reform and strengthen Medicare, what we should do about education and the environment. But to this point we have only budgets which say we ought to spend money in these various areas but not pay for those services, send the bills to our children and to our grandchildren. And that is the cause of the situation in which we find ourselves today. Even so, Mr. President, we could be discussing this issue more objectively perhaps if there were not the constant interference of the shutdowns of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Interior, our museums, our national parks, and the like. Well, Mr. President, in that connection, this Congress passed and sent to the President appropriations bills for the whole next year pursuant to which none of those departments would have been shut down whatsoever and bills that were consistent with reaching a balanced budget in the year 2002. And yesterday, the President vetoed those bills. He vetoed those bills and closed down the national parks, closed down the Department of Veterans Affairs, closed down our museums and tourist attractions here in this city. Why? At least in part because we did not appropriate enough money for them, appropriations inconsistent with ever reaching a balanced budget, and often on rationales which contradicted what he has done earlier during the course of this year. And so now we have a bit of static in public opinion. We have departments shuttered, closed down, parks shuttered and closed down because of Presidential vetoes on particular appropriations bills passed by this Congress and sent to him but interfering with the far more important long-range goal of seeing to it that we finally give up the habit of determining that today we cannot do without various services, however important they sound, whatever the interest groups are that support them, but that we are not willing to pay for them ourselves. And so we sent the bills to those who cannot vote today, those who are already born, who are children in school but who are under the age of 18 and those who are not yet born. They can pay for what we want for ourselves today. Mr. President, that is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong from the perspective of our economy. We know that if we honestly balance the budget, we will retain and strengthen lower interest rates. We will strengthen our economy, or new job opportunities that we have. We will give people hope. It is morally wrong to demand services today that we are unwilling to pay for. And the one thing we have not heard in this debate at any time from either the President or the Members of the other party, we ought to spend what the President asked us to spend and we ought to increase taxes. By what, Mr. President, half, two-thirds, three quarters of $1 trillion over the next 7 years? So that we can have these services but pay for them ourselves. They have not suggested that. Their suggestion remains let us have these goodies now and let us send the bill to someone else, someone without a voice in this Congress. Now, my friend from Nebraska, who has stayed in the Chamber, has made what I think is an excellent suggestion, and I know that he does share our goals with us. He has said that he is troubled by the fact that so much in the way of these spending reductions are deferred to the end of this 7-year period. And can we continue beyond the year 2002? Well, Mr. President, even if the Medicare reforms that we have proposed were passed lock, stock, and barrel, without any change, we would not have solved the problem of the burden that creates for the American people in perpetuity by any stretch of the imagination. Oh, yes, Mr. President, I say in response to my friend from Nebraska, there would still be more to do in the year 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and probably before then. But most of the objections to what we are doing from his party have not come from the proposition that many of these spending cuts take place in the last 2 years. They come because the spending cuts are there at all. They simply do not want to do them at all. And I believe, Mr. President, that if we will look a little bit beyond ourselves, look across the Atlantic Ocean, we will see the ultimate result of a refusal to deal with the social and financial burdens imposed on a society by unrestrained entitlements. We simply have to look at what is going on in France today, a much worse situation than we have here: Strikes and disruptions in services all across the territory of a free country caused by a set of social policies which have choked its economy, which have created unemployment more than twice that in the United States and with no hope for any change whatsoever. This task that we are taking on now would have been easier had our predecessors taken it on 5 years ago or 2 years ago. It will be more difficult if we defer it until next year or into the next century and the longer we defer it, the more we will look like France. The time is now. If the Senator from Nebraska has a suggestion that will cause more of these spending cuts to take place earlier rather than later, and to be more permanent, I think he will find many who will support him on this side. Nor does this Senator nor most others say that any one of the numbers within this budget is sacrosanct, whether it is particular spending numbers, particular tax numbers or the like. What we do regard as the bottom line is that we really get to balance; that we provide that dividend to the American people of half a trillion dollars or more which we are told will come from a truly balanced budget using honest figures. Perhaps we will look back and say today was a major day in the course of reaching that goal. Perhaps this is the day on which the President truly joined in the search for that balanced budget and those dividends. I sincerely hope that that is true. I am certain that if it is true, this will no longer be a partisan exercise but will be one in which the Senator from Nebraska enters into enthusiastically and successfully. Mr. REID addressed the Chair. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The Senators from Maine are correct. This promising technology could be very beneficial to improving electricity generation in this country.

Mr. GORTON. I am aware of the Senator's concern for emphasizing these initiatives. What he has presented seems reasonable, and I would expect the Department to follow through with roughly the funding levels that have been identified.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator has identified a possible scenario. The Department is able to do whatever it can within existing authorities, subject to the availability of funds. However, it should be understood that any funds to be provided for this purpose must be from new agreements. Any funds remaining from prior or existing agreements with other parties and the Bureau of Mines are required for shutdown costs. The Senator should also understand that to the extent similar scenarios may apply at other Bureau facilities, this Senator expects the Secretary to give equal consideration to the needs of those facilities and the communities in which they are located.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senate is no considering the conference report on H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. This conference report and accompanying statement of the managers appeared in the Congressional Record on December 12, 1995, on pages H14288 through H14310. This is the third conference agreement. The first conference report was recommitted by the House on September 28 due primarily to objections to the conference adoption of the Senate provisions on mining, which lifted the existing moratorium on issuing new patents. The second conference report was recommitted again by the House on November 15 due to objections to mining and Tongass National Forest concerns. The agreements before the Senate today total $12.235 billion in discretionary budget authority. The outlay scoring totals $13.210 billion. The budget authority and outlay figures are precisely at the 602(b) allocation levels. The recommendations of this conference agreement represent a total decrease below the President's budget request of $1.7 billion in budget authority and of $949 million in outlays. The conference report represents difficult choices and real cuts in spending--without scorekeeping adjustments--of $1.4 billion below the fiscal year 1995 level or a reduction of 10 percent. Interior bill agencies do not share equally in the 10-percent reduction. For instance, the land management agencies are reduced by 14 percent; cultural activities are reduced by 15 percent; the Indian programs are reduced by 4 percent; and the Department of Energy agencies are reduced by 10 percent. The Interior appropriations bill is a complex bill, providing funding for 40 agencies with very diverse programs. This conference agreement reflects a meshing of the budget resolution considerations, the administration's fiscal year 1996 priorities, the priorities of the Senate and House, and the concerns of individual Members. For example, the Congress and the administration place a high priority on the National Park Service and the Indian programs. Therefore, the National Park Service and the Indian programs are reduced significantly less than other programs and agencies within the bill. Our conference addressed a considerable number of differences. There were approximately 900 items in disagreement between the House and Senate Interior appropriations bills. As in the past, this bill has received abundant attention and sparked debate within the Congress and the administration. This conference report represents an earnest effort to address many of the administration's objections to this year's Interior actions. There may be programs which Senators would like to see funded at higher levels. On many, I agree. Certainly, the administration has indicated that it views funding for some programs as inadequate. However, I would remind these Senators and the administration of the funding constraints for this bill and the difficult choices that had to be made. The conferees had to fund programs within an allocation that was 10 percent less than was available for the bill in fiscal year 1995. For every program that was reduced less than 10 percent, other programs had to be reduced by more than 10 percent. Mr. President, I would like to highlight some of the items in the conference agreement: indian programs Programs for native Americans and Alaska Natives are funded at $3,652,895,000 within the bill. Within the funding constraints, high priority was placed on the health needs of native Americans funded through the Indian Health Service and on Bureau of Indian Affairs funded elementary and secondary education programs. The conferees restored $111.5 million above the Senate level to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, resulting in an overall reduction for BIA of $159.6 million, or 9 percent, below the fiscal year 1995 level for BIA activities. Funds were restored primarily to tribal priority allocations, which fund tribal government services. Additionally, $25 million has been added to the previous conference agreement for the Indian Health Service [IHS]. This brings the IHS 1 percent above the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. land management Although the land management agencies have been decreased overall by 14 percent from the current level, the conferees have attempted to protect the operational base of the land management agencies as much as possible: National Park Service: 0 percent. Fish and Wildlife Service: -3 percent. Bureau of Land Management: -5 percent. Forest Service: -5 percent. To assist with the growing recreation demands on the agencies in this bill, a pilot recreation fee proposal is included. The construction accounts for the land management agencies have decreased $85 million in total---20 percent. The majority of the construction projects involve the completion of on-going projects and the restoration or rehabilitation of existing facilities. Overall funding for land acquisition for the land management agencies totals $140 million which is 40 percent below the fiscal year 1995 appropriations level. There are no earmarks for specific projects. However, the administration must obtain congressional approval for any projects to be funded. National Biological Service The Interior's biological research is placed under the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey. Funding of $137 million is provided for the research activities, which is a reduction of $35.7 million below the current level. Mining Agencies The conference report includes a compromise between the Senate and House provisions on mining patents. The conference agreement continues the existing moratorium on the issuance of mining patents as contained in the fiscal year 1995 Interior appropriations bill. The conference agreement also contains provisions that the Secretary of the Interior must process within 5 years 90 percent of the patents grandfathered in the current moratorium and provides authority for third-party mineral examiners paid for by patent applicants. The mining and minerals related agencies are collectively funded at 9 percent below the fiscal year 1995 level. The Bureau of Mines is eliminated and the essential functions of the Bureau of Mines are moved to the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Land Management. Last year's ban on Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] offshore oil and gas leasing continues. Department of Energy The Energy Conservation Program is funded at $553 million. The low- income weatherization program is funded at $114 million. Fossil energy research and development is funded at $377 million, a decrease of 14 percent below the fiscal year 1995 level, not including the Bureau of Mines. Cultural Agencies We have made a concerted effort to address the critical repair and renovation needs of the cultural organizations, such as the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institution and the Kennedy Center, in order to fulfill our primary responsibility of protecting their collections and structures. Reductions to operating accounts, while unavoidable, have been kept relatively small in recognition of the wide array of public services which in large part define the mission of these agencies. The National Endowment for the Arts is provided $99.5 million and the National Endowment for the Humanities is provided $110 million. The Senate and House managers differ with respect to the continuation or termination of the Endowments. The managers on the part of the Senate support continued funding for the Endowments and believe the controversial issues surrounding these two agencies are ones which should be addressed by the legislative committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate. In short, we have done the best we can with severely limited resources, concentrating our efforts on those agencies that rely on the Congress for the bulk, if not all, of their support and on those agencies that are of high priority to the administration and the Congress. I have a couple of clarifying items relating to the Interior conference report that have been cleared with Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee; Mr. Regula, chairman of the House Interior Subcommittee; and Mr. Yates, ranking member of the House Interior Subcommittee. In the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report, the managers referred to the ``existing hospital authority'' in American Samoa. This reference is to the institutional entity, and does not preclude changes to the composition or the structuring of the authority, particularly if the changes strengthen the management of health care in American Samoa. The managers for both the House and the Senate agree that funds provided in this bill for cooperative conservation agreements may be used for the 4(d) rule to ease endangered species land use restrictions on landowners, whether large or small. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I wish to thank Senator Byrd, the ranking member of our Interior Subcommittee and the ranking member of our full Appropriations Committee. In addition, I would like to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle, who have provided their assistance in forming this bill. Also, I wish to express my appreciation to Chairman Regula and his staff and to Mr. Yates and his staff. I want to recognize and to voice my appreciation to the Interior Subcommittee staff as well. On my staff are Cherie Cooper, Kathleen Wheeler, Bruce Evans, and Ginny James. I also wish to thank Sue Masica, who is Senator Byrd's Interior Subcommittee assistant. Mr. President, on a less formal basis, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the differences between this bill and the bill that originally passed the Senate. I remind my colleagues that final passage of this bill in the Senate was by a vote of 92 to 6. That overwhelming and bipartisan vote, I am convinced, was due to the magnificent cooperation I had from my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and other members of the subcommittee. We attempted to follow the tradition of many years and deal with this bill, including all of its controversial elements, with the least possible partisanship, and I believe that we succeeded. This contrasts rather considerably with the way in which this bill was treated in the House of Representatives. But I do wish to say, to emphasize to all Members of both parties, to the extent that there are differences in this bill from the bill which originally passed the Senate, those differences are slightly to increase some accounts and to attempt in part to meet objections on the part of the administration. It is very clear to me, as I speak to my colleagues at this point, that we have not sufficiently satisfied the administration to have a guarantee that this bill will be signed. Nevertheless, as compared to the original bill, which passed by a vote of 92 to 6 in this body, we have made a number of substantive gestures in the direction of the objections of the administration. For example, this bill includes budget authority of $111 million more than the bill which originally passed the Senate. Primarily that extra money goes to various Indian activities which were the most controversial elements of the bill as it was debated in the Senate originally and again goes at least part way to meeting objections on the part of the administration. Second, the mining patent provisions, while I suspect not satisfactory to all Members, are closer to the present law and to the moratorium that was passed by the House of Representatives than was the original Senate provision which was adopted by a very closely divided vote. In addition, the language relating to the Tongass National Forest is mitigated to a certain extent to meet objections on the part of the administration. These two items, not at all incidentally, Mr. President, were the two items that created the greatest degree of opposition in the House of Representatives and caused two referrals back to the conference committee after the original conference committee report was adopted. In several additional areas in which there is substantive legislative language in this bill, it has been modified at least modestly and in part to meet the objections of the administration. I want personally to urge the administration seriously to consider approving this bill. It will provide considerably better and more assured support for the wide range of activities covered by this Interior Department appropriations bill than will any continuing resolution carried over an extended period of time. As we speak here on the last day of the current continuing resolution, these agencies are operating on the lower figure contained in either the House or Senate bill. In almost every case, as a consequence, the bill that we have before us funds those agencies more generously and with a greater degree of certainty. So I ask my colleagues to approve a bill that is literally easier for most of them to approve than was the one they voted in favor of by a vote of 92 to 6, and I suggest strongly to the administration that in the present context it is unlikely to get a bill more favorable to its concerns. If, as, and when there is a final budget agreement, there may be some additional changes, but, of course, they could be taken care of as a part of that budget agreement itself. In any event, Mr. President, I strongly suggest to my colleagues support for and passage of this bill this afternoon. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that it be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.