T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has raised legitimate questions about several of these amendments. I will prepare answers to them--we have two other Members waiting to speak--and try to answer them properly after those two Members have had their opportunity.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, would you state the conditions under which this conference report is being debated?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arkansas for one incidental admission during this long speech which he has given on the floor on mining patent claims, and that admission was that is not a part of this bill. It is a subject that is not entrusted to the subcommittee which I chair, or to a debate over this bill. In fact, it is a subject that is entrusted to a committee on which the Senator from Arkansas serves, in which he was on this subcommittee in the last Congress, when the political composition of this body was different than it is now, and when no bill on mining claims or patents appeared or was debated on this floor. But I think I particularly regret, in connection with the remarks of the Senator from Arkansas, his statement that he intends to vote against the bill. As I reported earlier, this bill was passed by the Senate earlier this year in its original form by a vote of 92 to 6. The Senator from Arkansas voted for it. The mining patent provisions were less favorable to his position then than they are now. He has pointed out that the House moratorium on new claims, which was not included in the Senate bill, is now found in this bill with the sole exception of those claims which Congress cannot constitutionally terminate without compensating the claimants under the fifth amendment. The only claims that will be processed are those so-called grandfathered claims, and someday, whether it is 2 years or 5 years or 10 years, they will all be disposed of. At that point, unless the Congress passes a significant reform in its mining patent laws, there will not be any new claims subject to these provisions. So I hope the Senator from Arkansas will reconsider and will support a bill which does not move as far in his direction as he would like but which does move further in the direction of the policies he advocates than did the bill he voted for just a few months ago. That, I think, illustrates a larger point. Whatever the merits of the argument of the Senator from Arkansas, and, obviously, to toss about figures in the tens of billions of dollars as if this were the potential profits in mining--it would be overwhelmingly the most profitable business in the United States--of those billions of dollars, something between 90 and 99 percent, of course, will be paid to the people who work to separate these minerals from the ground in which they are found, which is a very expensive proposition. While I am far from being an expert in this business, I do not find it to be a business in the United States which operates at a profit any larger than any other business. Its costs are high. Those costs are, generally speaking, paid out in the form of wages to people who are citizens of the United States. And that, of course, is the reason that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives from States in which these mineral deposits are located favor the continuation of a policy which at least sees to it that there is some mining industry in the United States, declining though it may be. Personally, I think we ought to reform these laws in such fashion that the people of the United States do reap some portion of the profit from minerals taken from their lands. But many feel that if we adopted the position of the Senator from Arkansas, there simply would not be any mining so there would be no value, no profit, and no jobs, no nothing. That is an appropriate debate, and it is appropriate for the Senator from Arkansas to state his position, just as it would be for the now Presiding Officer to state his, representing a State with many mines, but it is not a debate we are having here today. It has practically nothing to do with an appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. So I wish to pass on to other comments which have been made during the course of this debate since I last spoke, that do relate directly to this bill. In that connection, with neither the Senator from Arizona nor the Senator from Nevada being here, I would like to share one of the interesting paradoxes, sometimes frustrations, of dealing with a bill of this sort. My friend and colleague from Arizona objected that there are items in this bill which have not been subject to debate in authorizing committees, that are unauthorized expenditures, or expenditures for unauthorized matters. My friend, the Senator from Nevada, objected to the fact that there is a moratorium on listings under the Endangered Species Act when no such appropriations are authorized. Authorizations for the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act ran out several years ago. Technically speaking, any money appropriated to enforce the Endangered Species Act is subject to a point of order on the floor here because the act has not been reauthorized. The Senator from Nevada is the ranking minority member of the very subcommittee that deals with that subject, and the moratorium expires, by its own terms, on the day that the act is reauthorized. So he has it, at least partly, in his power to see to it that moratorium is terminated. There is a serious group of Senators--not a majority but a significant group of Senators, as there are Members of the House --who do not believe that we should appropriate for any unauthorized project at all. I think the senior Senator from Arizona falls into that category, both by the remarks he made here somewhat earlier and by other quite similar questions that he has raised about new items being included in conference committee reports that were not included in the bill that passed either the House or the Senate together with appropriations for unauthorized projects. I think I can say the Senator from Arizona has found fewer questions to ask in that connection of this Senator than he has of any other who is managing an appropriations bill on this floor, and I believe that I now have answers, which I will state for the Record and for him or for his staff, if they are listening, and which I hope will satisfy each one of the questions that he has raised. He raised questions concerning amendments Nos. 2, 47, 84, 101, and 104, dealt with in the conference committee report. Amendments Nos. 2 and 47 go together. The House appropriations bill on this subject appropriated $87 million for the complete termination of the Bureau of Mines as one of those entities which, according to the House, was simply to be ended. The Senate did not agree with that position and appropriated considerably more, $128 million, for the continued operation of the Bureau of Mines and nine of its field facilities. That is a big difference between the two bills. The conference committee came up with a compromise that will close at least five of those Bureau of Mines facilities, but it will transfer some of the functions for which there was strong support in the U.S. Senate to various other entities around the country. Those functions the Senate wished to preserve, and continues to preserve as a result of this conference committee, include health and safety research, minerals information, materials research, and minerals assessments on public lands in Alaska. As a consequence, in reaching this compromise we had to outline exactly what was going to happen to various facilities and to various functions, and that is what we did. It is not new material. These are functions and facilities which would have been dealt with in one way in the original House bill, a different way in the original Senate bill. The compromise requires them to be listed. The $2 million for particular assessments in Alaska, about which the Senator raised a question, is money that would have been included in the normal operation of the Bureau of Mines under the Senate bill which continued it, but has to be stated separately in order to be continued as various facilities in the Bureau of Mines are closed. A similar question was raised by the Senator from Arizona in connection with amendments 101 and 104 with respect to Forest Service functions and facilities. For a number of years, the Interior Subcommittee has required approval of boundary changes in national forests, the abolition of regional offices or the movement or closure of Forest Service offices. Both the Appropriations Committees in the two Houses and the authorizing committees have had to be notified and had to approve of such changes. In this particular connection, there is such a proposed change. During the course of the conference committee, the Forest Service asked for the move which is referred to here. That move and some of its conditions are outlined in the bill as a result of the historic practice of the Appropriations Committee and the desire of the Forest Service itself. Finally, by far the most significant amendment, about which a question was raised by the Senator from Arizona, has to do with the Presidio. The Senator points out that the Presidio, as a military reservation, has been closed under the Base Closure Commission activities, and he asks, essentially, why it is that we are appropriating money for a closed military facility. The answer, of course, is that whatever the merits and the beauty of Williams Air Force Base in the State of Arizona, the Presidio in San Francisco is a totally, completely unique national asset, a magnificent open space in one of America's largest and most famous cities. So some years ago, before I became chairman of this subcommittee, it was determined that the Presidio, when it was to be closed as a military base, would become, in large measure, a national park. And the appropriation in this bill is for the operation of the Presidio as a national park. I may say, Mr. President, that I have been bothered by this, at one level at least. The Presidio is the most expensive single national park in the National Park System as a result of these transfers. So what has happened as a result of the fiscal pressure on the National Park System in running the Presidio is that a group of citizens in the city of San Francisco have gotten together and have proposed a Presidio trust to be created by the Congress. It has not been created by the Congress yet. The authorizing committee has not completed its work on it. The Senate has not debated it. So this conference committee report says, ``Well, we are appropriating money now directly to the National Park Service.'' We will have to help the Presidio trust with appropriations for at least a number of years until they have transferred this into a purely local facility. So we are going to limit the amount of money that the National Park Service can spend out of our appropriations to one- twelfth of the appropriation for each month, with the hope that the trust will succeed the Park Service sometime during the course of this fiscal year. But the appropriation for the Presidio is because it is, in fact, a part of Golden Gate National Park and is something which the people of the United States have determined is appropriate to maintain. The Senator from Arizona also objected to the amount of money appropriated for various native American purposes, particularly to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, noting, however, that it is larger by more than $100 million in this bill than it was in the bill that originally passed the Senate. I simply want to emphasize today, Mr. President, what I emphasized at the time of the original debate. The reductions for Indian activities in this bill are lower than the reductions for any other major purpose covered by this bill. They are lower in the reductions than for any other purpose in this bill. As I said in my opening remarks, in order to attempt to balance the budget, we have $1.4 billion less for 1996 than we had for 1995. This means less money for our national endowments, for our museums, for our land management activities, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Department of Energy's nonnuclear research activities--right across the board. The reductions for Indian activities are sharply less than the 10- percent average reductions for everything else, which means, of course, that the reductions for everything else are greater. I must confess, the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona and I have a certain philosophical difference as to whether there is literally an obligation in perpetuity for the taxpayers of the United States to pay for activities, local governmental activities which everyone else in the United States pays for out of their own revenues, for the operation of tribal governments, for police services, and the like. I am a strong believer in self-determination, but I think at some point at least, the self-determination carries with it an obligation or duty of self-support, and we should be at least moving in that direction. That, however, is not the philosophy behind this appropriations bill. This appropriations bill makes a modest but real contribution toward the overriding necessity in this country of balancing the budget of the United States, of ceasing the practice of spending money we do not have and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. As a consequence, all of the activities within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee have less money for 1996 than they had for 1995. Mr. President, they will have less money next year than they have this year if we do not also reform the huge entitlement programs which grow far more rapidly than our economy does. There is a relationship between these two. In that connection, Indian activities are taking a smaller and more modest hit than, for all practical purposes, every other activity in this bill. My own No. 1 priority was to try to see to it that we protected our National Park System, which is an asset for every person in the United States, and the cultural institutions here in Washington, DC, for which we have either the sole or primary responsibility, like the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institution, and the like. I think we have done so reasonably well. So I terminate these remarks with the views that I expressed earlier. I remind my colleagues that this bill was passed overwhelmingly by this body by a vote of 92 to 6, and I point out at the same time that the objections of a handful of Members who voted against it last time and the reluctant assent of some of those who voted for it have to at least have modestly been met. I am sorry at this point we do not have the approval of the White House. It is impossible to meet the conditions the White House has laid out. The White House just wants to spend more money, as the Senator from Missouri said in respect to his appropriations money. They want to spend money on everything. They want to borrow it. They do not want to pay for it themselves, but they want to spend it, and that is not going to happen. It is not going to happen now; it is not going to happen later. In fact, the defeat or veto of this bill will sentence the money funded by it to less money than they have in this bill, because the continuing resolution, under which we are operating today, has less money for most of these activities than does this bill. So we hope that we can persuade the Executive to approve this bill to get it out of the battle of the overall budget. I hope my colleagues will provide very strong support for it, because I am convinced that we have done a responsible and a balanced job under very, very difficult circumstances. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before we move on to the next item, I wish to add to the list of thanks that I gave earlier in connection with this bill the name of Julie Kays from my own personal staff who has handled every aspect of this bill for me in a tremendously successful and skilled fashion.

Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GORTON. Fine. Mr. President, one of the finer customs of the Senate, one of the customs that makes it work in contentious times better than might otherwise be the case, is the custom of Senators to treat kindly their fellow Members and to speak well of them. I think that is a wonderful custom, and I have been its beneficiary on a number of occasions. But I must say, I have never been its beneficiary in such fulsome terms as were just applied to me by my friend and colleague, mentor, the senior Senator from West Virginia. I cannot claim to deserve all of those compliments, but I may appreciate them even the more for that. I learned what I have learned in the service of the Appropriations Committee from him during his chairmanship, and the extent that I have had a success this year has been largely due to the advice and the guidance which the senior Senator from West Virginia has provided. He has stated very well the difficulties under which this bill is presented to this body, the great contribution it makes to deficit reduction and the difficulty that that created in attempting to properly fund and instruct the agencies under its jurisdiction. I have also made a statement to that effect. I will simply solicit the support of my colleagues for the bill which I believe reaches its goals well, considering the challenges with which we are faced, and I hope that the President will change his mind and sign it, as it will be much better than any alternative that he is likely to receive through a continuing resolution. The yeas and nays have not been requested?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute past the 2 o'clock time.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of H.R. 1561, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and that it be considered under the following time limitations: 30 minutes equally divided between the two managers, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Bumpers, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Lautenberg, 10 minutes under the control of Senator McCain, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer; further, that following the expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the conference report, and that following that vote, the Senate immediately concur in the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, from the beginning of the present Bosnian conflict during the Presidency of George Bush, I have opposed an immediate American participation in it in any fashion that would risk the lives of young American men and women. From the beginning of that conflict, during the Presidency of George Bush, I have favored the lifting of the arms embargo against the Bosnian victims of Serbian aggression, on the premise that it was not only unfair, but immoral to treat identically the aggressors and the victims of that aggression. The Bosnians, it seemed to me, as it did to most Members of this body, deserved at least the right to fight for their own freedom--a right which they have effectively been denied. Everything in history and logic and our intuitions told us to oppose the kind of action in which the President is engaged in at the present time. Even the peace treaty we are there in part to enforce is an unjust treaty which leaves the aggressors in possession of most of the areas which they conquered and in which they engaged in some of the most horrible war crimes in recent history. In 1993, some 2 years ago, President Clinton made what appeared to be a casual remark to our Europe allies. He promised that American Armed Forces, specifically ground troops, would participate in a Bosnian peacekeeping effort as and when such a peace were reached. I am convinced that then, as today, President Clinton did not understand the consequences of that promise, especially as it came as a promise from the leader of the free world. Mr. Clinton's proclivity to tell people whatever they want to hear at the time in which they want to hear it is well documented here in the United States. But what the American people will perceive simply to be a flaw in the President's character in the rest of the world could precipitate a catastrophe in our foreign policy. And so, Mr. President, as we meet here this evening, after the President's commitment, not only in abstract terms in 1993, but in concrete terms just a few weeks ago, the question is no longer whether or not we as individual Members of the Senate agreed with that promise or supported the President's policies. Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post last Friday: It does not matter that we should not have gone into Bosnia in the first place. It now matters only that we succeed. Regrettably, I find that to be the absolute and incontrovertible truth. Let us not fool ourselves that this is an easy task. We are going into Bosnia to create or perhaps to preserve in part a pause in fighting between bitter, 600-year-old enemies. Success will not be easy. But now that we are there, now that we are the leaders of the NATO forces in Bosnia, it is absolutely essential for the future of this country, as well as for the future of NATO, that we succeed. As a consequence, our first task is to define success. Are we going to build a parliamentary democracy in Bosnia? Of course not. Are we going to reconcile six-centuries-old enmities after hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions displaced in a 1-year period? Of course not. Then, Mr. President, what is the definition of ``success,'' assuming that the President keeps his commitment to withdraw our troops at the end of a 1-year period? The only possible definition of success, it seems to me, is that when we leave, the Bosnians are able to defend themselves against further aggression; that a peace, not arising out of reconciliation, can at least arise out of a balance of power and a feeling that the acts of the last 5 years cannot be repeated. It is exactly at that definition of success that the resolution proposed by our distinguished majority leader, Robert Dole, is aimed. The vague and uncertain promises that the Bosnians be equipped in such a way that they can defend themselves in the agreements in Dayton are sharpened and strengthened in this resolution by the insistence that we assure that these people, these victims, be able successfully to defend themselves at the end of a 1-year period. If that is the case, Mr. President, and only if that is the case, will we and our NATO allies be able to leave Bosnia without an automatic renewal of the civil war. And only if we are able to leave without that automatic renewal taking place, can either we or NATO claim to have been successful. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been the centerpiece of the foreign policy of the United States since 1948. It has been and it remains vital to the peace not only of Europe but to the rest of the world that NATO continue and that it be credible. As a consequence, even though NATO may have, as I believe it has done, made an erroneous and unwise commitment, and even though the President of the United States may have done and has done, in my view, an unwise thing in entering into this commitment, we now must honor it. We must honor it in a way that protects, to the best of our ability to do so, the security of our troops on the ground during the time that they are there and gives some reasonable degree of assurance that the war will not recommence immediately upon our leaving. Mr. President, every one of us in this body knows that the Congress of the United States will not and cannot exercise the only full authority it has, and that is to cut off any funding for this Bosnian venture. A Presidential veto on the assumption that there might be a majority in both Houses for cutting off that funding would not be overridden. The President has committed our troops to Bosnia. He is going to carry out that commitment, whatever the oratory on this floor, whatever the resolution that passes this body. We, therefore, if we are to be wiser than the President has been, must try to see to it that the troops who are there are there under the best possible circumstances, as undesirable as those circumstances may be. We must try to see to it that they are there for the shortest period of time possible, and that when they leave, the world can say that their intervention has been a success. Mr. President, I believe that the distinguished majority leader and those who have worked with him on his resolution have charted the only possible course of action that can meet those goals. We, as Americans, can have only one President at a time. All Presidents are fallible and, I must say, I think this President is particularly fallible. As a Member of this Senate, I supported President Reagan when he ordered air raids on Libya. I supported President Reagan when he liberated Grenada. And I supported President Bush when he proposed, ultimately successfully, to liberate Kuwait. I must say that none of those decisions was nearly as difficult as this one is, because in each case, I believed that the President was doing the right thing. But in a certain measure, even then that support was granted because the President, who was in charge, was our Commander in Chief and deserved every benefit of the doubt. I do not believe we can appropriately grant that benefit only to a President of our own party or a President with whom we agree. As a consequence, as reluctant as this assent is, I believe we must assent to what the President has done, at least to the extent of strongly supporting our troops who are faced with an extraordinarily difficult challenge, giving them the greatest possible opportunity to carry out their mission successfully from the perspective of defending their own lives and security and successfully from the perspective of defending their own lines and security and successfully from the perspective of leaving Bosnia at least not as terrible a place as they found it. The only way I have discovered at this point to do that, Mr. President, is to support the initiative of our distinguished majority leader. Our constituents--all of our constituents--are frustrated by this venture. It has not been appropriately defended by the President. His casual promise of 2 years ago should never have been made. But each of these is a bell we cannot unring and, at this point, we must look forward and do the best we can for our troops, our country, and our alliance. That, I am convinced, we will do by supporting Senator Dole's resolution. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today we passed a significant bill which will remove the burdensome bureaucracy of the Federal Housing and Urban Development Agency off the backs of American seniors. In this bill, which I originally introduced in the Senate during the 103d Congress, we take significant steps to provide fair, safe, and independent housing for Americans over the age of 55. I have received thousands of letters from concerned residents of ``55 and over'' communities in Washington. Today, law provides for people over the age of 62 to be provided with special housing arrangements. The qualifications for a senior housing development are simple: A community for persons age 62 and older is required to have all residents age 62 or older. In 1988, Congress also legislated that communities with citizens 55 or older would qualify as ``housing for older persons,'' provided those communities met three requirements: 80 percent of the housing units must be occupied by at least one person age 55 or older; a community must show in its advertising, rules, regulations and leases that it intends to serve people over the age of 55; and the community must provide ``significant facilities and services'' to its residents. It's those words: ``Significant facilities and services'' which have proven to be so problematic. HUD tried to tell us what ``Significant facilities and services'' meant--it received over 15,000 comments, all expressing continued confusing and puzzlement over the Department's attempt at clarification. This is an area of law that is crying for legislative relief. I believe, as do my constituents, that the Department's rules go too far in mandating that all ``55 and over'' communities provide expensive facilities and services and make these services accessible to older persons. Clearly, Mr. President, privately owned and operated ``55 and over'' communities catering to low- and moderate-income seniors cannot be expected to have the same facilities and services as federally funded housing projects. Seniors of all incomes deserve protection. As noted in the Senate report to H.R. 660, ``poorly drafted regulations have discouraged or outright denied seniors housing.'' With the overwhelming passage of H.R. 660, the U.S. Senate has stopped this practice. The U.S. Senate took a stand on behalf of our seniors, and their right to fair, safe, and equitable housing.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, 4 years ago at this time, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. That was an unsuccessful quest. But I will reflect on the fact that had that been a successful quest, we would not be faced with the challenge or the deadlock with which the Congress is faced today. The Senator from Nebraska, very clearly, goes much further in his recommendations for dealing with entitlements than does the Republican budget, which will be vetoed by the President because it does much too much for this President with respect to entitlement spending. Each of the suggestions that he has made, each of the suggestions that his bipartisan organization has made have a great deal of merit. Each of them ought to be seriously debated here in the Congress of the United States and, for that matter, in the White House. Very bluntly, however, they are not because the person who is President of the United States essentially sets the agenda, or at least the parameters of the debate over matters of this nature. So, at this point, we are faced with the proposition that, at best, we can do some of the things, take some of the steps toward a reform of our entitlement programs and the preservation of Medicare, advocated by the Senator from Nebraska and those who worked with him. But that is not the nature of the debate today. In spite of the fact that the Senator from Nebraska speaks as a Democrat, speaks from the other side of the aisle, we are faced today with the proposition that this body, this Congress, without a single Democratic vote here in the Senate, and with only the tiniest handful in the House of Representatives, has, in fact, passed a balanced budget in the year 2002, and has in fact, for the first time that this Congress really has ever done so, proposed profound reforms in entitlement programs, both for their own preservation and in order to preserve some ability on the part of the Congress to fund these discretionary programs. We are faced with the position of at least the vast majority of the other party, and certainly the President, that they will not propose any alternative which will reach the same goal. We struggled through bitter debates on this floor and much difficulty to pass a modest 3- week continuing resolution just a short time ago, just before Thanksgiving, the heart of which, as far as we were concerned, was the proposition --which the President signed--that we would come up with a balanced budget in the year 2002, using statistics provided by the Congressional Budget Office. Now, halfway from the date of that passage until December 15, we have no such proposal from the President, or, I may say, from the leaders of the party of which the Senator from Nebraska is a Member--none whatsoever. We have critiques of various elements of our proposal, including the critique of our tax reductions from the Senator from Nebraska. Well and good. Such criticisms are certainly appropriate within the frame of reference for reaching a balanced budget by 2002. It would be wonderful to debate whether or not we ought to go further and to pass a set of reforms that would last longer and be more decisive. But the Senator from Nebraska knows that no such debate of any seriousness will go on during this administration. So the real parameters are, is there a different way of reaching the goal set out in a law passed by this Congress just 10 days ago and signed by this President just 10 days ago? Do they want to make some kind of adjustments with various spending programs or with tax reductions? So far, the answer is, ``no,'' they do not want to play the game at all. They are content with the status quo. Last night, we were informed by the President of the United States that if we would simply pass appropriations bills with the items in it that he regarded as priorities, then he would sign the appropriations bills. Wonderful. Not a word about reforms in the entitlements, which are absolutely necessary in order to have any money left over in future years for any of these discretionary programs. Well, of course, that is an unacceptable offer. The only way we can determine whether or not there is money for any of the programs that we feel important, or that the President feels are important, is to operate within the same set of parameters, and to have the President submit to us something which his party will support and he will sign, which meets that goal of a balanced budget in the year 2002. It can be as radically different as that which the Senator from Nebraska advocates here. That would clearly be a starting point. I suspect that if it were a program such as he proposed, he would find a great deal of support for many of its elements on this side of the aisle. But he knows we are not going to get any such proposal from his political party. I hope that he regrets that we have gotten no proposal at all that meets those requirements--none at all. We have simply a statement that ``we have these priorities and those priorities,'' none of which includes balancing the budget. Now, this is not a zero-sum game, Mr. President, because built into the proposal which passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 is a huge dividend of $170 billion to the Government of the United States--perhaps half a trillion more in income in the pockets of the American people in the form of higher wages and lower interest rates, a dividend which disappears if we do not reach the goal. Almost precisely identical with the date of last year's elections, interest rates began to drop in the United States. Almost precisely with that time, productivity began to increase in the United States. Inflation is lower in the United States, as I read the statements of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, due to anticipation of a balanced budget. If this deadlock continues--if the President makes no proposal to reach that goal, no proposal, not that his own advisers think is a good one, but one that will stand the test of time and the financial markets of the United States--these improvements in our economy will be ephemeral. Interest rates will go up, the number of jobs will go down. We will be in a serious situation. So I know that those Senators on this side who have heard the remarks of the Senator from Nebraska will admire them and in most respects agree with them, but the time has come that either he needs to persuade his party to adopt his position, or at least he needs to persuade his party to respond within the frame of reference that is now the law of the United States for the last 10 years, and come up with some alternative that reaches those goals using the same set of figures that will provide the dividend we have been told will be the dividend resulting from a balanced budget. Somehow or another we have to get such an answer. We cannot negotiate a precise position on one side against no position at all on the other side. That is what we have from the President of the United States. I return to the beginning of my remarks: 4 years ago the statement of the Senator from Nebraska would have been more widely heard in the United States, when he was a candidate for President. I do not think I would have voted for him against the candidate of my own party, but I certainly think the country would have been better off had he succeeded in being the Democratic nominee.

Mr. GORTON

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

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am happy to support S. 1316, amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation will go a long way to help small and large water systems in my State to provide safe, clean, and affordable drinking water to their customers. Last year, the Senate considered legislation to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act. I was a strong supporter of that legislation, which, unfortunately, never made it to the President's desk. The bill before the Senate today improves upon last year's legislation, and I am proud to support the committee's legislation once again. Over the past several years I have heard from small and large water systems in my State urging Congress to amend the current law in order to break free of the one-size-fits-all approach of current law. The legislation before the Senate today accomplishes this goal. Washington State ranks fifth in the Nation in the number of small public water systems, and, as a result, the mandates of current law are especially burdensome on my State's small systems. For many of my State's small communities the price tag associated with filtration costs is incomprehensible. These communities simply cannot afford this costly technology. The legislation before us today ensures that small systems will be better able to provide safe drinking water to their customers. The bill directs the Administrator to identify a range of technologies for a range of small systems. The legislation recognizes that small systems have unique needs and cannot afford the costly technology that is affordable for larger systems. In addition, many of my State's small system operators have told me that monitoring compliance was one of the most costly aspects of the current law. By giving States with primary enforcement responsibility the opportunity to establish their own monitoring requirements, this legislation eliminates another costly burden for small systems. The legislation also makes a critical improvement over existing law on standard setting. The bill establishes that maximum contaminant level goals [MCLG] for contaminants that are known or likely to cause cancer in humans may be set at a level other than zero, if the Administrator determines based upon available, peer-reviewed science, that there is a threshold level below which there is unlikely to be any increase in cancer risk and the Administrator sets the MCLG at that level with an adequate margin of safety. MCLG's for carcinogens-- elements known to cause cancer--are set at zero under current law. Many in the scientific community believe that this number has been set arbitrarily. The setting of the standard at zero is the equivalent of the Delany clause for drinking water contaminants. Many communities in my State have argued that a MCLG set at zero is an ineffective use of funds, and results in a great deal of effort expended, in many cases, for a marginal reduction in the likelihood of cancer. By granting the Administrator the flexibility to establish a MCLG at a level other than zero, S. 1316 makes a good improvement to existing law. Mr. President, I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and their staff, for accepting an amendment to the bill offered by this Senator and the junior Senator from Washington. The amendment establishes a limited alternative to filtration, if the system can utilize another form of treatment that will provide a significantly greater removal of pathogens, than that of filtration. The need for this amendment was brought to my attention by the city of Seattle. The city has two water supply sources, the Cedar River Watershed, and the Tolt River supply. Because of turbidity problems in the Tolt supply, the city is in the process of implementing filtration technology on the Tolt. Conversely, the Cedar River supply does not have turbidity problems--it consistently tests below average for turbidity--and the city is seeking an alternative to filtration for the Cedar River supply. Currently the Cedar is an unfiltered system, and therefore must comply with the surface water treatment rule. The rule sets forward 11 specific criteria, and calls for extensive monitoring of the system, to ensure that the [[Page S 17756]] system continues to provide clean water to its customers. During 1992, the Cedar violated 1 of the 11 criteria, and, consequently, was required to initiate filtration plans. Shortly thereafter the city entered into an agreement with the State and EPA region 10 to achieve compliance with the rule without filtration. Seattle has been working closely with EPA region 10 and the Washington State Health Department for the past several years to find a way to treat the Cedar supply, without filtration. Filtration would cost the city roughly $200 million, but the city believes that the process of ozonation would better meet the city's drinking water needs. The ozonation process would only cost $68 million. Ozonation is a process that is considerably less expensive than filtration and is believed to be the next up and coming technology for ensuring clean drinking water. The ozonation process is proven to be more effective than filtration in getting rid of harmful pathogens in a water supply, like cryptosporidium and giardia. Filtration technology would inactivate 99.9 percent of crypto- sporidium, but ozonation would inactivate 99.999 percent of the crypto- sporidium. The increase of .099 is considered a significant increase in the level of human health protection. The city of Seattle--together with mayors from Tacoma, Redmond, Bothell, and Bellevue--support the amendment because the majority of their communities are served by the Seattle water system. On behalf of the Puget Sound residents served by the city of Seattle's water supply, I would like to thank Senators Chafee and Baucus, and their staff, for working on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the committee's bill, and this Senator hopes that we can get legislation to the President's desk for his signature this year.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as we are here, I think, close to completing a very important piece of legislation on safe drinking water, we, as Members of this body, recognize that in another sense we are marking time during negotiations between the Republican leadership of the House and Senate and the President of the United States on the question of the balanced budget. There was, just a few weeks ago, a crisis in the course of our Government as the President vetoed a continuing resolution and thus put out of work many hundreds of thousands of Government employees. Crisis negotiations led to a further continuing resolution under which each of the agencies of Government will continue in operation until the 15th of December while the various parties negotiate a long-term budget. One of the conditions of that return, a part of the law signed by the President of the United States, was an agreement to reach before the end of this session of Congress, that is to say, before the end of the year, a budget which would be projected to be in balance by the year 2002 under figures and statistics provided by the Congressional Budget Office, so that each of us knew the parameters within which that debate would take place. At the same time as these temporary arrangements were being made, this body and the House of Representatives passed, and is about to send to the President of the United States, a bill, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which accomplished precisely that goal. Many of the elements of that proposal are controversial, though it does for the first time truly reform our entitlement programs, including Medicare, Medicare in a way that preserves its financial security, keeps part A from going bankrupt, fairly continues the present percentage of premiums paid by the beneficiaries of part B, and adds to the premiums only of very well-off Americans. The President has announced--and in this case we have no reason to doubt him--that he will veto that Balanced Budget Act of 1995. So far, in spite of that announced intention, in spite of his signature solemnly affixed to a bill which calls for just such a balanced budget under just such a set of statistics, the President has submitted no alternative budget which would be balanced under those rules by 2002. As a consequence, the negotiations, which began abortively more than a week ago and seriously just a couple of days ago, have not even produced an agreement on an agenda. This is not surprising. We have produced and sent to the President the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. We believe that it covers all of the conditions asked for by the President: that it properly and appropriately funds Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, the national defense, the environment, and a wide range of other activities. The President disagrees. That is the President's prerogative. But, Mr. President, it is not an appropriate response to that disagreement to simply sit still and say, ``Give me another alternative.'' The President has a duty, if he is serious at all about the budget crisis facing this country, to say, Here is my proposal for a balanced budget by the year 2002, based on these same propositions. Here are the differences between the two parties. Let us negotiate those differences. To this point, every economic indicator since the election of just more than a year ago is in a positive direction. Interest rates are lower, inflation is down, employment and the gross domestic product are up, based, as we understand, primarily on the proposition that our financial markets believe that the budget will be balanced. In my opinion, if the President continues to refuse to propose any alternative, if he believes that the politics of scare tactics about Medicare and other programs are a better election platform on which to run than an actual balanced budget, we will almost certainly suffer a loss in each one of [[Page S 17758]] those economic indicators, which will not help the President--for that matter, will not help the Congress, and certainly will not help the country. We are bound and determined to have just such a balanced budget. The President has now, by his signature on a bill, agreed to just such a balanced budget. It is time--it is well past time--that the President, who so eloquently disagrees with ours, produces his own so that we can work constructively toward a solution. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last night the President of the United States spoke to the people of the United States in justification of his dispatch of some 20,000 American troops to Bosnia to enforce the agreement entered into last week in Dayton, OH, ending for the time being, at least, the war in Bosnia. President Clinton, I believe, made the best possible case for keeping a commitment which he made some months ago. I believe that commitment was both unwise and improvident. Nonetheless, it was made by the President. For me, and I think for most other Members of Congress, the American national security interest in Bosnia is difficult to discern. We will be there in the hopes that we can settle a civil war which has gone on in its present form for some 4 years, but in a more profound fashion for at least 600 years. The temporary peace which we will be in Bosnia to enforce is not a just peace. In fact, it ratifies almost all of the gains made as a result of the aggression of the Bosnian Serbs, leaves essentially unchallenged the ethnic cleansing, the displacement of people, and the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. We will be in Bosnia to support a peace of exhaustion, not a peace of justice. Having said all that, Mr. President, and having spoken on this floor on numerous occasions in favor of an American policy that would have repudiated the arms embargo and allowed the citizens of Bosnia the effective means to fight for their own freedom and independence, we as Americans, we as United States Senators, are now faced with a fait accompli. The President of the United States has the constitutional authority, in my view, to send troops to Bosnia and has announced that he is going to do so. As a consequence, however unwise we may consider that decision to have been, we are essentially faced with the proposition that to oppose it, to try to put roadblocks in its path, is likely to increase the already considerable danger in which our troops will find themselves on the front lines in Bosnia. This reaction is one that I think is fairly common among Members of this body. It was expressed by three former National Security Advisers and Secretaries of Defense before the Armed Services Committee this morning, and by many outside commentators who have felt this administration's position with respect to Bosnia has been wrongheaded almost from the start. So, sometime in the next week or 2 weeks, we will be presented here on the floor with some sort of resolution with respect to Bosnia. I do not believe any Member, at this point, can say that he or she will vote in favor of it sight unseen or, for that matter, will vote against it sight unseen. I hope we will be able to come up with a resolution which will have at least a wide degree of support here in this body, a broader and less partisan degree of support than was the case a few years ago with respect to the war in the gulf. Such a resolution, I believe, will concentrate on the situation as it exists on the ground today, given the President's decision, rather than with the process that led the President to this decision, one which gives unequivocal support to our troops, to the men and women whose lives will be at risk, to the maximum possible extent without saying we necessarily agree with the policy that brought them there in the first place. We can all hope that in a period of 1 year the civil passions which have been so brutally expressed during the last 4 years will be extinguished. We can be pardoned for believing that is a very considerable long shot and that our troops, a year from now, are likely to come home leaving behind them exactly the situation they found when they arrived. Nevertheless, this is the point we have reached. The President has done his best to explain it to the people of the United States, and I am certain that most of them, while they may not like the decision, will certainly provide support for those troops themselves. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, after an opportunity has been given to speak for the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, about 3 days ago when we began to debate a continuing resolution which would have caused the Government to go back to work while we attempted to reach a balanced budget, the leading member of the Democratic Party on the Budget Committee, the Senator from Nebraska, pleaded with us for what he called--and I quote him--a ``simple extension.'' Mr. President, this standoff is taking place because--between a ``simple extension'' and the dramatic change represented by the formal 7-year budget passed by this body 2 nights ago that would balance the budget by the year 2002--there is a great gulf fixed. This is not a petty difference. This is not a minor difference in opinion on a slight change in direction for the Government of the United States. It is reflected in what the majority leader said if that bill passed. That profound difference was reflected by the remarks of the majority leader to the effect that the vote that he cast to cause the budget to be balanced was probably the most important that he had cast in all of his many years in the U.S. Senate. We on this side of the aisle wish to end the practice of spending $200 billion a year on programs which we like and support eloquently but refuse to pay for and, therefore, send the bills to our children and grandchildren. Members on the other side wish for a simple extension of the present course of action. They argue eloquently for the status [[Page S 17480]] quo. They like what Government is doing at the present time, and they are quite content to spend money and send the bills to someone else in some future generation. We have been informed that, if we do in fact pass a set of laws that will balance the budget by the year 2002, the Federal Government itself will receive a dividend of $170 billion in lower interest rates on the debt and in higher tax collections because people are making higher incomes. The dividends to the people of the United States is some half a trillion dollars in lower interest rates on their homes, their automobiles, in better job opportunities, and in higher wages. We look to the future. They look to the present and to the past. The President now in the present negotiations is willing to set a goal of a balanced budget, a dream of a balanced budget, the thought that the budget might be balanced sometime long after he ceases to be President, but he is unwilling to state it as a policy. Even if we are to go to a balanced budget, there is another struggle which is not at all petty, Mr. President, between whose figures we will use, those of the Congressional Budget Office, the very Congressional Budget Office which the President himself said was the neutral arbiter just 2 years ago, and the figures that the President himself through his own office comes up with to suit his own purposes. Many, including some otherwise thoughtful commentators on national television, say, ``This is $1 million difference. Why are you quarreling over it?'' Mr. President, we are quarreling over it because the difference in those estimates in the next 10 years is $1 trillion in spending. This President wants to use estimates that will allow him to spend $1 trillion more in the next 10 years, half a trillion dollars more in the next 7 years, the 7 which separate us in the debate on the balanced budget. That is not a modest difference, Mr. President--half a trillion dollars in the next 7 years. What is the difference given the fact that neither side can be certain that it is right? If the White House is wrong and the Congressional Budget Office is right, and we adopt the White House figures, we will never have deficits lower than $150 billion or $200 billion even at the end of the 7 years. If, on the other hand, we are wrong, we are too conservative and they are right but our policies are adopted, what happens then? We balance the budget in 5 years rather than 7. We simply reach our goal more rapidly with a larger fiscal dividend. Let us put it very straightforward. Two days ago this Congress passed a continuing resolution, one which would have put all Government employees back to work with the single requirement that we state that we would come up with a budget that would be balanced by the year 2002 using the honest and realistic figures of the Congressional Budget Office. It did not confine the President or the other party to any particular tax cut, to any particular defense budget, or to any particular reductions or slowing of growth in any program at all. It simply said that we would debate from the same set of figures, and we would reach the same desired end. That is all. So this is an important difference. If you want to spend another half a trillion dollars in the course of the next 7 years, you should favor the President's course of action. That is what he wants to do. That is his budget. If you feel that it is immoral, as well as economically wrong, to spend money today and to bill your children and grandchildren for it, and you can accomplish those goals while still allowing spending in the U.S. Government to go up by an average of 3 percent a year, then you take our side of this debate, Mr. President. The debate is an important one. It is a vital one. It is, as the majority leader said, at least the single most important debate in the last 10 years, if not longer. It is a debate between those who believe that the budget ought in fact to be in balance at the end of 7 years and those who have other and higher priorities and want to continue to spend money that they do not put up themselves but that they will bill to their children and their grandchildren.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10:30 a.m., Monday, November 20; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date; that no resolutions come over under the rule; that the call of the calendar be dispensed with; that the morning hour be deemed to have expired; that the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that there be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in session tomorrow to adopt an adjournment resolution. It is also possible that the Senate may consider any legislative or executive business cleared for action during Monday's session.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am requested by the leadership to ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, those of the distinguished Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], and those of the distinguished Democratic leader, the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

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