T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is identical to a provision included in the Senate's fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill. The Senate bill included language that prohibits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing species, and designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. Like the Interior provision, the amendment I offer today allows the Secretary to continue to implement recovery plans for listed species, implement 4(d) rules, de-list, downlist, and remove species from the list altogether. In other words, this amendment would place a time out on further listings under the act until a reauthorization is enacted into law, or until the end of fiscal year 1996. The majority of the Senate voted earlier this year to support a similar amendment to the Department of Defense Supplemental Appropriations bill. The Senate voted 60-38 to adopt the Hutchison amendment that effectively placed a moratorium on the listing of species under the act by rescinding funds from the Fish and Wildlife Service listing account. The House Commerce, State, Justice bill zeroed out the ESA listing account, but did not include bill language backing up its decision not to fund the listing account. I believe that the amendment I offer today, while some Senators may not support it, will give the administration support to fend off potential lawsuits down the road, possibly demanding that it list one species or another. Unlike the House bill, my amendment does not reduce funds for any of the ESA accounts funded within the Department of Commerce. This amendment is not an attempt to put off forever the debate on reauthorization of the ESA. To the contrary, this Senator desperately wants to see the ESA reauthorized. Senator Johnston and I have introduced legislation to amend and reauthorize the act, and we hope that the Senate will take up legislation to reauthorize the act sometime this Fall. As many of you know, [[Page S 14671]] Congressmen Young and Pombo recently introduced legislation in the House of Representatives to reauthorize the act. What this amendment does is to ensure that both the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Commerce--both of whom have jurisdiction over implementation of the ESA--are implementing the law consistently. If the full committee adopts my amendment, both Secretaries will be held to the same standard--to implement a time out on further listings under the act. The amendment places a prohibition on the use of funds for the implementation of subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), (g), or (i) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, until legislation reauthorizing the act is enacted or until the end of fiscal year 1996, whichever comes first. Essentially this provision prohibits the listing of species and the designation of its critical habitat. This amendment allows funds to be used to determine whether or not a species should be removed from the list, delisted, or downlisted from its current status. (Pursuant to subsections 4(a)(2)(B), 4(c)(B)(i), and 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the act.) These subsections specifically allow for the following actions: Funds may be used to implement subsection 4(a)(2)(B) that allows the Secretary to remove a species from the list pursuant to subsection (c) (the provisions cited below), or to be changed in status from endangered to threatened. Funds may be used to implement subsection 4(c)(2)(B)(i) that would allow the Secretary to remove a species from the list. In other words, whether or not a species should be delisted. Funds may also be used to implement subsection 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) that would allow the Secretary to determine whether a species should be changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species. In other words, whether or not the species should be down listed. Funds may be used by the Secretary to implement subsection 4(d) that would allow the Secretary to issue protective regulations for threatened species. This is what is commonly known as a 4(d) rule, which, as many of you may know, has been used by this administration in an attempt to provide protection for threatened species, and a degree of flexibility for landowners. Funds may be used by the Secretary to implement subsection 4(f) that would allow the Secretary to continue to implement recovery plans for already listed threatened and endangered species. Funds may be used by the Secretary to implement subsection 4(h) that allows the Secretary to issue agency guidelines, and adhere to notice and public comment requirements. amendment no. 2861 (Purpose: To provide funds for the Community Relations Service) On page 12, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following: Community Relations Service salaries and expenses For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, established by title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, $10,638,000: Provided, That such additional funds as may be necessary for the resettlement of Cuban and Haitian entrants shall be available to the Community Relations Service, without fiscal year limitation, to be reimbursed from the Immigration Examinations Fee Account: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the funds made available pursuant to this Act under the heading ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salaries and Expenses,'' shall be reduced by $11,170,000.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I would just like to echo the statements of the Senator from Idaho. As a strong supporter, and one who worked with the Senator from Texas in developing her amendment to the Defense supplemental, I believe that the continuing resolution must continue the current moratorium on listing and critical habitat designations under the ESA. The continuation of this moratorium during the short time of the continuing resolution is even more critical because the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations conference report includes language that extends the current moratorium. As chairman on the Interior appropriations subcommittee, I included language in the fiscal year 1996 Interior conference report that prohibits listings and critical habitat designations under the ESA during fiscal year 1996, or until legislation reauthorizing the act is enacted. It is critical to maintain the moratorium during the short time period covered by the continuing resolution.

Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Idaho yield?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. That is a justified objection, Mr. President. But I am convinced that we have an opportunity, if we go along the road that the Senator from New Mexico has set out for us, to retain what is good and what is important in the Legal Services Corporation and prevent the excesses to which many of our citizens have been subjected in the past and about which we have heard. If it turns out that these requirements, that these limitations do not work, that these injustices continue, well, we are dealing with only a 1-year appropriations bill. We can deal with those objections at a another time relatively soon in the future. So it is for that reason, Mr. President--that we can retain what is appropriate about the Legal Services Corporation, and we can at least begin, and perhaps succeed, in reining in the excesses of that corporation--that I support the position outlined so well by the Senator from New Mexico and ask that we accept his amendment. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator yield for another question on the same issue?

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, would the chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee yield for a question?

Mr. GORTON. As the Senator from Missouri knows, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund is working hard to put together a Superfund reauthorization bill, and bring it to the Senate floor this year. There are an entire range of issues associated with the fact that Indian tribes are not currently treat as persons under the Superfund law, and are not liable for clean up of waste that a tribe may have contributed to a site. I have discussed this issue with Senator Smith and he told me that these issues will be looked at as he develops legislation to reauthorize the law. Consequently, I would ask that the Senator drop out the ``or appropriate tribal leader'' provision during conference with the House over the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD bill.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator. The Senator has included the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD bill a provision that prohibits the addition of any new sites to the Superfund ``National Priorities List,'' with one exception. The language enables the ``governor of a state, or appropriate tribal leader'' to veto the EPA Administrator's request that a site be placed on the NPL. With one reservation, I support the provision in the VA-HUD bill because this Senator wants to see Superfund reauthorized, and the prohibition provides an important time out from adding new sites to the NPL. My reservation is this: I am concerned that the phrase ``appropriate tribal leader'' expands the authority of tribes, beyond that which they are granted under current law, to veto a site recommended by the EPA Administrator for listing on the NPL. The fiscal year 1995 rescission bill included a provision similar to that included in the bill before the Senate, with one exception. The bill currently before the Senate gives the authority to both the Governor of a State, or an appropriate tribal leader to veto the EPA Administrator's request that a site be added to the NPL. Was it the intent of the subcommittee chairman to expand the authority of Indian tribes under the Superfund law with this provision? [[Page S 14376]]

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today, I lend my voice to the advocates of project space station. In order to frame this debate for my colleagues, I want to pose a few rhetorical questions. What are the critical issues surrounding space station on the Senate floor? Is it scientific worth? Is it an issue of foreign policy, or national priority? The answer to each is yes. But the underlying discontent that many of my colleagues harbor is not the scope or importance of space station--rather, it is the cost. As a member of the Budget Committee, I fully and unequivocally support balancing the Federal budget by 2002. That task is not only a fiscal imperative, it is a moral one on which the future of this country depends. Ironically, that is where space station fits squarely in this debate. Balancing the budget is an imperative. Beginning the groundwork for America's future scientific operations may, in fact, help us do just that. Take, for example, research in cardiovascular disease. As my colleagues know, heart disease is the leading cause of death in both men and women in the United States. One in four Americans suffer from cardiovascular disease, costing this country an estimated $138 billion in medical expenses and lost productivity annually; $138 billion annually is not a small figure--it is, in fact, devastating. The conditions provided in space, and on space station in particular, will allow our doctors and scientists to see a heart functioning in microgravity. conditions for an extended duration, something not replicable on Earth or the space shuttle. NASA's work on how space flight affects blood pressure is aiding scientists to understand the complex and sophisticated operations of the heart and circulatory system. As gravity lessens, the body's blood pressure controls are altered and change. High blood pressure is a major problem for the general population of the United States. The opportunities for long duration space flight on the space station will provide a laboratory for extensive and complex research on blood pressure control and how it is affected by the presence or absence of gravity. What does this all mean? If 1 percent of that $138 billion can be reduced, or even one-tenth of 1 percent, we will have significantly reduced some of the massive costs incurred in our battle against this terrible, and prevalent, disease. By January 1995, 25,000 pounds worth of space station was built. By the end of this year, that poundage strides to 100,000. Upon completion, the space station will stretch 361 across and 290 feet long, with a total weight of 925,000 pounds. Orbiting 230 nautical miles above the Earth, it will be accessible to the launch vehicles of all its international partners. And with Boeing as the new prime contractor, space station is on schedule, and meeting all of its critical milestones. Perhaps more importantly, its annual cost has been fixed at $2.1 billion--according to NASA that represents less than 15 percent of the organization's total budget. That being said, $2.1 billion is still a significant amount of money to be spent, particularly with the Republican goal of bringing the country out of its current fiscal mess. Yet I fully support space station, and its mission, because I believe the benefits associated with this program will be important, numerous and hopefully more rewarding than we can predict. From crystalline proteins to the research in osteoporosis, space station has the potential, and I believe certainty, to deliver important scientific discoveries impossible to replicate or produce here on Earth. Does that justify the cost? Absolutely. If the cure for one disease--just one disease--is found, and that if may not be as big as some of my colleagues assert, we will have paid for space station and all its associated costs, fully. [[Page S 14245]]

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Five years ago I was invited to be the first United States Senator to address the newly elected Estonian Parliament as it liberated itself from 50 years of illegal Soviet occupation. I was denied entry into Estonia by the Soviet regime, but have since taken a distinct and parochial interest in Estonia's well-being. Recently I met with Lt. Gen. Aleksander Einseln, commander of the Estonian Armed Forces. In our meeting, he outlined the significant material problems that his nascent military faces. With the almost complete withdrawal of Russian military forces, Estonia must now look to its own defense. Estonia is struggling to heal its wounds of 50 years of Soviet domination. Its resources are very limited; its army small--merely 4,000 soldiers I am told. This amendment gives the President authority to transfer to Estonia such excess defense articles as the President determines necessary to help modernize its defense capabilities. The transfer is subject to the provisions of section 519 subsections (b) through (f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. In short, those provisions authorize the President to transfer excess, nonlethal defense articles to a country if a foreign military financing program has been justified for the fiscal year in which the transfer is to be made; allow the United States to help said country modernize its defense capabilities; allow the transfer of the excess defense articles only if the equipment is drawn from existing DOD stocks, no DOD procurement funds are used in connection with the transfer, the President determines the transfer will not have an adverse effect on the military readiness of the United States, the President determines transferring said articles is preferable to selling them; require the President to notify the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services--or National Security--and Foreign relations; require the President to submit an annual report to said committees detailing the value of the shipment; require said country to pay for all crating, packing, handling, and transportation costs. Estonia has joined the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Partnership for Peace. Its government has developed a robust democracy while fully embracing the principles of a market economy. For our part, any help the United States can provide will, I believe, be invaluable to our strategic and moral interests. This amendment does just that. amendment no. 2739 On page 18, line 24, after ``assistance:'' insert the following: ``Provided further, That not less than the Egyptian pound equivalent of $85,000,000 generated from funds made available by this paragraph, or from any other source including from funds made available for Egypt for fiscal year 1997, shall be made available to the United States pursuant to the United States-Egypt Economic, Technical and Related Assistance Agreements of 1978, for the following endowments established under such agreements: the Egyptian pound equivalent of $50,000,000 shall be made available to replenish the existing endowment for the American University in Cairo, and the Egyptian pound equivalent of $35,000,000 shall be made available to replenish the existing endowment for projects and programs which promote the preservation and restoration of Egyptian antiquities:''

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chair. I appear here this evening to add my voice to my vote in supporting the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. Much, perhaps all, that needs to be said on this issue has already been said, but I believe it important that there be more voices than the handful that have spoken out so far. The Senator from Colorado has pointed out that in spite of the policies of the United States, Pakistan has continued to be a friend and an ally of the United States, has helped the United States when we were involved in assisting rebels in Afghanistan, has helped the United States in connection with the return of fugitives fleeing justice here in this country, has moved in spite of great difficulties more and more toward a democratic system and toward a system based on free market economies. As the Senator from Colorado has pointed out, in a very difficult part of the world, this nation has helped in the pursuit of peace and security and stability. I should like to say that in the most profound sense, as we deal with this issue, that friendship and that assistance is almost irrelevant. This debate in this body at least is not so much about Pakistan and India as it is about the United States, its administration, and this body. Mr. President, a great nation honors its commitments. This Nation has repudiated its commitments and should reverse its course of action and embrace that part of honor once again. This Nation permitted the manufacture and sale to Pakistan of certain military aircraft. They have been bought and paid for, and yet for years we have not only denied the right of the purchaser to take possession of those aircraft, we have added insult to injury by not showing our willingness, having set this policy, to pay back the purchase price and in fact are demanding from Pakistan payment for storage charges for the aircraft. That is not the action of an honorable country. That is not the action of a nation which keeps its commitments. I strongly suspect that the Senator from Colorado would prefer simply that we keep our original agreement. He has not gone so far. He has simply suggested that those items of military equipment that are owned by Pakistan that are here for repair, which have also effectively been confiscated by the actions of our Government, be returned to Pakistan and that in the most modest possible way of dealing with the aircraft, they be sold to third parties and the proceeds of those sales be returned to the nation which has paid for them. I wish we were voting on a more decisive action, Mr. President. I have that wish not so much because of a strong opinion on the rivalry between India and Pakistan as I do to remove this blot from our own record. As I said earlier, an honorable nation keeps its commitments. We have not kept our commitments. We should do so to the extent required by this amendment. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment does not do what and exempt what the Senator from Arkansas says it does. He exempts co-ops from his prohibition, but he does not exempt the associations, which is the way most of your farmers will operate. There is not any apple grower in the State of Washington, I do not believe, who is not small enough to be a small business, but when he operates through an association, as he does and as they always do, he will not be exempted from the cuts that the Senator is imposing on him, nor will our asparagus growers, nor will any of your farmers who operate in that fashion.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture Appropriations bill that would delay final regulations implementing the 1990 Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act. This act governs the export of State and Federal logs in the Western United States. Since 1990 the timber industry in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana has operated under interim regulations promulgated to enforce the 1990 law. The legislation is very complicated, and sets up a series of requirements for companies that wish to export State or Federal logs. Consequently, the regulations implementing the law must be very precise, and an entire industry--for the most part--must react to any regulations on this subject with painstaking attention to the details. On Friday, September 8, the Department of Agriculture implemented-- effective immediately--final regulations implementing the 1990 log export law. Let me say this again--the regulations were made effective immediately. The final regulations were dramatically different than the regulations as initially proposed, and, as a result completely and totally overwhelmed the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest. The regulations are overly burdensome, and must be re-written. Let me give you a brief example of the specificity of these regulations, and why any rational person would not make the effective date immediate on the regulations. For example, the regulation establishes a procedure for exporting finished lumber. When a company exports lumber, the new regulations require that company to keep in its possession for each shipment or order, a lumber inspection certificate, and a company certificate to ensure that export restricted timber is in fact processed before export. The regulation establishes a procedure for marking Federal and private timber that originates from within a sourcing area. All private timber that is harvested inside a sourcing area must be marked on both ends of the log with highway yellow paint, before it can be removed from the harvest area. This paint signifies that the logs must be domestically processed. Based upon the industry reading of the regulation, this provision appears to apply to logs that will be processed in the company's own mill. The log must be marked throughout the entire process, from harvest to ``mill in-feed,'' no matter how many times it has been cut. The regulation establishes a procedure for disposing of private timber that originates from within a sourcing area. The regulations mandate a complex procedure of identification, notice, paperwork and record keeping process. The process is as follows: Before a company sells any export restricted private timber, that is, private timber that originates from within a sourcing area, the selling company must do the following: Give notice to the purchaser that the timber cannot be exported; give notice that the timber has been marked and the mark must be retained; agree to send in the transaction statement to the Regional Forester within 10 calendar days; retain records of acquisition and disposition for 3 years from the date of manufacture or disposition, and make such records available for inspection by the Forest Service; acknowledge that failure to identify the timber as mentioned above and to accurately report is a violation of the act, and the ``False Statement Act''; certify that the form has been read and understood. The purchasing company is required to follow a similar set of requirements. As you can tell, the regulations are specific, and would require some major adjustments to current operating practices. When this is coupled with the fact that a violation of each aspect of the regulation carries with it a potentially heavy fine, it is clear that these regulations must be delayed. According to the regulations, fines can be assessed for each violation--which includes the omission of just one paint stripe on a log. In addition, civil penalties are high--the Forest Service has the discretion, based upon the nature of the violation, to assess penalties of up to $500,000 or three times the gross value of the timber involved, plus the option to cancel all Federal timber contracts. This Senator believes that a regulated entity--whether it's a small business or a big business--deserves to understand a set of regulations before it is implemented. This is just common sense. To do the opposite, as was done in this case--to blind-side an industry with draconian regulations that have never been reviewed by the regulated community--certainly fans the flame of anti-government sentiment. My amendment, co-sponsored by Senator Murray and Senator Burns, would delay the regulations for 120 days. During that 120-day period the regulations issued on September 8 would be treated as proposed regulations, affected parties would have the opportunity to comment on the regulations, and the Department is required to make the necessary revisions based upon such comments. During this 120 day period, the interim regulations would remain in place, and any fines assessed based upon the September 8 regulations would be null and void. This amendment is not controversial. This amendment makes common sense, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. amendment no. 2704 On page 25, line 14, strike $564,685,000 and insert $563,004,000. On page 37, line 8, strike $1,000,000 and insert $2,681,000.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, never before in my career in the U.S. Senate have I considered or supported taking an action of this nature. Yet, I am convinced that, if anything, the proposal of the Senator from Alaska is too mild. Each and every one of us has had differences of opinion on matters of policy with persons in a national administration, sometimes with members of our own party, but more frequently with those of the other party. But these differences of opinion are cast in the terms of policy, not in the terms of either truthfulness or a willingness to abide by the law. So I wish to emphasize as clearly as I possibly can that this amendment proposed by the Senator from Alaska does not stem from a difference of opinion over a matter of policy with Secretary Lyons. We differ with the entire administration on many matters of policy relating to the forests. But in the case of Mr. Lyons, we do not get truthful answers from him on questions of fact, and we get defiance with respect to the law, whether it has been on the law books for an extended period of time or is brand new, consistently. And there is a vindictive attitude toward any of those who disagree with him and toward almost all of those who are engaged in the profession of forestry in the private sector. Let me give you just a few really very, very recent examples. Two of them come from the rescissions bill, which was passed by this Congress and signed by the President only a very few months ago. The most recent took place only last week. The bill on rescissions was, quite obviously, a controversial piece of legislation. And it carried with it, in addition to the cancellation of some spending programs, a number of substantive provisions. The first rescissions bill passed by this Congress was vetoed by President Clinton, as was his perfect right, on a number of grounds, one of which was the so-called ``salvage timber'' language that was included in that bill. During the period of time between that veto and the passage of a second rescissions bill, the language on salvage and other timber was negotiated literally line by line with the administration. And the administration was consistently represented by Assistant Secretary Lyons. One of the issues was what timber was covered by one of the provisions in the bill. Secretary Lyons argued for a more restrictive provision. He ultimately asked those of us who were proponents of the language to give him a list of the timber sales that were authorized by the bill. That list of timber sales was given to him. The bill was passed. The bill was signed by the President of the United States, and immediately Assistant Secretary Lyons said that most of the contracts that were listed in the very list he had been given would not be released. He interpreted the section concerned in the manner he had advocated in these negotiations and was rejected by those negotiations. His position has already been rejected by a U.S. District Court which stated that the meaning of the provision was absolutely clear. In spite of that ruling, Secretary Lyons has still not released the timber sales and a spokesman for his administration said, ``This ruling was not an order. It doesn't direct us to do anything.'' Obviously, requiring people to go back into court, once again, to enforce what Secretary Lyons understood to be the law before the law was passed, understood what it was after it was passed, understood it was after the court ruled, and understands what it is today. Another provision in the same timber language for rescission had to do with other timber sales. There was an extensive debate over the definition of a phrase ``known to be nesting.'' We stated it meant (A), Secretary Lyons insisted it be amended to have the meaning (B). Secretary Lyons' position was rejected and the land which was stated to have meaning (A) was adopted and signed by the President. Secretary Lyons immediately interpreted it to mean what he had asked us to change it to unsuccessfully. That matter is now in court. Just last week, Assistant Secretary Lyons caused to be issued a final rule for the implementation of a 1990 law entitled the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990, dealing primarily with the export of logs from State and Federal lands. Mr. President, that law was passed in 1990. A proposed rule has been under discussion literally for years and the companies involved in this business have managed their business in accordance with that proposed rule. On September 8, Assistant Secretary Lyons issued a final rule for the implementation of the 1990 law dramatically different from the proposed rule--dramatically different--without having had any hearings or having given any notification as to those changes, as to those differences. That new rule will require dramatically different business practices on the part of persons in the timber industry, the failure to observe, which will subject them to great fines in business penalties. Yet, Secretary Lyons made the rule effective immediately. The burden he has imposed is an impossible burden to meet. Later on this evening I believe that we here will adopt an amendment to this bill directing that there be a 120-day period after the time of the promulgation of that rule until it becomes effective, so that people can at least change their business practices so that they are operating in accordance with the law. Making it effective immediately can only have been designed to persecute business enterprises engaged in this business who had no notice of what was going to be included in this rule whatever. Mr. President, other Senators have told me of numerous occasions on which they have been given specific assurances of a matter of fact by the Assistant Secretary, only to have his actions dramatically and diametrically opposed to the commitments that he has made. Mr. President, this is a Federal officeholder who operates outside of the law who believes that the law is whatever he feels appropriate policy is and who ignores actions by the Congress of the United States totally and diametrically opposed to his philosophies. This is not an amendment that results from a disagreement on a matter of policy. It is an amendment to sanction an individual by removing the Forest Service from his jurisdiction for deliberate falsehoods to the Congress of the United States and for deliberate violations of the law. It should not be treated on a partisan matter. It should not be treated in the manner in which Members vote to defend actions of this sort. All of us are implicated by this kind of lawless action on the part of an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. All of us, by voting in favor of this amendment, can pass on the message which should be a message for all administrations of both parties under any set of circumstances, that policy differences in a free country are totally and completely appropriate, but that the law, the administrative law which applies to a given Department, must be honestly and forthrightly carried out by that Department. That is not the case with this Assistant Secretary, Mr. President. It is dramatically not the case. We should sanction, by the adoption of the Stevens amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my message today is simple: If you are pro trade, pro growth, and pro jobs--you are pro MPP. The Market Promotion Program is a proven success. For example, in my home State of Washington we have seen a dramatic increase in apple exports from 4.3 million cartons to 25.1 million, an increase of over 500 percent. Export sales now total over $300 million. This success is due to the Market Promotion Program. My State alone exports over 1.1 billion dollars' worth of agriculture products. Such exports generate nearly $3 billion in economic activity and provide over 33,000 export-related jobs in my State of Washington. Programs like MPP are absolutely essential if U.S. agriculture--the most competitive industry in the world--is to remain viable and competitive in the international marketplace. MPP gives U.S. agriculture the tool it needs to develop, maintain, and expand commercial export markets for U.S. agriculture commodities in the new post-GATT environment. In summary, Mr. President, without MPP we give our competitors an advantage and the opportunity to capture and maintain a significant share of the world market. U.S. agriculture is the most competitive industry in the world. We should provide the tools necessary so that U.S. agriculture can develop, maintain, and expand its share of the world market.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, 30 years ago President Johnson had a dream of a ``Great Society'' where the United States Government would undertake to lift the poor out of their wretchedness. Today, the intended nobility of his dream has been obliterated by the horrors of crime, drugs, illegitimacy and total family breakdown. Mr. President, I am not just saying that welfare does not work; I am saying that it is hurting those it purports to help. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are suffering because the Federal Government insists on centralized control over a system that is not living up to its promises. Thirty years of welfare state have not eradicated poverty, not made a dent in poverty; if anything, poverty in America has become more wretched than ever before. What we know now, Mr. President, is a Federal bureaucracy that has shown itself virtually incapable helping needy people. More Federal mandates are not the answer. Control over welfare must be relinquished to State and local governments. Federal control certainly does not work, and the only way we can determine what kind of public assistance program will work is if we let States and local communities experiment. Mr. President, I have heard from people in Washington State who have knowledge of and experience with the present system and who fervently believe in disassembling welfare as we know it. This year, Washington State legislators tried to overhaul the State welfare system. Their frustration mounted as their innovative ideas were killed by overwhelming amounts of waivers, directors and general red tape from the Federal Government. Social workers are often too busy keeping up with paperwork and complicated, sometimes conflicting, Federal regulations to help people get jobs and become self-sufficient. I have listened to people who are on or have been on welfare. Their stories alone are enough to convince me that the system has to be charged. Welfare, you see, punishes people for trying to get out. One woman in Whatcom County was not allowed to participate in a job training program because she hadn't been receiving public assistance long enough. Mr. President, the faults and iniquities of welfare run wide and deep. We must face the problem. We must stop pretending that by tinkering here or changing a bit there that everything will be better. What we must do is completely restructure public assistance in America. It is well past time for Washington, DC to relinquish control over welfare to States and local communities. There are a lot of things the Federal Government is good at--handing out checks and creating bureaucracies are particular areas of expertise. But the Federal Government is not so good at setting people free from its control. The current system pits people against government institutions. it prohibits innovation. When local communities try to implement new ways to combat poverty, unemployment and illegitimacy, the bureaucracy balks, throwing up barriers to new ideas and community involvement, and enforcing the same old mandates. Frankly, Mr. President, bureaucracies do not care if people get off welfare or stay on it for the rest of their lives. But there are many of us who do care, who do want to relieve the plight of so many of our fellow Americans. The liberals who have supported the Welfare State these many years are reacting with vehemence against proposals to let States and local communities have more of a say in public assistance programs. This reaction points to the distrust most liberals have toward people, as opposed to government institutions. Does it make sense to say that a bureaucrat in Washington, DC cares more about needy people in Spokane, WA, than do the actual citizens of that community? I do not believe so. Mr. President, the only way to stop the dependency, the illegitimacy, the family breakdown, and the hopelessness of the current system is to truly change--not merely tinker with--the way it is run. If our goal is to improve people's lives, then we can't continue on the path we're on now. We must allow people the opportunity to make their own lives, to provide for themselves and their families, to feel the pride of honest work, and to be the deciders of their fate--not to have the Federal Government as their master. Mr. President, I support the majority leader's welfare reform bill because it provides the best means for giving responsibility back to local communities and ending the Federal Government's control over how money is spent and programs administered. This legislation, America's Work and Family Opportunities Act of 1995, does not fall into the trap of trying to manage the system from Washington, DC. State and local governments, instead of being told what to do by Federal bureaucrats, are allowed to experiment and come up with solutions that meet local needs. The last thing we need is yet more Federal mandates to stifle local innovations and solutions. Mandates that sound wonderful in the Nation's Capital can wreak havoc when they are put into practice--in truth, we have no way of knowing if they will work. Giving States flexibility will produce programs both successful and unsuccessful; when we can distinguish one from the other, perhaps more Federal guidance will be in order. Our only hope for ending welfare as we know it, Mr. President, is to end the bureaucracy, end the incentives for staying on the rolls and out of work, and end the institution which has bred social disintegration. Washington, DC is going to have to do something entirely foreign to its nature: give up some of its power and mind its own business. Mr. President, it is no longer enough to say that we mean well, that we have the proverbial good intentions. Let's stop the arrogant, self- important assumption that we can single-handedly run things out of Washington, DC. In the case of welfare, that's what we've been doing for 30 years, and its been a disaster. My goals is reforming welfare area straightforward: Do away with the current system, and replace it with one that encourages work, discourages illegitimacy, and stops the cycle of family destruction. I believe America's Work and Family Opportunities Act of 1995 will best accomplish these goals.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I bring to the attention of my colleagues an industry that is growing almost unnoticed in this country, an industry that demonstrates the ability of the private sector to meet the challenges posed by our expanding and technologically advanced economy. I am speaking of the hundreds of private professional firms across the Nation that provide job training to American workers. Since the early 1980's, a new breed of high- quality private sector training providers have proliferated in response to the need of business and industry for highly skilled workers. This is especially true of providers who train people who train people in the information-technology sector of the American economy. Each year, American employers wisely spend billions of dollars to train and educate their employees. This training enhances the skills of those workers and often enables them to assume new, more challenging positions. The training market in information technology alone--which is one of the fastest growing and most promising sectors of our economy--totaled $2 billion in 1994, and almost all of this need was met with private sector resources. Private professional firms have developed extensive programs and nationwide networks to serve the huge and growing needs of large and small businesses in this field. Many of these firms, although often small enterprises, work in partnerships with large employers who demand that they provide only the highest quality training and who require that they teach skills that conform to industry-based benchmarks and standards. Today, training providers, which include both public education institutions and private training companies, are using skill standards as benchmarks to develop their courses and to prepare professional workers for exams that will certify them as qualified to perform certain high-skill jobs. Skill standards in this context are not rigid definitions of ``jobs,'' but rather a large comprehensive set of well articulated, competency-based skill statements that are industry driven and nationally recognized. By reflecting the true and detailed needs of the workplace, and by being used in the hiring, promotion, and training of the work force, these become de facto standards at the national level, and they transcend national borders as do businesses in today's global economy. In short, private sector training providers in the information-technology field reflect developments in the marketplace and prepare individuals to handle the jobs of the future. According to Training magazine, U.S. organizations with 100 employees or more spent $48 billion on training in 1993, and it is likely that the total increased in 1994 and will again in 1995. Employers are recognizing the need to train the individuals they hire in order to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and to remain competitive in the global economy. Nowhere is training more important than in the information-technology industries, where technological innovations and product upgrades that require new or enhanced skills are coming to market everyday. Within the information-technology industry it is clear that private sector training providers are one of the main resources to turn to for training. for example, most of the large American software companies use what is known as a leveraged training mode, wherein independent training providers develop courses that teach individuals how to operate the application or systems of a given software company. In turn, the software company will denote the training provider as one that is authorized to award certification in the operation or maintenance of that company's products. This is just one of many examples of how corporations and smaller businesses are using the resources of private training providers. Whether individuals are updating their skills to improve performance on the job or are unemployed and seeking new skills, by completing training and receiving an industry recognized credential they are improving their own career prospects as well as keeping the American work force competitive. These training centers must meet the demands of industry and of the market that will eventually employ their students; therefore they must provide only the highest quality training. And while the information- technology market demands quality, it also demands more and more qualified individuals each year. For example, the software and computing industry grew at an annual rate of over 28 percent between 1980 and 1992, while the GDP for that time averaged 2.4-percent growth. Not only is the number of jobs in this field increasing, but those jobs pay wages that are significantly higher than wages in many other industries. In addition, given that the information-technology companies have no geographic-specific resource requirements, they contribute to the economy of virtually every State in the country. Mr. President, it is quite apparent that the individuals with high- technology skills are in great demand throughout the Nation, and it is apparent that the demand will only increase. Private training providers have been rising to this challenge, and they have done so with entrepreneurial vigor and a commitment to quality. As the number of people in need of training increases, and as the number of people that organizations intend to train outstrips their capability to train them in house, private sector providers of training services will become an ever more important part of the American economy. It has been my pleasure today to recognize and share with my colleagues the merits of this growing American industry.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I just want to say that the abstractions with which we deal with issues like this here are very different from the reality on the streets. On my way back here from Seattle today, I read a long and fascinating article in the New York Times about the cultural differences among various kinds of gangs in the city of Los Angeles. The reporter reports on the particular ethos of black gangs, of Asian gangs, and of Hispanic gangs. In Los Angeles, the Spanish gangs account for most of the street murders, in the number of hundreds every year, but they do have a strong sense of family. And the principal part of the story is about a 15-year-old gang member with a 17-year-old girlfriend who has a 1-year- old child by this gang member. If I may, I will share the last two paragraphs of that story with you, Mr. President. ``He's always staying home now,'' Tanya said hopefully. ``He doesn't want to miss nothing. He's saying, `Can't you just leave the baby with me. I'll watch the baby and you go to school.'' Dreamer is still only school age-- He is 15. Tanya acknowledged, but the young family expects to be financially secure. Her mother receives Federal assistance to care for her through Aid to Families with Dependent Children. And now, Tanya said, she will also receive AFDC assistance to care for her own daughter, who is named Josefina. So here we are subsidizing gangs and gang warfare in Los Angeles. That is why we need to pass this bill. That is why we need to deal with reality. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank my colleague from California for bringing this issue to my attention. I would support spreading the $4 million cut currently called for in earthquake research grants to universities across the entire USGS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to respond to the Senator's question.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, be permitted to meet during a session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 9, 1995, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing on H.R. 2108, the District of Columbia Convention Center and Sports Arena Authorization Act of 1995.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 9, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a joint open hearing with the Foreign Relations Committee on War Crimes in the Balkans.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August 9, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building on S. 487, a bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 9, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.