T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The first of these amendments, No. 2283, is the amendment by the Senator from Colorado, [Mr. Brown] on a Department of the Interior study of recreation fees. The second, No. 2284, is an amendment from Senator Chafee on the Endangered Species Act to clarify that the listing moratorium lasts only during the pendency of this bill, that is to say, through September 30, 1996. That is what we had intended to do and meant the bill to do. It was unclear. And just to make certain, it lasts only for that period of time at the longest and will also terminate as and when the Endangered Species Act itself is reauthorized. The next, amendment No. 2285, is one by myself which substitutes the word ``final'' for the word ``draft'' in section 314. The fourth, No. 2286, is a technical amendment of mine on the petroleum reserve. The next, No. 2287, is a technical correction making the proper citation to a statute. Amendment No. 2288 is a technical correction which inserts the word ``not'' in a phrase relating to various Indian tribes in the State of Washington, which was the original desired meaning of the language. Amendment No. 2289 is one on mandatory rock painting required by various Federal agencies when highways are built. And then there are two that are not technical amendments that are agreed to: Amendment No. 2290 for myself, the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], and the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] which will retain trust fund management and special trustee funding within the Office of Special Trustees for American Indians but transfer all of the other major funding accounts that were included in this bill back to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The special trustees office was authorized last year. I think we anticipated greater powers for it than the authorizing committee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is prepared to grant to it at the present time. And the subject is properly a matter for that committee to consider. So this places only those clear trustee responsibilities in the trustee and returns the rest to BIA. The amendment transfers back to the Bureau of Indian Affairs all funds and FTE's for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, except for $15,891,000 for Financial Trust Management activities and $447,000 for the immediate Office of the Special Trustee. A total of $393,690,000 is transferred back to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, including $263,700,000 to the Operation of Indian Programs account, $47,245,000 to the Construction account, and $82,745,000 to the Indian Land and Water Claims Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians account. The Indian Land and Water Claims Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians account is transferred in its entirety. Within the funds transferred to the Operation of Indian Programs account, a total of $73,784,000 is transferred from Trust Asset Management and Protection in the Office of Special Trustee to the Other Trust Services activities, including $28,692,000 for Tribal Priority Allocations, $30,227,000 for Non-recurring Programs, $9,935,000 to Area Office Operations, and $4,930,000 to Central Office Operations. Within the net amount transferred for Trust Services for Tribal Priority Allocations, a reduction of $1,605,000 has been taken that includes: $846,000 for pay costs; $527,000 for general trust services and $231,000 to real estate services to eliminate increases above the FY 1995 level; and $1,000 to other trust services. For Non-recurring Programs, a reduction of $237,000 for pay costs has been included and $13,472,000 has been transferred for water rights negotiation/ litigation. For Area Office Operations, there is a total reduction of $591,000, including a reduction of $291,000 for pay costs, and a reduction of $300,00 for land records improvement. For Central Office Operations, a total reduction of $58,000 has been taken for pay costs and $2,900,000 for land records improvement. A total of $142,471,000 is transferred from Resource Management and Protection in the Office of Special Trustee to the Resources Management activities in the BIA's OIP account, including $65,357,000 to Tribal Priority Allocations, $35,556,000 to Other Recurring Programs, $31,395,000 to Non-recurring Programs, $3,996,000 to Area Office Operations, $1,470,000 to Special Programs and Pooled Overhead, and $4,697,000 to Central Office Operations. Any committee direction for the programs to be transferred still applies once the programs are transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Within the net amount transferred for Resources Management, a reduction of $3,020,000 for Tribal Priority Allocations has been taken that includes $1,635,000 for pay costs, $620,000 to maintain Wildlife and Parks at the fiscal year 1995 level, and $765,000 to maintain Other Resources Management at the fiscal year 1995 level. For Non-recurring Programs, there is a total reduction of $428,000 for pay costs. For Area Office Operations, a total reduction of $505,000 includes $90,000 for pay costs, $90,000 for Forestry, $50,000 for Water Resources, $200,000 for Wildlife and Parks, and $75,000 for Minerals and Mining. For Central Office Operations, $80,000 was reduced for pay costs. A total of $1,045,000 is transferred from Executive Direction in the Office of Special Trustee to Central Office Operations within OIP, including $795,000 to the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs for the Office of American Indian Trust, and $250,000 to Other General Administration. A total of $46,400,000 is transferred from Administrative Support in the Office of Special Trustee to Operations of Indian Programs in BIA, including $40,000,000 to Tribal Government within Tribal Priority Allocations and $6,400,000 to Other General Administration within Central Office Operations. A total of $47,245,000 is transferred from the Office of Special Trustee to the Construction account of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for Resource Construction Management. Reductions include $139,000 for pay costs, $500,000 for Engineering and Supervision, and $12,024,000 for Safety of Dams. For the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, [[Page S 11865]] $25,500,000 is provided and $1,500,000 is provided for the southern Arizona project. The last one, Amendment No. 2291, is by the same four Senators has to do with tribal shares within the central office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The amendment deletes the committee amendment pertaining to distribution of tribal share from Central Office Operations and Special Programs and Pooled Overhead. The usual reprogramming guidelines of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee should apply to any amount negotiated to be transferred as tribal shares to tribes or tribal organizations under Public Law 93-638, as amended. amendment no. 2283

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the first time in 30 years or more, I believe the Senate is beginning a broad range of debate over a system of welfare, not a single program such as AFDC or Medicaid or any of half a dozen or more others, but a system of welfare. During that period of at least 30 years, the debate over particular aspects or programs that are a part of that system has always been on what additional program, what additional help the Government can provide to deal with what was a serious problem of family breakdown, of dependent single parents, of illegitimacy and occasionally homelessness. During the course of those three decades, AFDC, supplemental Social Security income, subsidized child care, job training, Medicaid, and other programs have all been debated as a part of the solution to our Nation's social pathologies. And, in most cases, these programs have either been brought into existence or [[Page S 11753]] have been expanded in an attempt to alleviate social conditions. But each one of those additions, each one of those increases, has been accompanied by not by a decrease in welfare dependency--both in terms of families and illegitimacy, but an increase in those terrible social challenges. So it is appropriate that we debate this issue at this time. I must say that simply the fact that increases in the challenges and pathologies which have accompanied increases in programs does not create an irrefutable inference of cause and effect. But it certainly does state the proposition that at the very least, these increases, these new programs, these new requirements have not alleviated the conditions at which they were aimed at the time of their creation or increase. Each liberal attempt at reform which was offered as a way out, or as a partial solution to the way out, has proved at the very least not to have provided that way. So what we have today is a system elaborate in its complexity, requiring a huge Federal bureaucracy to establish and to enforce rules related to welfare here in Washington, DC, mirrored by huge State bureaucracies designed to administer and to enforce those rules and, of course, in the case of each State, to add to them. The total, the net result is a set of programs and of benefits that clearly provides at a certain level a disincentive to entry-level work, and as a consequence or as an accompaniment, the social pathologies continue and grow. And so we are now presented with roughly three alternative proposals for reform. Maybe there is a fourth. In listening to the extended statement by the Senator from Minnesota, the clear implication is that we simply need to do more in the way of programs to provide a greater degree of income and comfort and benefits for those on welfare. But I do not believe that implied solution--and I put the word ``solution'' in quotation marks--finds much support either in the American people or even on that side of the aisle in this debate. The proposal which seems to have the most support over there is essentially more of the same thing masquerading under a set of work requirements and limitations on the time during which an individual can draw AFDC benefits. But these apply to only a modest handful of the total beneficiaries. The second alternative presented eloquently by the senior Senator from Texas an hour or so ago was to substitute for the detailed liberal requirements somewhat less detailed but nonetheless significant ideological requirements from the conservative side of the spectrum on the ground that rules which limit benefits going to teenage unwed mothers and single parents will reduce the rate of illegitimacy. The third alternative is the alternative proposed by the majority leader, building on the proposal from the Finance Committee and from its distinguished chairman, the Senator from Oregon. While it includes significant work requirements and significant limitations on the amount of money and time an individual can draw these various welfare benefits, its philosophy is that far more experimentation should be permitted on the part of individual States; that we should not have one centralized system but allow 50 different systems for dealing with welfare. I imagine that the goals of each of these proposals are to try to see to it that there is less dependency, to provide fewer incentives for illegitimacy and single-parent families, to provide relatively greater incentives for work, provide more effective requirements of support on the part of the absent parent--almost always the father--and to terminate or limit the misuse of the SSI disability policies. I think with respect to some of these, particularly absent parent responsibility and SSI, there may not be too great a difference among these various proposals. It seems to me, as one of the sponsors of the third proposal, that identified by the Senator from Oregon and the majority leader, that it has at least the virtue of modesty--modesty, that is, in the sense of our saying that we are not certain what program, what reforms will work to reach the goals that I and others have outlined. We can be, I think, reasonably confident, maybe overwhelmingly confident, that what we have now has not worked, and we can be reasonably confident that not only has it not worked but it has actually exacerbated the very situation, the very set of conditions it was designed to alleviate in the first place. Of that we can have a fair degree of confidence. I submit that I do not have a great deal of confidence in attempting to outline a system that I know will work. The Senator from Minnesota seems to be very confident without much evidence that all we need to do is more of what we have been doing in increasing amounts for the last 30 years. I submit that he will find relatively little agreement with that position. If it is the case that none of us, not only U.S. Senators but all of the panoply of professionals and so-called experts and academics in this field, cannot be certain of how we can deal successfully with these social pathologies, then this third alternative, the Dole- Packwood alternative, is clearly the way in which to go because it is clear that if we pass this proposal, 50 States will engage in 50 different experiments. It is doubtful that any two States will pursue the quest for a better welfare system in exactly the same way. There is a fear that some will not engage in a maintenance of effort. That may indeed happen. But if there are failures, we will learn from those failures and have a clearer idea of what works and what doesn't work. It is true that some States will incur severe penalties, at least when we compare it with the present system, for illegitimacy and for teenage births, and we will determine whether or not that works as against more liberal States that retain something like the present system. It may be, Mr. President, in 5 years or 6 years or 10 years of such experimentation, we will have learned that certain State welfare systems work--that is, if the conditions they are designed to alleviate are, in fact, alleviated. Others will not have worked--they will have increased the amount of dependency. Others, finally, will have had no impact at all. And it may be that we here in this body, or our successors here in this body, will, with that experimentation, be able to have a greater degree of confidence in how we should design a national system. But, Mr. President, we cannot claim that confidence here today. We only know that what we have done cumulatively over the last 30 years has been a disastrous failure, not only for the public Treasury, but even more so for the American social condition. So, Mr. President, let us take the great advantage that a Federal system like ours offers to us, the ability to have different solutions in different parts of our country, the ability to use the 50 States as a laboratory for experiment, the ability under those circumstances to determine what may help us to solve this tremendous social problem and meet this social crisis, and what may not. And it is for that reason, Mr. President, that while the history of the last 30 years has shown us that the liberal prescription for welfare has been an almost unmitigated disaster, so perhaps may be the conservative prescription for welfare. Let us exercise our voices and our votes with a degree of modesty, a degree of uncertainty, a degree of the point of view that we are not quite certain what the answer is, and in doing so, accept the amendment that is before us at this point, allow for experimentation and innovation and see how, through our Federal system, we can learn what will work to solve the problem of welfare. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Vancouver National Historic Reserve Act with my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Murray. Vancouver, WA, has been described as the cradle of civilization in the Pacific Northwest, as the place at which the first English-speaking settlers put down their roots. Dating back to its role as the western outpost for U.S. military operations and for the early American explorers, led by Lewis and Clark, Vancouver has been the locale of significant events of American history. A few examples: Pearson Airpark, one of the oldest and most historic airports in our country. Pearson Airpark is the site of several aviation firsts, including the landing site of Valeri Chkalov, the ``Soviet Lindberg,'' after his transpolar flight. The Vancouver area is also home to the original Vancouver Barracks, established to counter British influence in the region. Officer's Row, 21 historic homes that were part of the barracks, housed some of our Nation's greatest military leaders, including Generals Sheridan, Howard, Grant, and Marshall. Recognizing the potential significance for a National Reserve in Vancouver, WA, Congress established the Vancouver Historic Study Commission in 1990. The Commission was to develop a series of recommendations on how best to coordinate Vancouver's many historic resources. Not surprisingly, the Commission found that the city of Vancouver had an abundance of both historic sites and resources of national significance, and recommended the formation of a partnership between Federal, State, and local entities to coordinate and manage a historic reserve. Today, I introduce legislation that is based on the findings and recommendations of the Commission's report, and a memorandum of agreement signed by the city of Vancouver and the National Park Service. This legislation will ensure the preservation of the historic legacy of Vancouver for our Nation. Mr. President, the Vancouver National Historic Reserve is an example of the type of State, local, and Federal partnerships that make for sound public policy. This legislation represents a partnership among State, Federal, and local entities, working together toward one common goal: to preserve, enhance, and interpret significant components of the Pacific Northwest's history. The Vancouver National Historic Act creates a unique relationship among the National Park Service, U.S. Army, the State of Washington, and the city of Vancouver. We intend that this relationship, established to coordinate and manage the many historic resources in the Vancouver area, will keep the important legacy of this part of the Pacific Northwest alive for future generations to enjoy. The Vancouver National Historic Reserve consists of several sites: Fort Vancouver National Historic Site; Vancouver Barracks; O.O. Howard House; Pearson Airpark; Officer's Row; Old Apple Tree Park; Marine Park; and the Columbia River Waterfront. In its entirety, the reserve includes 366 acres of publicly owned land and extends from Officer's Row to the Columbia River. In addition, thanks to a significant investment by the M.J. Murdock Trust, [[Page S 11786]] a new air museum will be constructed on the reserve. The M.J. Murdock Aviation Museum at Pearson Airpark will be a living memorial to Vancouver resident Jack Murdock, in recognition of his innovative achievements and love of aviation. Along with original antique aircraft, the existing historic structures of a pre-World War II hanger will be rebuilt to honor one of the oldest U.S. Air Corps airfields, located at Pearson Airfield in the early 1920's. Representatives from the city of Vancouver have been working to ensure that the many historic sites in Vancouver are maintained and restored. I praise the people of Vancouver for their outstanding efforts in securing private grants for the historic reserve. The mayor of Vancouver, Bruce Hagensen, deserves special thanks for his support and continued dedication to the development of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that the Vancouver National Historic Reserve becomes a reality.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I object.

Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, I say to the majority leader, on the DOE amendment I have some severe reservations.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a very valued constituent of mine, E.P. ``Pete'' Paup, executive vice president of the Manson Construction and Engineering Co. in Seattle, WA, has brought to my attention that his mother-in-law will reach the age of 100 years on August 13, 1995. Pete has kindly shared with me the life story of this remarkable woman. Gladys Angelica Christine Manson was born in the small community of Dockton on Maury Island in the young State of Washington, August 13, 1895. Her parents, Minnie Carlson Manson and Peter Manson, were Swedish immigrants who had moved to Dockton from Tacoma in 1893. Peter was employed by the local dry-docking company and became dockmaster in 1903. The year before, 1902, little Gladys held a lantern when her mother dug up a glass jar full of $20 gold pieces from a crawl space beneath their house. Because of the bank failures during the panic of 1893, the Mansons didn't trust their money to banks, so they hid it. The gold from the mason jar was used to purchase a steam donkey engine for a floating pile driver. Today, Manson Construction and Engineering Co. is a major Pacific coast marine construction and dredging contractor. In 1910, Gladys was a member of Dockton Grade School's first graduating class, whereupon she entered Burton High School. In 1912 she moved to Seattle with her family and graduated from Lincoln High School in 1914. After graduation, Glady's entered the University of Washington and graduated in 1918 with a degree in music. Gladys later taught music in Brooklyn, Seattle, and Roslyn, WA and spent 3 years as a district music supervisor in Kent, WA. In 1924 she married Andrew J. Haug and had three children, Irving, Peter, and Andrea. Andrew Haug died in 1965. Later Glady's married Edward J. Arntzen, a retired professor from Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA. Edward passed away in 1971. Gladys is an active member of Grace Lutheran Church in Bellevue, WA and is a member of the Lincoln High School Alumni Association. She has also been a member of both the Sons of Norway and the Swedish Club. Gladys Manson Haug Arntzen will celebrate her 100th birthday at her daughter's home, on August 13, 1995. I invite the attention of all my colleagues to this tremendous story and great community contribution, and in doing so, I wish Gladys Manson Haug Arntzen the happiest of birthday celebrations on August 13.

Mr. GORTON

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

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

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Gorton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1099 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I should like to address one portion of that bill for just a few moments.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as we recommence the debate on the appropriations for energy and water, I should like to express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of that appropriations subcommittee, the Senator from New Mexico, and his colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, for the thoughtful and generous treatment they have accorded to two projects in the State of Washington that are of great importance to that State. The subcommittee has approved and the Senate is now considering funding for the Yakima River Basin water enhancement project and the Columbia Basin project. Each of them is beneficial both to irrigators and fish and wildlife and the Yakima Indian Nation in central Washington. Last year, under the leadership of the Senator from Louisiana, Congress passed authorizing legislation creating the Yakima River Basin water enhancement project. This program will fund water conservation and storage measures which will secure irrigation water supplies for farmers, help salmon populations in the basin, and be of considerable benefit to the Yakima Indian Nation as well. Specific programs within the project are the Cle Elum Reservoir, the Chandler pumping and powerplant, the Kachess Dam and Reservoir, irrigation and instream flow studies, enhancement of tributaries water supplies and environmental compliance activities. Further down the river, the Columbia Basin funding will help complete that project's drainage system. It will assure a sustainable irrigation project that will be able to meet its Federal repayment obligations and generate the project's intended social, environmental, and economic benefits. Once a drainage inventory is finished, local irrigation districts and the local Bureau of Reclamation office will be able to expedite work and reduce overhead burdens to finally complete the drainage system, saving taxpayer dollars in the long run. Mr. President, as we all know, weather is an uncertain thing. And if you are a farmer faced with a drought, your entire livelihood is in jeopardy. Washington State is no stranger to severe water shortages, and funding for these projects will make water supply more certain for farmers within their areas. These projects also improve conditions for fish. Already, at the Yakima project, fish passage facilities have been installed at project dams and screens have been placed at irrigation diversions. I am truly pleased that the Senate subcommittee and full committee have approved funding for the Yakima enhancement and Columbia Basin projects. Both are excellent measures for helping Washington State agriculture. I encourage support for the overall bill and once again thank the two managers of the bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, few experiences are more valuable to young people than part-time and summer jobs. Jobs provide teenagers with both an income and an important lesson on what it's like to be in the work force. It is unfortunate, then, that the Federal Government--ever eager to encroach upon the lives of Americans--is denying young people the opportunity to work in at least one sector of our economy, car dealership. Let me explain. Last year, the U.S. Department of Labor started cracking down on dealerships that allowed their 16- and 17-year-old employees to drive cars for short distances, say, from one lot to another across the street, or to a nearby gas station. Why? Because of a provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act that allows for only incidental and occasional driving by teenage employees under 18. As interpreted by the Department of Labor, this provision effectively wipes out any teenage driving whatsoever. This provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act was intended to prevent employers from over-working young people and using then to drive heavy vehicles. But what we are talking about today, Mr. President, is not exploitation, but perfectly reasonable actions. The Department of Labor, for reasons which I cannot fathom, has imposed almost $200,000 worth of fines on dealerships throughout Washington State, even thought the dealerships did not require their 16- and 17-year-old employees to drive often, or for a long time, but only in very limited circumstances. The result of these fines? Most car dealerships no longer hire people under 18 years of age, and hundreds of teenagers are prevented from getting good jobs. Mr. President, I cannot help but point out the irony of the Labor Department acting as a job-destroying entity. Matthew Bergman, a then- 17-year-old part-time dealership worker, said last year in the Seattle Times, I can have a legal state license that represents me in any state in the country, but I can't drive three blocks in a company car. It's a real bummer. A bummer indeed, Mr. President. But it doesn't have to be that way. I believe we can reasonably modify the Fair Labor Standards Act so that teenagers can drive cars as long as it is not a primary part of their jobs. The bill I introduce today will do just that. It will be better for car dealerships, and better for kids who want to work. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Nation's nuclear facilities are being singled out for strident criticism these days. The Hanford site in Washington State is one of those pointed to for its alleged waste and inefficiency. In fact, some of my distinguished colleagues have proposed legislation that would dramatically, fundamentally, and perhaps dangerously affect the principles which govern cleanup at Hanford. I am troubled by these criticisms, Mr. President, not because they do not make some good points--for certainly, Hanford's cleanup operation is not perfect--but because they ignore two important factors: first, that cleanup operations at Hanford are actually progressing; and second, that this Government has an obligation to help communities which contributed in no small part to our victories in World War Two and the cold war. The massive undertaking to clean up nuclear waste at Hanford is overseen by what is known as the Tri-Party Agreement. This agreement, forged in 1989, includes the Department of Energy, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and is showing itself to be an effective means for guiding cleanup. As a recent article in the Tri-Cities Herald noted: Many in the Northwest, including former adversaries, say the pact is the engine driving cleanup and, while slow in the beginning, it now is speeding the work along. From safety to new technology to administrative savings, Hanford has made great strides. I submit for the Record a list of Hanford's recent accomplishments from the Tri-Cities Herald. It shows how far Hanford has come, and how the Tri-Party Agreement has influenced and moved cleanup efforts. The Blush Report, a review of Hanford commissioned by my distinguished colleague Senator Johnston, cited the Tri-Party Agreement as the primary obstacle to efficient cleanup. But that report was wrong. Just ask the people who signed the Tri-Party Agreement, the contractors who follow its guidelines, and the people of Washington State who benefit from its success. For all its faults, the Tri-Party Agreement serves as a constant reminder to the Federal Government that cleanup at Hanford is a top priority. And officials at Hanford are now looking to move 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel away from the Columbia River three years earlier than originally planned. This is not only good for the environment, but for the taxpayer as well--it may save as much as $120 million. Would the Federal Government, on its own, take the initiative like this and actually try to finish a project ahead of schedule? I have my doubts. A unique example of innovation at Hanford is the use of microorganisms to get rid of pollution. These microscopic creatures are, according to DOE News, ``stimulated with a vinegar-like solution to 'eat' chemical pollutants such as carbon tetrachloride and nitrates.'' Mr. President, surely no one can say that Hanford is in the grips of bureaucratic sclerosis when it enlists what one local paper calls ``vinegar-swigging microbes" in the fight against pollution. I recently received a letter from Mr. Kenneth Kensington of Viatech, Inc., in Hastings, MI. Viatech is cooperating with the Department of Energy on certain aspects of the cleanup, and Mr. Kensington writes that such cooperation is valuable not just to Hanford, but to the private sector and the advancement of research and development as well. Administratively, Hanford is also making great strides. Last April members of the Tri-Party Agreement met in St. Louis to create a ``Blueprint for Action and Cost Control.'' As the Tri-City Herald reports, ``[t]he officials at the St. Louis meeting examined how to better manage projects, reduce costs and increase competition, track savings and streamline the regulatory process.'' Mr. President, this strategy goes hand-in-hand with the legislation my fellow members of the Washington State delegation and I have introduced to reform cleanup at Hanford. There is, Mr. President, another aspect to this issue, and that is the responsibility the United States of America has for supporting facilities like Hanford which provided the manpower and the materials that helped fight and win both World War Two and the Cold War. Beginning in the 1940's, the Federal Government asked the Hanford community to join in the effort to combat Japanese, then Soviet, aggression. Hanford responded to the country's call, and performed its task magnificently, producing the materials to build up our Nation's defenses and face up to first the fascist and then the Communist threat. Tens of thousands of men and women worked on this mission, each contributing in their own way to American strength and security. Now, Mr. President, as we all know, the cold war is won, communism is vanquished, and we should all be thankful for the hard work and dedication of people in communities like Hanford. After all, these communities sacrificed a great deal. At Hanford, thousands of tons of nuclear waste lie underground, the result of a decades-long nuclear effort. I understand, Mr. President, that some of my distinguished colleagues may be concerned by the cost of cleanup at Hanford, but I cannot believe they would suggest that we simply turn our backs on the people who never faltered in their duty to their country. On Tuesday, the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee approved funding for Hanford for 1996. I was very pleased by this, Mr. President. But I am still concerned about Hanford's long-term situation. I am very concerned that we stand by our commitments. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will consider this issue carefully. I hope they will do what is right by the people of Hanford, and not, in their rush to save dollars, forget Hanford's invaluable service to America. Mr. President, I ask that this article from the Tri-City Herald be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Department of Energy's defense nuclear complex--and Hanford in particular--has been maligned and criticized long enough. Today, in a truly bipartisan spirit, my colleagues and I are offering substantive, workable, and dramatic solutions to the Nation's Environmental and Waste Management Program. Congressman Hastings and I have worked with Senator Murray, the State of Washington, and with the support of our delegation, to forge a creative new course for the Department of Energy and its massive cleanup operations. The old paradigm of bureaucratic cleanup is being tossed. Accountability and responsibility are the new standards to be employed at Hanford and other DOE sites. As most of us know, Hanford is no small problem--in complexity or cost. This amendment's foundations lie in four areas: Leadership, future land use, regulatory reform, and privatization. Those ideas have been cooperatively crafted into the legislation being introduced today. Let me emphasize some of Hanford's shortcomings, and how we have set out to correct them. leadership DOE is plagued with a gaping absence of firm, decisive leadership. Likewise, Hanford and its communities suffer from an overabundance of committees, review processes, open-ended debates and rule by consensus, rather than decision. This process simply has not worked. Paper- shuffling bureaucrats in Washington, DC try to manage, direct, and understand paper shuffling bureaucrats in Richland. Part of this is simply fear: Third party lawsuits, disproportional stakeholder influence, and uncertainty over DOE's future has driven management into circular uncertainty. If Richland can't do it, DC will--if DC is not to blame, then the field staff is at fault. Accountability seems to be lost and cleanup ultimately is left in a vapid holding pattern. This amendment changes the nature of leadership at Hanford and puts complete authority for cleanup decisions--and all other site operations--under the site manager's purview. To emphasize the importance of the task, and the quality of the person in charge, the President shall appoint the site manager for Hanford, with the advice and consent of the Senate. With this step, DOE headquarters is tacitly removed from the decisionmaking process. Accountability and responsibly are focused locally. There will be no room for excuses if the job is not being done promptly and properly. Land Use Any attempt to deal with Hanford's cleanup problems must tackle the enigmatic, yet important, issue of how clean is clean. To determine how clean certain portions of land will be, you must decide thresholds of cleanliness, and ultimately determine what those lands will be used for once the job is finished. This amendment invests proportional authority for these decisions into local voices, as these are the people most affected by cleanup and future land use issues. Today the Federal Government has complete authority for the use, and final disposition, of 562 square miles in Washington State. We wanted to give local imput some teeth--more than merely an advisory role. To do that, we established a process that enables State and local representatives to be on equal footing with the Federal Government in land use decisions. In that vein, this amendment establishes a land use council to make difficult, yet essential, decisions on how clean portions of the site will be. Our amendment does not address final disposition of land, and specifically exempts the Hanford ALE and REACH from the land council's purview. This is a bold attempt to tackle what is perhaps the most contentious, and difficult, issue to address at Hanford and our other defense nuclear facilities. regulatory reform Like the proverbial kitchen with too many cooks, DOE's defense nuclear facilities suffer from an overabundance of regulators--each with an agenda and each with the potential to make a job significantly more cumbersome than it needs to be. Contrary to rumors and unfounded, naive speculation, we are not gutting environmental or safety laws at Hanford. Indeed, we are streamlining the process. Under this amendment, Washington State becomes the sole regulator at Hanford--a job it is prepared, and capable, to do. We have worked closely with the Governor and attorney generals' offices to ensure the conditions under which Washington will accept these new responsibilities. Currently, three regulators govern site cleanup at Hanford: EPA, DOE, and Washington State. EPA, for example, has only 8 employees at Hanford. A surprising statistic, yet its influence is disproportional to the role it plays. [[Page S 10838]] The added presence of another regulator, however, forces DOE to follow many of the same regulations and processes Washington State already requires. One regulator simplifies the oversight role, and arguably increases safety, saves money, and assures compliance. privatization As I have said many times in the past, engaging private sector know- how will make for better, cheaper, quicker cleanup. He have included the major portions of the privatization bill I sponsored with Congressman Hastings. Privatization is not the only solution for Hanford's problems, as the rest of this amendment demonstrates. it is, however, a significant portion of how we are going to expedite fast cleanup for lower cost. There have been numerous statements of general support for privatization--this amendment codifies those abstract thoughts into concrete legislation. Provided it thinks clearly before it acts, DOE will truly benefit from the enhanced privatization tools it receives under the provisions of this Act.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to adopt, and send to the President for his signature, H.R. 1944, the revised fiscal year 1995 rescission bill. The legislation before the Senate today is an important first step toward a balanced budget. Once we get to that balanced budget--roughly 7 years from now--the Nation will be relieved of a terrific burden on its people and our economy. There's another form of relief in the rescission bill before us today, and its specifically targeted at natural resource based communities across our Nation that have been destroyed by misguided Federal policies. The emergency salvage timber provision in this legislation, which has been the subject of many intense negotiations over the past few days, was included in the original rescission bill vetoed by the President, as a way to provide some short-term relief to timber communities in my State. For 6 long years, rural timber communities in my State have been under siege from their Federal Government, and the implementation of environmental laws that have neglected to consider the impacts of these laws on people. Federal agencies have gone literally unchecked in their imposition of regulations, and restrictions on people and their property, and, the cumulative effects of these actions have resulted in the destruction of rural communities and their way of life. Mr. President, I know the people who live and work in these communities--Forks, Morton, Aberdeen Port Angeles, Colville--and I am proud to call them my friends. I get angry when actions by the Federal Government result in the destruction of their way of life. Forks, Washington is no different than any other rural community across America. What is different about Forks is that the community has largely been shut down. And what is different about Forks is that the Federal Government has done little, if anything, to acknowledge the fact that this community has forever been changed. Today timber communities must fight for every log that gets to their mill. Timber communities fight against clever--and not so clever-- environmental attorneys that file lawsuits to block Federal timber sales. If success is measured in the number of sawmills shut down, the number of small business with closed doors, the number of workers collecting unemployment checks, and number of close-knit families that have unraveled, then environmental extremists have been hugely successful. It is fundamental to our ideal of the American dream that an individual have the ability to choose his or her livelihood. As a father and a grandfather, I see endless opportunities for my children and grandchildren, to pursue a career or life's work that will bring them great happiness. I believe this to be a tenet of our American way of life that should not be undermined or compromised, and this Senator will fight to protect and enhance such opportunities, not compromise them. But Federal agencies and Federal environmental laws have compromised--if not sold out--the dreams of people in timber towns across my State. It was not enough that an individual's life's work was casually disregarded by his Government, but the response from the Federal Government--and from urban area leaders--to their plight was to simply suggest that timber workers just find another job. The arrogance of this statement speaks for itself. To add insult to injury, this administration put forward a plan-- Option 9--that would pour money--hundreds of millions of dollars--into myriad bureaucracies, training programs, forms, and procedures that was supposed to ease the pain of a policy designed to essentially eliminate a vital part of our region's workforce and economy. Mr. President, it is crystal clear to this Senator, and I hope to many of his colleagues, that the answer to this problem is not arrogant statements that look down upon the time honored way of life in our rural communities, or throwing money at the problem and hoping it will go away. The answer to this problem is simple, we must change the laws that have brought us to this point. The legislation before us today is an emergency measure that will bring a degree of relief to people in timber communities in my State. It's a good starting point, but this Senator intends to address the underlying statutes that have brought us to this point in the first place. The history of the emergency salvage timber provision dates back to what is commonly known as ``section 318'' of the fiscal year 1990 Interior appropriations bill. That provision was crafted by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, together with other members of the Pacific Northwest congressional delegation, to address the timber supply shortage in our region. The provision included what is commonly known as ``sufficiency language''--language insulating timber sales from frivolous legal challeges filed under various environmental statutes. The sufficiency language included in Section 318 was ultimately challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled in favor of the goals and principles put forward in the legislation. The emergency salvage timber provision in the rescission bill before the Senate today includes sufficiency language that was carefully crafted to mirror the sufficiency language in section 318. Why? Section 318 has been tested by legal challenge, and it has survived. The sufficiency language in H.R. 1944 does not attempt to chart new territories on this front, but to follow the carefully crafted language that has been held up under close scrutiny. In 1992, this Senator offered an amendment on the Senate floor to the fiscal year 1993 Interior appropriations bill that would have granted the authority to the Secretary to move forward with salvage timber sales. During the Senate debate on that amendment, I cautioned the Senate that to allow salvage timber to continue to build up on the floor of our Nation's forests would result in devastating wildfires in future years. The Senate rejected that warning, and my amendment was soundly defeated. And again, just last year, during the House-Senate conference on the fiscal year 1995 Interior appropriations bill, I attempted to offer an amendment that would give the Secretary the authority to offer salvage sales to improve forest health conditions in our Nation's forests. My amendment was soundly rejected by the Democratic-controlled Congress. But this year, things are different. Today, after years of struggle and suffering, the voices of timber families in Washington State have finally been heard. Today, the Senate will finally pass legislation, and send it to the President that will result in real relief for people in my State. Real relief, Mr. President, not simply promises on paper to be waved around at press conferences. emergency salvage timber provision The provision in H.R. 1944 is virtually identical to that which passed the House and Senate in the conference report to H.R. 1158. The conference report to H.R. 1158 was, of course, vetoed by the President. The legislation before the Senate today includes four key modifications to the timber language included in the conference report to H.R. 1158. Allow me to briefly explain these changes, and the rationale behind each. First, in subsection (c)(1)(A) of H.R. 1944, the change worthy of notice was included at the request of the administration. This Senator did not believe that this change was necessary because of the way that the entire provision is drafted. The fundamental concept of the timber language is that the Secretary has the discretion to put forward the salvage timber sales of which he approves. Consequently, I was baffled by the administration's demand that in this subsection language be included to give direction to the Secretary ``to the extent the Secretary concerned, at his sole discretion, considers appropriate and feasible'' that timber salvage sales ``be consistent with any standards and guidelines from the management plans applicable to the National Forest or Bureau of Land Management District on which the salvage timber sale occurs.'' The administration demanded that some mention of ``standards and guidelines'' be included in this section. After a series of negotiations this is the compromise that the House and Senate worked out with the administration. Subsection (c)(1)(A) gives the administration the broadest latitude to prepare the salvage timber sales that it deems appropriate. It already has the discretion to make the decision of whether or not to put forward a sale that is consistent the standards and guidelines of a particular forest unit or BLM district. Essentially this request by the administration and the language ultimately included at its request is nothing more than redundant. Subsection (k) releases sales that were authorized under section 318 of the fiscal year 1990 Interior appropriations bill. Roughly 300 mbf of timber sales have been held up due to agency gridlock over the marbled murelett. The administration asked the House and Senate to include in (k)(2) its definition of ``occupancy.'' That change in subsection (k)(2) of the Emergency Salvage Timber provision would undermine the ability to move these sales forward. That suggestion was soundly rejected by the House and Senate authors of the provision. The language of (k)(2) requires that if a threatened or endangered bird species is ``known to be nesting'' in the sale unit that the administration not harvest that unit, but come up with an equal amount of timber in exchange for preserving that unit. This was written to give the administration flexibility to protect that individual sale unit in which the bird resides. I wish to clarify that it is the intention of the House and Senate authors of this provision that the administration must provide physical evidence that the bird is ``nesting'' in that unit before the administration may enact (k)(3) to avoid the harvest of that sale unit. The administration also requested that the date in subsection (k) be changed from 30 days for the release of the sales, to 45 days. The House and Senate authors of the provision included this request in H.R. 1944. The third change included at the request of the administration relates to subsection (l)--Effect on Plans, Policies, and Activities-- of the Timber provision. The subsection addresses the effect that salvage timber sales have on other multiple use activities. The provision was revised to create a limited exception to language that prohibits modifying land plans and other administrative actions as a consequence of implementing the section. The change, as requested by the administration, allows for modifications under extremely limited circumstances when needed to meet the salvage program agreed to by the conferees, or to reflect the particular effect of the salvage sale program. It is critical to note that this modification expressly prohibits the administration from using salvage timber sales as the basis for limiting other multiple use activities. If the administration does need to modify an existing plan or program, project decisions, such as salvage sales, or other activities, cannot be halted or delayed by the modification. This is a critical point. This provision, as included in the conference report to H.R. 1158, was requested by the U.S. Forest Service as a way in which to ensure that the Forest Service would not be subject to legal challenge for the ``cumulative effects'' of a salvage sales when combined with another multiple use activity. Last, the fourth change requested by the administration is, perhaps, the most interesting. The administration requested that the expiration date of the timber language be changed from September 30, 1997 to December 31, 1996. The administration aggressively pursued this request, with the express knowledge that its own agency officials in the Forest Service specifically asked the House and Senate conferees on H.R. 1158 to extend the Senate passed date of September 30, 1996 to September 30, 1997. The Forest Service made this request of the conferees for budgetary and planning purposes. Despite this fact, the administration was undaunted, however, in their desire to change the date to December 31, 1996. When asked why the administration needed the date to be changed to December 31, 1996, the response was this: the current administration cannot control the actions of future administrations. This is certainly an interesting concept, and an idea that I totally reject. Why? We cannot predict what will happen between now and the next election. Will we continue to have a Republican controlled House and Senate? Will one body return back to Democratic control? This is the subject of elections, and should not be the subject of policy discussions. But this President, unlike almost any other in recent history, has made election politics a consideration in nearly every one of his policy deliberations. Aside from these changes the principle of the timber language in this legislation remains the same. The timber language simply provides the President the ability to keep the multitude of promises that have been made and broken to the people who live and work in timber communities in the Pacific Northwest. It's just that simple. Briefly, the three components of my amendment are: emergency salvage timber sales, Released timber sales, and option 9. Emergency salvage timber sales: An emergency situation exists in our Nation's forests created by past wildfires, increased fuel load, or bug infested and diseased timber stands. Time and again, the administration has publicly committed to putting together an aggressive salvage timber program. My amendment gives the administration the ability to do just that. The bill language directs the Forest Service and BLM expeditiously to prepare, offer and award salvage timber sale contracts for the thinning and salvaging of dead, dying, but infested, downed, and burnt timber on these Federal lands nationwide, and to perform the appropriate revegetation and tree planting operations in the areas in which the salvage operations have taken place. The bill language deems the salvage timber sales to satisfy the requirements of applicable Federal environmental laws. It also provides for an expedited process for legal challenges to any such timber sale, and limits administrative review of the sales. Released timber sales: Language has also been included to release a group of sales that have already been sold under the provisions of Section 318 of the fiscal year 1990 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The harvest of these sales was assumed under the President's Pacific Northwest forest plan, but their release has been held up due to extended subsequent review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Release of these sales will remove tens of millions of dollars of liability from the government for contract cancellation. The only limitation on release of these sales is in the case of a nesting of an endangered bird species with a known nesting site in a sale unit. In this case, the Secretary must provide substitute volume for the sale unit. Option 9: First, let me make clear that I do not agree with, or support, option 9. I do not believe it comes close to striking an appropriate balance between the needs of people and their environment. My amendment simply provides the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management the authority to expedite timber sales allowed for under option 9. The administration promised the people in the region of option 9--Washington, Oregon and California--an annual harvest of 1.1 billion board-feet, and the time has come for it to keep its promise. My amendment specifies that timber sales prepared under the provision satisfy the requirements of Federal environmental laws, provides for an expedited process for legal challenges, and limits administrative review of such sales. Let me make clear that my amendment does not independently validate option 9 and does not restrict future legal challenges to option 9. Mr. President, although I believe that the negotiations that have gone on over the timber language were unnecessary given the broad latitude that the administration has in this legislation, it is a part of the legislative process. More important than these negotiations, and the last minute interest of this administration in the legislation, in the opinion of this Senator, are the people in timber communities. The people in timber communities across my State will have won their first victory when the President signs this bill. It's a victory they deserve and one we should give to them. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1944. subsection (i) of section 2001

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appear once again, briefly, to support the majority leader and my distinguished friend and colleague from Connecticut, in the proposal which they have before the Senate to terminate the arms embargo against Bosnia. Other than to add my voice to that cause, I can add nothing to the eloquence of what they have already said. What began as a policy of convenience and a seeking for time and a diplomatic solution on the occasion of the breakup of Yugoslavia, has not only proven to be a policy failure, a significant contributor to the loss of thousands of lives, and war crimes unmatched in Europe since the era of the Nazis, it has degenerated into a moral swamp, in which the actions of the United States and the United Nations contribute only to the success of the aggressors, to the success of those who have proposed this barbaric system, based on the religious background of the people of Bosnia. We are fond of saying, as a number of newspapers have, that the time has come to end that arms embargo. In truth, Mr. President, the time came long since. The distinguished Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Biden] in his remarks an hour or so ago, referred to statements that he made in the fall of 1992 which were valid then and are valid today. The particular occasion for the debate over this resolution today, of course, is the latest set of atrocities on the part of the Bosnian Serbs, the destruction of what we had long trumpeted as a safe haven, the rape of some, the murder of others, the driving out of most of the citizens that were supposedly protected in that safe haven. Mr. President, I think the failure of our policies and our proclamations cannot better be summarized than it was indirectly in two paragraphs in a story from last Friday's Washington Post about those citizens driven out of Srebrenica to a temporarily safe haven elsewhere. I want to quote those two paragraphs from that news story. ``This is Major's work,'' yelled a man on crutches, referring to British Prime Minister John Major. ``It is Clinton's work, too. Clinton--always talking so nice and doing nothing.'' ``They had better take a gun and kill us all,'' one woman said. And waving her arms towards the masses of dazed people who made up the weeping, nearly hysterical crowd, she added: ``Look at what you did for us, all you governments.'' That is a tiny portion of the human price we have paid for this arms embargo, for all of the threats not backed up, for all of the promises that got broken, for all of the lives lost. And have we done this in order to protect the lives of Americans? No, Mr. President. Just recently we had one of our Air Force pilots shot down over Bosnia-- rescued by a magnificent feat of arms, and celebrated here in this country for his escape, but those who shot him down remain totally unpunished. Can it not be said that perhaps that last, most recent demonstration of our lack of dedication led to the overrunning of the safe haven, the loss of hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, and the driving out of tens of thousands of others? We have made ourselves contemptible. We have made ourselves a laughingstock. And it is time to end that policy now. Will we save more American lives? No. The President has promised that when the war is irretrievably lost, and when the U.N. forces want to come out, we will send troops in to save them--undoubtedly at the expense of casualties. Mr. President, that is a wrong policy as well. The correct policy is to end the arms embargo, to allow, to encourage, to assist in the arming of people desperately anxious to fight for their own freedom and probably capable successfully of fighting for that freedom if they are armed with weapons anywhere near equal to those of their aggressors. That was the correct strategy during the Presidency of George Bush. It has been the correct policy for the 2\1/ 2\ years, at least, of the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Mr. President, the policies in which we have engaged have undercut, if they have not destroyed completely, our own credibility--not just in the Balkans, but all over the world. They have not only failed to succeed in ending or limiting the war, they have encouraged it. They have not discouraged aggression, they have encouraged it. They have not limited ethnic cleansing, they have increased it. And it is time to end those failed policies. It is time, at the very least, to allow the victims to fight for their own liberties. It is also time--not at all incidentally, Mr. President, in my view-- to end the arms embargo against Croatia and Slovenia as well. Slovenia is not in the news yet. It had succeeded in winning its independence and has been at peace ever since. It threatens no one. There is no reason in the world not to lift the embargo against it. Croatia is 25 percent occupied by a dissident government which is engaged in some, though not all, of the same practices of their compatriots, the Bosnian Serbs. The only way there is any possibility in this case of proving that aggression and ethnic cleansing and rape and murder do not pay is to allow the victims of those crimes to be able to liberate themselves from those crimes. So I believe the two principal sponsors of this resolution, the majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, who are now on the floor, are proposing exactly what the United States ought to do and I wish to express the hope that the Senate will promptly and overwhelmingly vote in favor of their resolution. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I should like to take this occasion to speak strongly in favor of S. 21, the majority leader's resolution on Bosnia. Mr. President, we have now, for more than 3 years, watched--and I use that word advisedly ``watched''--the ongoing tragedy of Bosnia. The aggressions, the rapes, the cold-blooded murders, the ethnic cleansing, which has accompanied the dismemberment of a nation, recognized as a nation, and a member of the United Nations. We have an administration which has constantly threatened action, and every bit as constantly walked away from that action when its bluff was called. We have a U.N. protective force which has protected no one but the aggressors. A force dispatched to Bosnia to provide some kind of safety for the victims of aggression has shown itself unable to do so time after time and place after place. Whether around Sarajevo, whether in the isolated areas of refuge, whether in the northwest part of the country--its fate has been the same. Its fate has either been to protect the Bosnian Serb aggressors against any kind of military action on the part of the United Nations, no matter how modest and ineffective by its very presence and by the ease with which the Bosnian Serbs can take the U.N. personnel as hostage; or alternatively, as was the case just 10 days ago, as an entity which disarmed the defenders of these enclaves and then provided absolutely no defense or support for essentially unarmed victims who now, themselves, are the latest example of the victims of the Serbs' ethnic cleansing. Mr. President, the former President of the United States, George Bush, was wrong in enforcing an arms embargo against the Bosnians. President Clinton has repeated that and has been wrong to enforce that arms embargo against the Bosnians. As recently as lunch time today, the caucuses of both parties listened to the same tired presentation from the Secretary of State, and in this case from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that we have heard for this entire 3 years. That somehow or another to do something, change our policy, to allow those who wish to defend themselves to do so, would lead to some even worse disaster, the taking of more hostages among the U.N. forces, to more deaths and ethnic displacement on the part of the Bosnians. Yet, the use of this excuse, Mr. President, has resulted in 3 years of violence and displacement and ethnic cleansing and an end to the belief of the United Nations to act effectively in connection with a catastrophe of this sort, and undercutting of the ability of NATO, and most significantly, a lack of belief in the United States of America. Mr. President, it is simply time to end that bankrupt policy. The proposal that the majority leader has brought to the Senate ends the embargo on one of two conditions: a decision by the United Nations or by the countries supplying troops to the United Nations in Bosnia to withdraw; or a request from the legal Government of Bosnia that the United States lift the arms embargo and a notification to the U.N. Security Council that it has requested that those forces leave. Mr. President, that is putting the ultimate fate of the Republic of Bosnia squarely in the hands of its own elected [[Page S 10232]] Government, which is exactly where it should be. There is a very real possibility that if the troops of that Government can obtain arms even remotely equivalent to those possessed by the aggressors, that they can defend their independence and recover some of the country wrongfully lost to them. And it is way past time, way past time that we allow that decision to be made by the people who have been the victims of this aggression for 3 long years. The U.N. protective force is not protecting anyone, including itself. It should be gone. Our arms embargo punishes no one except for the victims of aggression. It is simply time that it be brought to a close. The partial and midlevel threats that are being made by this administration will risk the loss of American lives but will not, under any circumstances, change the situation on the ground. What could be more clear, Mr. President, than the proposition that we should not risk the lives of our own men and women in uniform unless their goal is important to the United States and has some definite and worthy policy to be defended? Nothing that we have heard from the administration about its plans meets those simple tests. If we are willing to do nothing to end this aggression ourselves, we at least should no longer be complicit to its continued success. We should be willing to allow the victims to defend themselves. We should end the arms embargo. We should encourage the present forces from the United Nations to leave. We should arm the Bosnians. And I am convinced, under those circumstances, their chances of regaining the semblance of a country and reaching a peace through some kind of strength will be greatly enhanced. There is no perfect solution to this catastrophe. But the solution of allowing the victims to defend themselves, to fight for their own freedom, is the least bad of all the solutions before us. And I am profoundly convinced it is the only moral answer to this question. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion on the Delaney clause in connection with S. 343, the regulatory reform bill, with which we are dealing right now. There is a provision in S. 343 that would eliminate the Delaney clause ``zero-cancer risk'' criterion and replace it with a ``negligible risk'' criterion when determining the maximum permissible levels of pesticide residues on foods. The Delaney clause, a provision contained in section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1958 states that no additive will ``be deemed safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal. . . .'' The intention of this law is admirable: To prevent cancer-causing agents from entering our food supply. I do not disagree with this intent, and I am sure that no one else does in this body either. The problem, however, is that in 1958 when the Delaney clause was passed, scientists could not measure additives in parts per billion or parts per quintillion, as they can today. In 1958, scientists could only detect cancer-causing additives in parts per thousands--concentrations that, indeed, often posed legitimate health risks to many Americans. This 37-year-old Federal law establishing a ``zero risk'' level for pesticide residues in processed food is outdated and unnecessary and has adverse impacts on almost every farmer in the United States. In my own State of Washington, more than 200 minor crops are affected by the Delaney clause. Since 1988, our farmers have lost nearly half of all pesticides registered for agricultural use and are currently faced with a shortage of agricultural pesticides because the cost of registration and reregistration is so high. For example, about 2.6 million acres of crops in the United States rely on Propargite. Propargite, a common pesticide used for mite control, is absolutely necessary to combat mites that feed on apples, grapes, hops, mint, potatoes, alfalfa seeds, and many other crops that are grown not only in my State but in other States as well. The potential impacts of a Propargite cancellation would be detrimental to agricultural producers in States like California, Idaho, Oregon, and my own State of Washington where crops grown on smaller numbers of acres, like these, are important to the economy. These potential impacts could cost our farmers hundreds of millions of dollars and would not only unnecessarily increase the price of our food but may well jeopardize food safety itself. Further, I have always been an advocate for safe, affordable, and abundant foods. Let me be clear, safety for foods will not be threatened because of this provision in S. 343. The specific provision only replaces the ``zero-cancer-risk'' criterion and replaces it with a negligible risk criterion. This ``negligible risk'' standard will give the Federal Government the flexibility it needs to permit our farmers to use newer and safer pesticides when they do not provide any significant risk to our foods. The status quo, however, is a threat to our farmers because present technology can measure these commodities in amounts so small as not to have any real impact, other than to bar the use of particular pesticides. As the Senate prepares to pass legislation that will move us toward a balanced budget in the year 2002, we must make tough choices. In light of reducing price support programs, I believe we should also work extremely hard to eliminate outdated and burdensome regulations that are placed on our farmers, among others. The Delaney clause is such an example of such an unnecessary regulation, and I am convinced that the Senate should pass legislation that will reduce regulatory burdens that farmers across this country face every day with no true, valid social purpose. As I travel around my own State, I have listened closely to the comments, suggestions, and concerns of my State's agricultural community. Their message is clear: Reduce the regulatory burdens that restrict our ability to do what we do best--provide healthy, safe, affordable, and abundant food. As Members of Congress, we should do all we can to provide that relief for those who carry out this important and very vital task. In summary, the science that drove the intent of the Delaney clause 37 years ago is outdated. With today's technology and science, it is right--not only right but necessary--to revise and to revisit that law passed in 1958 and put a new one in its place that will meet its goals and, at the same time, save the ability of our farmers to produce food accurately and well. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, at 10 o'clock, I understand, the Senate will take up a second rescissions bill, that bill having passed the House of Representatives last night. This is good news for the people of the United States, following on the even better news of the passage of the budget resolution yesterday, a budget resolution which will lead to a balanced budget in the year 2002. That path will be made markedly easier by the passage and hoped-for signing of a rescissions bill designed to save somewhere between $12 and $15 billion of spending already authorized and appropriated. In fact, next year's appropriations would be extremely difficult without the passage of this rescissions bill. Regrettably, it will allow somewhat more spending, at the insistence of the President, than was the case with the earlier proposal. But even so, it will represent a major step forward, a significant commitment on the part of this Congress to a leaner, tougher, more efficient and more effective Federal Government with a reduction in spending which, in some cases, would simply be wasteful--in other cases, which might have been significant, but not of a high enough priority to borrow in order to do it and then to send the bill to our children and to our grandchildren. One of the last matters, perhaps the last matter settled in connection with this rescissions bill, was a proposal of mine and the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] with respect to salvage timber and to certain other rules related to timber harvesting in the Pacific Northwest--the salvage provisions applying all across the United States. Negotiations with the administration on this subject were intensive and were lengthy. The net result, from the perspective of this Senator, is that the changes in the earlier bill are only slightly more than superficial. Both the provisions in the earlier bill and those in this bill, I wish to emphasize, were aimed solely at permitting the President and the administration to do what they claim they want to do anyway, to keep their own commitments. Neither in the field of salvage timber nor in connection with so-called option 9 in the Pacific Northwest, do I believe this administration proposes a balance between its environmental concerns and the very real, human needs of the people who live in timber communities and supply a vitally important commodity for the people of the United States. I wish to emphasize this. I do not believe the administration's plans are appropriately balanced or that they give due weight to human concerns. But they are something. They are more than people in timber country across the United States have today. This amendment is simply designed to remove the frivolous and endless litigation which seeks to obstruct even the modest relief which the administration proposes. So the President is not required to do anything that he does not want to do. He is enabled to do what he does wish to do, or says that he wishes to do. He is enabled to keep his own commitments, and the people of the United States, and especially those in timber country, can then determine whether or not those commitments are indeed adequate; are, indeed, balanced. I trust that later on this year we will be dealing with legislation that will create that balance. But in the meantime, this significant though modest relief will be available. For that I am most grateful. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am informed that Senator Craig is not going to utilize his time. My name was not mentioned. I ask unanimous consent to speak for not more than 5 minutes in morning business.