T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on all too many occasions in this body, we have been a part of debates, pointing fingers over failure, over a failure to balance the budget, over a failure to meet the needs of the American people. We are in a competition again here today, but it is a far more pleasant competition. It is competition for credit for a success. It is my view that there is plenty of praise to go around for that success, from the Republicans and Democrats to the leadership of the Congress and to the President of the United States. I believe we have heeded the counsel of the people of the United States who were not willing to trust either party last November with full control over the Federal Government, and demanded that we work together and craft solutions to the challenges facing the American people. So we have passed a bill that will lead us to a balanced budget. And so we are about to pass a bill that will: Give needed and overdue tax relief to the American people; a credit to most hard- working American families of $500 for each of their children 16 years old and under; credit and relief for the expenses of higher education to those same hard-working middle-class American citizens; relief from the savage impacts of the death tax on small businesses and on farms; help for the self-employed, in paying for the rising cost of health care insurance; relief from burdensome taxation on the sale of homes or the sale of other assets that will lead to more investment and to better jobs and opportunities for the future; encouragements to save. Mr. President, is this the last answer to each of these challenges, to all of our challenges? It is not. I share with the Senator from New York, the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Rhode Island, disappointment that we missed this opportunity, an opportunity granted by the courage of Members of both parties in this Senate, to deal with the underlying challenges to Medicare and to an aging population. But we did find that we could debate those issues and vote on those issues constructively and positively in this Senate. I believe we have built a base on which that debate will be renewed next year, one hopes with real opportunities for success. We did not simplify the Tax Code in this bill by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe we built a foundation upon which we can debate next year over whether or not we ought to dramatically simplify and make more fair and easy to understand and easy to comply with, our tax system. But the fact that we didn't do everything should not detract from the fact that we did something. We have moved dramatically forward toward a balanced budget, and dramatically forward toward tax relief for the American people. This is a partnership program for which much credit is due very widely and across both parties. I trust that partnership will be recognized by an overwhelming vote of approval tomorrow morning.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in the absence of the Senator from Delaware I believe I am entitled to yield myself 6 minutes from his time.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Jane Garvey's confirmation as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. As the new FAA Administrator, Ms. Garvey is facing significant challenges. These challenges include ensuring that air travel is safe, that the modernization of the air traffic control system is done on time and on budget, and that airport development keeps pace with the expected significant increases in passengers and cargo. Ms. Garvey also faces a significant challenge to independently assess aviation funding needs, and to speak out as to what the true needs are. We are counting on Ms. Garvey to provide strong leadership. Many positive statements have been made about her tenure at the Federal Highway Administration, and about her outstanding management skills and strong financial experience. These qualities will serve Ms. Garvey well in running the FAA, and in working with the Congress. I have heard a great deal about the need to change how things are done at the FAA, and some of Ms. Garvey's past accomplishments indicate that she is up to the task. I understand that one of her most noteworthy accomplishments at the Federal Highway Administration was to help implement innovative financing options to accelerate completion of highway projects and to leverage federal funds. Through her efforts, unnecessary restrictions were cleared away, and program flexibility was provided that allowed good ideas to be introduced. Such actions show that she can look beyond business as usual, and see opportunities to make improvements. Such creativity is needed at the FAA. I am sure that no one needs to be reminded that aviation safety is the paramount responsibility of the FAA. I expect Ms. Garvey to take whatever reasonable action is necessary to see that the FAA is proactive, and makes whatever changes are needed before, not after, an airline accident occurs. The public expects and deserves nothing less. Ms. Garvey will be the first FAA Administrator to have a fixed 5-year term. The Congress established this term so that the FAA would have the continuity and direction that its complex, technical, and costly programs require. Ms. Garvey has made a public commitment that she will stay for the full 5 years of her term. I would encourage her to keep this commitment. I look forward to working with Ms. Garvey to address the needs of the nation's aviation system, and to see that it continues to be the safest, most efficient system in the world. I wish Ms. Garvey great success. I would join with Senator McCain in urging this body to quickly confirm Ms. Garvey as the next Administrator of the FAA. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, tomorrow, following morning business, it will be the intention of the majority leader to consider S. 39, the tuna-dolphin bill. Following the 30 minutes for debate on that measure, the Senate will proceed to a vote on passage of S. 39, to be followed by a vote on passage of the Department of Transportation appropriations bill. Senators can, therefore, expect at least two rollcall votes tomorrow morning, hopefully around 11 a.m. At noon on Wednesday the Senate will begin debate on the conference report to accompanying the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Under the statute, there are 10 hours on debate on that conference report. And as always, Members will be notified as to when that rollcall can be expected.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for the excellent job he has done on this bill, and in particular for the priority he has given to airports. The chairman has been very accommodating in looking out for the interests of Washington State. There is one program, however, that we did not address in this bill, and I would like to seek the chairman's assistance in seeing that the issue can be raised in conference. Paine Field in Everett, WA, is currently the third busiest airport in the State. In addition to being the airport from which Boeing tests its 747, 767, and 777 aircraft, I understand that a commercial airline has indicated its interest in operating from Paine Field. Despite the growing traffic, Paine Field does not have a radar system, and air traffic controllers currently use binoculars and reports from pilots to determine the positions of aircraft relative to each other. I understand that while most radar air traffic control systems can be quite expensive, there is a new system that is far less costly and could be appropriate for testing at airports like Paine Field. This technology, called the terminal automated radar display and information system, or TARDIS, essentially reproduces in the air traffic control tower, radar images generated elsewhere. In the case of Paine Field, the data may be obtained from nearby Fort Lawton. While it remains to be seen whether this TARDIS system is, in fact, appropriate for Paine Field, I would appreciate the chairman's assistance in revisiting this issue in conference with an eye to including report language urging the FAA to give full consideration to installing a TARDIS system at Paine Field.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on July 28, 1997, by the President of the United States: Extradition Treaty with Cyprus, Treaty Document No. 105-16, and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (1996) and WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (1996), Treaty Document No. 105-17. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 30. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate immediately proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Grassley, 30 minutes; Senator Daschle or his designee, 30 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we here in the Congress and the White House seem at this point to be on the verge of an agreement which will pay two magnificent dividends to the American people. The first is the promise of a balanced budget, not just one time, not just on a touch-and-go basis, but perhaps with a sufficient number of reforms on spending policies so that we can reasonably expect a balanced budget for a considerable period of time in the future. Even the promise of that balanced budget, Mr. President, a promise made 2 years ago by the first Republican Congress, has been largely responsible for interest rates, on average, to be 1\1/2\ percentage points lower than they were when that Congress came into being. For a middle-class family with an $80,000 mortgage and $15,000 automobile loan, that means $100 more a month for the family to use or to save or to spend on its own rather than on interest payments. Beyond that, Mr. President, it means that the United States will have substantially ended the practice of spending money that it did not have year after year after year, borrowing that money and sending the bill to our children and to our grandchildren. The second wonderful dividend which we seem about to present to the American people is tax relief. Just 4 years ago, perhaps to the month, we were here debating--and on this side of the aisle opposing unsuccessfully--what turned out to be the largest tax increase, measured in dollars, in the history of the United States. Today, that debate, that idea is buried, if not forgotten. And we have changed the entire direction of the debate here from how much more can we spend and how much more can we tax to how can we limit the spending habits of the Government of the United States and what kind of dividend in the form of tax relief can we return to the American people. We now talk about tax relief rather than about tax increases. The debate over what kind of tax relief, Mr. President, has obscured the profound nature of the change in this debate. It is all too easy to forget that it has only been for the last 2 years that we have seriously been debating tax relief. My friend and colleague from Georgia just pointed out, quite accurately, that this will be the first tax relief for the American people in more than a decade and a half. Mr. President, many may say that this tax relief proposal is modest. And modest it is. It is perhaps one-third as large as the 1993 tax increase. And so it is only a first step, at least as far as we here on this side of the aisle are concerned. But there will be very real tax relief for hard-working, middle-class citizens of the United States, families with children, very real tax relief from the burden of capital gains taxation, a form of tax relief which will certainly increase savings and investment and career opportunities for Americans today and for future generations of America as well, with tax relief in the field of estate taxation, a particularly vicious form of taxation that penalizes success, breaks up small businesses, requires farms to be sold and undercuts some of the most important bases upon which a successful American economy has been built. No, Mr. President, since we began this campaign, this crusade with the new Republican Congress just a little bit more than 2 years ago, interest rates have declined, real hourly wages are moving up after 2 years of decline at the beginning of the first Clinton administration, millions of new jobs are in existence, unemployment is as low as it has been in decades. Mr. President, it is appropriate to say that we are on the verge of success because we have been able to work together. We have listened to the demand that the American people made by their votes less than a year ago that a Republican Congress work with a Democratic President in order to see to it the budget was balanced and tax relief was made available to the American people. We, on this side of the aisle, are delighted at our success in changing the nature of the debate from how much more Government shall we have and how much more shall we pay for it, to how can we discipline the Government's demand for money and how can we provide tax relief for the American people. One success, however, Mr. President, I submit, has a real opportunity to lead to another. And so I trust that this quiet Monday will lead to a challenging week, and that by the end of the week a promise made more than 2 years ago on a balanced budget and tax relief for the American people will have been fulfilled. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there can be no serious argument posed to Members in body that it is not appropriate, maybe beyond appropriate, for all practical purposes necessary, for the proper administration of justice that the U.S. Court of Appeals--almost twice as large as the next largest court of appeals and almost three times as large in population and in caseload as the average circuit--should not be divided. Twenty-three years ago, a commission, the Hruska Commission, said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was too large and should be divided; that no circuit court of appeals should have more than 15 judges. The reasons, of course, is collegiality, the prompt and effective administration of justice. Any other argument is simply a matter of delay, simply a matter of a maintenance of the status quo. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should be divided. There have been bills on this subject and hearings on this subject in most of the Congresses from 1975, 22 years ago, to date. The very proposal that is before us right now, with minor changes, was recommended by the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress and did not come to a vote because it was clear that it would be filibustered as an independent vote. That is at least one of the reasons that when he comes to the floor, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will recommend the rejection of this amendment and supports the division that is included in this bill. But, Mr. President, before I get back to the merits of the proposal, I want to express my deep concern over some portions of the opposition that come to this bill from California and perhaps elsewhere. One of the reasons that the Senator from California can describe this bill as a gerrymander, one of the reasons that she can call for delay is because the proponents of the division have acceded to the requests of the Senators from the various States that are affected by this division. Should we have another study commission? That study commission, if it is remotely objective, will recommend the division of the ninth circuit not into two, but into three new circuits, a proposition that this Senator feels to be highly appropriate. The only way to create three new circuits out of the present ninth circuit is to divide the State of California and to place it into two circuits: one centered in San Francisco, the other centered in Los Angeles. That recommendation has been with us for many years. That recommendation was incorporated into the first version of this bill. The two Senators from California are vehemently opposed to that recommendation, and I strongly suspect that if we go 2 years and have another study commission and it comes up with dividing California, they will find a reason to object to it again and to filibuster the proposal. So what did the sponsors of the division do? The sponsors of the division said, ``Fine, we will accede to the wishes of the Senators from California. We will make this a two-new-circuit bill.'' California will be left united. The Senators from Nevada, with some real justice with respect to the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee 2 years ago, stated that they didn't like the division; that Nevada felt more drawn to California than it did to the Pacific Northwest and Arizona. And so in this bill, we have acceded to the wishes of the Senators from Nevada and have left that State in the ninth circuit with the State of California. That is the reason that the circuit, as it appears in the bill, is not contiguous. But in the days of the Internet, of e-mail, of faxes, of air transportation, there is nothing but history to require that circuits be made up of contiguous States. And, of course, Alaska and Hawaii have never been contiguous to the States in the ninth circuit. Nor has Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to the circuits to which they are attached. Finally, the State of Hawaii, through its Senators, when it was determined there was to be a bill, elected, to my delight, Mr. President, that it would rather be in the smaller, the more intimate, the more collegial circuit, the new twelfth, and that appears in the bill. Then when we asked the representatives of Guam and the trust territories of the Pacific, they said, while they really don't want to change that, of course, they prefer to stay with Hawaii. If the great majority of the Senators from the Northwest and from Arizona wish a new circuit that is so logical, and if they have deferred to the wishes of the Senators from Colorado and Nevada as to their desires, why should we say no on the floor of the Senate to those who wish the division? What business is it of the Governor of California to tell us how the ninth circuit should be constituted? I am deeply troubled that Senators whose own wishes, reflecting what they think is best for their States, have been respected, refuse so arbitrarily as they and their predecessors have for more than two decades to accede to ours. Mr. President, there are 28 positions authorized for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There are 10 more requested by those judges and approved by the Judicial Council. That is a collegial circuit? At the number 28, three-judge panels that are chosen by lot have 3,276 possible combinations of those three judges. You, Mr. President, one of the youngest of our Members, could be appointed to the ninth circuit, could serve on it for 30 years, and the chances are you would never serve on the same panel of three twice in that entire period of time. That is collegiality? The ninth circuit is slow from the time appeals are filed until they are decided. It is notoriously reversed more frequently than in the case of any other circuit. When I was attorney general of the State of Washington, we figured that if we could get the Supreme Court of the United States to take certiorari from the ninth circuit, we had at least a 75-percent chance of winning in the U.S. Supreme Court, of causing it to repeal the circuit. At one level, that is not a totally relevant argument, because the two new circuits would start with exactly the same judges they have now, and I can't note any difference in philosophy from those who come from the States in the old ninth circuit under this proposal and the new twelfth circuit, and, of course, they are nominated by the same Presidents and confirmed by the same Members of the U.S. Senate. But I suspect that if the judges who work together knew one another a little bit better than they do now, there would at least be a marginal improvement in the number of times during which they are reversed. Mr. President, there is simply no justification whatsoever for the maintenance of this huge and unwieldy circuit. The Senator from California said in 20 years, California itself will have 50 million people. We have a wonderful First Circuit Court of Appeals, much smaller than the twelfth we propose in this legislation. New York and Pennsylvania, that don't have the population of California combined, have always been in separate circuits, and they are both on the Atlantic Ocean, and they both have to deal with the same kind of admiralty law. No, Mr. President. The time has come. There have been hearings galore. Those hearings have occupied a quarter of a century. There have been bills reported. Another study, another delay, only to be followed by another attempt to delay after that when a three-circuit division is proposed. No, Mr. President. The time is now. The division is appropriate. It will not be the last in the history of the U.S. courts. But it seems to me we should go ahead. From a personal point of view, I am somewhat unhappy that while we have done all we can to accommodate California, California refuses to accommodate us. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from California makes a serious argument: we should not split the circuits because we will waste the $140 million investment in a courthouse in San Francisco, except that we can split the circuits if this so-called study commission says we should do so, and she would then have no objection. Well, either the courthouse is an important consideration, or it is not an important consideration. Obviously, Mr. President, it is not an important consideration. I presume--I hope--that the Senator from California is not arguing that, even if there is a split, all of the staff and all of the people who are now in that courthouse in San Francisco would still be there and everything has to be added onto that. That is often a way in which the Federal bureaucracy operates. But there is no reason in the world for us to allow it to operate in that fashion under this set of circumstances. This can be done efficiently and effectively. But that is the fundamental argument against this amendment and in favor of the bill as it stands. The ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee said that this is the wrong way to act. The Senator from California says this is the wrong way to act because it is on an appropriations bill. Yet, 2 years ago when a bill practically identical to this was reported by the Judiciary Committee, after full hearings and a full debate, they objected to it even being debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Now for the first time we have an opportunity to do so. This Senator has favored this flip since the early 1980's. And this is the first time we have ever been able so much as to debate it on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The arguments against the proposal for split are essentially procedural. ``Oh, no, we have not had enough hearings. We have not talked about it for a long enough time. There have not been enough study commissions.'' There have been hearings for decades. There has been a debate for decades. It simply cannot be argued in any kind of rationale manner that a circuit with this number of States, with 14 million square miles of land and water, with almost 50 million people growing more rapidly than any other part of the country, with 28 authorized judges at the present time, 10 more requested on top of that, can be a collegial body, a court that can understand the cases that come in front of it, a court in which the members can even learn the names of the other members of the court. Of course a division is appropriate, and the division that is being discussed here today is the division, if there is to be one, that the Senators in opposition asked for. We are criticized because the bill changed in form as it got in front of us. Well, California is not divided because the Senators from California ask that it not be divided. And we went along. Nevada remains a part of the ninth circuit because the Senators from Nevada asked that that be the case as against the bill that was reported 2 years ago. Hawaii and the trust territories are with the new twelfth circuit because, assuming a division, that is where they wanted to be. Yes, there have been changes, but they have been changes requested by the very Senators who are here on the floor arguing against the result of their requests. Justice in these circuit courts will be done better in circuits that are roughly similar to the other circuits--all of the other circuits in the United States. Each of these circuits will still have more square miles than any other, except for, I believe it is the tenth in the Mountain States, and more when you include Alaska. The ninth circuit will still be the largest of any and all of them. I don't believe this is going to be the last such division. But it is a division whose time came almost a quarter of a century ago. And that has been resisted by lawyers and judges who are comfortable with the present situation, with the wonderful travel opportunities they have, and rank that convenience ahead of the convenience of individuals seeking justice before those courts who can be served far better, far closer to home, with far more understanding, if this division becomes law, than if we simply say, ``Oh, let's wait. Let's have another study. And let's let that study come up with the same results we did before. And then we will have another excuse to oppose the division.'' That is what we got when we heard, on the one hand, ``Fine, let's have the study, and we will agree with it. But, no, we can't divide the circuit because we have a brandnew $140 million courthouse in San Francisco.'' No, Mr. President, it is time for the Senate of the United States to deal with this question as a matter of substance today. It is time to do justice. It is time to reject this amendment and pass this bill. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I join in support of this effort on behalf of the Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center and I applaud Senator Murray's efforts on the Center's behalf. women's business centers

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the European Community is engaged in the blatant misuse of its authority to review United States mergers shamelessly to protect Airbus Industrie. It has decided that it will use its authority to block the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. Its rationale is that the combined commercial aircraft company poses too great a risk to Airbus Industrie. For the past 25 years, America has watched the Europeans pour billions of dollars of subsidies into Airbus Industrie to create what is now without question a highly competitive aircraft company. Airbus Industrie today boasts more than 30 percent of the global market for large jet transports. Its goal is to have 50 percent of the market and it is aggressively pursuing that goal. Many of us were shocked with French President Chirac's shameless pursuit of aircraft orders in China in exchange for the French's Government's commitment to defeat a U.N. human rights resolution. Airbus Industrie has already destroyed the viability of the Douglas Aircraft Co. Airbus' market share has come largely at the expense of McDonnell Douglas, which last year had only 4 percent of the market. Now the Europeans, in a final blow to Douglas, want the Boeing Co. to divest itself of Douglas Aircraft Co. and put the 14,000 remaining Douglas employees out on the street. While most Americans will find it inconceivable, the Europeans do in fact have the legal authority to block this American merger. This is true even though neither Boeing nor McDonnell Douglas have significant operations in Europe and despite the fact that our own Government has thoroughly reviewed the merger and approved it without conditions. The Europeans have disregarded our own exhaustive review process in the United States. The Boeing Co. has engaged in a good-faith effort to try to address the concerns raised by the European Commission about the merger--but to no avail. Nevertheless, the EC plans to block the merger. This means that Boeing aircraft may well be prevented from being sold in Europe. From the very beginning, the European merger review proceedings have been dominated by the political considerations of the Airbus member sales. I warned the President about this in a May letter on this subject. My colleagues in the Senate supported my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on the subject last week. The United States can no longer stand aside and allow Europe blatantly to protect Airbus at the expense of our own civil aircraft industry and our own American employees. The administration should send a clear signal that it will not allow this type of protectionism to continue and that we will retaliate decisively if the Europeans block the merger. The European Commission's indifference to appropriate antitrust considerations and its undisguised protectionism was expressed candidly by the EC's Karl Van Miert on Tuesday, July 15 on Belgian radio: ``The EC does not want a competitive market, it wants a guaranteed market.''

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to correct an egregious problem at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and on tribal lands across the Nation that came to light last December. As many of my colleagues know, the Seattle Times broke an unbelievable story of greed, deception, and mismanagement in the tribal housing program shortly before the 105th Congress convened. The Seattle Times reported that funding intended to build housing for low-income native Americans on the Tulalip Reservation in my State, went instead to construct a 5,300 square foot $400,000 home. The recipients of this taxpayer-funded home were not low-income, but instead earned a combined yearly income of $92,319 as executive director of the tribe's housing authority and contracting officer for the authority. I am confident my colleagues will agree that this abuse of HUD funding is outrageous and should be punished severely. Unfortunately, the Tulalip house was not the only problem Seattle Times reporters found in their 6-month investigation of tribal housing programs. Instead, they turned up numerous and repeated examples of cheating, abuse, and mismanagement in native American housing programs across the United States. In Red Rock, OK, Troy Warrior and his family of the Otoe-Missouria Indian tribe were excited at the prospect of moving into a new home. They would finally be able to afford their own home with help from HUD financing. Only a few days before the family was scheduled to move into the modest home, they were told that leaders of the tribal housing authority would get the house instead. Twenty other low-income families in the tribe faced the same dilemma. The tribal housing leaders eliminated the requirement that recipients of the homes pay for them, in effect giving themselves free houses at the expense of American taxpayers while those truly in need of the housing were left to fend for themselves. Jimmy Viarrial, chairman of the Pojoaque Tribe housing authority in Santa Fe, NM, makes over $40,000 a year, twice the State average. But when HUD gave the housing authority $1 million for home repairs, it spent the first $45,000 on Viarrial's own five-bedroom home. Most of the rest went to remodel the homes of friends and relatives of Viarrial and the housing authority director. Mr. President, these are just a few of the many abuses found by Seattle Times reporters last year, and I can say with confidence that there are most likely many more such abuses that have not been discovered. The American taxpayers deserve better than this. When we in the U.S. Senate tell them that their money is going to worthwhile programs to provide housing for the poorest native Americans, it is our duty to ensure that it is. As many of you know, two officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development were removed from their positions in the Office of Native American Programs as a result of this scandal. Furthermore, the HUD inspector general has issued a report confirming that the Seattle Times allegations are in fact true and recommending that the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 be amended to ensure better oversight of Indian housing authorities at HUD. These are positive developments that should be applauded. But no actions have been taken against the tribes responsible for the abuse of taxpayer money. That is why I am offering an amendment today intended to send notice that the misuse and misallocation of taxpayer dollars will no longer be tolerated. It will be punished and punished severely. Anyone involved will be permanently barred from participating in the program, and must reimburse that program. I would have preferred to go further, but this amendment is the strongest that can be accepted and passed. It is a simple amendment that should have been law a long time ago. I urge my colleagues to join me in my effort to inject fairness and accountability into a program rife with abuse and mismanagement. It is the least we can do for the millions of American taxpayers who expect their hard-earned money to be used wisely. amendment no. 959 (Purpose: To make available $1,000,000 for the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator program of NASA) On page 70, line 18, strike out ``1999.'' and insert in lieu thereof ``1999: Provided, That of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this heading, $1,000,000 may be available for the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator program.''.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, has offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment today regarding the President's decision to extend most-favored-nation trading status to the People's Republic of China for another year. Mr. Hutchinson believes the President's decision was wrong and would like to see MFN for China withdrawn. While I share my colleagues concerns about MFN for China, I will not support his amendment today. As many of my colleagues know, I have grave reservations about the United States' policy of engagement with China. The President's decision to continue to provide China free and open access to the United States market and the House vote to approve that decision were, in my opinion, wrong. But, that is water under the bridge. Instead of arguing against a decision that has already been made, we should be looking forward to the MFN debate next year. My State of Washington is on the cutting edge of trade with China. We do more business with China than virtually any other State in the Nation and rely on that business for thousands of well-paying jobs. Despite our successes, the Chinese continue to impose protectionist trade barriers against Washington State products and play politics with our exports. My State is not alone in this dilemma. I firmly believe that the administration's policy of engagement is failing businesses throughout the United States. The United States trade deficit with China has now grown to $40 billion and is increasing every day. This is unacceptable, Mr. President. I challenge my colleagues to take a closer look at our policy of engagement with China and urge them to join me in fighting for a tougher trade policy next year. If we condition MFN on significant trade concessions from China next year, I am convinced that China will back down. Unless we stand firm against Chinese protectionism and condition MFN and access to the United States market on trade concessions from China, we will never reap the potential benefits of truly free trade with the world's largest emerging economy. So, Mr. President, I will vote against this amendment today, but look forward to working closely with my colleagues next year to change the way the United States does business with China.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the status of the bill?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his kind remarks.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last week the United States joined with our European allies to invite three nations to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic are deserving of this invitation. I congratulate them on their achievements and look forward to a strong and lasting relationship with the people of these nations. Today I offer an amendment with my colleague, Senator Durbin, and the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator McConnell, to ensure that NATO expansion does not stop here. The Madrid summit was only the first step in our efforts to see to it that the nations of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are brought firmly into democracy's camp. Further expansion of NATO is essential if democratic and economic reforms are to continue and if communism is to be eliminated entirely from the European Continent. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should be invited to join NATO at the earliest possible date. These three tiny nations, perched between the Baltic Sea and the northwestern border of Russia, have made remarkable strides since they gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have all made significant progress toward the NATO requirements of irreversible democracy, free market economies, and civilian-controlled militaries. They have even participated in NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative by supplying troops to NATO peacekeeping efforts. The Baltic nations have requested and deserve consideration for full NATO membership. From a history wrought with foreign interventions that tore them from their rightful place in the European mainstream and subjected them to the heavy hand of communism, the Baltics have emerged from the economic and political darkness to embrace democracy and the free market with unsurpassed vigor. If these nations are ever to continue on the road to democracy and economic reform, they must feel secure from the possibility of future foreign domination. The United States and NATO have an important role to play in providing that necessary security. Having traveled to Estonia twice in the past 5 years, I have a very personal interest in its entry into NATO. The people of Estonia, much like their Baltic neighbors, have been under foreign rule throughout history. They were ruled by Germans in the 13th century, Swedes in the 16th and 17th centuries, Tsarist Russia in the 19th century, and the Soviet Union after World War II. With the end of Soviet domination, Estonians and their neighbors in Latvia and Lithuania are looking to the West for confirmation of their right to independence. Unfortunately, the subject of NATO expansion to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania has become highly controversial. Many in the United States national security community believe the Baltics, lying so close to Russia and within the area Yeltsin considers to be Russia's sphere of influence, should not be considered for NATO membership. Out of fear of isolating Russia, the United States and our European allies may forsake the three tiny nations that did so much to promote the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eradication of communism throughout Eastern Europe. Now is the time for the United States take decisive action to rectify the past and protect the Baltics from any future foreign irredentism. Future NATO membership for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is essential to their safety and prosperity. Security concerns will take precedence over continued democratic and economic reforms if the Baltics continue to exist, unprotected, in the shadow of an increasingly nationalistic Russia. We must be vigilant, Mr. President, in our efforts to extend NATO's reach to all democratic nations in Europe who cannot protect themselves. If we leave these nations exposed to the risk of foreign invasion and influence, the gains we made in expanding democracy and freedom across the globe will be vulnerable to erosion. The United States must continue to set an example for the world as a promoter and protector of democratic freedom. As victors in the cold war, we have never had a greater opportunity than this to show democracy's enemies that we have the courage and the will to stand firm against them. We should embrace this historic opportunity and bring every nation deserving of NATO membership into democracy's fold, even those nations closest to the heart of Russia. The people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been out in the cold long enough. They should be commended for the great strides they have made already toward the requirements for NATO membership and would make an outstanding contribution to stability, freedom, and peace in Europe as NATO members. It is time the West welcome them into NATO with open arms. I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Durbin for cosponsoring this important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on inclusion of the Baltics in NATO. Mr. President, to reiterate, this amendment was proposed by myself and by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Durbin], as an add-on a week or so ago to the defense authorization bill and was accepted by the Senate unanimously at that point. The Senator from Illinois and I, and I believe, with the happy assent of the manager of the bill, Senator McConnell, are presenting it, once again, in the glorious aftermath of last week's meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Madrid. At that meeting, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary were admitted to NATO. Several other nations who are applicants to NATO were not admitted but were put at least on the road toward meeting the qualifications for entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Slovenia and Romania were put more or less at the front of that parade. But in Madrid, there were also represented the three small Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, small nations that have been independent for only a relatively short period during their long history. Unlike the other applicants for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, these three nations were, in fact, occupied by and incorporated into the Soviet Union from 1940, with a pause for German occupation, until just a very few years ago when they, once again, obtained their independence. None of those countries has any goal greater than being recognized as a part of the West, as being free countries, both politically and economically. No set of nations has been more oppressed by their neighbors than these three nations. None, I think, has a greater dedication to freedom, to liberty, to democracy, and to free markets. This amendment simply states that we hope that these countries will be carefully considered for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at such time as they have met all of its qualifications. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of course, was formed originally simply for the defense of the West, a task which was overwhelmingly successful. But as we note the response in the three countries about to be admitted, we find that the goals are psychic every bit as much as they relate to any kind of military defense. It ratifies the choices that these three new applicants made to be democracies, to be a part of the West, to care to attempt to catch up, to join what we consider to be the free and democratic world. Exactly those same feelings are found in the other applicant countries, exactly those feelings are found in the Baltics. This amendment is a modest way to encourage those three small nations to continue to move in the right direction by stating to them that when they are fully qualified, they will become members of NATO. On behalf of my cosponsors and myself, I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent Senators Murray and Boxer be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have an unprinted amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee regarding an issue that has been underscored in the House report and deserves similar recognition within this distinguished body. The issue concerns the Department of Energy's program for disposition of excess weapons usable plutonium. This program, managed by the Department's Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, is an important cornerstone of international efforts related to arms reduction, nonproliferation, and world peace. It is a relatively new program within the Department, and one that deserves special recognition by this body and our unconditional support.