T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. No, a voice vote will be sufficient.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is a last-minute amendment and I greatly appreciate the indulgence of the managers, but it is of vital importance. It now is increasingly evident, overwhelmingly evident, that the European Commission is going to attempt to reject the Boeing- McDonnell Douglas mergers in spite of the fact that the Department of Defense feels this is a significant step forward for our national defense, in spite of the fact the Federal Trade Commission has not determined there are any trade violations in connection therewith. That decision on the part of the European Commission seems to have been made in the absence of any evidence and before any evidence was submitted to it and solely on behalf of creating a competitive advantage for Airbus. If it should hold, it will have a seriously adverse impact on employment in the United States, particularly with the Douglas portion of McDonnell Douglas, which could not survive unaided or unmerged. This resolution simply states those facts and states that any such disapproval would be an unwarranted and unprecedented interference in a business decision appropriately made in the United States and suggests to the President he take such actions as he deems necessary under the circumstances. I will make more extensive remarks on this issue sometime tomorrow, but I appreciate the support of my colleagues on a matter of great importance to employees in many States throughout the United States.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman and the committee for adding funds for passenger safety modifications for the Air Force. The committee's initiative is both timely and appropriate and recognizes the need to provide the most up-to-date available safety equipment to aircraft transporting our military personnel. I would like to clarify a point with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, is the $75 million added by the committee for aircraft passenger safety modifications to be sent on the acquisition of navigation and safety equipment to initiate phase II of the Defense Department's initiative to modify military passenger aircraft? Is it the intent of the committee that this additional funding be spent on the following equipment and technologies: enhanced Ground Proximity warning Systems [EGPWS] with a digital terrain data base, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems [TCAS], predictive windshear radar, cockpit voice recorders, and flight data recorders?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Does the committee and the chairman further understand that the $147 million provided in fiscal year 1998 represents a very minimum amount given the overall work intended, and the need to bank some budget authority to avoid significantly larger budget authority requirements in later years?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator for his clarification on these points. I also appreciate his assurance to support $147 million in TWRS in conference and his demonstrated commitment to the environmental management privatization concept. I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON. Finally, section 3131, particularly subsection (b), suggests that the authorization amount for privatization projects as defined in section 3104 cannot be used for new contractual obligations until DOE provides a report setting forth a number of basic cost, construction, and savings related provisions. Yet, in the context of the TWRS project, contracts are already in place with two contractors. Each contract contains two parts: a part A in which the contractors will provide deliverables to support the construction and operation of a TWRS facility, and a part B in which DOE, assuming part A deliverables are acceptable, authorizes the contractor, or contractors, to proceed with the permitting and construction of a waste processing facility. Since two Hanford tank waste remediation systems' contracts have already been awarded, and any followon work for part B would be considered an exercised option, I want to be clear that these provisions in section 3131 do not constitute an abrogation or termination of the current contracts in existence.

Mr. GORTON. Even if we secure the full $147 million in conference, as I hope we do, the fiscal year 1998 authorization is significantly less than the administration request. Does the failure to authorize TWRS funding at the administration's request level in any way suggest that Congress is backing away from the TWRS privatization project?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator. I was prepared to offer a floor amendment to this bill, S. 936, to address a very critical program at the Department of Energy site at Hanford. As the chairman is aware, a major and costly cleanup effort is underway at that site as a result of its contributions to the cold war achievements. Part of the cleanup effort will address the highest threat to human health, at the site, the 177 underground storage tanks that not only hold hazardous waste, but high and low levels of radioactive wastes. The Hanford tank waste remediation system project, known as TWRS, is the most critical and costly element in the cleanup of the Hanford site. Those underground tanks contain at-risk nuclear wastes, which have already leaked into the environment. Adequately addressing this situation is absolutely essential, and is in fact codified in the Tri-Party Agreement entered into by the DOE, EPA, and Washington State. Regardless of the method of contracting selected, the time line required in that agreement must be met. Currently, DOE is employing an innovative contracting approach to dealing with the remediation of those tank wastes called privatization. DOE embarked on privatization to attract outside financial resources to finance the final design, construction and operation of cleanup projects, which would in turn allow their scarce budget resources to be used to accelerate other cleanup actions. The Department also wanted to take advantage of a commercial approach that has shown in the private sector not only to save dollars, but to reduce the time required to accomplish the task. Section 3104 of the bill authorizes $275 million for DOE environmental management privatized projects, including $147 million for TWRS at Hanford. This funding is critical to demonstrate to the privatization contractors the Department's financial commitment to proceed with privatization. Without sufficient funds being reserved, the privatization contractors--which plan to put up their capital to develop the cleanup project--and the contractors' investors have little assurance that TWRS or other privatization contracts will be fully funded. While I am concerned that the committee's authorization is not high enough to preclude some out-year BA spikes for the privatization program, I will forgo offering an amendment to increase this year's funding with the understanding that the committee recognizes the need to provide at a minimum $147 million in budget authorization for TWRS to send the correct signal to the contractors and financial community. Do I have the assurance of the Senator that he will stand fast on the Senate position of $147 million for TWRS in the upcoming conference with the House?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the title 31 provisions on the Department of Energy programs.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the House of Representatives and the Senate recently passed tax relief plans that will help every American at every stage of life. They are obviously not the solution to all of our problems, but they are a first step in the right direction. These carefully crafted tax relief packages will not only make an immediate difference in the monthly budgets of middle-class families but will also encourage the risk taking that will raise the future standard of living for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren. They will accomplish both goals by giving tax credits to people who pay taxes and who bear the cost of raising the next generation and by reducing taxes on saving and investing. Why do we need tax relief now? Consider the following: total taxes, Federal, State, and local combined, take up almost one-third of the U.S. economy. That means that for every 8 hours of work the average taxpayer spends almost 3 hours of work to pay the tax collector rather than bringing it home to meet family needs. Following our lead, President Clinton has offered a tax relief plan of his own. We congratulate him on continuing to move in our direction, agreeing to tax credits not just for young kids but for teenagers, too, and also for giving families some relief from the death tax. But our plan and the President's still have some big differences. Most importantly, we strongly believe that his plan sells the middle class short. We think he has a much too narrow definition of middle class, one that includes as rich too many families that most people would see as solidly middle class. In particular, we think the President's plan has a strange bias against families with working moms. He is much too quick to put families with working mothers in the rich category just because they need two incomes to make ends meet, to pay their taxes, and to stay on top of their bills. For example, let us say dad's a teacher and makes $40,000. Everyone knows he is not rich. Now let us say mom's also working and she makes $30,000, money that goes to help raise their three kids, pay their taxes, and save for retirement. Almost everyone would still say this family is not rich. But the President is well out of the mainstream on this issue. His plan says that because mom works, this family is no longer middle class; that it somehow became rich and does not deserve full tax credits for its kids. We strongly disagree. Our plans, which got the support of two-thirds of Senate Democrats as well as Republicans, do not punish families with working moms. These families work hard, play by the rules, and struggle to make ends meet. They are overtaxed and they deserve tax relief. If the President will not let them get a full share of lower taxes, if he thinks they only deserve a portion of the tax cuts others will get, then he ought to get out of the tax-cutting business. People who pay full-time taxes should not get part-time tax relief. Our tax plans live by this code. They would give this family up to $1,100 more than the President's plan would. Is this situation unusual? Definitely not. In 1995, the typical married couple with two or more kids in which both parents worked full time earned almost $61,000. This typical family should be making about $70,000 next year, assuming economic growth keeps going. Remarkably, this income level already disqualifies them for two-thirds of the President's tax credits for children, and that is just for being the typical family with two or more kids and two hard-working parents. This crucial point warrants repeating. Under the President's plan, the typical married couple with two or more kids and both parents working full time would not qualify for full tax credits. Why? Because the President thinks they are rich. The ultimate shape of this long-sought balanced budget agreement and tax relief package is targeted to be finalized before the August recess. I hope that we can take our case to the American public and sway the White House with the merits of our argument. Families where both parents work to make ends meet hardly fit anyone's definition of rich. More accurately, these families are representative of the effort it takes to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table and the bills paid, especially the hefty bill they are obligated to pay to Uncle Sam. On this key issue, the President clearly is in the wrong. These families are not rich. They are middle class and they deserve a full share of tax relief. Under the bipartisan congressional plans, that is exactly what they will get. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for this amendment offered by my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray, and me which would increase budget authority for the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program by $50 million. It is absolutely essential that the Senate provide as high a level of funding for the Department's privatization program as possible. Like Senator Murray, I am particularly interested in this program because of the tank waste remediation system [TWRS] privatization program at Hanford. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation houses over 55 million gallons of hazardous nuclear and chemical wastes in 177 underground storage tanks located near the Columbia River. The TWRS program was established to manage, retrieve, treat, and immobilize and dispose of these wastes in a safe and cost effective manner. Under the TWRS program, the contractors are responsible for demonstrating the technical and business viability of using privatized facilities to treat and immobilize Hanford tank wastes; define and maintain required levels of nuclear, radiological, and occupational safety; maintain environmental protection and compliance; and reduce costs and remediation time. Under the privatization program, a contractor can recover the resources it has invested only through the delivery of acceptable services paid for by the DOE on a fixed-unit-price basis. The underlying intent is to transfer the primary share of the financial, performance and operational responsibility for the treatment effort from the government to the private contractor. TWRS and similar privatization efforts if done correctly and with proper oversight will allow for significant cost savings and represent an opportunity to use private-sector means and innovative technologies to accelerate cleanup. Without TWRS privatization, it is unlikely we can meet the long-term cleanup compliance milestones at Hanford. If TWRS privatization is not pursued, the project will need to be funded from the base environmental management account which will necessitate cuts elsewhere in the DOE cleanup program--not only at Hanford but at sites throughout the country. In order for the privatization concept to work, enough funds must be provided in budget authority to send the appropriate signal to Wall Street and the investment community that Congress is committed to this project. Funding TWRS at a level as close to the President's budget request is vitally important to the success of this program. Increasing funding for this program by $50 million would bring total funding for privatization to $265 million--the same figure that we appropriated on the Appropriations Committee yesterday. I urge support for this amendment. amendment no. 833 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to grant a blanket waiver of the applicability of certain domestic source requirements to foreign country so as not to impede cooperative projects or reciprocal procurements of defense items with such country) At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following:

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator for this clarification. Air Force Sergeants Association

Mr GORTON

Mr GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Smith] in a colloquy to clarify a provision within the bill's title on Department of Energy national security programs. Section 3134 limits, for a prescribed time period, the funds made available by the National Defense Authorization Act for the purpose of evaluating tritium production to two options: use of a commercial light water reactor or building an accelerator. As you know, DOE has decided to evaluate, in addition to a commercial reactor and an accelerator, the Fast Flux Test Facility, as known as the ``FFTF,'' as a possible back-up production option to provide interim quantities of tritium. The FFTF is currently, and in the future proposed to be, funded from sources not covered by this bill, specifically, the non-defense Environmental Management account and the civilian Nuclear Energy account. Accordingly, would the Subcommittee chairman agree that the limitation contained in section 3134 is not applicable to FFTF and similar options that are funded through programs wholly unrelated to that monies provided by this defense bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the entire legitimacy of this body and the House of Representatives, of the Presidency and of the administration, depends upon its members, in the case of the Presidency the President himself, having been freely chosen by the American people in an election campaign conducted under certain rules consistent with the statutes and the Constitution of the United States. It is a set of serious allegations about violations of those existing rules that is at the heart of the investigation now being conducted by the Governmental Affairs Committee. There are many who say the rules ought to be changed, and there can be legitimate debate over how much and in what direction those election campaign rules ought to be changed. The issue here and now, however, arises under the current rules, arises under serious allegations about violations of those current rules: The Hatch Act, the misuse of the White House, the use of covert foreign contributions to affect the outcome of the elections, money laundering, and a number of other violations of what the laws relating to the election of the President of the United States are right now. In this connection we have the unfortunate spectacle that many--most of the key witnesses, of those who know the facts, of those who participated in the alleged violations, have either hidden themselves overseas beyond the reach of any subpoena or have stated that they will exercise their fifth amendment rights and will refuse to testify unless they are immunized against the very offenses which so clouded last year's Presidential election. In that connection, we have the regrettable response, a response almost without precedent, on the part of one of the parties, that finding these witnesses is a Republican problem, that grants of immunity to minor participants will not be approved. How markedly, how strikingly this contrasts with the investigation of Watergate, with Iran-Contra, in which the party whose actions were being investigated cooperated fully in attempting to determine the truth of these allegations. As we all recognize the vital importance of free and open and fair elections conducted in accordance with the rules, so, it seems to me, we must all recognize the importance of determining whether or not there were serious violations of those existing laws, because if we cannot enforce the law as it exists today, what point is there in debating whether or not we ought to change and tighten those laws? We need the investigations that are being conducted, both here in the Senate of the United States and in the House of Representatives today, to cast light on what actually took place during the course of last year. We asked for a special prosecutor. We needed the Department of Justice in order to determine whether or not there were criminal violations that should be prosecuted in the criminal courts of the United States. But the classic justification, the rationale for this Senate investigation is the determination of facts: The breadth and extent of the violations of law that took place last year, who the violators were, what consequences the committee of the Senate feels should stem from those violations, and then and only then whether or not there should be additional laws applicable to the next set of elections. This inquiry and this investigation is of vital importance to the American people. The American people deserve to know precisely what took place during the course of the 1996 Presidential election campaign, on both sides; the breadth and the extent of violations of law, who violated the law, and who knew about and benefited from those violations. I call on all of the Members of the Senate to cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the determination of those facts and express my hope that the results of this investigation will be enlightenment and far better practices in the future.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask the Chair to bring the Senate to order, please.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, a few years ago, when the battleship Missouri was decommissioned for the second time, after more than 30 years, the Navy began a process to determine where it could become a permanent historic monument. The Navy carried on that process over an extended period of time under the rules that had been applicable to all previous donations. Two weeks before it made its final decision, the Navy informed the applicants of two additional and quite separate considerations. It did not tell any of the applicants the weight those considerations would be given. It did not inform them of the fact that they could submit additional items. They were really quite separate from the first set of considerations. At the end of that first round, Bremerton and Honolulu were essentially tied. At end of the second and unfair round, the Navy awarded the Missouri to Honolulu. The General Accounting Office--our General Accounting Office--has reported these changes, has reported that this was the wrong thing to do, and has reported that the Navy should change its processes in the future. My amendment does not seek to change the location of the Missouri. It just asks the Navy to start the process over again, to treat all applicants fairly, to set the rules in advance, and not to change the rules just before the game is over without telling people what the weight of the new rules will be. I ask for your votes on it as a matter of simple fairness to all of the applicants--both in California and Washington and in Hawaii--in a process which is very important to each one of these communities and which the Navy, very regrettably, has carried on in a totally unfair fashion to this point.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the U.S.S. Missouri, the battleship on which the Japanese surrender was signed in 1945, was decommissioned, mothballed and home ported in Bremerton, WA, from 1954 until it was recommissioned in 1986. It was during that period of time, of course, a major and treasured tourist attraction located relatively conveniently in the continental United States. In 1995, the Missouri was decommissioned for a second time and returned to Bremerton. The U.S. Navy then made the Missouri available for donation to a community willing and able to transform the ship into a world class maritime museum honoring the men and women who served in World War II. The Save the Missouri Committee in Bremerton competed with four other applicants in Hawaii and California under the same rules that had been applied to all previous Navy donations. I want to emphasize that once again, Mr. President. These were general Navy donation rules under which Bremerton and the other four cities competed. At the last minute, however, when it was likely that Bremerton would be chosen under those rules, the Navy added two new requirements, failing to tell any of the applicants that the two new requirements would count for 75 percent of the ultimate decision and that the earlier rules were only 25 percent. The applicants had 2 weeks to respond. None of the applicants, according to the Navy's own evaluation team, responded adequately. Nevertheless, the Navy awarded the Missouri to Honolulu based exclusively on those new requirements. The General Accounting Office then reviewed the Navy process. It criticized it on just the grounds that I have outlined. The Navy nevertheless has refused to reopen the process for the four losing applicants, Bremerton and the three in California. Mr. President, during this entire process, I never interfered and told the Navy what answer it should come up with. I simply assumed that the Navy would do so on an objective and on a nonpolitical basis. Now, however, I must say that, based on my own experience and the report of the General Accounting Office, I am outraged at the Navy's lack of objectivity and its indifference to fairness. This amendment, therefore, sponsored by myself, my colleague from Washington, and Senator Feinstein from California, will not decide the question in favor of one of our cities. It simply requires the Navy to reopen the question and to treat all five applicants fairly and under the same rules that were imposed at the beginning of the process rather than being added at the end. It is as simple as that. Mr. President, something that the Navy should have done in the first place it would be required to do by this amendment. Obviously, the location of the Missouri, given its historic nature, is a matter of significance to all of the applicants and, I think, to all Americans and most especially to those who served in World War II. Obviously, I would prefer the ultimate location to be in my own State. But I have not demanded in the past, nor do I demand now, that the Navy decide in my favor. I simply ask that it make this decision objectively--nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, I ask for the support of my colleagues for this modest proposal.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, with almost all of the factual statements about how the selection process was made, I agree with my friend and colleague from Hawaii. With his unwarranted characterization of Bremerton and, by implication, of San Francisco and of the California applicants, I most decidedly do not. Pearl Harbor is in fact a memorial to World War II and to its beginning. But Pearl Harbor, no more than Bremerton or San Francisco, was the location of the surrender of the Japanese on board the Missouri at the end of the war. Under the logic of the Senator from Hawaii, the Missouri should be sent to Tokyo Bay and be a memorial and a reminder there. Obviously, that is not going to be the case. But from the point of view of its availability to primarily American tourists, it is obviously more conveniently located in one of the west coast ports than it is Honolulu. But, Madam President, the true difference between the Senator from Hawaii and myself is not that. The Senator from Hawaii, as apparently he did to the Navy himself, is making the case for his location. I simply depended on the Navy to make that decision objectively. The Navy, of course, can set up whatever criteria it wishes for making a donation of a ship or any other artifact to a community, but the Navy, like every other American institution, should do so fairly and on the basis of rules that are not changed at the beginning of the game without telling the participants in the game what the new rules mean or what weight they will be given. Had the Navy followed its original rules, the rules it applied itself to all previous donations, Bremerton was the most likely winner by reason of the deep concern on the part of the community for what had been a part of its history for more than 40 years. But at the very end, the Navy comes up with two other criteria, informs no one of their importance, gives them 75 percent of the weight in making its decision, and comes out, I presume, where someone in the Navy wanted to come out in the first place but could not without changing those rules. My amendment does not even require that those rules be changed, though I think they should be, Madam President. It simply requires the Navy to treat the citizens of the five communities that applied to be the permanent home of the Missouri on the basis of the same rules at the end of the process that it had at the beginning of the process and to inform those communities of what the rules are and what their relative weight is. That is asking for the most minimal fairness, Madam President, the most minimal fairness in the world. The General Accounting Office did not take a position one way or the other on whether or not the process should be reopened, said that none of the communities were adequately informed about the nature and the weight of the new criteria. That is the fundamental answer that should have caused the Navy to reopen this process on its own. Madam President, it is interesting to note that the fairness of this request, the request I am making in this amendment, is recognized even by the Honolulu Advertiser. Now, the Honolulu newspaper, a month ago tomorrow, wrote an editorial on the subject which, of course, takes Senator Inouye's position on the merits, that Pearl Harbor is practically the only logical place and certainly the most logical place for the location of the Missouri. But it does say, in part, Officials from Bremerton, WA, cite a General Accounting Office report that says there were a number of last minute changes in the Navy's selection process that skewed it in favor of Honolulu. They want the selection process reopened. Hawaii Senator Dan Inouye, whose enthusiasm was very obvious in the effort to get the Missouri at Pearl Harbor, says the GAO report in itself is skewed. He promises the great battleship will come to Pearl. Let's hope so. But if the proposed Pearl Harbor resting place makes so much sense, as we believe, then there should be no problem in reopening the selection process so that all questions are answered. It concludes, ``And no one can claim Hawaii stole it. We can proudly say we earned the right to host the Missouri.'' I am not sure that would be the result. I hope that would not be the result. The very newspaper in Honolulu itself acknowledges that this competition should be a fair one and carries the implication that it was an unfair one. We ask no more than that. This is not a tremendously complicated process. It will not take a long time to do justice. But justice has not been done, Madam President, and it can only be done by the acceptance of this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.