T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, one correction. The GAO makes no recommendation with respect to whether or not this question should be reopened whatever. It does say the Navy should change its donation procedures in the future, but it does not say that the selection should stand.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I can call up amendment No. 424 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment refines legislation enacted last year to transition the uniformed services treatment facilities [USTF's] into the DOD's new health care program called TRICARE. I hope that the managers of the bill, Senator Thurmond, chairman of the committee, and Senator Kempthorne, chairman of the operative subcommittee, will accept it. Mr. President, I am proud to have been associated with the USTF's since the program's inception over 15 years ago. I was an original cosponsor of the amendment offered on this floor in 1981 by the late Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson that transitioned these former public health service hospitals and clinics to facilities of the uniformed services to provide health care to dependents of active duty personnel as well as military retirees and their dependents. Most recently last summer on this floor, I sponsored the amendment that provided the future authority for the USTF's to continue providing care to military beneficiaries through the integration of their facilities into DOD's military health care delivery system. The USTF's currently serve about 120,000 beneficiaries at facilities located in seven States: Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. The facilities provide high-quality care that has been judged by every major study done to date as cost- effective when compared to CHAMPUS and other DOD health care alternatives. The USTF's pioneered managed care principles such as enrollment and capitation that have become the hallmarks of the new TRICARE program. The USTF's are very popular with the beneficiaries, many of whom would never consider receiving their health care from any other provider. Satisfaction surveys just completed by an independent firm conclude that the USTF's as a whole have a 91 percent satisfaction rate, 7 percentage points higher than the norm for civilian HMO's. The USTF in my State, Pacific Medical Center, enjoys the highest overall satisfaction rate of nearly 95 percent. I doubt that any DOD health care provider program can match the USTF's for satisfying the medical needs of military personnel and their families. The introduction of TRICARE, however, has brought the USTF program to a crossroads. TRICARE has been operating in my State of Washington for over 2 years and started in Texas in November 1995. Its introduction has heightened interest within DOD to integrate the USTF's into TRICARE to ensure consistent application of the so-called uniform benefit. The amendment I offered last year which was enacted as part of the fiscal year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act set out the process for this integration of the USTF's into TRICARE to protect the beneficiary interests as well as to preserve the separate designated status of the USTF's. My amendment, which reflected the position passed by the House, called for an orderly process for negotiation of new agreements so Pacific Medical Center and the other USTF's could continue offering high-quality and cost-effective health care to military beneficiaries. Despite my earlier amendment's good intentions, unforeseen problems have developed, largely because of institutional delays and the Defense Department's unconventional interpretation of some of the key provisions. Accordingly, I feel compelled to offer an amendment today that updates and perfects last year's language. In a similar fashion to last year, my amendment today includes four straight-forward provisions already contained in the House-passed fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill. It is important to note that these four provisions are in every way substantively identical to subtitle C of title VII of the House-passed bill. The first House-passed provision provides authority for a 6-month transition period in the implementation of the new USTF program to allow adequate time to educate the beneficiaries. The 6-month transition is entirely reasonable given that new TRICARE contracts provide at least 7 months for a proper transition. As we learned from the TRICARE transition in Washington, a compressed time period for transition will cause confusion and frustration for the beneficiaries. The second House-passed provision provides authority to continue the existing USTF agreements during the transition period. The Seattle and Texas USTF's technically lose their statutory designation effective October 1 unless they have new agreements executed. But because of delays in commencing the negotiations with DOD, these two USTF's will not have new agreements implemented by October. An extension of the current agreement and all its provisions until the transition period is complete seems fair and appropriate. The third House provision clarifies that the ceiling for capitation payments provided to the USTF's takes into account the health status of the enrolled beneficiaries who are under age 65. This reflects last year's clear intent that the actuarial benchmark for developing rates to reimburse the USTF's should be the health status of the actual USTF enrollees, not a national average of military health care patients. The fourth and final House provision clarifies last year's provision so that USTF's still qualify to purchase pharmaceuticals under the preferred pricing levels applicable to military health care providers. All parties agree that last year's legislation was not intended to take away the right to continued acquisition of these reduced-cost drugs. In addition to these four House-passed provisions, my amendment includes three other items to ensure that DOD negotiates fairly with the USTF's on the new agreements. These provisions would not be necessary if the Defense Department were earnestly negotiating in good faith with Pacific Medical Center and the Houston, TX, USTF. These two facilities are on the firing line because TRICARE is already in their regions and they are therefore required by law to have a new agreement executed by October 1, 1997. DOD, however, has chosen to negotiate first with three other USTF's that will not see TRICARE in their regions until mid-1998 at the earliest and consequently do not face the same immediacy faced by Seattle and Texas. The first new provision tries to prod the negotiations with DOD with a requirement for binding arbitration for up to 90 days if DOD and the Washington and Texas USTF's do not reach an agreement with DOD by October 1, 1997. This arbitration amendment encourages both sides to work out their differences without giving extra leverage to either side. Without arbitration, DOD has no incentive to negotiate because it can literally run the clock out and present the Washington and Texas USTF's with a ``take-or-leave-it'' contract in late September just before the October 1 deadline arrives. Binding arbitration is an eminently fair device to break an impasse and push the negotiations to completion by a date certain. The Seattle and Houston USTF's are fully prepared to accept the judgment of an independent arbiter. If DOD wants to avoid arbitration, the Department's Health Affairs Division should commence immediately good- faith negotiations with Seattle and Houston leading toward a fair agreement. This was the result the last time Congress threatened to impose arbitration to push DOD and the USTF to an agreement. The conference report language accompanying the fiscal year 1991 National Defense Authorization Act stressed that Congress was prepared to require mandatory arbitration if the managed care model was not negotiated by DOD and the USTF's by a statutory deadline. This threat of arbitration was instrumental in pushing DOD back to the negotiating table. The second new provision contained in my amendment clarifies how the USTF's can contract out their physician services. The clarification permits contracting out to primary care physicians provided the USTF's retain all risk and don't exceed their enrollment cap and their historical service area. The provision serves the beneficiary interest by allowing the USTF's to place primary care physicians where they are needed to enhance the convenience and accessibility of care. This change will also level the playing field with the TRICARE contractors that can contract out their primary care services. The third and last new provision in my amendment is a conforming change that applies to the uniform benefit, with the accompanying higher enrollment fee and higher cost shares, when the new USTF agreements are fully implemented. This clarification is needed to ensure consistency with the 6-month transition of the arbitration period. Finally, Mr. President, I implore DOD to respond favorably to the request of Pacific Medical Center and the other USTF's for open enrollment season so that military retirees can sign up this summer for the USTF program. Since DOD did not permit Pacific Medical Center to conduct an open season last year, if there is no open enrollment this summer the effect will be to deny military retirees a chance to enroll in this program for 2 consecutive years. The result is substantial pent-up demand and frustration by retirees who are simply looking for another choice in meeting their military health care needs. I urge DOD to adhere to the request in a recent Washington State congressional delegation letter to permit an open season, as clearly provided for in the USTF contracts. Overall, Mr. President, this set of legislative refinements, as well as providing for an open season, should enable the USTF program to continue to serve the health care needs of its military beneficiaries. I appreciate the committee's understanding and hope it will soon be able to accept this amendment. Of course, I urge the full Senate to pass it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hutchison of Texas, D'Amato, and Murray be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 645 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, as well as with those of the majority and minority leaders. An efficient FAA will be crucial if our country is to maintain its role as the world leader in the aeronautical and aerospace industries. The FAA must have adequate resources to transform itself into an efficient and productive agency. The anticipated work of the Commission should provide the Congress with valuable guidance in that respect. The proposed changes to the aviation excise taxes in the reconciliation bill should not be a signal to the commission that its ongoing work is meaningless. I intend to work with the leadership of the Commerce Committee and Senate to ensure that the future recommendations of the Commission are not prejudiced by any actions taken in this reconciliation bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, meet Bill and Vivian Loomis from Lind, WA. The Loomises farm, in eastern Washington, wheat and potatoes. The Loomises, under the present tax law, have been dunned by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to pay an alternative minimum tax on income they have not even received. That is to say, they are supposed to pay, this year, taxes that will not accrue until next year because the income will not come in until next year. Now, they have had to spend $20,000 of their hard-earned money in fighting the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the IRS, on that subject. We have, in a bipartisan manner, gotten the IRS to lay off of many other farmers who are in the same position. This bill, this Republican bill, this bill reported almost unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee, takes care of that situation. It rights that wrong. It says to Bill and Vivian Loomis, ``You don't have to pay taxes until you've received your income.'' Simple justice, Mr. President. But what else does the Republican proposal before the Senate do for people like Bill and Vivian Loomis who have worked hard all their lives as farmers in eastern Washington? Mr. President, it says to them, when they pass away, their farm will not be taken away by the Internal Revenue Service with a punitive and overwhelming death tax. It gives them a bit of a break in their ability to pass that on to their children and grandchildren. Now, Mr. President, Bill and Vivian Loomis have 7 children and 11 grandchildren. Their children are too old to give them the tax credit that is included in the Republican proposal. But their sons and daughters who are raising kids, who are struggling on limited incomes that they are earning and paying taxes on will get a $500 break for each of those 11 grandchildren of the Loomises' who are under the age of 17 years old. Real people, real benefits. And when those grandchildren are ready to go to college or university, there will be tax credits to help pay for that tuition. Mr. President, we are talking here, today, about real people who work hard, who earn an income, and who pay taxes on that income. Our Taxpayer Relief Act is to provide relief for those taxpayers. It is not designed to add to the welfare system. It is designed to provide relief for real taxpayers. It is designed to say that the Loomises, should they decide to sell their farm, will not pay an overwhelming and punitive capital gains tax; that if they have managed to save and invest in some stocks, they can sell them to go into a better investment without an overwhelming and punitive capital gains tax. Mr. President, the best single line I can give is, 75-75--75 percent of the benefits of this Taxpayers Relief Act go to families with incomes of $75,000 and less per year, who are actually paying taxes today. That is what this is all about. We really hear a great deal from the other side, a side that really was not at all happy about reducing taxes on hard-working Americans at all. I am delighted they have an alternative that at least provides some tax relief. But until we came along we heard about nothing other than tax hikes, not tax reductions. My constituents, Mr. President, in the State of Washington, pay the fifth highest income taxes per person in the United States of America-- almost $7,000 a year. They will get almost 2 billion dollars' worth of real tax relief, to real taxpayers, out of this bill. The benefits of our bill as against the other that attempts to target everything, that attempts to adjust society again through the Tax Code, our tax relief will go to real people, real people, like Bill and Vivian Loomis, who have worked hard all their lives, who have put something away, who want to help their children and grandchildren, who want to help build their country and who want to pass something of what they have done on to their children. It is much the superior proposal. It does not depend on gimmicks, like saying that the rental value of the house they own and live in is part of your income--as if you could live on the street and rent your house out. It is based on providing real tax relief to real working people who are overtaxed in the United States today, who have worked hard and deserve to keep what they have earned, like Bill and Vivian Loomis.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have been delegated to manage our time by the distinguished Senator from Delaware, and as such, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last weekend, I had the opportunity to spend time along the banks of the Columbia River in the town of Mattawa, WA. I held a field hearing there to explore various proposals to preserve a stretch of the Columbia River's pristine beauty, and to ensure that one of our State's great natural assets remains protected. The community of Mattawa opened its doors to me, to my staff, and to all of those who testified at and attended the public hearing, which attracted nearly 1,000 people. I want to thank the people of the community who so generously welcomed us, and worked so diligently to ensure that our hearing was a success. Without their attention to detail and enthusiasm, such civil discourse in so comfortable a setting would not have been possible. We could not have asked for finer hosts. Our public hearing was held at the Saddle Mountain Intermediate School, in Mattawa. I would especially like to thank Dr. Bill Miller, superintendent of the Wahluke School District for all of his efforts on our behalf. Also, I would like to thank all of those in law enforcement, the school staff, and the volunteers who made our hearing such a success: Mattawa Mayor Judy Essor; Ms. Luz Juarez-Stump, Saddle Mountain Intermediate School principal; Ms. Karen Hilliker, Saddle Mountain Intermediate School secretary; Mr. Mike Holland, Middle School principal; Mary Jane Holland, Wahluke School District staff; Mr. Steven Buckingham, teacher and advisor for the class of 1998; Ms. Lark Moore, Ms. Polly Weeks and Ms. Marlene Bird, staff for the Wahluke School District; Students from the Wahluke High School class of 1998, who provided us with wonderful refreshments; Andrea Eckenbuerg, chairwoman of the parent volunteers; Mr. Scott Egan, technical director for the school; Mr. Tim Schrag, maintenance supervisor; Chief of Policy Randy Blackburn and Chief Criminal Deputy Bryan Pratt who coordinated security for us. These individuals made our visit comfortable and enjoyable, and I hope some day soon to be able to return to this beautiful, friendly part of our State. Thank you all.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Let me take a moment to briefly review my concerns. First, I requested that certain discrimination prohibitions concerning service contracts be applied to carriers only when they are working together, not when they are operating as individual companies. Second, I sought to amend the forest products definition to incorporate certain products, such as laminated beams or panels. And third, I wanted shippers and carriers to be able to keep confidential the essential terms of their service contracts. Since the markup, there has been a sincere effort by all parties to work with me. Mr. President, throughout this consensus building process, the Committee was dedicated to working through my concerns, and I believe that the Majority Leader did his best. Common ground was found on the first two of my concerns. I appreciate the modification of the service contract discrimination provisions so that they apply only to carriers when they work collectively. This modification is particularly important to me and to my shippers in Washington state. I also appreciate that the definition of forest products was modified as I requested. Regrettably, we were unable to reach an agreement on the confidentiality for service contracts. We explored the idea of not requiring carriers to publish information regarding volume, but this, unfortunately, was rejected. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the right to address the confidentiality issue in an amendment when the full Senate considers this bill.

Mr. GORTON. I agree with the Leader. This bill is not perfect and it does not accomplish every reform that I want to see for this industry. But I believe it is a significant improvement over the status quo. I do recognize that Mrs. Hutchison's approach was to make change incrementally and accept compromises to successfully move this bill forward and bring it to the floor.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the Majority Leader's efforts to work with me on this important legislation. I also want to thank him for his efforts to address the concerns of all the interested parties involved in the ocean shipping industry. I identified three areas in the bill we passed in Committee that were of particular concern to me and that I wanted addressed before the bill was taken to the full Senate. The Leader has worked diligently to address my concerns. I too believe this reform is desperately needed. I am pleased that the committee took the extra time after the markup to complete the work on this bill. An agreement was reached that the majority of America's shipping stakeholders can accept: the ports, longshore labor, shippers, and carriers.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, the thrust of this amendment is to encourage the inclusion of the three Baltic Republics, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at the earliest practicable date. It is similar to the proposal already made by the Senator from Illinois, which is directed more at the time of preparation; this one, with that ultimate goal. I think that, in the most profound sense, this is not a highly controversial matter. The President has stated that the goal of the United States in the present round is to admit three highly qualified nations, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, to NATO. I want simply to say at this point that I enthusiastically support that policy on the part of the President and will certainly vote to ratify any treaty to that effect. I share some of the disappointment of the Senator from Delaware, with whom I previously discussed this subject in private, that the first round is not more expansive than it seems likely to be. I tend to fall on the side of those European allies of ours who would admit Slovenia at the very least and perhaps Romania as well. Nevertheless, any step forward in bringing thoroughly into the fold of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and therefore into first class membership in the basically Western European and North Atlantic community is a consummation that is devoutly to be sought by all of us. My particular amendment, and that of the Senator from Illinois, is focused on three nations collectively, not as large in population as the smallest of the three nations that are about to be admitted to NATO. The three Baltic nations have a unique role in European history, in some respects a uniquely tragic role in that each of them in modern times stood as an independent nation only for roughly 20 years. Between the end of World War II, 1939, 1940, they lost their independence until each of them regained that independence in the early 1990's. They are unique as well, madam President, in the sense that it is greatly to the credit of the United States of America that this Nation almost alone of all of the nations of the world never formally recognized the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. For the better part of half a century, there were tiny embassies here in Washington, DC, representing what seemed, I suspect, to most the vain hope that at some distant future day those nations would once again meet their own aspirations and become independent. I always agreed with this policy. It was policy that was followed by President Franklin Roosevelt, by President Truman, by President Eisenhower, by President Kennedy, by President Johnson, by President Nixon, by President Ford, by President Carter, by President Reagan, into the administration of President Bush, at which point that independence and freedom became a reality. I had the great honor, Madam President, a number of years ago of having been invited to address the Congress of Estonia, the first, and illegal under Soviet law, calling together a group of people in Estonia to begin that process of independence. It is a mark of the opposition in the then Soviet Union to that independence that I was not granted a visa and was unable to make that speech in Tallinn. I made the speech, however, from the floor of this United States Senate, Madam President, and sent the videotape to Estonia. As I was told afterward, it made a greater splash, greater showing than if I had actually been able to be there in person. So I have this particularly close feeling for the people of Estonia and for its independence. It was several years later that I was first able to visit that country. But I know what each of these other Senators on the floor knows, that the people of those tiny nations regard themselves as integral parts of our Western European North Atlantic civilization. Their foreign policy can be summed up in a desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Yes, a major part of this is a feeling that their physical security will be enhanced by being a part of NATO. And, yes, in some sense it will be. But I believe more than that, the psychological value felt by the people of those nations, freed after almost half a century of being occupied, frozen in place by a Soviet dictatorship, is equal to whatever the formal security arrangements will be. I believe that nothing could be more in the tradition of the United States of America, that from 1940 until early in the 1990's never recognized that these nations had lost their independence, than to invite these three small nations as quickly as possible to be a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Obviously, they are not on this list for the first round. If in fact a second round is limited to, say, Slovenia and Romania, they will not be a part of the second round either. I do believe, however, Madam President, that it is important for us here in the U.S. Senate to recognize that these aspirations take place because of the tremendous admiration the people of those countries have for the United States and for all we have stood for during their long decades of darkness. So I hope, and I hope fervently, that in the course of the next 24 hours the group of Senators here on the floor can reach an accommodation pursuant to which that aspiration on the part of the people of these three small nations will be recognized in this bill by the time that we have passed this bill. The House of Representatives has already done so in slightly different language than my amendment or the amendment from the Senator from Illinois. One of my suggestions might be that we try to create parallel language so that each of the Houses of Congress has passed exactly the same thought. I am, however, quite flexible on how we go about granting this degree of recognition and support. But I do think that for the future of democracy, for the future of small countries who so long aspired to be free, and now with our help are free, that this recognition should be granted.

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

Mr. GORTON. With that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the present amendment be set aside and that the amendment I send to the desk be immediately considered.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, with the indulgence of the Senator from Illinois and the two managers of the bill, I should like to ask unanimous consent to set that amendment aside and send up another amendment sponsored jointly by the Senator from Illinois and myself, simply in order to broaden the discussion of this present subject as it is on the present subject with the hope of eventually following the suggestion of the Senator from Delaware and perhaps consolidating this set of ideas into a single amendment.

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

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

Mr. GORTON. What is the question before the Senate?

Mr. GORTON. This amendment, Mr. President, merges together two amendments related to NATO enlargement offered earlier by Senator Durbin in the case of amendment No. 378, and myself and others in connection with amendment No. 379. I understand, through the graciousness and thoughtfulness of the senior Senator from North Carolina and Senator Biden from Delaware, that this amendment has now been agreed to. It does express United States support for working toward the qualification of five nations for NATO--the three Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, together with Romania and Bulgaria. The latter was suggested by Senator Biden and expresses the view of the Senate that when each of those nations has become qualified for that membership, that that membership ought to be granted. I spoke earlier about my strong feelings, strong feelings with which I know Senator Durbin particularly concurs, in favor of the Baltics after their long struggle through half a century of darkness to their independence and their growing democracies. Romania, of course, has been suggested by a number of European countries for membership at the current time. It has had dramatic changes toward democracy and responsibility in recent years. Bulgaria, just in the last few months, now seems to be moving in that direction. We all feel that as they qualify, they ought to be welcomed into this united group of Western European and North Atlantic nations into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Each of them will contribute to it, each of them will be strengthened by it, not just from the point of view of their physical security, but I might put it their moral security as well, their desire to be a part of the world from which they were excluded for so long by the Soviet Union. This amendment is identical, with one exception, to an amendment already passed in the House of Representatives. The wording is precisely the same. Bulgaria, at the suggestion of Senator Biden, has been added. With that, Mr. President, I think I speak for each of the sponsors and I thank Senator Helms for his understanding and support.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin and Senator Biden, that amendments Nos. 378 and 379 be withdrawn.