T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Durbin, myself, Senator Helms, Senator Roth, Senator Brownback, and Senator Biden.

Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend from Illinois. He has put this case extremely eloquently both in private and in public. I am delighted to be joined with him. I hope that the two managers of this bill will be in some form able to accommodate the thought that I believe is very widely held in this body and throughout the United States.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 880 be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 880 be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is no secret to my colleagues that perhaps the greatest contributor to our Nation's economic success is the hard work, perseverance and entrepreneurial spirit of America's small businessowners. It is, therefore, appropriate that the U.S. Small Business Administration has honored Washington State businessman, Mr. David Giuliani, as the National Small Business Person of the Year. Mr. Giuliani is president and chief executive officer of the Bellevue, WA, based Optiva Corp. which manufactures the Sonicare brand of toothbrushes. Starting Optiva as a technology transfer project from the University of Washington in 1988, Mr. Giuliani has overseen the company's progression from a startup business to an employer of 250 with sales of over $50 million in 1995. With growth of this kind it is not surprising that, last October, Inc. Magazine recognized Optiva as the second-fastest growing private company in the entire nation. To celebrate its success at the production of its millionth toothbrush last year, Mr. Giuliani's company gave away more than 1,000 Sonicare toothbrushes to individuals who couldn't afford them on their own. Mr. President, I am proud to represent a State that is home to such an outstanding businessman and citizen. Mr. Giuliani certainly deserves the title of Small Business Person of the Year.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I would like to speak briefly about the amendment I have introduced to S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. This bill, in my estimation goes a long way toward giving Americans more flexibility in how they fulfill their responsibilities to work and their families. S. 4 provides working Americans an option which is already available to public sector employees, the ability to choose compensatory time off in lieu of cash overtime pay. Further, the bill assures private sector employees that their choice to take either compensatory time or overtime pay will be protected. The use of coercion, intimidation, or harassment to force a private sector employee to take either compensatory time or overtime pay as a condition of employment is expressly prohibited under this bill. My amendment simply extends those same assurances to public safety officers. In my State of Washington, Jim Mattheis, president of the Washington State Council of Police and Sheriffs, reports that compensatory time is extremely popular with the families of working law enforcement. Access to compensatory time has increased the morale, efficiency, and safety of law enforcement officers. More importantly, compensatory time provides law enforcement families some much needed flexibility in work schedules which are exceptionally stressful. Unfortunately, my law enforcement constituents in Washington State report that the experience in the public sector has demonstrated a need to ensure that employees are free to choose whether to work for overtime pay, to use their compensatory time within a reasonable amount of time once it is earned, or to preserve their comptime banks. Police officers provide a tremendous service to our communities. They put their lives on the line each day to protect our families and our communities. Public safety officers deserve to have the simple assurance that their choice of compensatory time or cash overtime pay is preserved.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be granted that right.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be laid aside and call up amendment No. 265.

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

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 265 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania lie on the northwestern border of Russia. These three tiny Baltic nations have historically served as a crossroads as bargaining chips between great powers. As a result, they have been invaded and dominated by foreign countries throughout their history. The Baltics were occupied and oppressed by the Soviet Union during all of the cold war, but are now on a quick path to full democracy and free market economies. As we meet in Madrid this July with our NATO partners to discuss expansion of the alliance, we should also consider extending an invitation to our friends in the Baltics. 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 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. That is why I am introducing legislation today recommending the integration of Estonia, Lativa, and Lithuania into NATO at the earliest possible date. Having traveled to Estonia recently, I have a very personal interest in its entry into NATO. Estonia is a beautiful nation on the Baltic Sea, inhabited by brave men and women dedicated to democracy and freedom from foreign domination. The people of Estonia have been under foreign rule throughout almost their entire history. They were ruled by Germans in the 13th century, Swedes in the 16th and 17th centuries, and by Tsarist Russia in the 19th century. Finally, after World War I, Estonia fought for independence for 2 years and won. The people of Estonia established a parliamentary democracy and their republic flourished for nearly two decades until the Soviet Union, and then Nazi Germany invaded during World War II. With the end of Soviet domination, Estonia and their Baltic neighbors look to the West for protection of their right to independence. Unfortunately, the subject of NATO expansion to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania has become taboo. Many in the U.S. national security community believe the Baltics, lying so close to Russia and within the area Yaltsin considers to be Russia's sphere of influence, should not be considered for NATO membership. In fact, in February, Russian President Boris Yeltsin stated that Baltic membership in NATO would have an ``extremely negative impact'' on stability in the region and that the preservation of the Baltic nations' status outside blocs could dispel ``still lingering fears for their security.'' We should not allow these threatening comments to influence our efforts to expand NATO. Out of fear of isolating Russia, the United States and our European allies may forsake three tiny nations that did so much to promote the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eradication of communism throughout Eastern Europe. Cold war history is replete with tragedy. The expansion of the Soviet Union across Eastern Europe is one of history's darkest moments. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, all independent nations since 1918, fell victim to secret negotiations between Hitler and Stalin during World War II. Under the auspices of the Molotove-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, the Soviet Union laid claim to the Baltics, invaded, and ruled them with an iron fist from 1945 until 1991. Now it is time for NATO to take decisive action to rectify the past and protect the nations of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union from any future foreign irredentism. Future NATO membership for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is essential to their safety and prosperity. Democracy and economic reform and expansion may be at risk to security if the Baltics continue to exist, unprotected, in the shadow of an increasingly nationalistic Russia. The United States must ensure that the Baltic nations are invited to the NATO summit in Madrid and must work toward eventual membership in our security alliance for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and thank Senators D'Amato and Durbin for joining me as a original cosponsors.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Washington will take somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the budget resolution which has just been adopted by this body is a remarkable achievement. It is a remarkable achievement partly because, for the first time in decades, it was adopted by a large bipartisan majority rather than as a simple partisan document. It is a remarkable achievement as well, I believe, because each of the 78 Members of this body who voted for it did so with serious reservations about substantial portions of that budget resolution. Yes, it meets the primary objective of the President and of the vast majority of Members in Congress in that it establishes policies under which the budget will, in fact, come into balance shortly after the turn of the century. Yes, it does, in fact, limit spending and the growth of Government to a slower rate at least than would take place were we on automatic pilot. Yes, it meets some but by no means all of the President's priorities as he outlined them in his State of the Union Address. And, yes, it provides very real tax relief for the American people, most particularly for working American parents and their children. But those of us for whom tax relief was a major goal are unhappy because it is insufficient and because there are too many new spending programs, and those relatively indifferent to tax relief but in favor of all of the President's priorities, and more, are unhappy because there is not enough spending included in this resolution. In the long run, however, Mr. President, I believe that it represents a triumph, or rather the culmination of a set of conflicting ideas which somehow or another have joined together to make a real success. In 1993, along with every one of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I opposed President Clinton's first budget in the firm belief that it would result in harm to our economy. Now, in a very real sense, we were wrong. For a group of reasons, the budget deficit did, indeed, decline and economic opportunity did, indeed, increase. In 1995, as a part of a majority, we proposed a dramatic change in direction, a real balanced budget for the first time, genuine tax relief for the first time and major reforms in entitlement programs designed not only to help the taxpayers' pocket, but to save the future of Medicaid and of Medicare. That resolution never became law because of the President's veto, but it did have one tremendously positive impact. For the first time, the President and a majority of his party dedicated themselves actually to balancing the budget. During the entire year during which that 1995 budget was debated, interest rates declined, it became easier and easier for the people of the United States to purchase homes, purchase automobiles, start new businesses, provide job opportunities. Only when the promise began to fail did interest rates, once again, increase. The promise was renewed early this year, and a few short weeks ago met fruition in an agreement between the Republican leadership of both Houses and the President of the United States. Since even the commitment to a balanced budget paid dramatic dividends in increased economic opportunity, lower unemployment and lower interest rates, the accomplishment of a balanced budget, I am convinced, Mr. President, will bring even more rewards to the American people in lower interest rates and greater opportunity, and for the first time in decades meeting our responsibility not to spend money today while sending the bills to our children and to our grandchildren. I am convinced, in spite of my own disagreement with some of the policies in this proposal, that it will have nothing but good results with respect to the economy of the United States. Yet, Mr. President, I am convinced there are still very real troubles ahead, very real rough spots in the road. I note that while only eight Members of the Democratic Party voted against the budget resolution, the vast majority of them voted for amendment after amendment during the course of the last 3 days that would have increased taxes and increased spending, by my own total for the amendments, by $88 billion in higher taxes and almost that amount in greater spending--direct violations of the agreement that they and the President have made with the Republican leadership. As a consequence, I am convinced that it is important for all of us on both sides of the aisle to remember that we made a commitment to the American people in this agreement, one that was almost instantly approved by the vast majority of our citizens, and keep not just those parts of the agreement with which we agree, but those with which we disagree. I am the chairman, Mr. President, of a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. The agreement includes a number of Presidential priorities that can only be funded through my subcommittee. Several of those priorities are ones with which I disagree. I think the money could be spent elsewhere better. But I do feel committed to keep those unpleasant parts of the agreement in order to reach the overall more important goals that are a part of a historic budget resolution. So, in one sense, Mr. President, the vote a few hours ago was the culmination of a process and of a debate which has lasted for many, many years. In another sense, it is only the beginning. And unless it is taken seriously by those who support it, we still face the prospect of failing. I am an optimist. I think that this is a new beginning, more than an ending to a long period of arid political exchanges. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in order to make it happen. (The remarks of Mr. Gorton pertaining to the submission of Senate Concurrent Resolution 29 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'') Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I inform the Senator from Minnesota there will be no objection to his modifying his amendment.

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

Mr. GORTON. Objection.

Mr. GORTON. I yield such time on the amendment as I may use. Mr. President, my colleague and ally from New Jersey a few moments ago said of the amendment of the Senator from Missouri on this case I could not disagree more. I must say I could not disagree less and still disagree, but disagree I must do. The reason I put it in that form is that the Senator from Missouri has presented us with an amendment that is for all practical purposes in statutory form the constitutional amendment on the balanced budget that was supported by almost but not quite two-thirds of the Members of this body. It differs, of course, not just in being in budget resolution language but in being effective immediately rather than several years from now, and in dealing with declining budget deficits as if each of them was the triggering mechanism for the supermajority requirements that are included within it. It is, nevertheless, a theory with which this Senator and the manager of the bill, the Senator from New Mexico, agree. The point with which we disagree, however, is the proposition that this philosophy should be added to this budget resolution. The issue is an important one. It is an appropriate one to be debated. I can remember personally a decade ago when I had serious enough reservations about a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget when I felt that this philosophy ought to be passed in the form of a statute so that we could determine as a country whether or not it worked before we moved toward placing it in the Constitution. Personally, I would still be willing to do that. However, it is important enough, it is vital enough that it ought to be debated independently of a budget resolution, which, as the Senator from New Jersey has said, marks the first time on which we have had a budget resolution in the time that I have been here at least that was supported largely by both sides of the aisle and in this case by the President of the United States. And so while it is possible to argue, I suppose, that this amendment does not formally or technically breach the bipartisan agreement on the budget, as did yesterday's amendment on a tobacco tax and several of the other amendments that have been voted on here, it clearly breaches at the very least the spirit of this budget resolution agreement. It also clearly represents a vitally important policy decision which should not be debated for an hour or 2 hours as an amendment to this bill and then added to it. It is for that reason, keeping what this Senator believes to be a commitment to pass this budget resolutions essentially in the form in which it was presented to this body, that I regret to say it is not acceptable to the leadership on this side as it is not to the leadership on the other side. Now, Mr. President, for the information of other Members of the Senate, when all time has been yielded back on this debate--and I intend to yield our time back in just a moment--the Senator from New Jersey will raise a point of order against this amendment. I believe that the Senator from Missouri will move that the point of order be waived, will ask for a rollcall vote on that subject, and then we will stack that rollcall vote after the one previously ordered. We will go on to a similar but not identical amendment that will be sponsored jointly by the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Oklahoma, and I suspect, although I cannot guarantee this, that when debate on that is completed we will probably have a series of votes, all of the votes that have been stacked at that time, which might very possibly take place at or around 6 o'clock. With that, Mr. President, I am prepared to and I do yield back the remainder of my time on this amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield such time in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Missouri to the Senator from New Jersey as he may use.

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

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. GORTON. More than a third.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to pay special tribute to George and Jane Russell, two individuals who have made remarkable contributions within their business and local communities. The Russells will be presented with the E. Donnall Thomas Medal of Achievement Award at a special celebration to be held on June 14 in Seattle. The E. Donnall Thomas Award is named after Dr. E. Donnall Thomas, Director Emeritus of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center's Clinical Division and recipient of the 1990 Nobel Prize in Medicine, who pioneered bone marrow transplantation as a form of treatment for cancer. The guidance of Dr. Thomas and the work of his colleagues enables the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to save thousands of lives each year. George and Jane Russell truly represent the spirit of the E. Donnall Thomas Medal of Achievement: inspirational leadership in their company and community; a force for positive change; and dedication to service that puts their highest humanitarian principles into action. Together, the Russells have inspired a corporate culture of integrity, earning their company, the Frank Russell Co., the distinction of ``Best Large Company to Work for in Washington State'' by ``Washington CEO'' in 1994 and the Better Workplace award from the Association of Washington Business in 1995. George Russell is a dynamic industry pioneer who has made an indelible mark on the investment world. As the founder of both the pension consulting business and Russell 20-20, a group providing investment opportunities for countries making the transition from command to market economies, George Russell has truly revolutionized the investment world. Jane Russell is credited as the visionary behind the Frank Russell Company's award winning success. As the director of corporate and community relations, Jane promotes a business environment based on mutual trust and respect. The Russells' community involvement and dedication to humanitarian efforts is unmatched. Jane has been the recipient of the Tacoma/Pierce County's Community Service Award and serves on the boards of the National Center for Nonprofit Boards, Washington, DC, the American Leadership Forum and the campaign cabinet of the Washington State History Museum. George is a founding member of the Executive Council for Greater Tacoma, a group of corporate and community leaders dedicated to the revitalization of Tacoma. Together, they cochair the effort to build the $38.8 million International Museum of Modern Glass on Tacoma's waterfront. I commend the efforts and the inspiration provided by George and Jane Russell. By awarding the Russells with the E. Donnall Thomas Medal of Achievement, the Hutchinson Center guarantees that their exemplary efforts are not overlooked and reaffirm our commitment to provide the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center the vital support it needs to continue its battle against cancer.