T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on January 1, 1997, the aviation system in the United States received a serious blow when the aviation excise taxes lapsed. Together, these taxes--the 10-percent passenger ticket tax; the 6.25-percent cargo waybill tax; the $6.00 per person international departure tax; and certain general aviation fuel taxes-- account for more than 90 percent of the revenues in the airport and airway trust fund, which funds the Federal Aviation Administration and its programs. Without the collection of these revenues, the uncommitted balance of the airport and airway trust fund is quickly being depleted. In fact, it is running dry at a rate of $175 per second --more than $15 million every day. Yesterday, officials at the Department of the Treasury announced that if no action is taken to reimpose these taxes, the trust fund could be insolvent as early as March. For this reason, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators McCain, Hollings, and Ford, in sponsoring the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Taxes Short Term Reinstatement Act. This legislation will extend the existing system of aviation excise taxes through September 29, 1997, and give Internal Revenue Service authority to transfer previously collected aviation excise taxes into the airport and airway trust fund. The numerous aviation tragedies in 1996 have, I believe, lowered the public's confidence in the safety of the U.S. aviation system. While our system continues to be the safest aviation system in the world, Congress owes it to the American people to consider this legislation as quickly as possible to ensure aviation safety, security, and capital investment are not jeopardized in any manner.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is to express my deep concern over a decision President Clinton made last year concerning the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, but it has only recently come to light. When President Clinton signed the antiterrorism bill into law on April 24 of last year he made a promise to the American people--a promise never to give in to terrorism or to terrorist forces. The President vowed to stand firm against nations that support terrorism and use violence and bloodshed for political ends. The President was right in his resolve. As the world's only superpower, the United States must set an example for all nations. We must not allow the cowards responsibility for such atrocities as the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, the bombing of the World Trade Center, or the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building to gain from their actions. That is why Congress included strict provisions in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 to isolate terrorist organizations and those who support them. Section 321 of the law prohibits U.S. businesses from engaging in any type of financial transactions with countries known to support international terrorism. This is an important weapon in our arsenal against terrorism that must be rigorously enforced. Doing business with state sponsors of terrorism provides such rogue nations with links to the outside world and means for financing their ugly agenda. Any such financial transaction may well return in the form of violence against the American people, our allies or other innocent victims. President Clinton purported to support this policy. In his address to the Nation on signing the antiterrorism bill, the President announced that America must resolve ``to hold fast against the forces of violence and division * * * guard against them, speak against them and fight against them.'' Unfortunately, the President has not lived up to his own words. As reported in the Washington Post last week, only 4 months after signing the antiterrorism bill, President Clinton made a special exemption in the law for Sudan, one of the seven nations classified by the Department of State as a state sponsor of terrorism. The exemption was made specifically to allow California-based Occidental Petroleum Corporation to negotiate with the Sudanese Government for a stake in a $930 million oil deal. The President made this decision despite the State Department's finding that Sudan is second only to Iran in its sponsorship of Islamic extremists engaged in terrorism against United States allies in the Middle East and against the United States itself. Mr. President, I find these actions on the part of the President unconscionable, and I trust that most of my colleagues agree. This, unfortunately, is only the latest example of the flip-flopping on American foreign policy that marked the first term of President Clinton. Yet this particular change of heart may well be the most dangerous. The United States and our allies have known for decades that if we give terrorists an inch, they will take a mile. The more concessions we make, the more power we give to the forces of evil. It appears to me that our Commander in Chief engaged in the very practice he condemned in April. The American people should not stand for such deception. President Clinton has an obligation to every American ever hurt by terrorism and every American who may be threatened by terrorism in the future to do what he said he would--stand firm. I truly hope the President will do just that and reverse his exemption of Sudan from the list of nations barred from doing business with American firms. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, my friend Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, who is on the floor, and I and 51 other Senators have introduced today a bill on the alternative minimum tax as it is being unjustly and without precedent applied to farmers in all of our States and across the United States of America. In short, farmers are now being told that they must pay taxes on income that they have not received. I repeat that, Mr. President. Our farmers are now being told by the Internal Revenue Service that they are to pay taxes on income that they have not received when they have transferred ownership of their crops to some other entity but are not to receive payment for those crops until the next tax year. Mr. President, that is unprecedented. It is unjust. It is a terrible burden on many farmers who live under difficult circumstances and from hand to mouth. And it is not what Congress has intended in any of its amendments to the Internal Revenue Code. It is wrong, Mr. President. It was discovered or started initially, I regret to say, in the State of Washington last year aimed against a particular potato farmer. It has now spread like wildfire all across the country and it has become the policy of the Internal Revenue Service. A year ago, one Member of the House of Representatives from my State, George Nethercutt, introduced a bill on this without it being able to attain the attention that has been focused on it since that time. As I said, there are now 54 Members of this body who are sponsors of this bill to bring pure justice back to the administration of the Internal Revenue Code as it respects our farmers. I am convinced that as soon as we have a revenue bill from the House, which under the Constitution must deal with such a bill first, that we will pass this proposal almost unanimously. Mr. President, so far we have no revenue estimate on it. It was estimated last year to be minimal because of course these taxes will in fact be collected when the cash is received by the farmers. Farmers are not attempting through this bill to avoid a tax obligation. They are simply asking for the simple justice that that tax obligation not be imposed upon them until they have received the income on which the obligation is based. It is for that reason and under the leadership of the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from North Dakota, who is here and whom I believe is next, that this bill is drafted, that we have made this proposal. We have now received the support of Mr. Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury. I do not know of any reasonable opposition or, for that matter, any opposition at all to doing justice in this case. I am delighted we have such strong support for this bill. I urge not only action on this bill, Mr. President, but the promptest action possible for the Senate to remedy an injustice against our farmers.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Gorton pertaining to the introduction of S. 181 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for not more than 5 minutes and that my remarks be included with the group of speakers, including the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. Grassley], on alternative minimum tax relief.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, my friend Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, who is on the floor, and I and 51 other Senators have introduced today a bill on the alternative minimum tax as it is being unjustly and without precedent applied to farmers in all of our States and across the United States of America. In short, farmers are now being told that they must pay taxes on income that they have not received. I repeat that, Mr. President. Our farmers are now being told by the Internal Revenue Service that they are to pay taxes on income that they have not received when they have transferred ownership of their crops to some other entity but are not to receive payment for those crops until the next tax year. Mr. President, that is unprecedented. It is unjust. It is a terrible burden on many farmers who live under difficult circumstances and from hand to mouth. And it is not what Congress has intended in any of its amendments to the Internal Revenue Code. It is wrong, Mr. President. It was discovered or started initially, I regret to say, in the State of Washington last year aimed against a particular potato farmer. It has now spread like wildfire all across the country and it has become the policy of the Internal Revenue Service. A year ago, one Member of the House of Representatives from my State, George Nethercutt, introduced a bill on this without it being able to attain the attention that has been focused on it since that time. As I said, there are now 54 Members of this body who are sponsors of this bill to bring pure justice back to the administration of the Internal Revenue Code as it respects our farmers. I am convinced that as soon as we have a revenue bill from the House, which under the Constitution must deal with such a bill first, that we will pass this proposal almost unanimously. Mr. President, so far we have no revenue estimate on it. It was estimated last year to be minimal because of course these taxes will in fact be collected when the cash is received by the farmers. Farmers are not attempting through this bill to avoid a tax obligation. They are simply asking for the simple justice that that tax obligation not be imposed upon them until they have received the income on which the obligation is based. It is for that reason and under the leadership of the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from North Dakota, who is here and whom I believe is next, that this bill is drafted, that we have made this proposal. We have now received the support of Mr. Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury. I do not know of any reasonable opposition or, for that matter, any opposition at all to doing justice in this case. I am delighted we have such strong support for this bill. I urge not only action on this bill, Mr. President, but the promptest action possible for the Senate to remedy an injustice against our farmers.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, 2, or 3 days ago I had the opportunity to speak on the floor about those of our colleagues on this side of the aisle who are ending their Senate careers with the termination and adjournment of this Congress. I wanted to take this opportunity to speak briefly about my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are doing the same thing with particular reference to one who has become a special friend. Many people have paid well earned tribute to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, for his brilliance, dedication, and purposefulness; to a particular colleague, Senator Exon of Nebraska, with whom I have been privileged to serve on both the Budget Committee and the Commerce Committee whose wit, sense of humor, and ability to diffuse difficult situations is wonderfully welcome; to perhaps a favorite of many, Senator Simon of Illinois who, even when one disagrees frequently with him on issues, is always unfailingly friendly, thoughtful, forgiving, and forthcoming; to the courtly and courteous Senator Pell from Rhode Island. Madam President, all are individuals that we will miss.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GORTON. If the opportunities exist for U.S. companies, what role does the Government play?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to engage my colleague in a colloquy.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to clarify an issue with regard to the fiscal year 1997 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as printed in the conference report accompanying H.R. 3610, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (House Report 104-863). In section 317 of the Interior appropriations chapter, a reference is made to title VII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. The correct reference should be to title VIII of ANILCA, which was the reference included in the official papers transmitted to the White House. I simply want to make my colleagues aware of this printing error, and clarify that the correct reference is incorporated into the enacted version of the omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this gives me an opportunity to speak briefly at least about those of my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on this side of the aisle, who are voluntarily retiring from the U.S. Senate this year. I know of no such occasion during my career here in which so many Members whom I regard as my close friends and whom I regard as wonderful contributors to the deliberations in this body, have chosen to move on to another phase in their lives at exactly the same time. In one sense, of course, first among those must be my seatmate in the very next desk to me on my left here, the wonderful, charming and distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]. Senator Kassebaum, to the best of my knowledge, during my time with her here has never once raised her voice, but at the same time I have often been able to describe her as having a will of iron. I cannot tell you, Mr. President, how often, even though we are closely allied philosophically, I have had a particular matter on which some other Senator has told me Mrs. Kassebaum has made a decision and I have attempted to talk to her about, perhaps, reconsidering that decision. I cannot count the number of occasions on which that has happened, but I can easily count the number of occasions on which I have been successful, because it is none. When the Senator from Kansas has thought out an issue and has determined a course of action, that is the course of action she is going to take. It didn't matter whether it was her seatmate here or the Republican leadership or the President of the United States who attempted to change that course of action. It would not change. For that reason, I found it particularly flattering to have at least a few occasions on which she has asked me for my own views on a subject before she has made up her mind. On occasion, at least, it seems to have given my arguments or my position some weight. But it is that strength of character coming from her family and the place in which she lives, and her unerring sense of right and wrong, what is proper and improper, that has caused her to make such a profound contribution to this body. She has made better each of the Senators with whom she has come in contact. I believe I can say that she has influenced us all and influenced us all toward our better natures. During these final 2 years of her career here in the U.S. Senate, she has, of course, been the chairman on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, and I have had the privilege of serving on that third major committee as a junior member. I have observed her patience in dealing with a large number of members on that committee who are quite willing to speak out on almost every issue, and to do so at length, and I have seen, almost without exception, how the patience of Senator Kassebaum has ultimately triumphed, together with her willingness to listen to the views of others and to accommodate them in building a majority for important pieces of legislation originating in that committee. Her success in the Kassebaum-Kennedy health care bill is perhaps the single finest example of that form of cooperation and will remain a very real tribute to a person such as the Senator, but is only one of a legion of such accomplishments during the period of her three terms in this body.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, you, Senator Brown, happen to be the Presiding Officer as I come to the floor to make these remarks. You are the one Member whose decision not to return I can least understand. Senator Brown has been a friend, recommended to me by one of his closest friends in the House of Representatives as his closest friend, during the course of this last 6 years. You, perhaps above all of us on this side of the aisle, have been absolutely unafraid to take a position which would gain you only a tiny handful of votes. I know how many times I have come back to you during a rollcall to inquire whether or not one of your amendments could reach double digits during the course of a rollcall. But it has been one of your great features--a willingness to say, ``no,'' the conventional wisdom is not correct, the easy way out is not the right way to go; there is a different way, a way that is better for the American people, better for all of us, albeit more difficult. I know there have been occasions--a few occasions at least--in which those views have been expressed with such eloquence that they have actually prevailed in this body, and there are a number of times in which you can say, with I hope most of us, that, ``But for me, the final result would have been different, and we are better off for me having been here.'' Your cheerfulness and happiness and your willingness to deal with adversity has, I think, been an inspiration to every single one of us in this body. I do have every hope that you will be successful in whatever lies ahead in your career. I do know that not just by this Senator, but I believe by all of your colleagues, you will be greatly and wonderfully missed. One last point in that connection which I found, about a year and a half ago, to be particularly profound was your role in the very difficult decision made by my other seatmate, the junior Senator from Colorado, to change parties, and to come over to this side. I don't know whether he would have been able to bring himself to do that at the same time or in the same way had it not been for the constant encouragement, friendship, thoughtfulness, and guidance that you provided for him. That itself will be a part of your heritage, which will live in this body long after you have left it yourself. I must say this will be a lesser place without you. I note that the majority leader is now on the floor. I have several other talks like this to make about other Members, but for the time being, I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there are two others of my colleagues on this side of the aisle about whom I would like to speak briefly this morning. The first, of course, is one who has been the subject of innumerable tributes already, the wonderfully delightful and witty senior Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson. There is almost nothing I can say that can add to the tributes that have already been made. Alan Simpson is unique. The single wittiest Member of the Senate, whose legion of stories is so great that you can hear one 3 years after you first heard it, without having listened to it in the interim, and it is as funny the second time as it was the first. I must confess there were a number that I tried to memorize so I could tell them myself. To be in a place of informality with Alan and to listen to what he has to say is an extraordinary privilege. But, of course, that does not make him a U.S. Senator. Commitment and hard work and dedication to principle are what make an outstanding Member of this or of any other legislative body. And the degree of thoughtfulness and attention that Senator Simpson has focused on a wide range of issues, those representing his own quintessential rural Western State, but even more significantly those that affect the future of the United States, its place in the world, its society and its culture, all have fallen within the ambit of Alan Simpson's interest. Whether it has been the almost constant support of a strong and successful foreign policy for the United States, whether it has been his thoughtful examination of questions relating to the budget and the tax relief of the American people, his dedication to seeing to it that this Congress and administration actually seriously begin the attempt of balancing the budget, whether it is on his latest crusade for more thoughtful, balanced and strong immigration policy or a myriad of other issues, Alan Simpson's views are sought out by his companions and given great weight by them. Perhaps the finest symbol of the reach and scope of Alan Simpson's interest and influence is his years of short radio debates with Senator Kennedy, the leading Member of the other party. While I heard only a few dozen of them, each one shows Senator Simpson's patented wit, as well as his ability to get to the absolute heart of the particular issue. Those are sets of qualities that are not likely soon to be duplicated here in the U.S. Senate, and as a consequence, every Member will miss Alan Simpson as a U.S. Senator, and I believe I can say that every Member of the U.S. Senate will miss Alan Simpson as a friend whom they see on each and every day. Last in this series, but far from least, Mr. President, is my friend and neighbor, Mark Hatfield, the senior Senator from Oregon. We are brought together, of course, by geography, by the fact that so many of the regional challenges that affect one of our States affects the other as well. By the very real geographic fact that rivers join together rather than separate and the boundary between our two States, through most of its length, is the Columbia River. So, in any event, we would have been pushed together for the solution or for answers to these regional questions, but our association is far greater than that. I can say, Mr. President, that when I arrived in this body in 1981 and viewed my 99 colleagues, the single individual who most closely fit the best possible academic or idealistic profile of a U.S. Senator was Mark Hatfield, in bearing, in demeanor, in dress, in voice, in mind and in ideas. Mark Hatfield is an individual who, as much as any other I ever met, is able to combine a great loyalty toward a set of ideas and directions which make and preserve a political party, with an independence of judgment and an unwillingness to delegate his final decisionmaking authority to anyone else. That is a very difficult balance, Mr. President, but Mark Hatfield, I am certain from the beginning of his career, certainly during the 14 years that we have been here together, has perhaps best exemplified that wonderful balance: a chairman of an Appropriations Committee, tolerant, willing to listen to the views of others within his own party and in the other party, a firm and fine negotiator with whatever administration is in power, but at the same time, someone who never has lost sight of his goal of a more thoughtful, more peaceful, more generous America. Mark Hatfield's influence on this body will live for many years, perhaps for generations, after he has left. Others, beside myself, will look back and say that Mark Hatfield was their ideal of what a U.S. Senator ought to be. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

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

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I speak here this evening to express my sadness and deep regret at the death last Saturday of a friend and civic activist in the city of Seattle, Howard S. Wright. Mr. Wright can appropriately be called one of the great builders of modern Seattle. He was the head of a major construction firm for many years. His company was responsible for the building of the tallest of our structures, among many others, a set of buildings with the vision behind which led to much more beautiful development in downtown Seattle. After leaving the construction business, he went into the allied profession, development, and there also was not only successful, but successful in a way that will leave a long-term and positive impact on the city he so loved. While Howard Wright was magnificently successful as a businessman, he also gave at least as much as he received back to his community in the form of his activities in charitable foundations, such as the Seattle Foundation; to the arts, through the Seattle Opera Association and the Arts Commission; through sports, as one of the original owners of the Seattle Seahawks; and in the field of horse racing; to his schools, Lakeside and the University of Washington; and to other enterprises too numerous to mention. Another great Seattle citizen, a friend of both Howard Wright's and of mine, Herman Sarkowsky, was quoted recently as saying that Howard Wright had ``an insatiable appetite to learn everything about his city,'' to learn, Mr. President, and to do. But, in addition to these objective statements about Howard Wright, I must add his own personal friendship to me and to all of my undertakings, his constant counsel and advice, and a sunny disposition, which never admitted that there was a task too great to be accomplished, that never admitted that there was not another friend to be made, another goal to be achieved. Mr. Wright will be missed by his family, by his community, by all of the organizations to which he so unstintingly gave his time and his money, and by this U.S. Senator as a friend. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, another close friend who is retiring is the wonderful, talented, thoughtful, and intellectual senior Senator from Maine, Bill Cohen, whose career in the two Houses of Congress began in 1973. One level climaxed during his first term in the House of Representatives when, as a member on the Committee on the Judiciary, he sat through the impeachment hearings relating to President Nixon. I was not a Member of this body, or indeed in Washington, DC, during that vitally important and profound national debate. But I can remember, from afar I gained admiration for that very junior minority member of the House Judiciary Committee in connection with his public agonizing over an appropriate answer, the way in which he asked questions, and the way in which he justified his ultimately extremely difficult but, I think, correct decision on that matter. He has, of course, been a Member of this body during my entire career here, as a thoughtful, highly independent mind, with a brilliant tongue and ability to state his position that is almost entirely unmatched. But, Mr. President, I think I will remember Senator Cohen most for his relationship with another former colleague of ours, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. The Presiding Officer remembers Senator Rudman very well. I often describe him as the only person I have known in my life who was always right, was never shy about sharing his absolutely correct views with everyone else, and who, even in a crowd of eight Senators, could occupy 75 percent of the talking time. Yet, with all of those qualities, he was greatly beloved by all who came in contact with him and was a wonderfully effective Senator. The only Member of this body, however, who could ever prick Senator Rudman's balloon was Senator Cohen. He did so constantly, occasionally on the floor of the Senate, but literally every day in private relationships. To listen to the conversations between the two of them and the way in which Senator Cohen could deal with Senator Rudman was a wonderful privilege. While I know Senator Cohen looks forward to another wonderful career, I cannot but suspect that at least one of the reasons for his retirement now is the absence of any other person in this body with whom he could deal and interact in the way in which he did with our friend from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman. But Senator Cohen's wisdom and independence and thoughtfulness will be greatly and profoundly missed in this body.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I agree.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia makes an excellent suggestion. While I appreciate the desire of the Senators from North Dakota to see additional funding provided for this program, I am also sensitive to the many other competing demands within the Fossil Energy Program. Overall, this appropriations account is funded $52.3 million below last year's level, and some programs are being terminated or slowed down to comply with the subcommittee's constrained allocation.