T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if the Department of Energy were to submit a reprogramming or supplemental request, the committee would give it every consideration as expeditiously as possible. Under the committee's reprogramming guidelines, the Department has the flexibility to move up to $500,000, or 10 percent, without prior approval of the Committee.

Mr. GORTON. I would respond to the Senator from North Dakota that the recommendations for the fossil energy appropriation account contained in this legislation assume a funding level of $5.1 million for the Cooperative Research and Development Program. While this is a decrease of $1.1 million from the funding level recommended in the Senate version of the fiscal year 1997 Interior bill, it is an increase of $1.1 million above the amount recommended for this program in the House-passed fiscal year 1997 Interior bill. While the Senate sought to protect the full amount recommended by the Appropriations Committee for this program, it was not possible to retain the total increase included in the Senate bill because of the change in the subcommittee's allocation for purposes of reaching closure on the fiscal year 1997 Interior bill.

Mr. GORTON. If Senator Bennett will yield further, I am aware of Senator Hatch's and Senator Bennett's interest and concern over the clinic at Montezuma Creek and their efforts ultimately to replace that facility. I want to assure the Senators from Utah that I will work with them to ensure that the health care needs of Utah's Navajos are met. Should the Indian Health Service submit a request to reprogram a small amount of funds for a preliminary planning study of a satellite facility at Montezuma Creek, I would consider carefully such a request. I emphasize, however, that such a request must be consistent with the Health Care Facilities Priority System. Current funding constraints simply do not allow for activities beyond the scope of the priority list.

Mr. GORTON. Yes, the omnibus bill includes the $600,000 requested for the cottonwood forest rehabilitation work at the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to discuss this emergency funding with the senior Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. It is my hope that the Department and the Indian Health Service will identify a source of funds to provide an increase for this program early in the new fiscal year, fiscal year 1997 so that a second program site can be awarded competitively. energy saving performance contracting in federal agencies

Mr. GORTON. Yes, the Senator is correct. We were forced to eliminate this funding without prejudice because of a very constrained spending ceiling for the subcommittee.

Mr. GORTON. I will be delighted to yield to the Senator from Montana, Senator Burns.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. The cost for the replacement was based upon the IHS using the existing design and doing the construction themselves. Because of the urgent nature of this request and because the tribe has no other health care resources within close proximity, the committee responded to the dire need for a health facility at Lame Deer. We expect the IHS to move as expeditiously as possible to complete this much needed health facility. I strongly urge the tribe and the IHS to work within the funding limitations for this project.

Mr. GORTON. I agree that there are certain circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Indian Health Service to provide sanitation facilities funding for Indian homes in non-Indian communities and for Alaska Native villages. I understand that the Indian Health Service will soon issue an internal guidance document that addresses this issue, and this policy will be consistent with the terms of the conference report on the fiscal year 1995 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. (House Report 103-740). I strongly urge the IHS to issue this guidance document, and to be sensitive to the unique needs of Alaska Native villages, which differ from lower 48 non-Indian communities because of the land settlement under ANCSA.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Utah raises a valid point. Our efforts in this area to downsize the Federal Government, including the USGS, are intended to reduce the burden on taxpayers by retaining only essential research capabilities that for sound policy reasons should not, or cannot, be performed by the private sector. I would be happy to explore this issue further as we undertake budget hearings in the next fiscal year.

Mr. GORTON. Yes, the National Park Service's budget does request funding in fiscal year 1997, under the Operation of the National Park System account, to preserve and interpret Maine Acadian culture, consistent with the authority provided by Congress in the Maine Acadian Culture Preservation Act. The omnibus appropriations bill includes $66.8 million above the fiscal year 1996 appropriations level for the operation of the National Park System account.

Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to join the Senator from Maine in a colloquy.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan raises a good point. There may be unique circumstances that should be taken into consideration as these recreation fee demonstration projects are proposed and established. It is my expectation that, in instances such as this, the administrative agency work with the congressional delegation to resolve disputes to the benefit and understanding of all parties.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, does the Senator from Michigan believe these resident should pay a user fee when participating in other activities within the Sylvania Wilderness such as hiking and camping?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan is correct.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. recreation user fees

Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. appropriations for children

Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the omnibus appropriations bill that is now before the U.S. Senate includes 6 of the regular appropriations bills out of 13, but includes, by far, the largest amount of money directly appropriated by the Congress for discretionary purposes during the course of the year, as 2 of those 6 bills are the appropriations bills for our national defense and for all myriad activities coming under the rubric of labor, health, and human services. These appropriations, nevertheless, represent only a modest proportion of the money the people of the United States spend through their taxes and through their borrowing because, of course, it does not involve major changes in any of the entitlement programs which continue to grow almost without any significant control. Nevertheless, this is a responsible appropriations bill. It is the work of a bipartisan compromise, actually a tripartite compromise, involving the Republican leadership in both Houses of Congress, with input from the Democratic minority, all subject to the will of the President of the United States who has said he will sign the bill. By and large, it is a commonsense solution, it is a reasonable appropriations bill, and it is one that I will certainly vote to pass. This set of appropriations does dramatically reduce the spending for discretionary purposes by the Government of the United States. It does at least begin to move in the direction of reducing the burdens that we impose on the people of the United States and reducing at least the growth in the debt that we load on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It changes the direction that 40 years of a Congress dominated by the Democratic Party led this country in. To that extent, it represents a very important change. Even so, Mr. President, last-minute negotiations have included in this proposal, in my opinion, $3 billion or $4 billion of the $6.5 billion demanded by the President over and above the earlier plans of the budget that is unnecessary spending. It is, in essence, the price that we pay for ending this debate on the last day of the fiscal year and not threatening a closedown of the Government. That is a relatively high price, $3 billion or $4 billion, but it pales to relative insignificance when compared with the more than $50 billion that we have saved from the normal growth of previous programs over the course of the last several decades. We are heading in the right direction, in other words, but we have not achieved our ultimate goals. We on this side of the aisle have as a priority to make the Federal Government live within its own means, to cut wasteful Government spending, to end, to terminate the time at which we continually add to the burdens of those who will come after us. We have made it a priority to return power to the people and to their local and State governments. But in spite of these gains, Mr. President, do most people really think that we have clipped the wings of the bureaucrats here in Washington, DC, and returned power to them? I think not, Mr. President. And I believe that that perception, that reality, shows not only what we have gained in the last 2 years, but how far we still have to go. It is time and it is our purpose to return common sense to Government, to give individuals a greater degree of influence over their own daily lives, to change the direction of the last decades, to examine programs which have gone unexamined for a decade, two decades, three decades, four. When programs are not working, Mr. President, they should be changed or terminated. But overall, as I said, as I began these remarks, this is a good appropriations bill. It does move us in the right direction. It is one that it is appropriate for us to pass. And I am convinced that before the evening is out, we will have passed it. At this point in my remarks, Mr. President, I have the details of that portion of this bill that comes under the influence of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. In that connection, Mr. President, the bill is almost identical to the bill that we were considering here on the floor of the Senate at the time at which nongermane amendments, by the legion, were offered, and the bill was taken down. That proposal was worked out in a totally bipartisan fashion, with the help and the assistance and the approval of my most distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd. It is a very responsible answer to questions in connection to our national parks, our national forests, our energy resources, our cultural institutions and the like. As you will recall, the Interior bill was brought up and debated briefly on September 6, 9, and 10, before being put aside. With little possibility of passing a separate bill in time for the start of the fiscal year, the Interior bill has been combined into the omnibus appropriations bill. Following the Senate floor action, Senator Byrd and his staff and my staff and I worked with our House counterparts to iron out the differences between the House-passed and Senate-reported bills. The bill before you reflects the product of those discussions as well as negotiations with the White House to ensure that a final product would be signed by the President. This bill represents compromises. No one received everything he or she wanted. However, I believe it is in the interest of the Nation to move forward so vital operations of the Government can continue uninterrupted as the new fiscal year begins. It includes $12,504,798,000 in discretionary budget authority and approximately $13,176,000,000 in outlays. The President's budget request is $377 million above the level included in the omnibus bill in budget authority and $494 million above it in outlays. As a starting point, the discrepancy in House and Senate 602(b) allocations was resolved by splitting the difference between the two allocations. The Interior bill includes an additional $150 million for programs that the Congress and the administration agree are priorities, and for which additional funding should be provided. These programs include areas such as Indian education, energy conservation, Indian health services and facilities, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Amendments were expected to be considered on the Senate floor that would have added funding to these same programs. The administration has expressed concern regarding specific legislative provisions within the bill and many of these provisions have been dropped or modified. Emergency funding is included to address the devastating wildfires in the West and hurricane, flood-related and other disaster damages in the East and West. Only $88.2 million for Forest Service fire suppression is proposed in the President's fiscal year 1997 request. The agency's 10-year annual average expenditure for fire suppression is $296.4 million, leaving a $208.2 million shortfall if fiscal year 1997 proves to have an average fire season. In addition, the Forest Service currently owes the Knutson-Vandenberg Trust Fund (K-V) $571 million for current-year and past-year fire suppression activities. The agency cannot borrow additional funds from the KV fund without deferring statutorily required reforestation activities. Recognizing the severity of this fire season, the unrealistic budget request, and the critical juncture of the fire and KV programs, an additional $120.5 million above the budget request is added for fire suppression activities, bringing the total to $210.5 million. Also, included in the Interior portion of the omnibus bill is $550 million to repay the borrowed KV funds. Another $100 million is included for the Department of the Interior's fire suppression activities. Funding of $48 million for damage caused by floods, hurricanes, and other natural acts is included. Within the Interior section, $17 million is provided for counterterrorism. The Interior bill presents difficult choices. The needs of the various agencies funded through the Interior bill are great, from the operations and facilities requirements of the national parks, forests, refuges, public lands, and museums to the basic health care, tribal government, and education services provided to native Americans. In assembling this bill, we have attempted to strike a balance between these competing interests and between the various interests of the Congress and the administration. Now, let us turn to the recommendations before you today. Among the items of interest are: Land Management The omnibus bill provides additional funds above the fiscal year 1996 amounts for the operational accounts of the land management agencies. Bureau of Land Management: plus 1 percent. Fish and Wildlife Service: plus 5 percent. National Park Service: plus 6 percent. Forest Service: plus 1 percent. The construction accounts for the land management agencies have increased $38.5 million, or about 11 percent, above the fiscal year 1996 level. The majority of the construction projects involve the completion of ongoing projects and the restoration or rehabilitation of existing facilities. While it may seem that this is a large increase for construction, I would remind my colleagues that the facility backlogs for these land management agencies are approximately $9 billion. Overall funding for land acquisition for the land management agencies totals $149.4 million, which is about $11.2 million, or 8 percent, over the current level; $49.4 million above the House level; and $3.6 million below the Senate committee recommendation. The omnibus bill has identified specific projects, even though the House bill did not. Science Agencies Funding for the Office of Surface Mining is increased slightly, while the Minerals Management Service is maintained at the fiscal year 1996 level through the increased use of user fees. Cultural Activities Within this category, the first priority was to provide adequate resources to those cultural institutions, such as our Nation's museums, for which the Federal Government has primary funding responsibility. Among the many competing needs of our cultural agencies, the subcommittee continues to place particular emphasis on repair and renovation work that is required to keep these institutions open to the public and collections preserved safely. Budget estimates from the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution have been met in full to facilitate this work. Department of Energy Energy conservation programs are funded at $570 million. This number is an increase from the initial House-Senate conference agreement, reflecting the committees' response to the funding priorities identified by the administration late last week. Within the amount provided for energy conservation, the weatherization program is increased by $9 million over the fiscal year 1996 level and the State energy conservation program is increased by $3 million. Fossil research and development is down 4.5 percent from the comparable fiscal year 1996 level. The sum of $123 million is rescinded from the Clean Coal Technology Program, substantially less than the $325 million rescission proposed in the budget. The rescission included in the conference agreement reflects a careful consideration of the needs of projects remaining in the program, funds made available by the recent termination of some projects, and the $200 million rescission that was enacted last year. Funding for the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves is set at $143.8 million. While this amount is above both the House and Senate passed levels, it is still $5 million below the prior year level and does little to address the increased demands placed on the program by the potential sale of the Elk Hills field. I also note that the administration estimated that the original House and Senate funding levels would have resulted in a revenue loss of $45 million over the next 2 years. Operations of the strategic petroleum reserve are funded by oil sales from the reserves, $220 million. Indian Programs In aggregate, Indian programs total $3,765,645,000 in the Interior portion of the bill, which is an increase of about $112 million above the fiscal year 1996 funding level and about $16.5 million above the Senate committee recommendation. BIA.--Funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs increases by about $34 million above the fiscal year 1996 funding level, and $68 million above the House amount. Tribal priority allocations.--Emphasis has been placed on providing additional funding to tribal priority allocations, which is $26.7 million--plus 4 percent--above fiscal year 1996 and $4.2 million above the Senate committee recommended level. Within the tribal priority allocations, the committee has included an increase of $4 million for small and needy tribes and a general increase of $19.5 million. School Operations.--The omnibus bill also places emphasis on elementary and secondary school operations and funding has been increased by $41.3 million--plus 10 percent--above the fiscal year 1996 level and almost $23 million above the Senate Committee recommended level. The omnibus bill funds all BIA-funded elementary and secondary school operations at the budget request, with the exception of a small reduction--$2 million--below the President's request for the Indian School Equalization Program [ISEP] formula. Indian Health Service.--Total funding for the IHS is increased by $67 million--3.4 percent. The increase is for staffing of recently completed facilities, a portion of pay costs to maintain service levels, and funding for replacement of a health care facility in Montana that recently burned to the ground. Legislative Provisions Several provisions have been removed that were included in either the House or Senate versions of the Interior bill, but which were opposed by the administration. The following provisions have been removed: General Accounting Office review of the Tongass land management plan; Pennsylvania Avenue (section 115); funding distribution formula for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (section 118); Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (section 121); Mount Graham Red Squirrel (section 317); Istook amendment--tax collections (section 322). Another provision (section 329) dealing with sovereign immunity had been removed previously during Senate committee consideration of the Interior bill. During negotiations last week on the omnibus bill, a proposed provision was dropped that would have imposed a moratorium on any rulemaking by the Secretary of the Interior for class III tribal- State Indian gaming compacts. As I mentioned, one of the provisions removed from the Interior bill was the Mount Graham provision concerning the construction of a large binocular telescope on Mount Graham, AZ. The provision amended Public Law 100-696, the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 [AICA] to permit the use of the alternative site 2 on Emerald Peak of Mount Graham. This provision was contained in the fiscal year 1996 omnibus appropriations bill (Public Law 104-134) as well and brought the site fully within AICA's exemptions from otherwise applicable laws. On June 17, 1996, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Mount Graham Coalition v. Thomas, 89 F. 3d 554 (9th Cir. 1996) validated the congressional action in the fiscal year 1996 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The provision effected a permanent change in AICA to ensure the prompt construction and operation of the telescope. Since AICA has been amended and has been validated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it is no longer necessary to include the provision in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations act. A gaming amendment is included that would amend the Rhode Island settlement law to clarify that for the purposes of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Rhode Island settlement lands should not be treated as Indian lands. At the time that IGRA was passed, a colloquy was entered into that clearly stated the intent for the protections of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act should remain in effect and that the Narragansett Indian Tribe should remain subject to the civil, criminal, and regulatory laws of the State of Rhode Island. These laws include the State prohibition against casino gambling. Other settlement laws exempt specific tribes or settlement lands from IGRA. Grand Staircase-Canyons of the Escalante National Monument Mr. President, I am very concerned that the administration recently created the Grand Staircase-Canyons of the Escalante as one of the largest national monuments in the continental United States without the consultation of Congress and without public comment. I expect the Secretary to fully comply with the provisions outlined in the proclamation dated September 18, 1996. Pursuant to the proclamation, it is my understanding that the Secretary will manage through the Bureau of Land Management. As chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I would remind the administration that the designation of a national monument implicitly implies significant future funding obligations. In a period when funding requirements and maintenance backlogs are at an all-time high at the Department of the Interior, the need for a public policy debate over creating new national monuments, particularly as large as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, is extremely important. Ultimately, public input into the process serves the public good and assists the committee in its challenging funding priorities. I urge the administration to use the public process outlined in numerous environmental statutes dating back to the 1970's in order to designate such a large tract of land as this. Due to the serious impacts of the national monument designation to the people of Utah and on budget allocations, it is my view that no other national monument should be designated in Utah until the management plan and final issues regarding the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument are resolved. I am concerned about the lack of details on the monument beyond the information contained in the proclamation, including estimated costs to manage the monument and provide for a potential increase in visitors to the area. As a result, I am requesting the Secretary of the Interior to submit a report by February 1, 1997 that details the costs associated with the monument, the process for developing a management plan, and a detailed description of how affected parties will be involved in the process of developing the management plan. Also, I am requesting that the Secretary submit by April 1, 1997, a plan for implementing an exchange of the school trust lands located within the monument. Mr. President, I said in these earlier remarks that as important and as widespread as this appropriations bill is, it neither represents all of the triumphs and change of direction in this Congress or all of the areas that remain undone. We have accomplished a great deal in this Congress. We have saved some 50-plus billions of dollars in appropriated accounts, money that will not go on the credit card to be charged to later generations. For our citizens, for our constituents, who were angry and upset with the current welfare system because it discouraged work and encouraged dependency, we have acted, if you are able-bodied, you will not be able to receive endless Government checks in the future. Under the plan passed by Republican Members, with Democratic assistance in both bodies and signed by the President, if you can work, you will work or at least you will be off of the public welfare rolls. The gravy train is over. Reform that was only discussed in the abstract in past Congresses is a part of the law now. For those of our citizens who wanted health care reform, without the massive bureaucracy that was proposed here just over 2 years ago, we have also acted. You will be able to change your jobs and take your health care with you. You will not be prohibited from getting health care insurance by reason of preexisting conditions. The changes that the people of this country actually wanted 2 years ago, but were overwhelmed by the complexity of the President's proposed system, the changes that they actually wanted are there. The overwhelming Federal control is not. A line-item veto, talked about for years, but a reality in this Republican Congress. A constitutional amendment to mandate a balanced budget, passed by the House of Representatives, and failed by only a single vote here in the U.S. Senate, and I think extremely likely to pass in the course of the next Congress. Imposing on Congress the rules we have imposed on others, talked about in the past and become an accomplishment of this Congress. A real crime bill, not the phony promise of 100,000 new police officers, a promise that was never kept, not midnight basketball, but an actual law, Megan's law, to protect children from sexual predators has passed and has become law. Victims rights legislation, new antiterrorism bills, and most importantly, laws that will terminate or at least shorten the endless appeals in capital punishment cases, all passed. Opening up our telecommunications system to new competition, talked about for a decade, passed under this Congress. New safe drinking water laws for the people of the United States, important food safety measures, and the like, all accomplishments of this Congress that were only thought of or discussed in theory in Congresses in the past. Mr. President, matched against these accomplishments, however, are those areas in which the job has not yet been completed. Some of these are the most important: A desperate attempt last year not just to reform our Medicare system, but to preserve and protect it for future generations of citizens, to postpone or to cancel the impending bankruptcy of the hospital insurance trust fund, the desire to see to it that Medicaid becomes more rational and less burdensome on our taxpayers and on our States. All of these failed, Mr. President, in spite of being a part of the massive bill that would have balanced the Federal budget with these reforms and with tax relief, all failed because of the veto of the President of the United States. We can look forward, Mr. President, if we have a Congress like this one, to another serious attempt to meet these most vital challenges to our future during the course of the next Congress. Unfortunately, we have been faced by an administration, at least, and many Members of the Democratic Party who prefer the status quo. In fact, the great struggle during this Congress was between those who were in the majority for so many years who created these problems and who liked the status quo and those of us who felt that a major change in direction was important for us to reflect the views of the American people and regain their trust. We must change these entitlement programs. We must see to it that they are available to the future without overwhelming the present and without overwhelming the generations who in fact through their work must pay for them. But most of all, Mr. President, we need to provide tax relief for the American people. And no difference between the two parties can be greater than those who are perfectly content with the present system, with the present burdens, and those who feel that tax relief is necessary for working American families, and for those of us who beyond that feel that even significant amendments to the present Tax Code are very similar to putting Band-Aids on a corpse, and that what we really need to do, Mr. President, is to junk the present system, to repeal the present system, and to begin over again, and to create a system which is fair and which is productive, which is simple and understandable, so that literally tens of thousands of employees of the Internal Revenue Service, and of all the organizations and professions throughout the United States who make their livings by finding loopholes in the Tax Code, can become accustomed to more productive and more constructive work in a growing society. Mr. President, we must abolish the IRS as we have known it, but this is not so much a criticism of the IRS and the hard-working people who are employed by it, as it is of us, those of us who have created a system that is so susceptible to misuse, to unfairness, and to complexity, and to create a discontent in and among the American people. So, Mr. President, as we finish this Congress, we have this vitally important and positive appropriations bill before the Senate. I believe we must also pass a bill relating to our parks and recreation areas that is now before the Senate in two different forms from the House of Representatives and, of course, the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill so necessary to combat terrorism, to make our airways more secure, to provide for the construction of new airport facilities and new navigation facilities. I hope we can accomplish all of that during the remainder of this day, but if we cannot, I hope our leadership will keep us throughout the week until each of these vitally important initiatives has become the law of the land so we can go home and tell the American people we have started to change the course in which this country is going. We are shifting it to a better and more responsible and more responsive direction, but we need more than 2 years to make up for all of the follies of the last two to four decades. With that, I recommend the passage of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, at the end of this year Mr. Charles M. Pigott will step down as chairman and chief executive officer of PACCAR, Inc. Today I would like to recognize Mr. Pigott for his superb achievements and to pay tribute to a thoughtful and considerate friend. Guided for nearly three decades by Mr. Pigott's steady hand, PACCAR is now America's largest domestically owned truck manufacturer. His pursuit of quality and innovation has left a lasting imprint on the company and American industry as well. Mr. Pigott began at PACCAR with a summer job in 1945. He went on to receive an engineering degree from Stanford University, then served as a Navy aviator in Korea. When his tour of duty ended, he rejoined PACCAR. In 1967 he became chief executive officer. He oversaw a period of great change in the industry, a period in which trucks became safer, more efficient and longer-lasting. The technical center Mr. Pigott built has brought forth many new products and innovations. They include the aerodynamic Kenworth T600, which was so widely acclaimed and imitated it changed the look of heavy-duty trucks; the Kenworth T2000, PACCAR's newest edition; and the more than 330 patents PACCAR has garnered under Mr. Pigott. The market, of course, rewards quality. Nearly one out of four class 8 trucks sold in America today is a Peterbilt or Kenworth. And company sales have, on Mr. Pigott's watch, grown from $320 million to $4.5 billion annually. Net income increased almost sixteen-fold, and shareholders' equity from $88 million to well over $1.2 billion. It is remarkable that every year in which Mr. Piggot was CEO, PACCAR, recorded a profit. Mr. Pigott has made his mark in the community as well. For nearly five decades he has worked with the Boy Scouts of America, serving as president of both the Chief Seattle Council and the National Council. He has been general campaign chairman and trustee for United Way of King County, chairman of the Washington Roundtable and in leadership positions for many other cultural and civic organizations. He also heads the PACCAR Foundation, which distributes approximately $3 million yearly to civic, cultural, educational and health and welfare causes in communities where PACCAR does business. Mr. Pigott has been blessed with a wonderful family. He and his wife Yvonne have raised seven fine children. When Mr. Pigott steps down on December 31, 1996, he will continue family tradition and hand leadership over to his son. I congratulate him on a splendid career, thank him for his contributions to American industry, and wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there have been a number of occasions on which this body has debated policy relating to abortion in which I have not found myself on the same side as my friends and distinguished colleagues from Pennsylvania and Ohio and New Hampshire. But this, Mr. President, is not such an occasion. From the time that I first became involved in national politics, it has seemed to me that, for mature adults, under most circumstances, the law was not an appropriate method of determining what are ultimately moral choices for the people most intimately involved with those choices. But, Mr. President, when we talk about late-term abortion and when we speak specifically about partial-birth abortion, we are not dealing with most cases. We are not dealing with this issue in the way in which we speak about it under most circumstances. I believe that my views probably reflect those of a majority of the American people who do believe that this should be a matter of an individual woman's choice and that of close family--again, under most cases. But I think it is clear that the majority of the American people, as they come increasingly to understand exactly what this procedure is, are horrified by it. This isn't most cases, Mr. President. This is a practice that is not necessary. This is a practice that is not compassionate. This is a practice that is not within the bounds of civilized or humane behavior. My colleagues have described it in detail, and I don't need to repeat that detail. But I do think that it is significant that those who would uphold the President's veto, generally speaking, talk in circumlocution, disguise the language, resist and object not only to a description of the procedure itself, but even to the title--partial- birth abortion. They speak about slippery slopes rather than the procedure itself and attempt to avoid the true brutality and extreme nature of the procedure. It is significant also, I think, Mr. President, as this has become a greater issue of consequence to the American people, that few, if any, of the Members of this body--I think none--who voted for this bill the first time are even remotely considering switching their votes to uphold the President's veto. Several who voted against the bill the first time are likely to vote to overturn the President's veto. I am convinced, even from private conversations, that many others would like to, but they feel bound by their former vote. Finally, many of them simply wish the issue would go away, and that they would not have to vote at all. But that vote will be a defining issue about our own society, about our feelings for indifference to brutality, about violence, about uncivilized, inhumane behavior. For all of those reasons, Mr. President, I am convinced that we should override the President's veto, and I deeply hope that a sufficient majority of my colleagues will vote to do that. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I want to recognize James A. McDevitt, who has just been promoted to brigadier general in the Washington Air National Guard. I take special pleasure in offering my congratulations because Jim is a friend and former colleague; for 5 years, he worked for me in the State attorney general's office as assistant attorney general. He is also my frequent host when I go to Spokane to run in the wonderful Bloomsday race. Jim has served this country for three decades. He was trained as a navigator and bombardier, and went on to serve as a weapons systems officer and flight examiner in the late 1960's and early 1970's. His assignments took him to Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Spain, Germany, and England. In January 1971, Jim joined the 116th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Washington Air National Guard, as a radar intercept officer in the F- 101. When the unit converted to KC-135 Air Refueling aircraft, he became a navigator and has maintained that qualification since. At the time of the gulf war, Jim was the squadron commander of the 116th Air Refueling Squadron. When hostilities broke out in August 1990, Jim and a group of Washington flyers volunteered for 30-day active duty tours. As the Nation faced a new crisis in the Middle East, the Guard stepped up. At first, most of their duties involved ferrying material from one air base to another, within the United States. Our victory in the gulf was due in no small part to the magnificent logical prowess of the U.S. Armed Services, and Jim contributed to America's success. Throughout the months leading to actual combat, Jim continued volunteering for active duty work, making 2-week rotations all through September, October, and November. Jim's active duty call up came on December 20, 1990. Along with 325 brave men and women from the Spokane area, Jim deployed to the gulf region to be absorbed in the active duty Air Force. Half of Jim's squadron went to Cairo, Egypt. The other half, including Jim, flew to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to join with active duty components. It is important to note here the adaptability of our Guard forces. With superior training and total dedication, the Washington State Air National Guard linked with the regular Air Force to form an active duty squadron--the 1709th Air Refueling Squadron provisional. Jim not surprisingly, was second in command. With bankers, teachers, lawyers, housewives, contractors, judges, and active duty personnel, this squadron represented 50 airplanes, 80 crews, and 320 crew members for 8 different States. Home based in Jeddah, from the December 31 to January 15, 1991, Jim and his team planned now they were going to wage a war. They planned well. As he tells it, the morning of January 16, 1991--the start of the war--was the most difficult day in Jim's life. Commanding officers were prohibited from flying in sorties during the first missions. So Jim had to wait and pray that his comrades, men and women he had flown with for 25 years, would come back safely. Of course they all performed brilliantly, as did Jim, and this Nation is better off for their hard work and patriotism.