T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with the consent of Senator Byrd, I would like the Record to include the fact that there is a printing error in the bill that should be corrected, and I am told I can correct it simply by reading it here. On page 19 of the bill, line 5, starting with the word ``that'' through line 7 ending with the word ``authorization,'' the text should be in italic since this was text that was added by the Senate to the House-passed version of the bill.

Mr. GORTON. Second, Mr. President, I send to the desk an agreed-on series of amendments not to the bill but to the committee report, and I ask unanimous consent the committee report be amended in the way I have submitted it and the amendments be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself, Mr. Hatfield and Mrs. Murray, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on another subject, Washington State is not unlike many other Western States in that a significant portion of its land is in public ownership. In many cases, the ownership is Federal, State, and private in the form of a checkerboard pattern across wide areas of the State. Because of this checkerboard land ownership in Washington State, land exchanges are quickly becoming an efficient way for landowners to do business with the Federal Government. There are several such exchanges to block up land in the works in the State of Washington. One such land exchange was announced on July 27 in Seattle by Agriculture Secretary Glickman. Secretary Glickman announced an agreement between the Forest Service and the Plum Creek Timber Co. to complete a major land exchange in the Wenatchee National Forest within 2 years. Last year, the Senate included $350,000 in its fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill to facilitate this exchange. I support the exchange strongly and am glad that the Secretary has made it a high priority. The committee did not include specific funding for the exchange in this year's appropriation bill in large part because the Forest Service has stated its preference that its management accounts not be earmarked. As chairman of the committee I have met the agency's request while understanding that the necessary funds will be made available in fiscal year 1997 to work on this important land exchange. The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 Interior bill includes the following report language: The committee encourages the use of land exchanges as a way in which to protect important recreational and environmentally significant lands in lieu of direct acquisition by the Federal Government. The committee believes that land exchanges represent a more cost effective way in which to do business and encourages the Forest Service to give priority to those exchanges either nearing completion or where land management decisions are made particularly difficult due to a checkerboard pattern of ownership. The Plum Creek land exchange should continue to be a priority for the agency along with other exchanges that are nearing completion. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, that the bill as thus amended be regarded for the purpose of amendment as original text, provided that no point of order shall have been considered to have been waived by agreeing to this request, and that the following committee amendments be excepted from this en bloc request: Page 46, line 24 through page 47, line 4; page 25, line 4 through line 10; page 63, line 22 through page 64, line 18; page 89, line 7; and those portions of the committee amendments on page 49, line 19 through page 50, line 8; page 51, line 3 through page 55, line 13; and page 56, line 14 through page 57, line 19. This has been cleared by both sides.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment was requested by the Forest Service and is supported by Senator Hatfield and Senator Murray in addition to myself. The amendment would enable the Forest Service to limit the advertisement of contracts for watershed restoration projects in historically timber-dependent communities in the States of Washington, Oregon, and northern California. The funding for this restoration work comes from the ``Jobs in the Woods'' Program created by the President's Pacific Northwest forest plan.

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

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

Mr. GORTON. I hope that very soon we will be able to treat, en bloc, as many as 25 technical and noncontroversial amendments. The Members and the staff are reviewing those amendments at this point, as are one or two other Members who are interested in them. I will suggest the absence of a quorum, but it is simply for that purpose. I will be back soon and get it started with a large number of noncontroversial amendments in this bill. I also, for the purposes of Members and offices that are listening to this debate, solicit the presence on the floor of any Member who has an amendment that he or she would like to present. There are, in addition to these en bloc amendments, a number that I am sure we will be able to agree to, some that will be debated. But the sooner we start those debates, the sooner we will finish. And I trust that between now and noon, when we move on to another subject, that we will hear from some of our Members. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 David Gilbert, a detailee from the Department of the Interior to the Interior Subcommittee, be granted floor privileges today, September 13, during consideration of this bill and on such successive days as we shall consider this bill.

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

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 11:30 a.m., there be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following times designated as follows: Senator Thomas in control of the time from 11:30 until noon, Senator Daschle or his designee from noon to 1, Senator Coverdell or his designee from 1 to 2.

Mr. GORTON. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, a week ago, I was the only Member of this body to vote against a mild resolution of support for our military operations in Iraq last week. I did so, Mr. President, because it seemed to me that our response fell between two more appropriate responses and, as a consequence, was totally ineffective and inappropriate. Mr. President, I felt last week--and I continue to feel the same way today--that we could have determined that in a civil conflict between two groups of fighting Kurds, one backed by Iraq and the other by Iran, that we had no interest, simply that we had no dog in that fight. On the other hand, by reason of the protection that we have provided for Kurds, however uncivil in their conduct to one another, we could also have responded militarily. Almost without exception, however, Mr. President, thoughtful academics, military scholars, and national security experts have felt that the United States should not use its Armed Forces in combat in response to a challenge from another nation without doing so disproportionately. What does that mean, Mr. President? It means that we should make absolutely certain when we use our Armed Forces that the cost exacted of an aggressor, of an enemy, is considerably greater, measurably greater, than the gains sought by that aggressor. If we don't use it with that philosophy, we almost certainly will be disappointed in the results of the use of our armed services and, of course, with respect to our national prestige. I was convinced, Mr. President, that what we did last week was 5 cents worth of damage in response to a dollar's worth of gain on the part of Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi forces. We launched 44 cruise missiles against Iraq last week in response to military adventures on the part of Iraq in a northern protected zone in Kurdistan. The act, as I have said, came in the midst of a civil war between two Kurdish factions, one backed by Iran and one by Iraq. We responded not only inadequately, but we responded in the south part of Iraq, while the fighting and the brutality was occurring in the north. The result, according to the administration, was a U.S. victory. As one administration official described it, ``We really whacked him.'' Now, a little more than a week later, the reality is considerably different. Saddam Hussein has regained control over the northern part of his country. After many years of oppression of its people, whom he has bitterly oppressed, thousands of whom he has killed, he is continuing to fire at U.S. warplanes in the south. The administration is in the midst of a review of its policy. Under most circumstances, Mr. President, when you are victorious, when you really whack them, it is the other guy who changes what he is doing--not us. But this is precisely the flaw in the administration's policy; rather than respond to Iraq's military adventure in a manner that ensures that any such adventure costs far more than it is worth, we offered Band Aid solutions. The result has been less than glowing. Almost certainly at this point a reaction which will cost Iraq more than it has gained will require a greater investment and a greater risk than the investment and the risk which we engaged in a week ago. Let us reflect for just a moment on what last week's military response achieved. Is Saddam Hussein treating his people better? Has he been compelled to abide by a U.N. cease-fire? Has Iraq been contained? Is the United States better off now than it was before the military action? Do we have solid support from the allies and the anti-Iraq coalition? The answer to each one of these questions is clearly no. The coalition, masterfully constructed during the gulf war by President Bush, is frayed, if not defunct. Saddam Hussein is brazenly flaunting both U.S. and U.N. warnings and is scurrying to rebuild the very sites we destroyed last week and told him not to rebuild. In the last 2 or 3 days he has fired missiles at the aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. My friend, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, said night before last that ``decisions about the dimensions of our response are, of course, the President's to make.'' Yet, the confusion continues. The day before yesterday the Secretary of Defense said that our response would be ``disproportionate.'' Yesterday the Department of Defense says that the response will be ``measured.'' Perhaps today we will have action that is ``disproportionately measured.'' In any event, Mr. President, it seems to me that it is vitally important, first, that the President consult with our allies in the Mideast in the coalition--something that he did not do earlier--second, that he follow the War Powers Act and consult with the Congress. Whether he believes the War Powers Act to be constitutional or not, he would be extremely wise to consult with the representatives of the people of the United States before such an action rather than simply to ask for ratification after that action. We are worse off than we were a week ago, Mr. President. We face very serious dilemmas. We are almost without bases from which to mount any military attack. The President is simply going to have to pay much more attention to the issue than he has in the past and build a much broader coalition if we are not to lose everything that we gained at such high cost during the gulf war.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with respect to the Interior appropriations bill, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment on page 49, line 19, through page 50, line 8, as amended, be regarded for the purposes of amendment as original text.

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