T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments to the desk and ask they be considered en bloc.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will explain each of these amendments briefly, and, if further discussion is desired, we will separate it out. This first amendment is proposed on behalf of Senator Chafee as the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We have, as I pointed out during my opening remarks, added to and expanded the authority of our various land management agencies to charge entrance fees and to use those entrance fees in large measure for the improvement of the facilities at which they are collected. Senator Chafee and his committee have a slight modification in that connection with respect to some of those facilities. We have viewed it. It is the opinion of his committee it is included for that reason. The second amendment is proposed on behalf of the two Senators from Idaho. It will move $100,000 of an appropriation from the Running Creek Ranch land acquisition project to the National Forest Service appropriation for ``jammer,'' an old logging road inventory in Idaho. The third, proposed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], would add one additional county to an existing moratorium on land acquisitions for the Wayne National Forest in the State of Ohio. The next, on behalf of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] removes approximately 100 acres from a 9,000-acre Snowbird Wilderness Study Area. The fourth, for myself, moves $308,000 from Forest Service construction for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie flood project to Lake Chelan National Recreation Area for the repair of the Company Creek Road. The fifth, on my behalf, advises the Elwha language in the bill to specify that any agreement with the State of Washington shall provide protection of the existing quality and availability of water. The next, for myself and for Senator Byrd relating to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, adds language capping welfare assistance similar to that that is in the present 1996 bill. Next, for myself and for Senator Byrd on the National Park Service, is a technical correction that specified $300 million is available for research, planning, and interagency coordination in support of land acquisition in the Everglades in Florida. This is an agreement that was made during the full committee consideration of the bill. The next, for myself and Senator Byrd on the Forest Service, is literally a technical correction where we made a mistake and where language should read ``50 percent.'' The next, for myself on the National Park Service, allows a reimbursement of some $270,000 by the National Park Service to the State of Washington for fish restoration activities. The next, for myself and Senator Byrd relating to Bureau of Mines, is to extend the facilities transfer authority provided in the 1996 appropriations bill. The next, for myself and Senator Byrd for the Forest Service, is a surprise, Mr. President. It will rename the Columbia Wilderness Area in Oregon, the Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. The Columbia Wilderness Area is some 39,000 acres and was established in the 1984 Wilderness Act that Senator Hatfield sponsored. This small wilderness area overlooks and borders the Columbia River Gorge on the Oregon side, though it is not a part of the formal gorge area itself. The wilderness also overlooks the Bonneville Dam and the Oxbow salmon fish hatchery and is in the shadow of Mount Hood. Each addition to wilderness areas in the State of Washington has been sponsored by Senator Hatfield. This one is near the northern edge of the Bull Run Reservoir near the wild and scenic Hood River. Mr. President, this amendment is produced without the knowledge, at this point, of Senator Hatfield, but it is a particularly appropriate time. He is absent today, holding what I suspect will be his final hearing as a Senator in the Columbia Gorge which he greatly loves and which his State, of course, shares with my own. And so we feel that a renaming of this wilderness area in his honor and in honor of his long, extraordinary and distinguished service in the U.S. Senate is a most appropriate amendment. The next amendment, again, on behalf of myself and Senator Byrd, is language relating to the National Park Foundation, allowing money that it collects to be used to rehabilitate visitor centers. The next is on my behalf, and it removes the Mt. Graham red squirrel provision from the bill. This provision was included in the 1996 appropriations bill and was highly controversial. At one time, it was the subject of a veto threat on the part of President Clinton. Mt. Graham is in Arizona. It is the location of a number of astronomical observatories. The creation of the last of those has been bitterly contested in Arizona over a number of years. The Arizona congressional delegation wanted to allow the completion of the last telescope. As much of the aid from other nations that was available to it was going to be lost if the project was not begun soon. Ultimately, we did include the provision in the bill that was signed by the President. Since then, there was a court decision won, after a long series of decisions, that has validated the construction. So the provision is no longer necessary and can be stricken from the bill. The next is for myself and Senator Byrd for the Fish and Wildlife Services, which clarifies the California NCCP earmark funding will be provided to local governments. The next two are both by Senator Hatfield and, ironically, are naming provisions that he has asked for for other people. The first is renaming of Bend, OR, silviculture laboratory to be the Robert W. Chandler lab; and the second is renaming a BLM facility for Frank Smullin in Rand, OR. The next amendment is for Senator Hutchison of Texas, Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service. It transfers $250,000 from the Rio Grande National Wildlife Reserve land acquisition to the Lake McClellan Recreation Area for dredging. Next is for the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. Johnston] who is retiring. It is, to me, interesting that it is renaming of the Jean Lafitte Visitors Center to be named the Laura C. Hudson Visitor Center. Jean Lafitte, if my memory serves me, is long dead. I suspect the new person after whom it is named is more recent than any of that desired by the Louisiana Senators. The next is for Senators Murkowski, Burns, and Craig, asking for a status report of timber sales under the salvage provision of the 1995 rescissions bill. Next is for the two Alaska Senators modifying an Alaska subsistence moratorium, included in the 1996 legislation. Next for the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] for the Indian Health Services, which allows use of the Choctaw Nation funds for construction of a Talihina hospital. Next is by the two Senators from Virginia, which transfers $1 million from the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge land acquisition to the Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge land acquisition. Next is by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] with respect to the Office of Surface Mining, which allows the State of Maryland to spend more than 10 percent of its State grants for acid mine drainage projects. The final one is for the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for the Bureau of Land Management. It transfers $250,000 from the Alaska cadastral survey to preparation of environmental impact statement for resumption of an oil leasing program in the National Petroleum Reserve. That is an outline. I believe these amendments have all been cleared, but I will defer to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments 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 bring before the Senate today the fiscal year 1997 Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. This bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, totals $12,617,764,000 in discretionary budget authority and $13,306 million in outlays and is within the 602(b) allocations. Any amendments offered to the Interior bill will require offsets. The President's budget request is $263 million above the committee's budget authority allocation and is $333 million above the committee's outlay allocation. The bill before you represents difficult choices and challenges. The needs for various agencies funded through the Interior bill are great, from 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. Funding for fighting fire on public lands, such as the fires that have been devastating the West this summer, is provided through the Interior bill. In putting this bill together, we have attempted to strike a balance among these competing interests. I wish to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, for his support of the Interior bill programs and his willingness to give the Interior Subcommittee an additional $500 million in budget authority and $400 million in outlay allocations above the House allocations. It is because of Senator Hatfield that I am able to present this as a balanced and appropriate bill, with attention to and recognition of the difficult decisions that had to be made during formulation of this bill. This year, the Interior Subcommittee received approximately 1,400 requests for amendments to the bill, that total to more than $2 billion. Many of these requests presumed enactment of the amounts proposed in the President's budget, and then proposed to add above that. With the budget constraints we faced, our starting point was the fiscal year 1996 budget with consideration of the administration's fiscal year 1997 budget proposals, of the priorities contained within the budget request, and of concerns important to Members. As is the usual practice on the Interior Subcommittee, this bill was prepared in a bipartisan manner. Senator Byrd and his staff were not only cooperative, but were major and significant players in drafting the bill that is before you today. The recommendations represent the result of extensive review of the President's budget proposals through subcommittee hearings with the agencies, briefings, and written testimony from the public. Now, we will turn to the recommendations before you today. Among the items of interest are of course, those within land management. The committee has provided additional funds above the fiscal year 1996 amounts for the operational accounts of the land management agencies: Bureau of Land Management--2 percent, Fish and Wildlife Service--6 percent, National Park Service--7 percent, Forest Service--2 percent. The land management agencies are involved presently with the suppression of devastating wildfires and are faced with a shortage of funds to fight the wildfires. This recommendation provides $321 million for presuppression fire activities, $340 million for fire suppression, and $110 million for an emergency appropriation, that is contingent upon the President's emergency declaration. To assist with the growing recreation demands on the agencies in this bill, the pilot recreation fee proposal is extended for an additional year and the number of demonstration sites are increased from 50 to 100. Eighty percent of the fee collections are to be returned to the site from which they are collected. I may add, Mr. President, at this time, I was recently briefed by the heads of each of those agencies. Each of them is enthusiastic about this proposition. It has improved morale in the various services because they can now see the tangible results they can obtain by these fee schedules, some new and some increased. So far, the public response has been very positive because the public can see that it is actually getting something in each of the parks or refuges to which admission fees are being charged. I think this is a first-rate experiment. I am convinced that it will soon become permanent and that it will result in at least beginning to work on the background of deferred maintenance in all of our public lands that are used for recreational purposes. The construction accounts for the land management agencies have increased $39.6 million in total--11 percent. The majority of the construction projects involve the completion of ongoing projects and the restoration or rehabilitation of existing facilities. No new starts for visitor centers are provided. 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 million. Overall funding for land acquisition for the land management agencies totals $152.9 million, which is $14.7 million--11 percent--over the current level and $52.9 million above the level appropriated in the House of Representatives. The committee has identified specific projects, while the House bill did not. Priority is given to completing ongoing acquisitions and avoiding new starts that would increase future demands. Additional funds are provided to acquire sensitive endangered species habitat and to ensure protection of natural and cultural resources. With respect to the science agencies, funding for the Office of Surface Mining and Minerals Management Service is increased slightly. On cultural activities, the first priority was to provide adequate resources to those cultural institutions such as our Nation's museums, for which this subcommittee 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. With respect to the Department of Energy, energy conservation programs are $33 million--6.2 percent over the fiscal year 1996 level and $47 million over the House level. This includes an increase of $19.7 million over fiscal year 1996 for weatherization. Fossil research and development is down 3.8 percent from the comparable fiscal year 1996 level, but is $12.75 million above the House bill. Mr. President, $150 million is rescinded from the Clean Coal Technology Program, substantially less than the $325 million rescission proposed in the budget. Senator Byrd and I have studied this program carefully. I have deferred to him, as he is the overriding national expert on the subject. And I am assured by him that the bill includes the absolute maximum rescission that can be sustained at this time without prematurely terminating ongoing projects. Funding for the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves is decreased by $16.5 million from the request of $149.5 million. While the Department of Energy has stated that this reduction will result in a revenue loss of $45 million over the next 2 years, I see no other alternative in light of the lack of support shown for the reserves by this committee last year. Operations of the strategic petroleum reserve are funded by oil sales from the reserves of some $220 million. With respect to Indian programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs overall, funding increases by $10.3 million above the fiscal year 1996 funding, and $32 million above the amount in the House bill. Emphasis has been placed on providing additional funding to tribal priority allocations, which is $22.5 million--3 percent above fiscal year 1996 and $12.5 million above the House 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 $14.7 million. The committee has also placed emphasis on elementary and secondary school operations and has increased funding by $18.4 million--5 percent above fiscal year 1996 level and $8.9 million above the House level. Funding has been provided for enacted Indian land and water settlements as requested by the administration. The bill reported by the committee includes a provision that would allow tribes the option to receive direct payments from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for services or the option to receive services in the current manner. While this provision was initiated in cooperation with the Indian Affairs Committee, consensus on the final details of the plan could not be reached. Mr. President, this is a result that I greatly regret. A bill has been reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs that would accomplish this goal in a much more permanent and extensive fashion. There is great resistance to that bill from many quarters, some within the Indian community, some within the administration, some from outside. I share many of those reservations. I had hoped, and I continue to hope, that we could experiment with this field, could start down the road on an optional basis, and could do it in an appropriations bill for 1 year, perhaps 2 years, perhaps 3 years to see how it worked. I am deeply sorry that, between the administration and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and at least some of the Indian communities, this experiment was not deemed to be acceptable. In fact, it is the subject of a letter from the White House threatening a possible veto of the bill. I understand that Senator McCain will make a motion to strike this provision in its entirety, and with great regret, I will agree to that motion, and it will be stricken. I hope by next year, we will be able to reach a resolution of this problem so that we can move forward with what I am convinced is an appropriate experiment in increasing the authority of the tribes over their own affairs. Total funding for the Indian Health Service has increased in this bill by some $66 million. This increase is for staffing of recently completed facilities, a portion of pay costs to maintain existing service levels, and funding for replacement of a health care facility in Montana that recently burned to the ground. Mr. President, I am continuing an experiment which I began, at least for the committee, last year. I have available for all Members of the Senate, and for the public, a picture of what we are doing. This is another case in which I think a picture is worth a thousand words. I have cast about a large number of statistics, even in these brief opening remarks. This chart shows where the roughly $13 billion in this bill will actually go. The left column, in various shades of green, is the land management programs which are the responsibility of this subcommittee and, of course, of this Congress. The Forest Service is on the bottom, the National Park Service next, Bureau of Land Management above that, and the Fish and Wildlife Service on top, for a total of almost $6 billion, but $6 billion spent in the management of the public patrimony of the people of the United States, the lands that we as a people own, I think the most important responsibility of this committee. Those ratios are not greatly different from last year. They are probably a little bit higher than they were last year because of the increased recreational use, an increase which goes on year after year after year in almost all of these areas. The second, the blue column, has to do with our responsibilities for Native Americans. The lower part of it is the Indian Health Service, which you will notice is larger for that single unit than in the entire Bureau of Indian Affairs and, then there are tiny little appropriations on top of that. But that is a little bit under $4 billion. So we are close to $10 billion at this point in the land management programs and Indian programs. Then we shift over to science programs, in shades of purple. The largest portion of that, slightly more than a billion dollars is the Geological Survey, the Office of Surface Mining and Minerals, mining service and others. There we consolidated money that goes to two different Departments. Then there is energy programs, in orange, to the Department of Energy. Research and development is the largest portion of that, less than a billion dollars. The management of our oil reserves and grants for various programs, mostly directed at the more effective use of our energy or the development of new energy sources. The dark blue is the cultural programs of the United States, and, basically, except for a tiny share for memorials, they go in large measure to the museums--the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art-- the repositories of much of our culture. The smaller amount goes to the endowments--the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Finally, over on the right, the smallest portion, about $200 million, is the management of the Department of the Interior. This shows people the relative size of the spending of the people of the United States on these matters, all of which are important and may help guide Members of this body as they deal with amendments. Before I yield the floor, I want to repeat something that was in my written remarks. Last year was my first as the chairman of this subcommittee, and I took on that position with some trepidation, because I succeeded in that position as subcommittee chairman my friend and colleague and mentor, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who has chaired the full committee and the subcommittee. He made that transition both easy and constructive, Mr. President, by his advice, by his knowledge of the programs with which we dealt and by his wonderful support. As a consequence, when we debated this bill on this floor last year, we had a number of controversial and contested amendments. Not one of those amendments after debate and on a vote was decided by a party-line vote, because the management of these programs should not and is not a partisan matter. They were decided, I think, on their merits. Members had to consider carefully what was being said because they couldn't come down and vote a straight party line, and that is the way, in my view, that the Senate ought to work. It worked that way because of the cooperation and thoughtfulness of Senator Byrd. I appreciated that. We ended up with a number of troubles and veto over a matter which neither of us had any control. This year, I believe that we have a bill, even if there are a few amendments on it, that has an outstanding chance of being approved by the President of the United States, particularly if we are able to retain the extra $500 million in allocations that was given to us in conference with the House. I believe we will be able to retain that. I think we are able to do a good job, and if we are a complete success this year, the credit will be largely due to my friend and colleague, Senator Byrd. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, like many citizens across the country, the residents of Washington State have witnessed a dramatic increase in drug smuggling and drug abuse throughout Washington State in recent years. Unfortunately, these negative trends are continuing to rise, and for that reason, I believe that Washington State is an excellent candidate for designation as a high-intensity drug trafficking area [HIDTA]. For example, drug addiction and abuse is a major public health problem. Overall, according to the latest available statistics, drug- related emergency room visits in Washington State per 100,000 persons are running over 50 percent higher than the national average. Local authorities are also concerned by both the increased level of drug usage, trafficking, and gang violence associated with illicit drug trafficking. Moreover, the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, the Blaine border crossing at the international border between the United States and Canada, and the Yakima Valley in central Washington are gateways for the introduction of illegal drugs into the United States. The threats posed by heroin, marijuana, cocaine, hashish and methamphetamine merit special attention as the volume of these drugs passing through the area has a direct impact on other areas of the country. Mr. President, because I believe that Washington State should be designated as a high-intensity drug trafficking area does not automatically qualify me as an expert on national drug control policy. In fact, I would submit that Gen. Barry McCaffery, the new Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, probably has a much better understanding of how different programs should be implemented to control drug trafficking and drug abuse in different regions throughout the country. Accordingly, the Senate version of the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill provides $13 million in additional funds for the designation of new high-intensity drug trafficking areas. It also directs the Office of National Drug Control Policy to review all of the pending applications for high- intensity drug trafficking area designations including the gulf coast, the Northeast, the Northwest, the Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountain regions. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in drafting this bill in such a manner. It allows the Office of National Drug Control Policy, not Congress, to designate new high- intensity drug trafficking Areas in the United States, which I believe is entirely appropriate. In the House version of the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bill, the bill provides an additional $10 million for new high-intensity drug trafficking areas programs. Unfortunately, the accompanying Report designates three new high-intensity drug trafficking areas, which completely circumvents the current designation process formulated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I believe this is an inappropriate way to do business. The Office of National Drug Control Policy, not the Congress, should have the authority to designate new high-intensity drug trafficking Areas. I appreciate Senator Shelby's and Senator Kerry's attention to this matter, and I would encourage the Senate conferees to maintain the Senate's position when this issue comes before the conference. post-fts2000

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment is bad policy from top to bottom. If enacted, it would hurt U.S. companies and destroy jobs. It is, I am afraid, motivated more by political considerations than anything else. Under generally accepted tax principles in the United States and around the world, income is taxed when it is realized by a taxpayer. When income is earned but not received until some future date--say, for example, income in a pension plan or an individual retirement account-- then taxation is normally deferred. Eliminating or even limiting deferrals would put American companies at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. This amendment does not--as it purports to do--eliminate a privilege; rather, it imposes a penalty, and a severe one at that. It will not increase revenues for the U.S. Treasury. It will, however, hurt American companies that are trying both to run their day-to-day operations and to compete with foreign businesses. What does this amendment do? It assumes that allowing U.S. multinationals to defer taxes on the income of their foreign subsidiaries is a tax break. That is a false assumption, because deferring only means that taxes are not due until the time that income has actually been received, or in the case of multinationals, repatriated back to the U.S. parent company. This amendment not only taxes income before it is realized, it carries with it the potential to tax income that is never realized at all. Since none of our trading partners subject their companies to such a burden, our companies would suffer. No other country in the world denies deferral on active business income as extensively as the United States, now, with respect to passive income, for example. According to a 1990 white paper submitted by the International Competition Subcommittee of the American Bar Association Section of Taxation to congressional tax writing committees, France, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, and others, do not tax domestic parent companies on any earnings of their foreign marketing subsidiaries until such earnings are repatriated. The earnings are deferred without additional tax penalties. No one can doubt the importance of the global economy to American jobs and American economic strength. If we are to provide good jobs for our citizens, it is important that we stay competitive. Already, current tax rules create a disadvantage for U.S. businesses that operate overseas and compete in foreign markets. Recent data demonstrate that U.S. multinationals are already taxed more heavily on their foreign income than on their domestic income. The current U.S. Tax Code has a strong bias against U.S. multinationals. Its sourcing rules and strict limitations on foreign tax credits expose the foreign investments of U.S. companies to double taxation. It also gives less favorable treatment to foreign affiliates by making them ineligible for the R&D tax credit or accelerated depreciation, and denies them the ability to include losses in the U.S. parent's consolidated income tax return. Current law does not, as the sponsors of this amendment assume, reward U.S. corporations with offshore operations. Clearly, imposing more taxes on American companies weakens U.S. international competitiveness, hurts American companies and American jobs, and gives our foreign competitors a greater advantage--just the opposite of what the amendment's sponsors say they want. Not only will this amendment increase direct taxes on U.S. companies, it will also increase regulatory costs associated with compliance and enforcement. The proposal will add enormous complexity to the already onerous and complicated U.S. Tax Code in the area of international taxes. The changes will be difficult for businesses to comply with and virtually impossible for the IRS to administer and enforce. For example, a U.S. multinational may manufacture a component--say, a computer chip --that eventually finds its way into a finished product that is ultimately imported into the United States by a foreign company, without the U.S. multinational's knowledge or consent. The IRS, in this case, would have to trace potentially long chains of unrelated parties that may alter a product or incorporate it into another product in order to enforce the requirements of this proposal. Similarly, businesses would have to employ complicated and tedious procedures to determine if their products could potentially ever be imported back into the United States. That, Mr. President, is just one reason that proposals like this need careful study by the Finance Committee, not an instant debate on the floor. This amendment means more taxes, more regulations, and more power to the IRS--powers which, I can assure my colleague, the country hardly needs. Today, U.S. companies face intense competition in both domestic and international markets. Nothing can be worse for our companies struggling to compete in the global economy than to burden them with more government regulations and taxes. There are several mistaken premises in this amendment, and I would like briefly to address some of them. First of all, the amendment's underlying premise is that when American companies open factories, plants and offices overseas, they reduce American jobs. That's simply not true. U.S. firms establish operations abroad primarily in order to penetrate foreign markets and take advantage of foreign business opportunities. In many cases, U.S. manufacturers cannot sell to foreign customers unless they have local plants in those foreign countries. For example, under the Canadian auto pact, United States companies must manufacture in Canada to export into the Canadian market. Without United States operations in Canada, the United States would lose the current $44 billion of sales in Canada. Were that to happen, the consequences to America would be serious indeed--not only in terms of economic damage, but in terms of lost jobs --American jobs--as well. Another misperception is that American companies move their operations overseas so that they can procure cheap labor. Again, not so. Most multinational companies' foreign investments are in other industrialized countries where labor costs are often higher than in the United States. In 1993, two-thirds of the assets and sales of United States-controlled foreign corporations were in seven countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The average annual compensation paid by these corporations in 1993 was $49,005, 15 percent higher than the average $42,606 compensation paid in the United States. U.S. firms do not go abroad for cheap labor, they go abroad because their business demands it. For example, industries that rely on natural resources must develop them in the geographic locations in which those resources are found. This amendment also assumes that overseas operations cost U.S. jobs. Wrong again. American operations overseas produce American exports. Exports support and create American jobs. Consider this: The Department of Commerce has calculated that every $1 billion dollars in manufactured exports creates--directly--14, 313 manufacturing jobs in the United States Clearly, U.S. companies that have operations overseas are a benefit to, not a detraction from, American jobs and the American economy. The amendment incorrectly assumes that U.S. companies invest offshore to export back to the U.S. market. But a look at the facts shows the reverse. In 1993, 66 percent of U.S. multinational sales were within the foreign company of incorporation, 23 percent of sales went to other foreign locations, and only 11 percent represented exports to the United States. If anything, multinationals are boosting the U.S. trade balance. According to 1993 Commerce Department data, U.S. multinationals decrease the trade deficit by $11.5 billion per year. I must say that it's too bad the sponsors suspect the worst motives in our American companies, rather than supporting them as they look for new opportunities to boost the American economy and create new jobs in the United States. While few would disagree with the stated goals of this amendment-- preventing U.S. job loss and encouraging U.S. competitiveness--it is clear that in practice this amendment would have exactly the opposite effect. Let's call a spade a spade. This is not a proposal to stimulate employment or to strengthen America's position in the international arena. It is a protectionist, antitrade measure that attempts to exploit the fears and insecurities that Americans feel today due to the real degree of economic uncertainty. But the American economy is not being hurt by U.S. trade or by U.S. businesses expanding their presence overseas. Rather, trade and overseas investment strengthen and expand our economy. When American businesses go overseas, it is a sign of American economic strength and expanding opportunities. It means that American companies are competitive throughout the world. We should be happy to see our companies doing so well, instead of fearing international growth. We are the world's economic superpower, and should be encouraging international development and promoting trade, not discouraging it as this amendment does. The entire argument of the Senator from South Carolina can be summed up by one of his own lines: ``This country is going out of business.'' If you believe that statement, then support this amendment and every other protectionist idea that comes down the pike. But if you believe, as I do, that we are the most successful and competitive economy in the world and with the most free and fair competition, vote with me and table this amendment. And one other point in reflection of the Senator from South Carolina: Boeing believes that the Chinese commercial aircraft market over the next 20 years will reach $185 billion. Obviously, it will go to those suppliers who will allow some of the work to be done in China. As Larry Clarkson, Boeing's top official for international development says: ``If we hadn't moved work to China, we wouldn't have gotten orders.'' I think he knows more about Boeing's business than the Senator from South Carolina--and Boeing is now hiring--in the United States.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last evening my vote was the only negative vote on the resolution relating to the President's military intervention earlier this week in Iraq. As there was little if any time last night to explain the reason for that vote, I intend to do it at this time. It is the conventional wisdom, led perhaps by the President of the United States, that George Bush severely erred in not completing the war in the gulf against Iraq by the total defeat of its armed forces and the replacement of the Saddam Hussein government. Because I did not make such a criticism at the time, I do not join in that criticism now and regard it as essentially irrelevant to the activities of this week. President Clinton, when he took that office, inherited the situation as it existed then, when that was no longer a real possibility. Since taking office, however, President Clinton's policies have caused the deterioration, if not the entire unraveling, of the coalition that was put together against Iraq at the time of the war in the gulf. Most particularly, his administration's indifference to the peculiar burdens imposed upon our ally, Turkey, and the particular problems and challenges that it faces, have caused us to be in a position in which we have been unable to use our bases in that country for any kind of response to Iraq. In fact, the coalition has unraveled to such an extent that we were not permitted to use the bases of any of our allies other than the United Kingdom in that response. Earlier this summer we totally and completely ignored an incursion by Iranian forces, aimed to support its Kurdish partisans, into Iraq, across an international border. Earlier this summer we completely ignored Iraq's defiance of a U.N. search for prohibited weapons, both chemical and nuclear in nature. Nevertheless, we did respond in a military fashion to a contest between Iraqi-backed Kurds and Iranian-backed Kurds earlier this week, and we responded, Mr. President, in a totally inappropriate fashion. It seems to this Senator that at the time of the recent Iraqi incursion in support of its own faction in Kurdistan, we had essentially two choices: We could have made the choice that we have no dog in that fight, that there was no favorite in a contest between a group backed by Iran and a group backed by Iraq. On the other hand, we could have responded militarily by showing that aggression does not pay. Under those circumstances, however, the only appropriate military response would be one which would exact a price substantially greater than the hoped-for goals of the aggression itself on the part of Iraq. We did neither. We responded to this fight among Kurdish partisans in a way that could not possibly help the victims of that Iraqi aggression. In fact, we clearly stated that we were not attempting to reverse what Saddam Hussein was doing in the northern part of his own country. The net result is this: The net result is that Iraq has regained control over much of Iraqi Kurdistan. It has slaughtered its rebels, many of whom were under our implicit protection and have been abandoned by us. It has shown the United States to be a paper tiger. And what cost has it paid, Mr. President? A handful of radar sites. We have been abandoned by all of our allies in the Middle East, none of whom was willing to publicly support our military response. We have been repudiated by France with respect to our new no-flight zone. Our President has now terminated the military adventure and has proclaimed victory. Mr. President, a few more victories like this and we will be announcing a no-flight zone over Riyadh. The best analogy I can think of is this one: It is as if the Mayor of the District of Columbia was warned of an incipient drug war in some part of this city and expressed severe warnings against any violence in connection with that drug war. Faced with great violence and a number of murders, the Mayor then imposed $100 fines on each one of the murderers and announced that the drug war was over and that the streets of Washington, DC, were safe. That, in effect, has been what our response was. Mr. President, the United States has been defeated and humiliated. We have added to the instability of the Middle East and have whetted Saddam Hussein's appetite for further adventures. No consultation, no advance notification was given to any Member of Congress in connection with this adventure. Under the circumstances, Mr. President, I do not believe that any resolution of support, even one so cautious, so reluctant, so absent in praise as the one passing last night was warranted. I believe that within a short period of time, a majority of my colleagues will wish that they had voted the way in which I voted last night. It was an inappropriate resolution, an inappropriate response to an inappropriate action on the part of the President of the United States.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will authorize settlement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District in Washington state. Congressman Doc Hastings has introduced identical legislation on this subject in the House of Representatives. This legislation will authorize a carefully negotiated settlement between the BOR and the Oroville-Tonasketi Irrigation District. If enacted, this legislation will save the BOR, and therefore the Nation's taxpayers, money that would otherwise be spent fighting with the irrigation district in court. Briefly, the legislation directs the irrigation district to release and discharge all past and future claims against the United States associated with the project--such claims are estimated at $4.5 million. The irrigation district will assume full responsibility to indemnify and defend the United States against any third-party claims associated with the project. The irrigation district will make a cash payment of $350,000 to the United States--a condition that has already been met. The irrigation district will release the United States from its obligation to remove existing dilapidated facilities--cost estimated at $150,000 in 1978. The district will also be solely responsible for the operations and maintenance of the project, and will agree to continue to deliver water to and provide for O&M of the wildlife Mitigation facilities at its own expense. The legislation directs the BOR to release and discharge the irrigation district's construction charge obligation under the 1979 repayment contract--present value estimated at $4.2 million. Within 180 days of the date of enactment, the BOR will transfer the title of the irrigation works to district at no additional cost to the district. The BOR will continue to provide power and energy for water pumping for the project for a period of 50 years--starting October 1990--as provided for in the irrigation discount provision in the Northwest Power Act. At the end of that 50 year period, the irrigation district will have to purchase its power at nonirrigation discount rates. Mr. President, this legislation will resolve a long standing dispute between the irrigation district and the Bureau of Reclamation that will save the taxpayers the expense of financing a long, drawn out court fight. I will work with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to see that this legislation is enacted this year.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize a land exchange between the Chelan County PUD, in Washington State and the U.S. Forest Service. The land exchange legislation will consolidate land for a wastewater treatment facility onto Chelan County PUD land. Chelan PUD would in turn own and operate the wastewater treatment facility, which serves both the Forest Service and some of the local community. The legislation was carefully negotiated between the Forest Service and the Chelan County PUD. The Forest Service supports the legislation, and I hope that the legislation can be enacted this year.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will authorize settlement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District in Washington state. Congressman Doc Hastings has introduced identical legislation on this subject in the House of Representatives. This legislation will authorize a carefully negotiated settlement between the BOR and the Oroville-Tonasketi Irrigation District. If enacted, this legislation will save the BOR, and therefore the Nation's taxpayers, money that would otherwise be spent fighting with the irrigation district in court. Briefly, the legislation directs the irrigation district to release and discharge all past and future claims against the United States associated with the project--such claims are estimated at $4.5 million. The irrigation district will assume full responsibility to indemnify and defend the United States against any third-party claims associated with the project. The irrigation district will make a cash payment of $350,000 to the United States--a condition that has already been met. The irrigation district will release the United States from its obligation to remove existing dilapidated facilities--cost estimated at $150,000 in 1978. The district will also be solely responsible for the operations and maintenance of the project, and will agree to continue to deliver water to and provide for O&M of the wildlife Mitigation facilities at its own expense. The legislation directs the BOR to release and discharge the irrigation district's construction charge obligation under the 1979 repayment contract--present value estimated at $4.2 million. Within 180 days of the date of enactment, the BOR will transfer the title of the irrigation works to district at no additional cost to the district. The BOR will continue to provide power and energy for water pumping for the project for a period of 50 years--starting October 1990--as provided for in the irrigation discount provision in the Northwest Power Act. At the end of that 50 year period, the irrigation district will have to purchase its power at nonirrigation discount rates. Mr. President, this legislation will resolve a long standing dispute between the irrigation district and the Bureau of Reclamation that will save the taxpayers the expense of financing a long, drawn out court fight. I will work with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to see that this legislation is enacted this year.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize a land exchange between the Chelan County PUD, in Washington State and the U.S. Forest Service. The land exchange legislation will consolidate land for a wastewater treatment facility onto Chelan County PUD land. Chelan PUD would in turn own and operate the wastewater treatment facility, which serves both the Forest Service and some of the local community. The legislation was carefully negotiated between the Forest Service and the Chelan County PUD. The Forest Service supports the legislation, and I hope that the legislation can be enacted this year.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass legislation to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to give State and local communities the flexibility to ensure that consumers have safe drinking water, and send it to the President for his signature. For the past several years, I have worked closely with communities in my State to support legislation that throws out the one- size-fits-all approach and the costly mandates of the current law, and to replace it with greater flexibility and a commonsense approach. Today all the hard work of these communities paid off. Several years ago, I began working with communities across my State that were frustrated with the one-size-fits-all approach of current law. The current law tied the hands of the State to work with local communities by mandating prohibitively expensive treatment technologies on the smallest of water systems--the cost of which would have bankrupt some of our State's smaller communities. In 1994, I held a safe drinking water forum in Moses Lake, WA to hear first hand from local leaders how to fix the current law. Over 100 people turned out for that hearing, and their message was clear--the current law was broken and in need of repair. Together with local government leaders I supported legislation in the 103d Congress that overwhelmingly passed the Senate. Unfortunately, that legislation did not make it to the President's desk for his signature. This year, however, was different. This year, the Senate overwhelmingly passed S. 1316. Included in that legislation, and in the conference report that the Senate will pass today are important reforms to the law that this Senator believes will ultimately facilitate greater compliance with the law--without the bureaucracy and redtape. The conference report addresses some of the most critical concerns raised by local governments in Washington State. The conference report establishes a Safe Drinking Water Act State revolving loan fund to assist communities in financing system improvements to comply with the act, similar to the Clean Water Act State revolving loan fund; throws out the mandate that EPA regulate 25 additional contaminants based upon a benefit-cost analysis; the legislation also gives States the ability to grant variances to small systems in order to facilitate greater compliance with the act. section 106 of the conference report Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and their staff, for including my amendment in the conference report that recognizes that future treatment technologies will have the capacity to provide safer water than that provided by traditional filtration. Section 106 of the conference report establishes a limited alternative to filtration, if the system can utilize another form of treatment that will provide greater removal of pathogens, than that of filtration. The need for this amendment was brought to my attention by the city of Seattle. The city has two water supply sources, the Cedar River Watershed, and the Tolt River supply. Because of turbidity problems in the Tolt supply, the city is in the process of implementing filtration technology on the Tolt. Conversely, the Cedar River supply does not have turbidity problems--it consistently tests below average for turbidity--and the city is seeking an alternative to filtration for the Cedar River supply. Currently the Cedar is an unfiltered system, and therefore must comply with the surface water treatment rule. The rule sets forward 11 specific criteria, and calls for extensive monitoring of the system, to ensure that the system continues to provide clean water to its customers. During 1992, the Cedar violated 1 of the 11 criteria, and, consequently, was required to initiate filtration plans. Shortly thereafter the city entered into an agreement with the State and EPA region 10 to achieve compliance with the rule without filtration. Seattle has been working closely with EPA region 10 and the Washington State health department for the past several years to find a way to treat the Cedar supply, without filtration. Filtration would cost the city roughly $200 million, but the city believes that the process of ozonation would better meet the city's drinking water needs. The Ozonation process would only cost $68 million. Ozonation is a process that is considerably less expensive than filtration and is believed to be the next up and coming technology for ensuring clean drinking water. The ozonation process is proven to be more effective than filtration in getting rid of harmful pathogens in a water supply, like cryptosporidium and giardia. Filtration technology would inactivate 99.9 percent of cryptosporidium, but ozonation would inactivate 99.999 percent of the cryptosporidium. The increase of .099 is considered a greater increase in the level of human health protection. Mr. President, I want to thank all of the people in Washington State who took the time to call or write me about the need to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act--their message came through loud and clear. By giving State and local communities the flexibility to address unique drinking water problems, the conference report completely and totally rejects the ``Washington, D.C. knows best'' way of thinking. When this legislation is signed into law communities across Washington State will have safe and affordable drinking water. This legislation is a victory for consumers across our State, and for the local governments that worked hard for its passage. I am proud to support the conference report to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. GORTON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, that is correct. I think we do have an agreement to go back and forth. And just simply for---- Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just for Republican purposes, the next four Republicans listed in order are Senators Faircloth, Grassley, Chafee and Gregg in that order. But, as I understand, we go back and forth. So after Senator Faircloth, the Democrat will be--is that Senator Bradley or Senator Boxer? Senator Bradley. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. GORTON. If the Senator would yield, we are beginning to run out of time. The next three Republicans are even going to get 10 minutes. So we hope the Senator can do it in that.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the junior Senator from Indiana.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Iowa.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I greatly admire those who, during the course of this debate over the last year and a half, expressed great confidence in the consequences of the passage of this bill or of its predecessors. I expressed that admiration both for those who are as confident that the bill will end a culture of dependency as for those who view with alarm what they believe will vastly increase poverty among the people of the United States. While I admire their certainty, I cannot join in it. I must say, Mr. President, that I am not at all certain of what the consequences of the passage of this bill will be. I hope and I am inclined to believe that they will primarily be positive, but I cannot be certain. In that regard, Mr. President, I agree fully with the views expressed yesterday in the Washington Post by Robert Samuelson, and I will quote three sentences of his review: The exercise aims to promote self-reliance by making it harder for people to rely on government. Without the threat of extra suffering, people would have no reason to change. What can't be predicted is how the good and bad will balance. Mr. President, I find that entire column to be so persuasive--and not at all, incidentally, to be so similar to my own views--that I ask unanimous consent that the entire column be printed in full at the end of my remarks.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on the other hand, what I do know and what I feel confident in stating is that our present welfare system is a tragic and destructive failure. At the very least, the present system has been accompanied by a massive increase in the very conditions that it was designed to alleviate: illegitimacy, family breakup, a negative attitude toward work, a culture of dependency. At most, our present system has been a contributing cause to those conditions. I should also like to observe, Mr. President, that those who oppose this bill, by and large, are those who individually--or whose philosophy--have guided and managed the system that this bill in large part dismantles. These people, these ideas clearly represent the conventional wisdom, a conventional wisdom that has guided and produced every change in welfare policy in this country, or almost every such change, for at least the past 30 years. Their present advice is to view with alarm these changes, to attempt to preserve the status quo, except to ask that we do a little bit more of what we have been doing with these last several decades. Mr. President, that conventional wisdom is bankrupt and ought to be abandoned, not only for the sake of our society as a whole but for the sake of the supposed beneficiaries of these welfare policies. Those of us who support this legislation, these changes, hope with some reason that this bill will increase incentives to work, some of those incentives being positive and some negative. We hope, with some reason, that it will result in strong disincentives for teenage pregnancy and illegitimacy. We are convinced that it will require greater male parental support for their children. But the heart of this bill--not with total consistency, after all, with the compromises that have entered into it--but the heart of this proposal is consistent with my own uncertainties about specific consequences resulting from specific policies. That central feature is to end the absolute entitlement to welfare, to end the detailed Federal regulation of the way in which welfare policies are administered by the State, to end the massive bureaucratic interference with every detail of welfare policy, and to encourage--for that matter, to require--a wide range of experimentation in welfare policies among our 50 States. I suppose that States which really want to pay for even more generous welfare systems than they have at the present time will be able to find a way to do so, and that there may be a handful of such States. Perhaps more significantly, those States that want to adopt tough work requirements will be able to do so. Those States that want to provide for greater training and child care will be able to do so. Those States that want to impose strong disincentives against dependency will be able to do so. In fact, in a relatively short period of time after the passage of this bill, we will have 50 distinct and different systems of welfare in the United States. We will learn just how much private sector charities can and will do in the welfare field. We know that in certain areas they have been magnificently successful at much lower cost than any government-run program. How much that private sector effort can be increased we simply do not know at the present time, but we will learn as a result of this bill. As a consequence, 5 years from now or 10 years from now, I believe that we will know far more about which welfare policies work and which do not. Perhaps we will even know enough to lead us wisely to a more centralized system of adopting those policies which seem to have worked well. I suspect, I hope, and I think this 50-State experimentation will probably be successful enough so that our successors will wish it to continue. Mr. President, I am gratified but not at all surprised that a poll- driven President of the United States has agreed to sign this bill. That agreement means that we are talking here, debating here, something real--real changes in policy with a real impact on our society and on our citizens. It would be very difficult to do worse than we have been doing over the course of the last several decades. We have a marvelous opportunity to do far better. The time has come to act. The day is at hand on which we will act. I commend this magnificent new experiment to my colleagues. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, July 31, 1996] For Better or Worse? (By Robert J. Samuelson) We are now hearing a lot about the promise and peril of ``welfare reform.'' To its champions, the legislation nearing congressional approval would destroy the ``culture of dependency.'' Critics see it as further impoverishing many poor families. Both are correct. The exercise aims to promote self-reliance by making it harder for people to rely on government. Without the threat of extra suffering, people would have no reason to change. What can't be predicted is how the good and bad will balance. I have put ``welfare reform'' in quotes, precisely because ``reform'' is a term of art. It is automatically attached to any scheme for social change, from ``campaign finance reform'' to ``school reform.'' In debates about these proposals, the protagonists act as if they can easily foretell the effects, for good or ill. As often as not, this convenient fiction spawns ``reforms'' with many unintended consequences. The process is now in full swing with ``welfare reform.'' The combatants regularly issue confident predictions and shrill denunciations that depict a fixed future. Last week, for example, the Urban Institute, a research group, released a study estimating that the House-passed welfare bill would increase the number of people in poverty by 2.6 million people, including 1.1 million children. Naturally, opponents of the legislation seized upon this to emphasize how bad it is. But a close look at the study shows that its conclusions ought to be highly qualified. The House and Senate bills would give states great flexibility to run their welfare programs within broad federal guidelines. Total lifetime federal benefits would be limited to five years, though states could exempt 20 percent of their caseloads. States would be pressured through complex regulations to move most mothers into some type of ``work'' within two years. After making some assumptions about state programs, the Urban Institute study estimates that the loss of benefits would outweigh the increase in earnings from jobs. This could happen. The study's assumptions aren't implausible. But uncertainties abound. First, the full rise of people in poverty would occur only in 2002 after all the bill's provisions took effect. Between now and then, Congress (or the states) could make changes if things went badly. This is especially true of one of the bill's worst provisions: the denial of many benefits, including food stamps, to legal immigrants. That alone accounts for about two-fifths of the bills' benefit cuts. Second, the increase in the poor would be much less--only 800,000 and not 2.6 million--if the Urban Institute had used the government's official definition of poverty. I cite this difference not because I think the Urban Institute deliberately inflated the impact of ``welfare reform'' but because it shows how perceptions can be shaped by somewhat arbitrary statistics. (For numbers freaks, the difference arises because the government definition counts only cash income to determine who falls below the poverty line: $15,141 for a family of four in 1994. Excluded are benefits such as food stamps that substitute for cash. The Urban Institute counts many of these benefits. As a result, the Urban Institute finds many fewer poor people; but if welfare reform cuts non-cash benefits, the impact on recorded poverty is greater. Still, the number of poor by the Urban Institute's count--even after adding 2.6 million--would be almost 25 percent lower than under the government count). Statistics aside, what matters are people. Would more be made better or worse off by ``welfare reform''? Unfortunately, we can't answer that, because we can't predict all of ``reform's'' effects. The Urban Institute examines one aspect of change: the shift from welfare to work. The study assumes that two-thirds of mothers who lost welfare would get jobs--many part-time--paying about $6 an hour. That wouldn't offset all the lost benefits. But this may miss some other favorable effects. Stingy welfare would discourage some out- of-wedlock births and prompt some parents to marry. ``The main route off welfare for good is marriage,'' says Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute. How large might these changes be? Neither Besharov nor anyone else knows. But the social climate is shifting, and ``welfare reform'' is simply a part of the change. Harsher welfare may reinforce the message that many teens are hearing elsewhere; and the impact may be amplified by tougher enforcement of child support payments and more prosecution for statutory rape of older men who prey on young girls. Teens account for 29 percent of out-of-wedlock births; the worst aspects of the ``welfare problem'' would diminish if, somehow, these pregnancies would drop. The case for the present ``welfare reform'' is that, despite many flaws, it would disrupt the existing system. As Mickey Kaus argues in Newsweek, we may discover what works and what doesn't. Some states would emphasize job training and child care for welfare mothers; others would impose harsh time limits. All could be forced to examine how charities, churches and self-help groups can best aid vulnerable families. This process is already occurring through ``waivers'' granted to states to modify existing federal rules; the legislation would give change further impetus. We ought to be sober about the possibilities. We are dealing with the most stubborn problems of poverty--family breakdown, low skills and human relationships. Changing how people behave isn't easy. Indeed, new government figures show that out-of-wedlock births continue to rise, as Charles Murray notes in the Weekly Standard. In 1994, they were 32.6 percent of all births, up from 23 percent in 1990. These numbers are an argument for assaulting the status quo and a reminder of how hard it will be to change. The remaining drama over the welfare bill is mostly political: Will President Clinton sign it? And who then--a Republican Congress or a Democratic president--will get the credit or blame for enacting or killing ``reform''? However the drama ends, the welfare dilemma will endure. It is this: How can a decent society protect those who can't protect themselves without being so generous that it subverts personal responsibility? No one on either side of this bitter debate has an obvious answer. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.