T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there are some occasions in this body in which a bit of institutional memory is truly of value. And, in my case, I have a memory which has been reinforced by reading the Congressional Record of the creation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Interestingly enough, the managers on both sides of the party aisle here were Members of that Congress. But the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, I believe, was perhaps the most knowledgeable Member of the body at that time, as he is today, on this particular subject. More than 14 years ago, in April 1982 when this bill was being debated, this is what the Senator from Louisiana said: The bill before the Senate today requires the Federal Government to undertake definitive and specific actions to assume the responsibility for nuclear waste disposal which existing law reserves to it. We can attempt to avoid this responsibility in the context of this particular Congress, but we will never finally escape the necessity of enacting legislation very similar to this bill. It is a task that no one but Congress can perform. The Senator from Louisiana went on to say: The aim of this bill is to provide congressional support which will force the executive branch to place before Congress and the public real solutions to our nuclear waste management problems. A schedule for Federal actions which could lead to a site specific application for a license for the disposition of nuclear waste in deep geologic formations is established in title IV. The Senator from Louisiana was, obviously, an optimist at that point, as were all of those who overwhelmingly supported him in passing that bill, this Senator included. I cannot imagine that the Senator from Louisiana, whose bill included this deadline referred to by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals last week ``beginning not later than January 31, 1998, the Federal Government will dispose of the high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved,'' I cannot imagine the Senator from Louisiana anticipated that we would have made so little progress by the date upon which we are debating this bill. He was convinced, and we were convinced, that by this year, we would certainly know what we were going to do with this nuclear waste on a temporary basis and be much further along the road to finding a long-term solution for the problem. As a consequence of an overoptimistic view of what might happen then, we have collected from utilities of the United States some $12 billion. We have spent close to $6 billion of that attempting to characterize a permanent nuclear waste repository in Nevada, but we are certainly nowhere near as close to reaching a conclusion to this challenge as we expected to be in 1982 when we passed this bill, and we spent more money on it, money that comes out of the pockets of American citizens in their utility bills. Given that degree of frustration, given the almost infinite ability of those who oppose any major decision of this nature to delay that decision through bureaucratic requirements, through court tests and the like, we now have been faced with the necessity of finding at least a temporary repository for this nuclear waste to meet the very requirements that we laid down in 1982. That, obviously, is what this bill is designed to do. In fact, by saying that we ought to begin by December 31 of 1998, even the sponsors of the bill already have let some time slip by. But, Mr. President, at this point, with the failure to meet the schedule that we wanted to meet in 1982, with the expenditure of literally billions of dollars, with this nuclear waste piling up in various plants in 34 States, with the real challenge of what to do with our defense nuclear waste, it is simply time to reach at least an interim decision. I expect that the Senators from Nevada, and many other Senators as well, are firm in the belief that wherever the temporary storage site is located will end up being the permanent storage site. I suspect that may very well be true, but I do believe that we are far enough along this road that it is appropriate for the Congress to make that decision and to make that decision now. The waste is there, the environmental threat is there, the physical dangers are there, the necessity to gather it together in one place is there. We know enough now about the policy to be able to make that decision to be there. We are simply carrying out under the leadership of the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Louisiana the very policies that this Congress and a former President of the United States felt to be appropriate policies in 1982, and in doing so, we will save the taxpayers money, we will help the environment, we will help our overall safety, and we will, one hopes, allow the Senator from Louisiana to retire, as he has regrettably chosen to do, from the Senate knowing that he has completed the job that he started in 1982 or earlier. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, along the southwest coast of Washington State, Highway 105 runs adjacent to Willapa Bay from Raymond to Aberdeen and provides an alternative route to Highway 101. While this route serves as the only direct access for residents of the Tokeland Peninsula and the Shoalwater Indian Reservation, it also acts as a dike protecting several cranberry bogs, a vital local industry, from saltwater inundation. Unfortunately, the embankment supporting Highway 105 has eroded away under the pressure of the unstable forces in Willapa Bay. Unless something is done, preliminary engineering studies indicate that under existing conditions, the road will be washed into Willapa Bay, sometime within the next 2 years. This timeline would obviously be moved up if any type of storm hits the Washington coast later this winter. Water, telecommunications, and power utilities located within the highway right-of-way would also be severed if the highway is destroyed. If no action is taken to remedy this problem, the estimated loss of public facilities, cranberry bogs, jobs and economic impacts is $82 million, not including additional socioeconomic impacts. An additional $40 million from the Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief funds would also be required to relocate a new Highway 105. A more appropriate and financially efficient alternative, in my opinion, would be to correct this problem before it becomes a reality. While diagnosing the problem, preliminary engineering studies also indicated that the erosion could be slowed considerably by dredging a relief channel in Willapa Bay, which would alter the flow of water that is currently undercutting the highway embankment. Officials from the Washington State Department of Transportation are currently working with representatives from the affected communities to resolve this matter, however, funding continues to be the major obstacle. This prevention project, including both engineering and actual construction costs, would cost $10 million--$8 million from the Federal Highway Administration and $2 million in State and local matching funds. I am aware that Congress no longer earmarks money in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) account of the Transportation appropriations bill, and therefore, I believe that the only appropriate funding available is possibly the FHWA Emergency Relief (ER) fund. While I recognize that this fund is traditionally dedicated to repairing Federal highways once a disaster has occurred, it seems that common sense dictates using $8 million to prevent a washout rather than spending $40 million to replace the road in less than 2 years. I have been working with officials from the Federal Highway Administration, and they are aware of the pending road failure. While they support participating in this prevention project, they believe that legislative authority must be given to allow ER funds to be used in this manner. For that reason, my amendment provides legislative language in this bill that authorizes the Federal Highway Administration to use up to $8 million in Emergency Relief funds in order to prevent complete loss of the existing Highway 105. By allowing these funds to be used in this manner, I estimate that the Federal Government will save approximately $30 million in future highway relocation funds, while also protecting the fragile environment and economy of Pacific County in Washington State. In closing, let me thank Chairman Hatfield for his consideration of this matter. Let me also applaud the efforts of the officials in Pacific County, as well as other individuals in the Washington State who have worked so carefully to ensure that this potential disaster is averted.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. That $12 billion increase in defense as a whole is over how long a period of time?

Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend from New Mexico. Mr. President, each of these appropriations bills with which we deal is long and very much detailed. Sometimes it is difficult even for Members, much less the general public, to have a true understanding of what is contained in them. For this reason, I have asked my staff to prepare a series of charts or graphs on the appropriations for those subcommittees of the appropriations bills on which I serve. Unfortunately, I only have a page-size one here for energy and water. It is for the bill for the current year, 1996. Due to the efforts of the Senator from New Mexico, we now have an allocation for 1997 that is roughly equivalent of that for 1996. So the distribution of the money for the current year is, I think, relevant to what we are dealing with. Mr. President, I am sure your eyes may not be quite good enough to see anything on this chart other than the colors. But the red and pink portion of the chart show that the lion's share of this bill goes to the Department of Energy, which is not surprising. This is the energy and water appropriations bill. What, perhaps, is not visible to you is the fact that only about a quarter of it appears on the top of the chart, and that goes to the civilian activities of the Department of Energy for energy supply research and development--obviously important to our future--and for general science research and development. The Federal Government, through the Department of Energy, is one of the most important single sources of research for both energy purposes and for some other purposes as well. All of the rest, close to three-quarters of this red and pink line, goes to defense activities, because it is the Department of Energy that is in charge of our nuclear defense. Curiously enough, of that defense activity, Mr. President, half really goes to the past. Half is continuing to pay for the triumph of the United States of America in World War II and in the cold war against the Soviet Union, because we built so rapidly our nuclear capacity, our nuclear defense capacity, that we did not learn at the time the dangers that nuclear waste would impose on this country. And we have stored most of our nuclear waste in a way that clearly is not permanent in nature and, clearly, threatens the environment--very particularly, in my own State of Washington, where at Hanford, the great majority of this nuclear waste is located, and all across many other nuclear facilities in the rest of the country as well. So a good portion--maybe a third of this entire appropriation--really looks to the past, to taking care of the nuclear waste that we have already created, and that which will be created in the future. That is a very important part of this appropriation. It is a payment for past triumphs of this country, and it is a payment which is obviously due to those who are concerned with the environment of the United States and to those locations in which it is found. I spoke at greater length on Friday on the subject of Hanford and the beginning of a very real success on the part of the engineers and the others who work there at doing something about this waste. Once again, Mr. President, this Department of Energy portion here is maybe a quarter for research into the future for the energy needs of the country, almost three-quarters for defense work, of which roughly half is really a payment for the past, rather than for our present security. This much shorter green line, Mr. President, is the Army Corps of Engineers. I believe I can say that every single Member of this body will have some interest in the work of the Army Corps of Engineers, as it works on all of our river systems, most notably in the State of the present occupant of the chair, my State, and all other States as well, in projects to control floods, to conserve water, to use it for agricultural purposes and the like. Yet, this entire green line here includes not only the operations and maintenance activities of the Corps of Engineers, but a very small portion for our future. The top tiny little green line here is Mississippi flood control, Mr. President. But look at that in comparison with all of the other activities of this appropriations bill--an an extremely modest investment in a vitally important activity. But some of it, a portion that all of us are interested in, is for the construction of future projects on the part of the Corps of Engineers to make our ports deeper and safer; to create new areas in which we can conserve water for various public purposes, and the like. Finally, the tiny orange line over here, insofar as the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation for a similar project; and, lastly, a handful of independent agencies like the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delaware River Commission, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the like. Yet, we tend to think of all of these things in the sense of equivalents. They are not equivalents with respect to the amount of money that we put into it. A very, very large portion, probably close to half, of this entire appropriations bill is for defense activities both past and future, and much of it is for research. As a consequence, it is important. It is a matter of interest to all of the Members of this body. It is probably the reason, as the chairman pointed out, that we have some 46 theoretically pending amendments to the bill even though the chairman has been very careful to listen to messages and requests from Members on behalf of their constituents. A significant number of projects, both in the research area and in the Corps of Engineers' operating area, are designed to build the infrastructure of this country, and, Mr. President, at a time in which we are properly and justifiably concerned with bringing our budget into balance, a duty that we owe to our children and to our grandchildren, a moral duty to pay today for the kinds of services and projects we want in government. As significant as that is, as significant as the views of this chairman are to that purpose, as he is, after all, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, it is important that we continue to invest in the infrastructure of this country, whether it is a physical infrastructure from the point of view of energy and water projects or a research infrastructure in better and more efficient and more effective ways in which to use all of the energy resources that we have in the United States of America--one or the other. These investments in infrastructure are vitally important. So this is a really significant bill, Mr. President. I see the chairman returning to the floor at this point. I wonder if he would explain, for the Members who are still considering whether or not to come to the floor to offer their amendments but even more significantly for the people of the country as a whole, something of the dynamics of this bill. I say to the chairman of the committee, I believe that, due to his efforts, there is somewhat more money in this bill than there is in the bill passed by the House of Representatives. I also believe that this bill stays within the allocations which his subcommittee has been given, which in turn are a part of a set of allocations which could lead us to a balanced budget by the year 2002, if, but only if, we also show the courage and have the support from the President of the United States to deal with the overwhelmingly expensive entitlement programs of this country. So, if the chairman could tell us a little bit about how he made his choices in connection with this bill and emphasize the fact that it is a part of bringing the budget into balance and say what he thinks the differences between us and the House of Representatives are and how we propose to settle those differences, I would appreciate it. I think both our other Members and the country at large would appreciate having that knowledge as well. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. I am happy to.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, together with the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, I came to the floor today to help deal with any proposals or amendments that might come up during the course of today's activities. In fact, I was in the President's chair last Friday when the majority leader asked for a unanimous-consent agreement listing almost an entire column in the Congressional Record of amendments that might be proposed to this bill. A handful were debated on Friday afternoon. All of the rest must be offered between now and noon, or between 2 and 5 this afternoon. Obviously, we have not dealt with a lot of business at this point. It seemed to me appropriate to speak about this bill and about its importance in general terms and, perhaps, to ask for some comments from the chairman, my friend from New Mexico, who knows so much about it, to whom it is so vital, both for his own State of New Mexico and for the entire country, and for our national defense and for our infrastructure.

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

Mr. GORTON. So $500 million is in this bill, and the remainder of it is in the bill that has already passed?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Georgia for the clarity of his thought and for his dedication to a cause which is of vital importance to the future of our country and society.

Mr. GORTON. I think the Senator from Georgia makes a good point. I would like to share this reflection with him and hear his views on the subject. I believe sometimes we have these problems by a misuse of terms. And in this connection, a few years back, when drug policy was a higher order of priority, we had what was, I think, misnamed as a ``war on drugs,'' sincerely carried out by men and women who felt that drugs were a plague on our society creating a tremendous amount of crime, social dislocation, wasted lives. But the implication, when they used that term, was that it somehow or other could have been won permanently and decisively. I believe that we made the same mistake a generation ago when we began a war against poverty with the same implications. Just set up a few programs and you will get rid of the circumstance. Perhaps, it has occurred to me, that this began because we have had truly wars where they have a beginning, middle, and an end, whether it was World War II, at one level, or even a half-a-century-long cold war. It is over. We have had a definitive triumph. When one Presidential administration starts a war on poverty or, more particularly in this case, a war on drugs, and then the next administration discovers the real truth, that this is a struggle that begins over again in the minds of every young person in the first, second, third, or eighth grade and, in fact, has never definitively been won in the minds of an individual who may have started on some form of drug and then gotten off but is a life-long process in the lives of every single individual, then that administration tends to lose its sense of focus or even its sense of caring, because each administration wants something else that it can be definitively responsible for. Do we not have a situation here in which we had a significant degree of success over a period of 4, 8, or 12 years, which one other administration by diligent effort could continue, could lose no ground, maybe by tremendous effort could maybe even make a few gains, but knew it could not win the way you win World War II, so the administration just lost interest in it. There were just a lot of other things it wanted to do. Have we all not suffered? And this is the most important part of the question, have we not all suffered as a result, because the implication made that we have gotten this far, we do not have to do anything to at least keep it the status quo. But as the Senator from Georgia pointed out, in 4 years you can lose all the ground you gained in 12. Is that not essentially what we have done as a result of this administration's indifference to the problem?

Mr. GORTON. It seems to me, Mr. President--and I ask for the comments of the Senator from Georgia on this--that during the course of this last half-hour or so, there have been perhaps five different, but related, themes. I wonder if my understanding is accurate. The first, and in a sense the most immediate, is the way in which the White House responds to any kind of criticism, very frequently with nasty personal attack. The second, which is one step above that and perhaps triggers the first, is the indifference in the administration itself to the question of drugs and of security and the like, you know, by the people who serve the administration. The third, it seems to me, is the drug policy of the administration. I think the Senator from Georgia has already spoken to that question-- less money, fewer people, less attention. The fourth is as the Senator from Arizona just said, the use or nonuse of the magnificent platform that any President of the United States has to speak to matters which are of deep concern to the American people or which create grave social problems or challenges to the American people. And the question as to whether or not any particular President pays any attention to that subject. But I think each of those, in my view at least, leads to the final question. And that is, what impact is the plague of drugs imposing on the American people? Is the use of illegal substances rising or falling at any given level? And particularly, is this use rising or falling among young people, first becoming conscious of the world around them? And is that increase in use--quite clearly that is the case at the present time--attributable at least in part to what society, through its leaders, through its President, says or does not say, says or implies by an action or nonaction in connection with this drug use? I think if you start from No. 1, attacking anyone who attacks them, second, an indifference to personal health, security or drug use, third, the amount of money and attention paid in budgets, fourth, the use or more particularly the nonuse of that bully pulpit in the Presidency, that fifth and most important consequence is almost an inevitable consequence, is it not? Is it not very difficult to make the case that these are unrelated phenomena, with the fact of increased drug use, the fact of a more serious problem in society today? Is it not connected with this indifference in money, in attitude, and the like on the part of the executive leaders of our Nation?

Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Georgia yield?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I yield to the junior Senator from Washington for a question.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the junior Senator for raising this important question, and agree with her characterization of the amendment. My amendment does not expand the scope of either the council's or Bonneville's mitigation requirements under the Northwest Power Act. It simply suggests that it is valid for the council to consider known ocean conditions when making its recommendations for hydro system mitigation to Bonneville.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for their understanding in accepting this modification to a provision already included at my request in this fiscal year 1997 energy and water bill. Section 504 of that bill, and this modification, amend the Northwest Power Act to address a conflict-of-interest issue that was recently brought to my attention by people in Washington and Oregon concerned and knowledgeable about salmon conservation. The Bonneville Power Administration's annual fish and wildlife budget, in real dollars spent on projects, totals well over $100 million. This $100 million comes out of the pockets of Northwest ratepayers each year to protect and enhance fish and wildlife in the Columbia and Snake River basins. The Northwest Power Planning Council prepares and adopts a regional plan to protect fish and wildlife and each year allocates this $100 million to support that plan. At the present time, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority is responsible for making recommendations to the council on projects being funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget. The membership of the authority includes representatives of affected Indian tribes from the region, the Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana State fish and wildlife directors, and representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the National Marine Fisheries Service. I am convinced that the authority plays an important and necessary role in providing recommendations to the council on what fish and wildlife projects should be funded each year. I was disturbed to discover recently, however, that authority members were recommending to the council that about $75 million of the $100 million spent in project money go to projects to be performed by the members of the authority itself. Mr. President, it is like the Department of Defense asking one of my other constituents, the Boeing Co., to decide what brand of aircraft the military will use. My amendment and this modification to the Northwest Power Act would ensure that the authority and its members retain a voice in the process, but that sound objective and disinterested science also is heard. Each year, about 400 proposals are submitted for review by the authority all applying to receive funding from the Bonneville funding administration's annual budget. I am sure independent scientific review would remove any suggestion of conflict of interest in connection with these grants and add an important element of review to the council's decisionmaking process. I am convinced it would also assure that the moneys spent will result in the greatest possible salmon enhancement. My amendment directs the council to establish an 11-member independent scientific review panel from a list of names provided by the National Academy of Sciences. The panel would be responsible for reviewing projects to be funded under BPA's annual fish and wildlife program. I understand the council, together with the National Marine Fisheries Service, has already established an independent scientific advisory board in order to provide scientific advice to the council and the National Marine Fisheries Service. I want to note in the Record at this time that nothing in this amendment precludes the National Academy of Sciences from recommending that some or all of the scientists who serve on the ISAB serve on the newly created independent scientific review panel, provided that those members meet the conflict-of-interest standards spelled out in the amendment. If ISAB scientists are selected to serve on the newly created panel of ours, they should not be compensated twice for the same services. After careful consultation with the National Academy of Sciences, I have included a provision in my amendment that requires the council to establish, from a list submitted by the National Academy, scientific peer review groups to assist the panel in making its recommendations to the council. It is these peer review groups that will be doing the actual review of the 400-plus project applications submitted to the council each year for consideration. The panel will coordinate the work of the peer review groups and ensure that each project is reviewed based upon the following commonsense criteria: Does the project benefit fish and wildlife in the region? Does the project have a clearly defined objective and outcome? And is the project based on sound scientific principles? The amendment directs the panel to prioritize recommendations for the council from the analysis provided by the peer review groups and that the council make panel recommendations available for public review. The amendment places a cost limitation on the scientific review process of $2 million. My amendment directs the council to review recommendations of the panel, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority and others, in making its final recommendations to BPA for projects to be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget. If the council does not follow the advice of the panel, it is to explain in writing the basis for the decision. The council is directed to consider ocean conditions, among others, in its decisionmaking process, and to determine whether project recommendations employ cost-effective measures to achieve project objectives. Lastly, my amendment expressly states that the council, after review of panel and other recommendations, has the authority to make final recommendations to BPA on projects to be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget. This amendment is intended to be effective on the date of enactment and to be first implemented during the planning process for the expenditure of BPA's fiscal year 1998 fish and wildlife budget. The amendment will expire on September 30, in the year 2000, in order that its success can be measured by the people of the Pacific Northwest and this Congress. Mr. President, my amendment seeks to do just one thing: to make sure that Northwest ratepayer dollars are being spent in a cost-effective and objective manner. I have consulted extensively with interested groups in the region on this amendment and have listened to the constructive suggestions of my colleague, Senator Murray, and that is why I am proposing that these changes to the amendment be included in the committee bill. My amendment will ensure that sound science principles are considered by the council before spending ratepayer dollars to protect and enhance fish and wildlife on the Columbia and Snake River System.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I had the privilege of listening to most of the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut, and I simply wanted to express my agreement with his views and say on this occasion how much I admire his dedication to the administration of justice, both here at home but, particularly in this connection. I can remember even in previous Congresses his frustration, our frustration, over the way in which we conducted our relationships with Bosnia and the tragedy that has continued there for so many years. His position on this resolution, coming through this morning's foreign operations appropriations bill I think greatly strengthens it and I believe the other Members of the Senate and the people of the country owe him a debt of thanks for his dedication to this cause.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this afternoon I want to discuss the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a place important to me, to the people of the State of Washington, and to the Nation. Hanford, as my colleagues on both sides of this aisle continually point out, has had its share of problems and challenges for the Nation. That goes without saying when you are the caretaker to 80 percent of the Nation's spent plutonium and 177 tanks filled with millions of gallons of nuclear byproducts. Nuclear weapons production and its associated hangover--cleanup--are tasks that no one wants any more, not Oregon, California, New York, or Alaska. You name it, people in other States of this Nation have gladly accepted the benefits of the efforts conducted at Hanford, freedom provided by a strong nuclear deterrent, but they are relatively uninterested in the mess that is left behind. Instead, Hanford's critics collectively plug their noses, complain about the lack of results they have received from the money invested in cleanup so far. Not only is that disdainful of Hanford's contribution to this Nation's security and freedom, but it is also plain wrong. Over the past 2 years, the Department of Energy, the Hanford community, and this Congress have made real progress toward getting on with real clean up. Mr. President, I would focus this afternoon on three things. I will tell you what has been achieved and actually cleaned up over the last 2 years; I will tell you what more can be expected; and I will make the case for why we need a continued investment in the site. Cleanup successes at Hanford are beginning to pay off in a big way. The management strategy developed by the Department of Energy is increasing productivity for less money; its making the site a safer place to work; and it has tackled, albeit clumsily, the disturbing but necessary task of trimming the workforce. With a focused management strategy, DOE allowed Hanford to perform the full projected $225 million environmental restoration work over the past 2 years with only $175 million. This is a $50 million dollar savings. More importantly, DOE canceled its cost-plus contracting, and entered into one of the most aggressive performance-based contracts in its entire complex. The work force has been cut by 4,774 jobs, and costs associated with equipment, inventory, training, and travel have all been slashed. Despite these cuts, important cleanup milestones are consistently met. Workers at Hanford are in the field, pushing dirt rather than paper. Two years ago, 72 percent of Hanford's employees did paperwork, while only 28 percent actually did cleanup. Today, that field versus non- field ratio has flipped completely. Here are some other accomplishments worth nothing: 2,300 metric tons of corroding spent nuclear fuel will be stabilized and moved away from the Columbia River three years ahead of schedule and $350 million under budget; The cost of solid waste disposal has been reduced by 75 percent over the last 5 years, making the price of cleanup lower than commercial equivalents; Decontamination of PUREX, the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant, is 16 months ahead of schedule, $47 million under budget and upon completion in 1997 will cut its annual mortgage cost from $34 million to less than $2 million; 450 unnecessary DOE regulations and orders have been eliminated; The 50-year practice of discharging contaminated water to the ground soil has been terminated; 7.5 million gallons of water have been evaporated from the tank farms, slowing the leaks and avoiding $385 million in costs for new tanks; Hanford workers have reduced the generation of new mixed radioactive waste by almost 200,000 gallons a year; Safety performance at the site has jumped from the bottom 25 percent among DOE sites to the top 25 percent in the fiscal year 1994-95 timeframe; Worker compensation costs have fallen as safety performance increased: $700,000 was saved on Hanford 6-month insurance and workers compensation bill alone; 17.1 million gallons of ground water were treated; Over 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated, while 141,000 pounds of tetrachloride were removed from the ground water; 44,000 highly radioactive fuel spacers were removed from the Columbia River; and The baseline costs for DOE's Remedial Action Project were reduced by $800 million and its scheduled improved by 9 years. I could go on, but I am afraid I would lose the point of this discussion within the nuances of technical achievements. That is just a part of what has been accomplished in the past 24 months. You can expect more. where we are going at hanford This year, the House and Senate passed comprehensive legislation in the 1997 Defense Authorization Act to help lock in greater efficiencies at DOE sites. The legislation, sponsored by myself and Doc Hastings in the House, grants expanded authority to site managers to take quick action on cleanup projects; it places strict limits on costly paperwork studies; lays down a 60-day time limit on DOE headquarters review of budget transfers; and it establishes systems to demonstrate and deploy new technologies. Again, many thanks to my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their help in seeing this legislation passed. Within the next few weeks, a new 5-year performance based contract, which will include incentives to ensure tax dollars are spent efficiently, will be awarded at the site. A new management and integrator system will be implemented where the lead contractor--much like on the space station project--will hire subcontractors at the most economical price to complete work at Hanford. Finally, DOE is expected to award two private contracts to dispose of the 54 million gallons of radioactive waste upon completion of its removal from the 177 underground tanks situated at the site. And although I have generic questions over the scope and nature of DOE's tank waste remediation system project, I think privatization is the only way it will be able to meet its requirements to clean that portion of the site. The Department's pursuit of a two step cleanup process allows for new technologies and developments to be incorporated into the second phase of the project. It has been projected that by using private expertise, DOE is likely to reduce the costs of tank cleanup by as much as $13 billion. That is billion with a B. We are going to take these three events and push the Hanford management system even harder. Greater productivity can be squeezed out of Hanford, and these initial first steps are a good start. it's our state, our river, these are our people--we are not going to retreat Last year in the conference on the energy and water appropriations bill, the House and Senate were locked in an intense struggle regarding increased funding for defense environmental restoration and waste management within the DOE complex. I told my entrenched colleagues from the House that this DOE is doing a better job than its predecessor. For Senator Murray, Senator Hatfield, and myself, this is life or death. It's our State, our river, these are our people. We are not going to retreat. I have not changed my position from that conference one bit. The people of the Tri-Cities and the Columbia River are critical to Washington's economic health. Granted, Hanford has been a nagging cough for some time. But we are beating the systemic problems at the site; we are driving costs down in terms of management, overhead, and superfluous expenses; we are getting on with cleanup. President Clinton came to Congress with a budget proposal for nuclear waste cleanup which was woefully inadequate. The Senate rightly restored over $200 million to the defense environmental restoration and waste management account. It did not abandon Hanford, as this administration clearly did. We will not let up pressure to get this site clean, because to do so would be a tragic waste of the investment we have already made. An investment, which most of my colleagues know, totals in the billions. So, Mr. President, I have outlined the progress we have made at Hanford, and I have pointed out where we intend to go. I hope my colleagues will acknowledge that Hanford cleanup is working. My colleagues need to recognize that, and push aside the stereotypes that for too long have been associated with Hanford. We can't forget what Hanford has contributed to the defense of this Nation, and we certainly should not back away from the commitment we have to get this site clean.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, micro enterprise loans help people become self-sufficient and lift themselves out of poverty. Micro credit programs extend small loans to the poor for self-employment projects that generate income. These programs generally offer various services and resources as well as credit for self-employment. Micro credit has shown its ability to fight poverty and its importance to poor people around the world. Approximately 8 million needy people who live in developing countries are helped by Micro credit programs. Micro credit programs have also been useful in developed countries, where many thousands of people receive targeted loan funds and specialized counseling that help them with preparing for self- employment. According to a recent Catholic Relief Service evaluation, ``97% of the members from two established banks in Thailand found their income had increased by between $40 and $200 per year.'' As Results, a non-governmental organization concerned with issues of world poverty, points out in a recent draft of its Micro credit Summit Deceleration: ``Increasingly, Micro credit it being linked programmatically to savings plans that either require or strongly encourage savings by borrowers. Practitioners have found that the ability to save funds * * * is an important self-help tool for very poor people, allowing them to build assets essential to long-term financial security and self-sufficiency.'' This is an important testament to how an individual, ultimately responsible for his own well being, can prosper with a little push, where none existed before. We can observe the benefits of Micro credit in many countries, where individuals, with help, have become self-sufficient enough to make great economic strides. Micro enterprise lending is a worthwhile venture that I am glad to support. I also want to commend the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for expressing its support of micro enterprise funding, specifically its intent that at a majority of all micro enterprise resources be focused on the poorest people. Perhaps the primary conduit for micro enterprise lending by this Government is AID's program with nongovernmental organizations. AID should continue its efforts in this regard, and should maintain an aggressive approach to the micro enterprise issue. A.I.D. Funding of Microenterprise Program

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to go on record as being against this bill, which ignores the very grave problems of the District of Columbia and only throws money at what can only be called a complete mess. In the D.C. control board we have an organization that seems incapable of dealing decisively with the D.C. government, a government that cannot provide such basic services as law enforcement, fire fighting, water, sewer and road maintenance, education, and the like. Compare this with, say, the State of North Dakota, which, with approximately the same population but with 70,636 more square miles to manage, can fulfill all its basic governing duties. For the State of North Dakota, total government spending--State and local--for 1995 was approximately $2.7 billion. Washington, DC, by contrast, spent a total of $5.2 billion for 1995. In other words, the D.C. government spends twice as much as North Dakota and still comes up short. Let's look at it another way: Per capita government spending in North Dakota is $3,857; in D.C., it's nearly $9,000. Comparing Washington, DC, to the rest of the Nation, the picture looks equally bleak. Looking at numbers from sworn testimony before the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, published studies and the Washington Post: ``D.C. employs over 37,000 people to service a population of 550,000 people. The city of Los Angeles has the same number of employees but a population of three million people--six times that of D.C.'' Even though Washington, D.C.--unlike Los Angeles--has responsibilities of a state government, these numbers are still striking. ``Despite a 25 percent drop in the number of school-aged children in the 1980s, D.C. public education expenditures have grown to over $9,400 per student, the highest in the nation. ``The District spent so little on maintenance that a court had to step in to correct fire code violations.'' What is the District's problem? Quite simply, there is no accountability in the D.C. control board. There is certainly no accountability in the city government. By simply continuing to write checks, and not demanding a change in behavior, we perpetuate the problem. If it is going to improve--financially, service-wise, and in terms of just plain carrying out its day-to-day duties--if that is to happen, Mr. President, then we are going to have to stop doing the things we've been doing. A change of course is in order. No more bailing out the District; no more saving the District from itself. The city of Washington, DC, must take the initiative and make the changes necessary to bring itself out of its present miserable condition and begin to function more efficiently and affectively. Congress cannot continue to hold the District's hand, always standing by, ready to get the city out of a tight spot. Accountability and responsibility are in order. On a related subject, I see no justification for supporting the proposal to cut taxes in the District. The city's current woes are due not to tax rates but to an outrageously inefficient government. Attempting to cure those woes with tax incentives that are not available to my hard-working constituents or to any other taxpayers across the land, only serves to reward D.C. for its outlandish mismanagement. Again, the District must face the source of its problems--a government virtually incapable of governing--and tackle them head-on Mr. President, I would offer the strongest possible suggestion to my colleagues on the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee that they take a new look at how they determine funding for the District of Columbia. Only by adapting a course of radical change can Washington, DC, hope to be a normal, functioning city.