T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators Coats, Hatch, Faircloth, Warner, Gregg, Frist, Cochran, Lott, Kassebaum, Kyl, Mack, Pressler, and Nickles to introduce an important piece of legislation designed to alleviate an unfair practice affecting thousands of businesses in my home State of Washington and across the country. It is the Truth in Employment Act of 1996, which will curb the abuses of the union organizing tactic known as salting. Salting, Mr. President, occurs when unions send paid, professional organizers and union members into nonunion workplaces under the guise of seeking employment. The unions' avowed purpose in these salting programs is to harass the company, its employees, and to disrupt the jobsite until the company is either financially devastated or joins the union, whichever comes first. The key problem is that unions have trained their agents to use and abuse the procedures of the National Labor Relations Board as an offensive weapon against nonunion employers, largely by filing frivolous unfair labor practice charges. This fall, in Town & Country, the Supreme Court ruled that paid, professional union organizers are ``employees'' within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Under the broad interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act, provisions prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of other union interests or activities. This places employers, most of them small, mom-and-pop businesses, in a disastrous Catch-22: if they hire the union salts, they are subjected to outrageous internal harassment, but if they do not hire them, the salts cry discrimination and file frivolous charges. Employers are forced to make decisions about hiring, which may threaten the very existence of their businesses. Naturally, these businesses are concerned that the Supreme Court's ruling gives the unions carte blanche to use organizing techniques such as salting. I continue to hear from small businesses from across my home State on this issue. In Snohomish county, a mid-sized mechanical subcontractor has employed over 70 union members over the years to work side-by-side with nonunion employees pursuant to project agreements. Despite this, the operating engineer's union carries out a classic salting campaign involving 14 union applicants, one of whom is a business agent. When none of the applicants are hired, the union files unfair labor practice charges. Despite the employer's history of employing union members pursuant to project agreements, the NLRB's regional office finds sufficient merit to issue a complaint and proceed to a hearing. After spending $21,000 in attorneys fees, they settled for $10,500. Mr. President, this is just one example of the devastating economic effect salting has had on small businesses in my State. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, providing jobs to millions of people. Understandably, this has become a serious issue for thousands of businesses across the country. Trying to defend themselves against frivolous discrimination charges, employers must incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, delays, and lost hours--time and resources, which could be better spent expanding businesses and creating economic opportunity in local communities. The Truth in Employment Act will amend the National Labor Relations Act by adding a provision that establishes that an employer is not required to hire a person seeking employment whose primary purpose is to represent a union in an organizational struggle. Under this bill employees will continue to be afforded their right to organize and engage in the activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act. It is in no way the intent of this bill to infringe upon those rights or protections. Employers will continue to be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of union membership or activism. The bill, however, curb the abuses of salting. Abuses that have caused one constituent in my State to declare bankruptcy, one to agree to sign a union agreement because he ``was too old to go through the harassment again,'' one who is afraid to hire more employees, one who has in excess of $100,000 in legal fees and another who just ``got off easy'' with $40,000 in legal fees. These are not large firms, Mr. President, they are family-run businesses. That is the issue, Mr. President, and that is why I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act. I encourage my colleagues to help me pass this bill and restore fairness to our small businesses.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. It looks about 4.

Mr. GORTON. That shows you, Madam President, how good China's word is, and how much we can expect from these trade agreements. The Chinese are now putting on a show of contribution for all the world to see. Its state-run television has shown tapes of bulldozers rolling over pirated CDs, and the government has announced with great fanfare that it is shocked by the piracy and is closing down dozens of counterfeiting factories. Madam President, give me a break. That is all for show, and anyone who thinks it is a serious effort that will bring substantive results is kidding himself. Last week's ballyhooed agreement is unlikely to be more than marginally more effective than the last one. In fact, Business Week also writes that ``Chinese production capacity [for counterfeit CDs] this year will be about 200 million CDs, up from about 50 million last year.'' That agreement last year really did the trick, didn't it, Madam President? China has increased its counterfeit operations to four times last year's level. Here is another important point, Madam President: A recent study, which was reported in the Washington Post and elsewhere, named China as one of the top five most corrupt countries in the world. And Business Week reports that ``[m]any CD plants'' in southern China '`have local backers such as units of the Public Security Bureau and the People's Liberation Army.'' Madam President, what we have here is a deeply corrupt country that either has no respect for, or simply cannot maintain, the rule of law. So, knowing all of what we know about China--its corruption, its unrepentant thievery, its consistent trade violation--why on earth do we continue to coddle it? I think, Madam President, we do so because our attitude toward China is still steeped in a cold war mentality. During the cold war we placed great importance on China as a counterbalance to the Soviet threat. Now that the cold war is over, however, we have not re-assessed China's strategic importance. One could make a strong case for China's strategic importance when America strove to contain, and then roll back, the Soviet Union's influence and aggression. But today, China enthusiasts--and most MFN advocates--are caught in a bit of a time warp. They say that China is of the utmost importance because--because--well, they cannot say because of the Soviet Union because it's gone. So they simply insert the word ``trade'' where ``Russia'' used to be and make the argument as best they can. Madam President, that won't do for a trade policy. It is short- sighted, risky, and just plain dumb to ignore massive trade violations such as those practiced by China. We cannot go on like this forever, Mr. President, with China stealing more and more of our intellectual property rights, throwing up barriers to our goods and causing our trade deficit to go ever higher. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that by this time next year an enlightened China will be operating in a free trade atmosphere under the rule of law, welcoming our goods and services as we do its. If so, I will be an enthusiastic supporter of renewal. But I don't believe it for a New York minute. On the other hand, Madam President, let me say that if China has not reversed herself on these trade violations by next year, I will vote against MFN renewal. I hope my critics prove me wrong, but if not I will personally lead the fight on the Senate floor against it. You do not encourage free trade by allowing violations of free trade. If, in fact, free trade--and not appeasement--with China is our goal, then we must let the Chinese know that they must play by the rules or face penalties. That is what we demand of our other trading partners, and that is what we should demand of China. Mr. President, I am not at all insensitive to the exhortations of American companies who stand to lose money and contracts in the short term if MFN is not renewed. I take that very seriously, and I hope that we may have a strong, vibrant trade relationship with China--but that is possible only if China ceases its destructive practices. Now, Madam President, representing, as I do, a very trade-dependent State, it would seem the easiest thing in the world for me to go ahead and express my full support for MFN without reservation. There are certainly a lot of people who would like me better if I did. But the easiest things are not always the best, and I consider it my highest duty to think ahead to the best interests of my State and the country. And I do not think it in our best interests to continue in our current policy. If we don't take a firm stand with China, and if China does not cease and desist, I fear that our relationship will degenerate into one in which we are the constant appeaser and China is the constant violator. In the long run, our current passivity could come back to haunt us. A constituent and a good friend of mine has made this point eloquently. He is involved in several investment efforts in China and writes: I believe that . . . the United States will have to take the lead for the rest of the free trading world and stand up to China's rapacious trading behavior by denying MFN extension. I recognize that taking this position is not in my own short term interest. Nevertheless, I can't let immediate short term interest stand in the way of that which is right and that which I believe will, over the longer term, provide a superior result. Madam President, I couldn't put it any better. For all we know, China may soon step up its illegal practices and trade violations to encompass not just intellectual property rights and agricultural products, but planes and other American products as well. We are setting a bad, potentially dangerous, pattern. We must stop it soon, or we may soon regret it.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, tomorrow the House of Representatives will debate the renewal of most-favored-nation trading status for China. It is about to vote, as the President wishes, in favor of renewing MFN. Knowing that MFN was to be at issue this summer, earlier in the spring I wrote to nearly 350 of my constituents, mostly business people and academics particularly interested in trade with China. In my letter, I explained my frustration with China's consistently autarkic market practices, and told them that I had serious concerns about the wisdom of renewing MFN for China. China has established an egregious prohibition on Washington State wheat, while market access for our applies has been blocked by arbitrary quotas and tariffs. Moreover, China continues to bleed our software industry with its state-sponsored pirating of United States intellectual property. With this in mind, I asked my constituents to share their views with me, and I now believe it appropriate to share my own with my colleagues and constituents, as it seems unlikely that this issue will come formally before the Senate. To the 341 letters I sent, I received 195 responses, and of those responses 12 were against renewal. From Pacific Northwest wheat growers, who are denied access to the Chinese market on totally specious grounds, I heard this: ``Despite the fact that Washington producers are still unable to participate in the wheat export to China, [we] are in full support of granting China MFN for another year.'' From Washington State's apple, pear, and cherry growers, who face tremendously unfair barriers in gaining access to Chinese markets: ``We are in an industry that lives on exports . . . this business requires as normal a trading regime as possible between our country and potential markets.'' From the software industry, which continues to hemorrhage because of Chinese piracy: ``The flagrant violation of U.S. intellectual property rights is of primary concern to [us] . . . we are concerned [however] that failure to renew MFN at this time will constitute too big a blow to the remaining threads of the U.S. relationship with China.'' The Boeing Company certainly benefits from trade with China, as well--it predicts that Asia will be the largest market for airplanes in the next 50 years. In Washington State, Boeing has close to 300 subcontractors that provide it with goods and services. And those small companies, like Bumstead Manufacturing in Auburn, Stoddard-Hamilton in Arlington, and Dowty Aerospace in Yakima, all depend on Boeing selling its airplanes for their own well-being. Even the Port of Longview has an interest in American trading with China. Archer-Daniels Midland Corporation intends to build a state-of- the-art facility for the export of Midwest corn to Pacific rim markets in that community. China certainly figures into that equation. Madam President, many of the people who wrote to me believe that engaging in trade with China will lead to better trade and economic conditions in both China and America. One person argued that: Maintaining a healthy trade partnership with China will ensure that our influence in areas such as human rights and fair trade practices survives; curtailing that partnership as a punitive measure will only lead China to lose the incentive to cooperate. It is certainly clear, that--at least in the short-term--American companies that trade with China would be hurt if MFN were not renewed. My constituents, in their letters, made that point eloquently. Because of my deep respect for these constituents, I would vote to extend MFN this year if the Senate were to vote on the subject, and I commend such a vote to my Washington State colleagues in the House. But, Madam President, in casting that affirmative vote I would be wrong. I do acknowledge the importance of trade with China to the people of my State, but I want to explain why the President is wrong, and why I would be wrong, as well, to support him. I would be wrong because the chances of China changing its dismal trading practices, or stopping its violations of United States intellectual property rights, or acceding to a freer, more open market as a result of MFN renewal are about as close to zero as you can get. China is an unrepentant free trade rejectionist. China is one of the world's most corrupt nations. China steals our software and CD's. China arbitrarily closes its market to United States goods. And China, aside from eleventh-hour propaganda tricks, does nothing to clean up its act. For years the United States has pinned its hopes for a more cooperative, law-abiding China on MFN. MFN advocates talk about ``engagement.'' If we only ``engage'' in trade with China, they argue, the Chinese will change their ways, they will come around to the idea of free trade and open markets and all that goes with them. Many of my colleagues here in the Senate, Madam President, have been making the engagement argument for years. Back in July of 1991, for example, my distinguished friend from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, said that ``we want China to move toward the implementation of a market-based economy,'' implying that MFN was the way to do it. Senator Chafee also argued that ``[t]o withdraw MNF would virtually destroy * * * business leaders and entrepreneurs [in the more economically liberalized southern part of China. * * * They will go down the drain because they will not have access to the U.S. markets to sell their goods.'' My friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, said, also in 1991, that: Rather than isolating China from the world by cutting off economic ties, we should seek to engage China--to bring China into the 20th century. Trade is the link that allows us to engage China. It is the bridge that allows western values into China. If we are truly interested in reform in China, if we are truly interested in improving the lives of Chinese citizens-- we should seek to expand economic ties, not to cut them off. These words sound persuasive, do they not, Madam President? But keep in mind they were uttered 5 years ago. Five years ago our trade deficit with China was a little under $13 billion. Now it is almost $34 billion. We have been engaged with China that whole time, and where has it gotten us? Another $20 billion in the hole. Will we never learn? Are we destined forever to demonstrate the triumph of hope over experience? What has the engagement of the past 5 years accomplished to cause us to parrot today the very arguments that have so signally failed in the past? This engagement argument, Madam President, can be refuted by a cursory glance at China's wretched record on trade with America. Indeed, our trade relationship with China totally belies the assertions of those who consider MFN a tool for making China more cooperative. Madam President, over the years, especially in the years since Tiananmen Square and the fall of the Soviet Union, many issues besides trade have been injected into the MFN debate. Human rights, nuclear proliferation and relations with Taiwan are three of the most prominent of those issues. I have chosen to stick solely to the matter of trade, but I do understand that these other concerns are at the front of many people's minds. I say this, Madam President, by way of addressing what I consider to be a glaring error in the arguments of many MFN advocates. They argue, rightly, that the MFN debate is not the place for a discussion on China's human rights record or its practice of selling nuclear components to countries unfriendly to America. I agree with that argument. The Chinese Government gets an ``F'' on how it treats its citizens, and it should be severely dealt with for its shameless sales of nuclear technology to the villains of the world. But MFN is trade policy, and we should stick to trade in our arguments on its extension, be they pro or con. That is all well and good, Madam President, but I am struck by how often MFN advocates violate their own ground rules. In an attempt to make MFN renewal more savory, the spice up their arguments with the theory that trade with China will bring democracy to China. If we keep renewing MFN, the argument goes, we will help usher in an era of freedom and democracy to that country. That is one of the most far-fetched claims I have ever heard, and the people who are making it need to submit themselves to a reality check. Considering our current circumstances--the trade deficit, Chinese piracy and trade barriers, and all the rest--it is hard for me to believe that America is now in a position to coax China into the ways of democracy. We cannot get the Chinese to take our apples, Madam President, so how can we expect them to embrace our political values? In other words, Madam President, let us, for the purpose of this debate, leave aside the question of trade as a precursor to democracy. We have enough on our hands just dealing with trade by itself. And I think the debate over whether MFN renewal is or is not in our long-term trade interests should be sufficient to occupy this body. Let us look at the current trade situation. China, using a completely fraudulent rationale, bans all wheat from the Pacific Northwest, and bans practically all Washington State apples. Cherries and other fruits are not even given a chance. Mainly as a result of Chinese trade barriers to American goods, we have a $33 billion bilateral trade deficit with China. The Chinese Government countenances widespread piracy of American intellectual property, costing United States companies over $2 billion a year. China, in short, flouts international trade norms and mocks the basic principles of free trade. Now, proponents of MFN will say, Yes, things could be better, but the only way to make sure things improve is to maintain trade ties with China. By remaining economically engaged, we can pressure the Chinese to change their ways. If we cut off MFN to China, not only do we lose that market, but we forgo our leverage with the Chinese as well. Madam President, I believe that I have already demonstrated that those who have latched onto MFN as some sort of magical instrument with which we can solve all problems are mistaken. They have not only overstated the importance of MFN, but of the Chinese market as well. Madam President, when I listen to the arguments of those who favor renewing MFN for China I am struck by a common denominator, as it were, and that is a universal overestimation, an exaggeration, of China's economic importance to our national economy. MFN advocates would have us believe that without China our economy will be devastated. Let me say, that is not the case. China is our 13th largest trading partner. Our trade with China accounts for less than 1 percent of our gross domestic product--0.81 percent, to be exact, hardly an earth-shattering figure. And Mr. Marcus Noland of the Institute for International Economics said in a recent Washington Post article that ``Chinese imports are mostly displacing imports from Mexico, [South] Korea, [and] Taiwan.'' In other words, most of the things we import from China we could just as easily import from these other nations. Nations, in the case of Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan, that are friends and allies, with whom we have good, strong trade agreements. Each of these friends is a better and more open customer than China, by far, whose purchases of our goods and services will promptly match our increased purchases from them. And with our neighbor Mexico, for example, we know that its market is fully open to American goods--no hassles. What a contrast with China. The trade story is quite different from the Chinese perspective. China needs the United States badly. China's trade with America accounts for well over 8 percent of its gross domestic product. While we export less than $12 billion to China, China exports $45.5 billion to us. The United States makes up nearly a third of China's total export market. Now why, taking these lopsided facts into account, would China risk its own financial and economic well-being by thumbing its nose at America as it does? Only because we allow China to do so. Our solicitous, all-forgiving policy toward China can be summed up in one word: Appeasement. How well our policy of appeasement--which its apologists call ``engagement''--how well this policy is working can be demonstrated by the fact that we had a standoff with China a year-and-a-half ago on, guess what, intellectual property rights violations. And, guess what, at that time China promised to mend its errant ways. It committed to ending its piracy of American goods. Now, less than 2 years later, we are at it again. There is a song, Madam President, called ``Stop Me if You Think You've Heard this One Before.'' That ought to be the theme for these trade negotiations. We have indeed heard from the Chinese before that they would clean up their act, stop the violations, and play by the rules. I direct my colleagues' attention to a recent article on Chinese piracy in Business Week magazine. The article's title says it all: ``A Pirate Under Every Rock.'' Madam President, I will read a short excerpt to illustrate just how meaningless last year's agreement was: When China signed its Intellectual Property Rights accord with the U.S. last year, Beijing promised that it would assign inspectors to each Compact Disc plant. The government also promised that plants would print a code on their products to identify where they were produced. But during a raid on the Jin Die [Science & Technology Development Company in the south] organized by Chinese authorities and Microsoft Corp. in April, no copyright monitors were on duty. No special codes were on the goods. Workers labored around the clock, producing CD-ROMs from three unauthorized presses. The plant has an estimated 100 employees and the capacity to stamp an astounding 200,000 CDs a day. Beijing announced in early June that it might close Jin Die.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask for an extra 4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. GORTON. Four more minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, I should like to inform the majority leader that I have asked Senator Exon if he would be willing to defer for 10 minutes, or so, for a morning business statement on my part, if it is agreeable with the majority leader, before further debate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in the far southeastern corner of Washington State, workers at the Hanford Reservation helped America win World War II and fight the cold war with the strength of our science and technological advancements. We did a good job there, but work remains--and that is the business of cleanup. For years the Department of Energy has managed Hanford, and all of its sophisticated problems, with varying degrees of competency. I have an amendment today, that has been cleared by the committee, which I hope changes the very nature of management at our site. A similar version of this amendment appears in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, thanks to the hard work of the Congressman from the Fourth District in Washington, Doc Hastings. His dedication to Hanford issues has been unparalleled; his knowledge and perseverance profound. I have worked closely with the Congressman, and am hopeful that when this bill goes to conference, our work will remain intact. Let me briefly describe for you the origins of this amendment, and what Doc and I are hoping to accomplish. For fiscal year 1996, Hanford enjoyed a budget that totaled near $1.7 billion. With that money, the Department of Energy oversees the cleanup of 77 million gallons of the worst stuff on Earth: highly contaminated sludge, salt cake, and effluence. DOE employs over 13,000 employees, manages 80 percent of the Nation's plutonium and has stewardship of 562 square miles some of the most beautiful land in Washington State. These are tremendous responsibilities, and it is often overlooked just what type of impact the Department of Energy has on the livelihood of so many Washingtonians and the health of our environment. Hanford is run by the Department of Energy, which has a manager who oversees all of the site's operations. He makes decisions, everyday, impacting the region's economies and its well being. He does everything from attend Kiwanis Club functions to deciding if hundreds of rods of spent plutonium should be moved away from the Columbia River. It is not an easy job, and we in Congress and the Department's headquarters have done little to make it easier. Let me give you an example of some of the systemic problems which Hanford, and its site manager, face. Last year the Hanford site manager, John Wagoner, saw the urgent need to move spent plutonium rods sitting mere yards from the Columbia River, away from their present location to a new and safer home far from the riverbanks. Doing this would, of course, cost money--more than the Department allotted for in that fiscal year. John also knew that there was $30 million available from another program at the site that was simply no longer needed. So rather than simply moving the money from one of the accounts he oversees to another, John was forced to prepare what is known as a reprogramming request. In a reprogramming request, Department headquarters puts together a list of projects complexwide where money needs to be moved from one account to another and submit them to the Congress for approval. These packages are vetted through departmental budgetary processes and then sent expeditiously to Congress for approval. Or so it happens in a perfect world. Instead, as we saw with John Wagoner's request last summer, the request will languish in a bureaucratic maze. The Department has a ploy which goes something like this: Wait for a number of requests from the sites to arrive at headquarters and place all of them in a reprogramming package and submit them to the various committees, so that those that are objectional will be lost in the flood of requests. So John sent up his simple request, and he waited. And waited. And waited. Almost 7 months went by--while the plutonium remained at the river's edge--while someone, somewhere was sitting on this request, or ignoring it deep in that concrete bunker known as the Forrestal Building. I wish I could tell my colleagues that the request was found, its importance realized by the Department, and it was rushed to the Hill with an eager Department championing its merits. Well, I am sorry to report that that scenario never occurred. Instead, the contractor-manager of the K-Basin project, a tenacious young man named John Fulton, contacted my office for our help. So help we did--in fact, I amended last year's defense authorization bill to shift funds so that John Wagoner could do the job he needed to do. It shouldn't be that way--and all of the explaining DOE cares to do on this issue isn't worth the ink it is printed with. So what my amendment does is this: it says that if a site manager submits a reprogramming request, department headquarters has 30 days to do one of the following: First, accept the request and forward it to Congress; second, reject the request or; third, simply ask for more time to assess its significance. Not very strict--and at the end of the day quite reasonable. Now if DOE fails to act, then the site manager can take his reprogramming request directly to Congress and it can be vetted through the normal congressional processes. What we accomplish here is simple: Give the site manager in charge of a defense nuclear facility the stature he or she deserves. I said earlier that Hanford's budget was around $1.7 billion last year. Our site manager can move, at his own discretion without headquarters or congressional oversight, less than one-third of 1 percent of his total budget. In real dollars, that is somewhere near $3 million. The responsibility is so disproportional to the authority we invest with our site manager, it's no wonder in the past we have had so much paperwork and so few results. But that is changing, and the steps taken here will spur that progress forward. This amendment also directs the Secretary to review just what qualifications are necessary for the job of site manager. We need to turn the spotlight on the job and give site manager the clout and stature his position deserves. It also seems logical that since we are altering the responsibilities and authorities vested in the position today, the position description needs to be revisited. There is ample room here for the Secretary to conduct that review at her discretion. Whomever the Secretary appoints to this position, be it the current site manager or someone else, that person will have the benefit of the Secretary's full trust, as well as the benefit of these extended authorities. On the matter of new departmental orders, DOE frequently approves orders that are cumbersome and unrelated to cleanup activities at the site. These orders can contribute to excessive overhead costs. Since the Department has taken positive steps to streamline existing orders, this provision applies only to future DOE orders by requiring that any new order be found by the Secretary of Energy to be essential to human health and safety or the fulfillment of critical administrative functions. Finally, the deployment of innovative and new technologies at Hanford is one of the site's major accomplishments over the past year. The site manager is required to promote the demonstration, verification, certification and implementation of innovative environmental technologies at the facility. New technologies will enable the Department to achieve cleanup at a heightened pace, and with real cost savings to the American taxpayer. I am happy that my colleagues in the Senate have approved my amendment, and look forward to seeing this bill signed into law.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe it important in discussing an issue of this significance to begin once more with fundamental principles. The most fundamental principle affected by this debate is found in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States which in relevant part reads, ``Congress,'' that is to say us, ``shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Mr. President, I turn to page 31 in this bill in section 201 and I read, ``No person other than an individual or a political committee may make a contribution to a candidate.'' ``No person other than an individual or a political committee may make a contribution to a candidate.'' In other words, any voluntary association is entirely denied the right to participate in the most effective possible way in a political campaign by making any contribution to a candidate at all. Here we live in the third century of a Nation, the particular genius of which has been the accomplishment of myriad purposes by voluntary associations, and we are seriously considering a bill that says no voluntary association can make a contribution to a candidate for the Senate. Our opponents can read us 1,000 opinions of law professors to the effect that that does not violate the first amendment, but a third grader would understand that it does. It is a clear abridgment of the right of free speech. Moreover, that brief comment reflects the entire nature of this bill. Everything in it is designed to restrict political participation, to abridge the effective right of free speech in the political arena. But it does not restrict everyone's right of free speech in every fashion. No, it discriminates among methods of political speech. It imposes severe restrictions upon candidates who, while they may elect to stay out of the system, nonetheless are severely penalized by advantages given to their opponents if they repudiate this outrageous system. It not only prevents these voluntary associations from making any contribution but even an individual is likely to be prohibited from making a contribution to a candidate when that candidate has reached the rather modest maximum permitted under this law to gain certain other advantages. It, of all things, severely restricts as a great evil political parties. For some reason or another, it is based on the proposition that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are highly undesirable organizations that must be severely restricted in their fundraising and prevented in many cases from providing support to their own candidates. Now, while candidates have their rights abridged, organized groups have their rights abridged, individuals have their rights abridged, and political parties have their rights abridged, whose free speech rights are not abridged by this bill? Well, first, television networks and stations and their reporters and their editorial writers can continue to say as much as they want to say and to be as biased as they wish to be with respect to any election campaign, and not only are no restrictions placed on their ability to engage in those activities but the candidates who are their victims, whom they oppose, are not granted any ability to raise money to counteract what they may consider to be biased editorials or biased news stories. Newspapers fall into exactly the same category, whether in the reports of their political writers or the editorial support that they provide for candidates--no limitations there but severe limitations on the ability to respond to those newspapers. And one other important element. All organizations, all groups that are willing to engage in the subterfuge that they are not endorsing candidates or promoting elections by simply reporting through 30-second commercials on their interpretation of the way in which candidates who hold office have voted, and so all of the commercials, the tens of millions of dollars of commercials we have seen in the last 6 months paid for by labor unions attacking Members of the House of Representatives for their votes on Medicare reform and the balanced budget, none of those are restricted in any way by the proposals in this bill. All that is restricted is the ability of a candidate attacked by these millions of dollars effectively to respond to those attacks. Now, I do not know how much value there is in plumbing the motivations of the authors of the bill. Perhaps they feel that form of political participation ought not to be restricted in any fashion. Perhaps they feel that even though they cannot stand a political action committee giving money to a candidate's campaign, that same group ought to be permitted without limitation and without restriction to buy advertisements attacking candidates or incumbents on their lifestyle or their record, that that somehow or another is good policy. I think, however, the reason there is no limitation on this form of free speech is that they know perfectly well, the sponsors know perfectly well that such restrictions would be found to be unconstitutional. And so they only restrict free speech where they think they can get away with it, even though they make a situation that at the present time is unfair far more unfair than is the status quo. Mr. President, acknowledge, those who oppose this bill, that the people of the United States by special interest groups that would be benefited by having their opponents removed from the equation and newspaper and television editorialists who would be benefited by having their views less effectively counteracted, have created a situation where a majority of the people of the United States do not like the present system and want reform. This bill is entitled ``Reform,'' and we are, therefore, supposed to pass it. But we went through this experience more than 20 years ago when the present law was passed. Every argument that has been made here for 2 days was made then. That present system was terrible. We had to have limitations. We had to create things called political action committees in which people could engage in political action. We would restore confidence in the system. Well, Mr. President, not a single one of the desires or the goals or the promises of those proponents has been accomplished at this point, and so what are we asked to do now? Back off and start over with a very simple proposition that just says everyone disclose where his or her money comes from and trust the intelligence of the people to sift through the arguments that they get? No. We are told if 1,000 restrictions were not enough, let us try 2,000 restrictions and see if it does not work better. That is the theory of this bill. We hear a great deal about how terribly prejudicial in favor of incumbents the present system is. But, then, why do we wipe out the one organization that will always support a challenger in a race, the challenger's political party? The Republican Party will support the challenger to a Democrat, the Democratic Party will support the challenger to a Republican, if they think that challenge is remotely viable. So this bill is not about incumbents and nonincumbents. If it were, it would encourage contributions to political parties. It would lift the restrictions on the amount of support that political parties can provide for its candidates. But, instead, it treats parties, if anything, as a greater evil than candidates themselves. No, this is not campaign reform. This is a huge bureaucracy, the design of which is to abridge the freedom of speech of candidates for the U.S. Senate, exactly what the first amendment tells Congress it may not do.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Not at this point.

Mr. GORTON. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Well, it does, but in that case, in that situation, it does not differ from the general philosophy of the present law either applied to races for Congress or to the Presidency. The thrust of my criticism was that 20 years ago, we went into this restriction of free speech rights with all of the same criticisms of the then system that we have now, that that law was going to restore confidence on the part of the American people in the system, and it is worse now and so their cure is more of the hair of the dog that bit you.

Mr. GORTON. As long as you do not pay for them.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the arguments of each of the three sponsors and proponents of this bill who have spoken here this afternoon almost take the form of what we were taught in college was a syllogism. Proposition No. 1. The people of the United States intensely dislike the present system of financing election campaigns. We see that in polls. We hear that in town meetings. We certainly read that in the editorials in the great majority of our daily newspapers. Proposition No. 2. The title of this bill is the Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996. Conclusion. We should pass this bill. People want campaign finance reform. This is campaign finance reform, therefore, it should become law. Only, incidentally, to this point in the debate has the actual content of the bill been discussed, and almost not at all have the proponents discussed the similar debate that took place more than 20 years ago that resulted in our present campaign finance law, passed on the basis of precisely the syllogism that is presented to us today. In 1974 people did not like the way in which campaigns were being financed and run. A number of Members in both Houses proposed what they called campaign finance reform, and the Congress passed it. Mr. President, one might ask Members of Congress to look at a little bit of history. I am convinced that if we were to open up the Congressional Record for those debates, somewhat more than 20 years ago, every one of the same propositions you have heard here this afternoon were presented: There is too much money in politics. We do not have enough people involved in it. We have to make a set of reforms in order to restore trust in the process. Mr. President, is there more trust in the process today than there was in 1974? I think not. Are there fewer complaints about the process today than there were in 1974? I think not. Are there more self- financed millionaire candidates today than there were in 1974? I believe there are. Are there more independent expenditures, attempts to influence voting behavior by those who are not directly connected with the candidates themselves? The answer to that question, Mr. President, is there are infinitely more. And so what is the proposal of the proponents of this bill? ``Let's do more of what we did in 1974. Let's impose more restrictions on the process than we imposed then. Let's limit more significantly what can take place in an open and disorderly political world than we did in 1974.'' All we need is more of what has failed for more than 20 years. I have looked through this proposal, and I do not think I am exaggerating to say that I believe that I find the heart of the philosophy of the proponents in section 201. I think I can quote it in its entirety. It is on page 31 of the bill, Mr. President. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no person other than an individual or a political committee may make a contribution to a candidate or candidate's authorized committee. No person, other than an individual or political committee may make a contribution to the political process. And then, Mr. President, I get out my copy of the Constitution of the United States, and in amendment I, I read, ``Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech.'' And I weigh those two propositions against one another. I see a group of proponents who really, in the world of politics and the expression of political opinion, do not like the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. So they say that any political campaign through a candidate, no person other than an individual or an authorized committee--authorized by law, passed by this Congress--can make any contribution to a candidate. Now, Mr. President, we are all quite correctly frequently quoting or remembering the great French observer of more than a century and a half ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, who found the genius of the United States of America to consist of free association. De Tocqueville talked about this country as being a place in which people got together voluntarily in organizations to build a church or to found an antislavery society or to organize a group of immigrants to the new West or to do any of 1,000 or 10,000 other activities. Our genius was voluntary association. In fact, some of the most thoughtful and cogent criticisms of the Soviet Union in its heyday was that it prohibited voluntary association--prevented voluntary associations of people for charitable purposes, for religious purposes, but above all, Mr. President, for political purposes. The heart of this bill makes it illegal for a group of persons to get together to make a contribution to a political campaign for the U.S. Senate. If the Senator from Kentucky and I want to get together and form an association to promote the election of a candidate for the U.S. Senate in his State or my State or any other State, we will be violating the law if this bill becomes law. We could do it as individuals, but only with this tiny amount of money that has, effectively, been cut by two-thirds since the 1974 law was passed. Of course, as much as the proponents of this legislation dislike the first amendment, they cannot repeal it. They absolutely cannot prevent the Senator from Kentucky and me from getting together and forming this organization and going out quite independently to educate the people of one of these States about the misdeeds of an incumbent, or the glories of some other candidate. Mr. President, if they could, they would. That is the philosophy of this bill. They think that any organization of individuals is a great evil that should be prevented from engaging in campaigns for the U.S. Senate.

Mr. GORTON. I yield.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. He and I, under this hypothetical, would not be able in, say, the last 2 weeks before a general election to make any such contribution if the candidate whom we propose to support had already reached the limits provided in this law and agreed to come under its provisions. As I say, we could not be prevented from our own independent action in that connection. But even the elaborate superstructure, which might to a certain extent lift the restrictions on the other candidate, would likely come too late if we ourselves were late. I find it fascinating that this bill is being debated on this floor, considering the way in which we see politics has been practiced in the last 6 or 8 months in the United States. We have had literally tens of millions of dollars spent in the most thinly veiled attack on incumbents, mostly in the House of Representatives, who supported last year's balanced budget--tens of millions of dollars. I am particularly sensitive to those attacks because so many of the victims are freshmen Members of Congress from my own State. Yet the definitions in this bill do not constitute those labor attacks on these incumbents as either contributions to their opponents or, for that matter, independent action, because they very carefully do not advocate their defeat in so many words or the election of their opponent. These incumbents' hands, should this apply to the House, are absolutely tied with respect to a response to those advertisements which they feel--I think even the newspapers feel--grossly misstate their positions on issues. This leads me, of course, to the second point. When you have a proposal--and assume for the purposes of this action the proposal is entirely constitutional--that limits the ability of one individual, a candidate, or a group of individuals, the candidate and that candidate's supporters, from effectively communicating their ideas to a large group of potential constituents in a country of more than 250 million people, what is the impact? The impact is, if there is less political communication, the political communication that is still allowed has a greater impact. Now, what kind of political communication is absolutely allowed and not remotely touched by this bill? Why, of course, the communication that comes from editorial writers of the newspapers who have endorsed the bill. It is a bonanza for the editors of the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times or the Milwaukee Journal or the Portland Oregonian. There are far fewer people to counter whatever it is they tell their readers they ought to do. Nothing is provided to the candidate disfavored by those newspapers in the way of being able to communicate countervailing ideas. At least at the founding of our Republic we could be fairly sure that a town of 5,000 people had four newspapers to engage in that communication. Do we have that today? How does the disfavored candidate in the State of Kentucky deal with a series of editorials every day of the week, and columns every day of the week, in the Louisville Courier Journal in favor of his opponent, against him under this bill? How can that disfavored candidate possibly communicate under this bill?

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

Mr. GORTON. In a few minutes, I will. If we have no limits on the amount of money the political party could contribute, we would certainly benefit the challengers. Of course, there might be a degree of loyalty on the part of the elected candidate to his or her own political party, the party with whom he or she identifies, from the beginning of his or her candidacy. No, Mr. President, I think it comes right back down to the way with which I began these remarks. The heart of this bill--and of the other provisions that move in the same direction--is that no person, other than an individual or political candidate, may make a contribution to a candidate. That is the heart of this bill. You cannot make a contribution to a candidate unless you do it in strict accordance with this bill. It is against the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States that says ``Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech.'' If that law does not abridge the freedom of speech, it is impossible for me to devise one that does. If the Senator wishes to ask a question, I would be happy to answer.

Mr. GORTON. He will.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will summarize. I know the Senator from Illinois has not had an opportunity to speak yet. He has waited almost as long as I did to get that opportunity. I will once again return to what I began with. So far the arguments, as I have heard them on the floor here today, are that the polls, the newspapers, and the people do not like the present system, and they want campaign election reform. This proposition 2--this bill is entitled ``Campaign Election Reform.'' Conclusion: We should pass this bill. Mr. President, I do not believe that to be the case. This bill will not end up restoring confidence in the political system. It will force money into different channels, channels which neither this bill nor any other bill can control, one for which the candidates will be less responsible, and not more I think responsible in any respect whatsoever. The Senator from Utah in beginning this debate said that the appropriate solution was not limitation but disclosure. I agree with him. That is the thrust of an opinion based by Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia which is frequently quoted on these subjects. Mr. President, we should be willing to trust the American people, as he puts it, with sorting out their own ideas as long as they know the source of those ideas and the source of the money to communicate those ideas. That is appropriate election reform. The Senator from Arizona said, ``Well, why don't you put it up as an amendment after voting for cloture on this bill?'' Mr. President, I think I can announce to him that it would be a nongermane amendment if cloture were granted on this bill and on this amendment. It goes way beyond the scope of the bill-- the bill and the amendment itself--because it goes to the current election as a whole.

Mr. GORTON. I believe that is the case simply because there will be less in the way of alternate communication under this bill. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. I am not sure television has ever lost ground.

Mr. GORTON. No. The gist of my remarks was that newspapers would gain vis-a-vis television. It will be that both will gain vis-a-vis the ability of the candidate to project his or her own idea.

Mr. GORTON. I am convinced that the Senator from Wisconsin has made an excellent point, and I suspect that however we may disagree on some elements of campaigning that he probably did not spend an awful lot of money in his campaign on newspaper advertising. And I can assure him that I did not either for exactly the reasons that he outlined. I guess to take the least important part of my answer first, my answer would be there is a difference between newspaper advertising and newspaper editorial support. All of us, even when we were not spending money in a particular newspaper, sought the editorial support of the newspapers in our States. The next level of my answer to his question is, of course, even though that influence has declined in recent year-- I think clearly it has--this bill would clearly restore it. The fundamental point that I was making is that, if you restrict the amount of information that people have about elections, those elements of information that they get will be proportionately more important. If the candidate is severely limited in the amount of communication that he can effectively engage in through newspapers, or through television, or through any other mass media, the impact of what the media themselves do either in their news columns or in their editorial columns will be increased. But the most significant point that the Senator from Wisconsin causes me to make is that I really used newspapers as a shorthand for the way in which we communicate today. I suspect that the Senator from Wisconsin might not even have asked me the question if I had substituted for newspapers the NBC television outlet in his city, or for that matter NBC, or ABC, or a number of other television outlets in the country as a whole. While they have certain rules on blatant editorialization, there is not one of them who has not experienced what he or she considers to be an absolutely unfair or distorted news story on television which can have a devastating, or for that matter a tremendously affirmative, impact on the attitudes of people toward a campaign. And what this bill does is to say that no matter how devastating that television news story is on a particular campaign, the victim, the disfavored candidate, is not going to be able to effectively respond to it. None of the benefits of this bill accrues under those circumstances. And the limitations are such that the attack is almost certain to go unanswered.

Mr. GORTON. That is the party to which the challenger belongs and which can certainly make the determination, which was so eloquently outlined by the Senator from Wisconsin, as to whether or not that challenger is a serious one and has a real opportunity for victory. So if we have no limits on the amount of money----