T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I believe that I am. I thank the Senator from Georgia. If I may, I express my own opinion that while I think that a minimum wage increase, at least marginally, would decrease jobs and job opportunities, I nevertheless feel that creating a better overall economy through the TEAM Act is worth a compromise which puts the two of these together and sends it to the President of the United States with the hope that the President would sign them. I share the regret and opinion of the Senator from Georgia that devotion to the minimum wage increase is no more than lip deep, that it will disappear once anything else of a more balanced nature should appear with it. It seems to me we should continue to insist that if we are going to do the one, we ought to do the other at the same time and in a way which that poison pen of the White House can accept simply what he wishes and not have to do something which will really improve the economy and labor-management relations in the United States of America. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. GORTON. Obviously, because they can only take place with their involvement.

Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Georgia yield for a question?

Mr. GORTON. Does the Senator from Georgia agree that the rationale for this is that the various labor union bosses find absolutely anathema any proposal which would allow informal arrangements between management and labor that does not go through formal labor unions, and for that reason they are perfectly prepared to filibuster and are filibustering, and the President is perfectly prepared to veto, and will veto a proposal that gives gas tax relief; and the minimum wage increase, if it is accompanied by this modern management technique which so many people, both the management and labor, whatever their devotion to lower taxes, whatever their devotion to a minimum wage increase, they are far less important than preventing the passage of the TEAM Act?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as my distinguished friend from Georgia has said, tomorrow, May 7, 1996, is tax freedom day. What is tax freedom day? Stated simply, it is the day on which the average American taxpayer stops working for the Government and begins working for himself or herself. It is a dramatic way of pointing out that if we divide the share of the income of each one of us as an average American into parts, the share that goes to Government will take us from January 1 to May 7 to earn and to pay to those governments and that only after May 7 are we working for ourselves. Again, this is an average. For some, tax freedom day comes a little earlier; for others it comes a little later. I regret to say for the citizens of Washington State whom I represent, it comes a little later. It comes on May 10. Why? Because, of course, we are talking about the burden imposed on the people of this country by all levels of our Government, here in Washington, DC, and our State and local governments as well. Mr. President, does it not boggle the mind to think that governments take this much of what we earn by our hard work for its own purposes? It is vitally important that people learn we are already well through the spring of 1996 before we have earned that portion of our income which goes to our governments. As my distinguished friend from Georgia also said, if we add the very real burdens caused by higher interest rates, which are themselves the result in part of our huge national debt and all the interest we must pay on that national debt, and the cost of regulation, we go into early July before we have discharged the real burden imposed on us by Government and begin to work for ourselves. This is a burden that is too great, even if we ignore interest and regulation. The average citizen of the United States does not believe he or she is getting his or her money's worth out of the money earned until May 7 and turned over to Government. That citizen is correct. Our citizens are not getting their money's worth from this investment in Government, and the great struggle here in the Congress of the United States and with this administration is over whether or not those burdens, both from the perspective of taxes and regulation, should be increased or decreased. This administration, for all of its rhetoric about smaller Government, is a liberal administration which believes that its judgments as to how we should spend our money are better than our own; that Government bureaucrats can set priorities for spending better than can individual citizens of the United States. And I am convinced that that thought is perhaps the single most important reason that people resent Government and do not trust those whom they elect to govern them. People do not believe that Washington, DC, bureaucrats are smarter than they are and know more than they do about how their money ought to be spent. And the people are right. The people are right. They do not. There are, of course, many appropriate functions of Government. There are a few functions, especially the closer Government gets to the people, the more it is localized, that in fact are run effectively. But the people do not believe that Washington, DC, is run efficiently and effectively, and the people are right. So, as we did last year, in spite of the frustrations of vetoes from the President of the United States--we on this side of the aisle and thinking Members on the other side of the aisle this year will attempt to lower that burden of taxation on the American people. Whether through a lowered gas tax or a family income tax credit or better treatment of investments which create new jobs, we will attempt to lower that burden. We will act on the philosophy that, by and large, people as individuals know better how their money should be spent than do the bureaucrats here in Washington, DC. If we are able to come back to this floor next year, even to say that tax freedom day is on the 3d of May rather than the 7th of May, or the 4th of May rather than the 7th of May, we will have done what the American people want. We will have acted correctly. We will, not at all incidentally, have overcome the objections of the President of the United States, and we will at least be on the road toward an appropriate balance between the impact of government on our pocketbooks and on our day-to-day lives, in exactly the fashion that we were meant to be when the people of the United States elected us to these offices. May 7 is tax freedom day. May 7 is far too late a date in the year for that notable event to take place.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to extend my congratulations to the We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution team from Tahoma High School, and welcome these outstanding students to Washington, DC. As winners of the Washington State competition, the students from Tahoma High are here in Washington, DC to compete in the national ``We the People'' competition. The We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution program focuses on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and fosters civic competence and responsibility among elementary and secondary school students in both public and private schools. The students from Tahoma High School should be commended for their diligence and the knowledge they have demonstrated of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. I certainly wish them well in the national competition.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last Thursday, I appeared with the two distinguished Senators from Rhode Island and Louisiana and a large number of others to speak in favor of their bipartisan balanced budget proposal on which I have worked under their tutelage over the course of the last several months. I do not need to repeat the history which led to this point or, for that matter, the details of the proposal itself, except to say, Mr. President, that this is, in fact, a balanced budget, a truly balanced budget by making real changes in the way in which we manage spending programs in this country, true reforms in entitlement programs, to a certain extent, and, in particular, reforms that were not even included in the balanced budget that were passed by this body in December. So from a substantive point of view, it is very real. Mr. President, the only other comment about the program that I have to say is this. At one level, of course, balancing the budget is almost a moral course of action. It is simply wrong morally and ethically for us to continue year after year spending hundreds of billions of dollars on services that we want but are unwilling to pay for, and then sending the bill for those services to our children and to our grandchildren. Beyond it simply being wrong, Mr. President, it is destructive of opportunity for future generations. We are convinced and we are told by those who are economic experts that a balanced budget, even the clear promise of a balanced budget, with policy changes that will lead to that point, will mean more money for the Federal Government from the present tax system because of lower interest rates and greater prosperity, but, more significantly than that, more money in the pockets of American citizens, more jobs, better jobs, lower interest rates on homes and automobiles and other major purchases people make. There is a tremendous fiscal dividend to be had from a balanced budget, not only for the Government but more importantly for our citizens. I will conclude, Mr. President, by saying that I believe that the two Senators who have led this effort deserve the gratitude not just of the Members of the Senate and of the Congress, but of the American people. They have not to this point gotten the publicity, the public acceptance, the public knowledge, for that matter, of this proposal that they deserve. But they have soldiered on to a point at which this is a very real alternative and one I hope that Members of both parties and the President of the United States will accept. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in the real world, when one of us makes a promise, he is expected to keep it. Politicians are held in low repute precisely because people do not expect them to keep their promises, and herein lies the heart of President Clinton's problem. The people elected him President in 1992 because of his promises and now find that he has repudiated them. President Clinton promised to ``end welfare as we know it.'' He broke that promise. He failed to keep his promise to give the middle class a tax cut. He failed to keep his promise to reduce the size of Government. He failed to keep his promise to balance the budget in 5 years. The consequences of the President's broken promises are grave, not just because the country is still stuck with a broken welfare system, a Tax Code that makes it hard for workers and their families to get by, and a rising national debt that threatens the future of our children and grandchildren but also because in failing to keep his promises the President undermines the public trust. President Clinton, I fear, does not understand that when he breaks a promise, he contributes to the cynicism and anger of the public. The American people are by nature neither cynical nor angry, but who can blame them for their distrust of politicians in Washington, DC, when they are forever being disappointed by broken promises. The people have demonstrated to us time and time again that they want welfare reform, they want a balanced budget, and they want tax relief. Most people, unfortunately, are not aware that Congress has passed all three, and President Clinton has vetoed every one. Welfare reform, indeed, he has vetoed twice. I am reminded of T.S. Eliot's eloquent poem ``The Hollow Man.'' In it he paints a dismal picture of politicians whose talk means nothing and actions meaningless: Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow There is, indeed, a shadow between the President's words and his actions. He can work wonders in front of a camera or before a live audience. When he is performing, he is good. But when the time comes to act to keep his commitments and make tough decisions, sadly, he comes up short. Of course, the picture is not irredeemably bleak. There has been progress. Two years ago, most Washington, DC, politicians were talking more and bigger Government programs, not a balanced budget; midnight basketball, not welfare reform, and tax hikes, not tax cuts. Today, the picture is different. This Congress has changed the debate. We have not won on every point but progress, especially when one is dealing with such issues, is bound to be slow and a certain amount of time and patience required, but we are doing our level best to keep our promises. So, we can ask that age old question: Is this glass half empty or is it half full? It is half empty if you want a balanced budget and do not have it. It is half full if you recognize that Republicans in Congress have accomplished what no Congress did for 30 years--we passed a balanced budget. President Clinton vetoed it. The glass is half empty if you expected tax cuts for families and small businesses. It is half full if you remember that Republicans passed a bill to give just such relief but the President vetoed it. The glass is half empty if you see an unreformed welfare system continuing to undercut the American ideal of family responsibility and hard work, but it is half full if you credit a Congress that took seriously its commitment and the President's to end welfare as we know it. But Bill Clinton vetoed welfare reform--twice. Republicans passed a balanced budget for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Knowing that every American's personal share of the debt is $18,000, and that continued unrestricted growth in Government will add so much more to our national debt that a child born today can expect to pay $187,000 in interest on that debt in his or her lifetime, Congress acted. We made some tough choices and hard decisions to cut Government spending, and we came up with a plan for a balanced budget. President Clinton vetoed it. He says he favors a balanced budget, and he uses all the fine words his political consultants advise him to use, but the bottom line is President Bill Clinton vetoed the only balanced budget Congress has passed in 30 years. Republicans reformed Medicare to preserve and strengthen it for older Americans and for those who expect it when they retire, but President Clinton vetoed it. Just last week, his own Medicare trustees reported that Medicare's hospital insurance fund is approaching bankruptcy even more rapidly than we feared, but President Clinton will not budge. Republicans also voted tax relief to American families and to those who provide jobs and opportunity for all Americans. President Clinton vetoed this tax cut as well. With hundreds of thousands of working families just barely making ends meet, with small businesses--the driving force of the American economy--increasingly burdened by heavy taxes and regulations, the President sent the message to taxpayers that the Federal Government wants more and more of their hard-earned dollars. Republicans twice passed welfare reforms to require able-bodied people to work and to instill responsibility and dignity into the lives of those who are subjected to the destructive forces of the current system. President Clinton vetoed welfare reform bills not once but twice. It is unfortunate but true that Bill Clinton is the President of the status quo. He is the President of big Government, high taxes, and an unreformed welfare system. We all must admit, of course, that President Clinton has some of the attributes of a great leader. He does an outstanding job when he makes a speech or brings the Nation together in times of tragedy. But there is much more to leadership than giving speeches, shaking hands, and acting well before the camera lens. Being a leader is not just eloquence. Being a leader is acting on that eloquence and keeping your word even when it is tough to do so. Do the American people trust the President's word? Do we in Congress, even some in the President's own party, trust the President's word when he says something? When he makes a commitment, can we be sure that he means it now and will mean it in a week, a month, or a year? One of my colleagues said recently, more in sorrow than anger, ``My problem is I believe 90 percent of what he says and disagree with 90 percent of what he does.'' When we look at the glaring difference between what the President says and what he does, our reaction can only be one of profound disappointment. So many chances we have had to set America on a new course, to change the way the Government works, and so many chances lost because the President will not stick to his word. The President of the United States holds a special elevated place in the minds of the people. More than Congress, more than any other institution, the people look to the President for leadership. His words and his actions are of great importance, and have an immense impact. The learned historian Donald Kagan, writing about the first great democratic leader who lived more than 2,000 years ago, Pericles of Athens, said: Every leader who makes any impression at all acts as an educator for good or ill, knowingly or not. His people pay attention to his words and deeds as to few others, and he contributes to their vision of the world, their nation, and themselves and their relations among them. The leader's vision may be confusing and chaotic, or it may be . . . clear and orderly; it may encourage or discourage; it may degrade or elevate the people. How shall we assess the President's leadership by this standard? I am saddened, I am disappointed to say it has been confusing and chaotic-- to the American people, and to us in Congress. It has been discouraging as well. The President has lifted our hopes by promising he is for welfare reform, tax relief, and a balanced budget, only to discourage us by going back on his word. Time and time again, the President has changed his mind. Things have come to such a sad state that we are no longer surprised when the President breaks a promise. We expect him to be inconsistent more than we expect him to be reliable. I hope the President will decide that keeping his promises is better politics than repudiating them. If he does, we can work with him on a balanced budget, tax relief, and welfare reform--all the changes the American people want, changes, indeed, they have wanted for a long time, and that will be of enormous help for the country. I wish I could be optimistic in this hope, but based on his past record, I doubt President Clinton will sign a balanced budget, tax relief measures, or welfare reform legislation. I doubt he will work with Congress to reduce the size of the Federal Government or to get Government off the people's backs. This is an area, however, Mr. President, in which I hope against hope that the President will prove me wrong.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with a modest degree of courage and a generous share of good will, this bipartisan report may well be remembered as a landmark in political and economic history of the 1990's. Personally, I never believed that we would reach the goal of a balanced budget except during the first 6 months of a new Presidency, in which that President made it his highest priority. In spite of that belief, last year we almost did so with a Republican proposal that would, in fact, have balanced the budget. That proposal was rejected by the President, but, nevertheless, it moved us forward on the right road. It was followed by a proposal by the President, and another by Democrats in this body, that moved the two sides closer together but still left a great gulf between them. Now, working together, we do have a proposal before the body this day for a very real balanced budget, a very real balanced budget based on the reform of entitlements which are both expensive and expansive and which will ultimately destroy the financial security of this country. Modest in some areas, dramatic in other areas, yet, nevertheless, will do the job. Now, Mr. President, to many people in the United States, all of whom basically support a balanced budget, it is, nevertheless, something of an abstraction--a good to be sought but not one well understood. Perhaps the most important part of this budget proposal is the dividend that it will pay not just to the Government of the United States but to the people of the United States. Perhaps as much as a quarter of a trillion dollars will end up being saved by the Federal Government in lower interest payments on the national debt and in greater revenue collections from a more healthy and vibrant American economy. At least three times that much will be paid in a dividend to the American people in lower interest rates on their homes and on their automobile purchases and in higher wages from more and better jobs. A good estimate will be that every family, the average family in the United States, will be $1,000 a year better off if we do this than if we do not do it. Of course, if we do not do it, the downside over the decade will be immense. We owe a great debt of thanks to the two Johns, Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux, who have led this effort, but leading it to success will require that courage and that good will.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to welcome the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society [WOCN] to Seattle, WA, June 15-19, for their 28th annual conference. The theme of the conference, ``The Future Is Ours To Create.'' will focus on future opportunities and challenges relating to the changing and expanding role of enterostomal therapists [ET] nurses and other nurses specializing in wound, ostomy, and continence care. Founded in 1968, the WOCN is the only national organization for nurses who specialize in the prevention of pressure ulcers and the management and rehabilitation of persons with ostomies, wounds, and incontinence. WOCN, an association of ET nurses, is a professional nursing society which supports its members by promoting educational, clinical, and research opportunities, to advance the practice and guide the delivery of expert health care to individuals with wounds, ostomies, and incontinence. In this age of changing health care services and skyrocketing costs, the WOCN nurse plays an integral role in providing cost-effective care for their patients. This year's Seattle conference will provide a unique opportunity for WOCN participants to learn about the most current issues and trends related to their practice. I am honored that WOCN has chosen Seattle to host its conference and wish them every success.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the Sunnyside School District's volunteer program for its dedication to the enrichment of the lives of children in Washington State. I applaud the effort and enthusiasm of the many members of our community working to ensure a bright future for our children, and I believe the innovative and resourceful programs developed by educators and community members deserve more recognition. In January 1994, I began recognizing outstanding school programs through the U.S. Senate Award for Excellence in Education. The 300 volunteers who selflessly dedicate their time to the children of the Sunnyside School District deserve such recognition. Whether working one-on-one with children in academic subjects, helping on the playground, or sharing their talents and hobbies, the volunteers for the Sunnyside School District can be found assisting in every aspect of school operations. During the 1994-95 school year, these volunteers gave 37,226 hours of service to the district. This kind of partnership between families, community members and schools has made Sunnyside School District a leader in promoting a health learning environment for its students. I hope their vision of excellence in education serves as an example to others in Washington State and the rest of the country.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Jim Russell died last Sunday. My life and the lives of a legion of others are diminished as a result. Today the flags in Lakewood, WA, will fly at half mast for retired Adm. James Russell, who died last Sunday at the age of 93. It is difficult to compress a panegyric for Admiral Russell into a few short minutes, but he was, after all, a modest man who sought out neither praise nor glory. He eschewed grandiloquence, and so shall I. A simple retelling of his remarkable life will suffice. James Russell was born in Tacoma, WA. When he was 15 he tried to join the Navy, but was turned away. Undeterred, he joined the Merchant Marine. His official naval career began in 1922 when he entered the U.S. Naval Academy. He went to the California Institute of Technology to get a master's degree in aeronautical engineering. In 1939 he worked on the design of the Essex-class aircraft carriers. Seventeen of the Essex-class were built, and none were sunk during World War II. He not only helped design, but also helped serve on the carriers, where he was, as the Tacoma News Tribune points out, the first naval aviator to take off from and land on the first six U.S. aircraft carriers. In the war Admiral Russell served as a lieutenant commander of a patrol squadron in the Aleutians. He defended Dutch Harbor, and America against a Japanese fighter attack. Later on he fought in the Pacific aircraft carrier offensive that destroyed the Japanese fleet and helped assure the American victory. For his service, he received the Distinguished Service Medal twice, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Air Medal for Heroism. Admiral Russell was part of the military occupation in Japan. In 1946 he became commander of the carrier USS Bairoko. In 1958 he rose to the No. 2 position in the Navy: vice chief of naval operations. From 1962 to 1965 he was commander in chief of NATO forces in Southern Europe. In 1965 he retired. During the post-war period Admiral Russell helped develop the F-8 Crusader, the first of the Navy's aircrafts to fly 1,000 miles-per- hour, for which he was awarded the Collier Trophy in 1956. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes Admiral Russell saying in 1994 that, ``one of his proudest accomplishments was to have personally flown Navy aircraft `ranging from biplanes to supersonic fighters.' '' After his retirement Admiral Russell was active in his community, and always kept abreast of military matters. He garnered respect and admiration from the people around him. Dignified, courteous, gracious, kind--these are some of the words his friends and associates use to describe him. His son Donald remembers that his father not only did not harbor ill feelings against his former Japanese enemies, but sought to reconcile with some of them. When two Japanese veterans--former pilots who had attacked the base where Admiral Russell served in the war--came to the Tacoma area to attend ceremonies marking the anniversary of the surrender, he insisted they stay with him, at his home. One can hardly think of a more apt example than this to describe the word ``gracious.'' It was for this and for a lifetime of unimpeachable behavior that Admiral Russell was known as Gentleman Jim. It was in his retirement that I met Jim Russell, who provided constant encouragement to me in my career--and constant wise counsel about the security of our beloved country as well. And so I will greatly miss him. Admiral Russell is survived by his wife, Geraldine; a son and daughter-in-law, Donald and Katherine Russell; a daughter-in-law, Anitha Russell; a stepson, Fred Rahn; a stepdaughter, Barbara Frayn; five grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. His first wife, Dorothy, died in 1965. My condolences and prayers go to his family. A few years ago Admiral Russell expressed his concern over all the honors he had received. ``It worries me a little,'' he said. ``I wonder if I've lived up to it.'' Clearly, the admiral was not a boaster. He did what he enjoyed; he served his country and his community, and he did not expect to be fussed over. The Tacoma News Tribune mentions the mayor of Lakewood, Bill Harrison's, recollection of Admiral Russell: Harrison said he still remembers seeing Russell during a military parade, dressed in white, a sword gleaming at his side. He was absolutely resplendent, Harrison said. That was the first time I ever saw him, and that's the way I will always think of him. What a treasure was James Sargent Russell. His life, of simple dignity, bravery, service, enthusiasm, and kindness, reminds us of the better angels of our nature. One of Admiral Russell's nicknames was the ancient mariner. And so, in Coleridge's words, let us bid ``Farewell, farewell, the Mariner is gone.'' Farewell, Admiral. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a front page article dated April 16, 1996, and a lead editorial dated April 17, 1996, from the Tacoma News Tribune be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the day before yesterday, this Senate completed a vitally important task. A part of that task, an antiterrorism bill, was brought into being as a consequence of the tragedy 1 year ago in Oklahoma City. Another part of that accomplishment is the result of the work of many Members on this side of the aisle, some on the other side of the aisle, extending over a period of well over a decade to reform and make more just our criminal justice system. There are those among our constituents, a number of whom have called my office, who oppose the antiterrorism bill simply because they did not wish any enhancement of the criminal justice powers of Federal agencies. I believe their apprehension to be misdirected. I am convinced that to face the possibility of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, a possibility which has clearly been a terrible reality both in Oklahoma City and in New York City, that some enhancement of Federal law enforcement was, in fact, necessary, and, as a consequence, I supported the antiterrorism elements in that bill. At the same time, Mr. President, I am convinced that the reform in what is known technically as habeas corpus will be of a more profound and a more positive nature in connection with our criminal justice system. It is a simple truism that justice delayed is justice denied, and with respect to myriad State court convictions for serious criminal violations, including the most serious criminal violations resulting in capital punishment sentences, we have a spectacle in the United States of America unseen anyplace else in the world. Here, of course, with our unique and uniquely valuable system of dual sovereignty, most criminal justice prosecutions take place in our State courts. Many here claim a sophistication by asserting some kind of second-rate justice at the State court system. Those observations do not accord with my own practice as attorney general of the State of Washington, but, nevertheless, they are reflected in the nature of our habeas corpus proceedings. A normal prosecution proceeds through a trial before a jury in a State court, a conviction, a sentence, at least one and usually two appeals to an intermediate appellate court and then to a State supreme court in connection with any serious violation. In most other jurisdictions in the world, including other countries as free as the United States, that would be the end of the process. But in the United States, any convicted person can say, ``No, I don't accept that proceeding,'' no matter how great the protections of the rights of the individual accused. ``I'm going to start all over again in the Federal court system and assert some violation of my constitutional rights.'' We have the paradox California situation--I believe, again, Mr. President, unprecedented in the world--in which a single trial level Federal judge can say that everything that the State trial judge did, everything that the State appellate system, everything that the State supreme court did was wrong and violated the constitutional rights of this individual convicted person. And you have to start all over again or perhaps even dismiss the case entirely. Even if that single Federal court judge says, no, everything was done in accordance with the Constitution, the accused person can then take that to a circuit court of appeals as a matter of right and try it in the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed in his or her claims. But, Mr. President, at the present time it does not stop there. You can go all the way up on one claim of a constitutional violation and then say, oh, by the way, I forgot, I have another claim of a different constitutional violation. And we will start all over again in another Federal district court and repeat the process. Mr. President, when I spoke here during the debate of one of the motions to recommit of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Biden], I talked about Charles Campbell. Charles Campbell, a released rapist, almost immediately after his release from a prison in Washington State went to the home of the person he raped and in cold blood murdered her, her child, and a neighbor who happened to be there at the time. This took place in 1982, Mr. President. By 1984 Mr. Campbell had been tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and had exhausted his appeals in the Washington court system. But, Mr. President, that was only the beginning. From 1984 to 1994 Charles Campbell cheated justice by endless appeals to the Federal courts of the United States. After literally millions of dollars had been used, his judgment was finally confirmed and he was executed in mid 1994. Mr. President, that was a misuse of the system. It taught disrespect of the law to the people of the State of Washington who had to follow this through the newspapers and over television for more than 10 years. And, Mr. President, fundamental respect for and obedience to our law requires a public opinion that believes that the legal system does work. This kind of misuse undercuts that trust and confidence. We simply cannot have it, Mr. President. Finally, as a result of this bill, and the intense decade-long work of the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, we do have reforms in this habeas corpus set of procedures. It is not an abolition, not a way to deny true constitutional violations, but a way that requires them to be asserted within a reasonable time and concluded within a reasonable time. And as a consequence, Mr. President, I believe that we have made a huge step forward in a campaign which has lasted for an extended period of time. Just going back in the Record to 1980--I find a bill 2 years after that by Senator East. It did not get out of committee. The next year there was one by Senator Thurmond that actually passed the Senate, but was killed in the House. The next year a similar bill by Senator Dole, without action. During that same year 1984, a proposition from Congressman Foley from my own State, before he was Speaker, that said we could not do anything in Congress about habeas corpus until there had been a study and recommendations from the U.S. Supreme Court, which study has been completed. Then again in 1992 another proposal by Senator Thurmond. In the various crime bills in the 4 years leading up to 1994, tiny little proposals, minor changes--major changes constantly defeated on the floor of the Senate or the floor of the House. And finally now in this Congress with appropriate leadership a reform in the system that really works. Mr. President, this is a real triumph.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday the U.S. Senate moved in a positive direction in reforming our Nation's health care system. S. 1028, a bill narrow in scope that builds upon and strengthens the current private market system, moved one step closer to becoming law. During yesterday's debate, the merits of including medical savings accounts in the legislation were discussed at great length. I believe MSA's are a good idea. MSA's give people control over their health care dollars and encourage them to make their own decisions about health care benefits. They preserve medical freedom and provide plenty of incentives for cost control. Choice is the keystone of MSA's. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, with MSA's people can choose their physician, their hospital, their health care plan. Additionally, MSA's will bring about lower health care spending. Consumers will become more savvy about their health care options, and certainly the system will benefit as a result. The problem, Mr. President, is that it was absolutely clear that including an MSA provision would derail the entire bill and a real opportunity to enact meaningful health care reform would be lost. If the legislation had included that provision, my Democratic colleagues indicated they would filibuster the bill and the President indicated he would veto the entire measure. In short, this targeted, commonsense bill would have been killed. I am dedicated to the passage of health care reform and I do not want a good bill to be sacrificed for one provision, however worthy that provision may be. It was for this reason that I did not support the inclusion of MSA's in the final bill, and it's also the reason this MSA effort failed. Yes, Mr. President, medical savings accounts are a good idea. Although S. 1028 was not the right vehicle, I will look for other opportunities to promote and encourage them.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I just want clarification my amendment will be in order some time before the adoption of the Dole amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, the Senator from Washington would like a clarification. I have just presented a small technical amendment to the Dole amendment to the chairman of the Finance Committee. I want that amendment to be in order. If the understanding is that second-degree amendments would be in order if the Dole amendment is not tabled or rejected, then I will have no objection. I just want to make certain that before the Dole amendment is adopted that it is itself subject to amendment. Is that correct? Under the unanimous-consent request?

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, reserving right to object.

Mr. GORTON. I have no objection.

Mr. GORTON. An amendment to the Dole amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, let me make an important point about this bill. It is very narrow in scope, addressing portability and health coverage for preexisting conditions. It in no way resembles the expansive Clinton health care proposal this body defeated 2 years ago. In the summer of 1994, many hundreds of Washington state citizens gathered in Westlake Mall in downtown Seattle to protest the proposed Government takeover of their health care. They were outraged by the hubris and the arrogance of that health care plan, and rightly so. The plan focused on setting up new bureaucracies, that it completely ignored the people who would have been affected by it. This legislation takes a clear-headed approach, responding to one problem that people face regarding preexisting conditions. It follows the conclusions of the Senate health care task force, of which I am pleased to have been a member for several years. We came up with the lessons learned from the Clinton health care debacle, and topping the list was the fact that there simply cannot be a government-run health care system. Period. The only sane, responsible way to address particular problems that may arise is to take a very narrow, targeted approach. In other words, you don't solve a problem with grandiose, wholly unworkable schemes. You solve a problem with a commensurate response. In this case, we have the problem of coverage for preexisiting conditions. The goals of this bill are strickly defined and few. They are to: First, develop insurance reform legislation that builds upon and strengthens the current private market system; Second, make it easier for individuals to keep and obtain private health insurance coverage, including measures to limit preexisting condition exclusions and expand portability; Third, increase the purchasing clout of individuals and small groups. With that said, let me enunciate what this bill will not do. It will not require employers to offer or pay for health insurance coverage. It will not require individuals to purchase health insurance. It will not impose new and expensive regulatory requirements on individuals, employers, or States. It will not create new Federal boards, commissions, or regulatory bodies. It will not contain a standard benefit package or mandated benefits. It will not subject ERISA plans to state regulation. It will not impose any new taxes. This is not ``Clinton Lite;'' this is a modest, narrow, targeted proposal. This is the way health care reform should be accomplished: not consumed with utopian visions and grand schemes of expensive government power, but realistic and down-to-earth. I believe we have finally got it right. I know that many of my constituents in Washington State, and many Americans, are concerned any time Congress addresses the issue of health care reform. With the memory of the Clinton plan fresh in their minds, they certainly have reason to be wary. But I believe that, once they know what is in this bill, they will be pleasantly surprised. This Congress has neither the intention nor the desire to let the government take over American health care, the best health care system in the world. This Congress wants to take a very limited approach to specific problems. The Health Insurance Reform Act is in concert with the beliefs of most Americans, who do not want government-run health care, but who do expect Congress to address and resolve certain problems in the system. That is what this bill does, and I am glad to support it.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in monitoring the beginning of this debate, a set of lyrics from a source that I usually do not use came to mind as a bit of advice for the distinguished Senator from Delaware. These lyrics come from the Rolling Stones: ``You can't always get what you want. But if you try real hard you just might find, you just mind find, you get what you need.'' Now, Mr. President, the conferees have tried real hard. They have tried real hard and I think indisputably, they have produced a bill that we very, very much need. Most of this afternoon, however, has been spent pointing out the bill's shortcomings, elements that the Senator from Delaware or the Senator from Georgia or, for that matter, the Senator from Utah wish were in the bill but are not. Certainly, this bill is not everything that the Senator from Delaware wishes, but it does contain a lot of what he thinks is constructive. Even he admits, and I think I am quoting correctly, it is a ``useful, if frail'' antiterrorism bill. Senator Hatch, the distinguished Senator from Utah, has already outlined the positive steps in connection with a campaign against terrorism which are included in the conference report that is before the Senate now. I will not take up the time of the Senate simply by repeating them now. What we are faced with in the course of the current debate, however, is the question of whether or not we should reject what the conference committee has done, send it back, and ask that the committee effectively start all over again. This conference committee has labored long enough. I do not believe that the Senator from Utah has left anything on the table. I do not think that he walked away having omitted anything from this bill that his very best efforts and the help of other Senate Members in both parties could possibly have gotten included for us to make better an already fine proposition. What we have here is a meaningful antiterrorism bill, one that will make the law better than it is at the present time, one that will help the President and our Federal law enforcement officers by adding to the tools to deal with a new, highly regrettable situation with which our society is faced. But there is something else in this bill, Mr. President. That something else is highly controversial, something that I believe the President of the United States would just as soon not have in it, something that I think a number of other Members wish were not a part of this bill. Something, however, that I think is particularly important. That is the reform of our entire habeas corpus procedures in connection with the conviction for serious crimes. Doing something about a flawed habeas corpus system has been discussed in this Senate since I began serving here over a decade ago. We finally have an opportunity this evening in connection with this bill to do something positive about it. I believe that the Senator from Delaware has complained that habeas corpus reform is not relevant to an antiterrorism bill. Just as an aside, Mr. President, I find it a charming argument coming from the side of the aisle which insists on our voting on Social Security amendments and minimum wage amendments as a part of the debate over immigration. I am tempted to say that we might have stronger rules of relevance in connection with all of our debates. Be that as it may, I am convinced that habeas corpus is relevant to a bill with respect to terrorism. Mr. President, to deal effectively with any criminal challenge, we must have effective, clear, and cogent criminal statutes. We must have strong and skilled law enforcement officers to enforce those statutes and to arrest people who violate them. It is also absolutely vital, Mr. President, that when we do so, that when our system of justice has moved from apprehension through trial and conviction, that the people of the United States have a degree of confidence in the finality of those convictions after appropriate appeals, and that the punishments prescribed in those statutes will actually be carried out. That is an area, a field in which we have been a significant failure, Mr. President, because of the almost unlimited nature of our habeas corpus provisions. We talk of doing something about terrorism and the fear it instills because the people of the United States lack trust and confidence in their criminal justice system and feel unsafe on their streets, at least in part because they see delay after delay, appeal after appeal, a total lack of finality, thousands of dollars after thousands of dollars going into the endless delays in the execution of sentences, particularly related to capital punishment. Now, reforming habeas corpus is vitally important in that connection, Mr. President, and not just with respect to antiterrorism legislation, but with respect to all of the other serious crimes principally contained in our State and Federal criminal codes. Let us move from the abstract to the concrete for just a few moments. I would like to remind my colleagues of the subject on which I have spoken a number of times in the course of the last Congress--one particular case in the State of Washington, which illustrates the frustration that our people feel with a system of endless appeals. Charles Campbell was tried and sent to jail for the rape of a particular woman in a county just north of Seattle, WA. When he was on work release he went back to the home of this woman and murdered her, together with her 8-year-old daughter and a neighbor who just happened to be in the way. In 1982, he was charged with capital murder for those offenses and convicted. By 1984, that conviction had gone through the entire State court system, and the conviction and sentence had been affirmed by the Supreme Court for the State of Washington. From 1984 to 1994, Mr. President--10 additional years--57 separate actions were taken in the Federal courts of the United States--a first direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was turned down, followed by innumerable petitions for habeas corpus and appeals from various orders in those habeas corpus petitions. Remember, Mr. President, that even after a capital case has gone through all of its State court appeals and has been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which has either affirmed it or failed to act, a single Federal district court judge can interrupt the process. That single judge can make a determination that all of the previous judges were wrong and send the case back to the State courts. More frequent than that, of course, is that the single Federal court judge, and then a circuit court of appeals, and perhaps then, again, the Supreme Court of the United States, finds nothing in error in these processes and affirms the State court decisions, at which point the process often starts over again with the filing of another petition for habeas corpus. That, Mr. President, more than any other single factor, I think, has caused the people of the United States to lose an important degree of faith in their criminal justice system. A reform of that system, not to deny a right of appeal, but in effect--except under extraordinary circumstances--to give only a single bite at the apple through the Federal court system, is the subject of the habeas corpus provisions that have been shepherded through both Houses of Congress by the distinguished Senator from Utah. It is my opinion, Mr. President, that these provisions complement, and are as important, or more important, than the strictly antiterrorism elements of this legislation. It is my opinion that the more strictly antiterrorism provisions of this legislation are themselves important. I find myself in agreement with all of those here, and I think that includes every Member of the Senate who has spoken on this subject, that we ought to do better, that we ought to have more antiterrorism legislation. I think it very unlikely that that is going to happen in the course of this Congress. As I have said before, I think the Senator from Utah got everything out of this conference committee that he could get, and the effect of a motion to recommit would simply be that we would either have no legislation on this subject, or this identical legislation, which is important, would be delayed. Delays have already been too long, Mr. President. I sincerely hope that the Members of the Senate will reject a motion to recommit and will promptly pass this legislation. The House is certain to do the same. We will, when the President has signed it, move forward on two distinct but related fields--significant progress with respect to antiterrorism, and significant progress with respect to reforming our habeas corpus system. For that, the Senator from Utah, and all who have worked on this legislation, deserve our grateful thanks and the thanks of the American people.

Mr. GORTON. Yes. I think the Senator from Washington said when the Senator from Delaware was off the floor that he regards it as rather touching that the Senator from Delaware wants to make sure everything we do is relevant to Federal antiterrorism legislation, when I believe he has been supporting the proposition on the other side of the aisle that immigration legislation should carry Social Security amendments with it and a number of other subjects of that sort. This legislation is, of course, dealing with Federal statutes and with Federal courts. Habeas corpus legislation, of course, deals primarily with State laws and State convictions, but with the interference by the Federal courts in those procedures. If the Senator would further yield a moment, I ask unanimous consent that a chronology of the Campbell case be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for roughly 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Columbia River is the crown jewel of our Pacific Northwest. Its waters passing through our dams light our cities and towns. Its waters held back at times by those dams have saved thousands of lives from destructive floods. Its waters spread on our dry land have made the desert bloom and provide food for millions of people around the world. At the same time, that magnificent Columbia River has been the home to the most munificent runs of salmon anywhere in the lower 48 States of the United States of America. Now that very civilization that has built those dams and used these waters so constructively threatens the future of these wonderful salmon runs. What should we do? How should we see to it that we both have the benefits of power and of irrigation and flood control and at the same time preserve and strengthen and restore these wonderful runs of salmon? I think it is becoming more and more evident what we should not do. In the last 5 years, Federal bureaucrats here in Washington, DC, have billed us in the Pacific Northwest $1.5 billion for salmon restoration, half a billion dollars last year alone, and we have not seen any positive results at all. In spite of this investment, an investment the people of the Pacific Northwest have not begrudged, the results are nothing. The results are a continued decline in our salmon runs. These costs are welcomed by the people of the Pacific Northwest, but the results are not. I am convinced that this failure of Washington, DC, bureaucrats means that we cannot succeed if we continue to do business in the same way that we are doing it at the present time. I believe, and I believe firmly, that we can do a far better job in the Pacific Northwest if we are allowed to make the decisions that affect our lives and affect our resources. Personally, I am totally committed to restoring an abundant salmon fishery in the Columbia and the Snake Rivers. Healthy and strong salmon runs are vitally important to our economy, to thousands of people whose livelihoods rest on them. But there is something more important even than those who are professionals in these fields. Salmon are a distinct part of our society and of our culture. Everyone who grows up in the Pacific Northwest has his favorite stories--his or her own big catch, the thrill of the child catching that first salmon, or just of a summer cookout with the family with salmon on the grill. I would find it unacceptable that my grandchildren would not have in their lifetime the same opportunities that I have had. I have also to confess that my thinking, along with that of many in the Pacific Northwest, has grown and expanded over the years to emphasize the vital importance of native salmon runs. We have spent much of our time building hatcheries and creating artificial runs where native runs once existed. Those hatcheries are important. They are an important supplement. But we now recognize that it is vital that we strengthen the native runs and help restore them at the same time. I am convinced that the people of the Pacific Northwest are willing to pay money, money literally in the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that has already been wasted, in order to restore these salmon runs, but at the same time the people of the Pacific Northwest want that money to be spent effectively. They also want the amount of money they are going to spend to be predictable, and they want it to be spent in a scientifically credible fashion. Last November, the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious institute of science in the free world, came up with a set of reports indicating what we know and what we do not know and suggesting some courses of action. That report has been almost totally ignored by the Federal bureaucrats who are in charge of spending our money and telling us what to do. So I believe we need a change. I think we need to change a system that has failed and come up with a system that will work. I believe that that system is most likely to be developed by the people who are going to pay the bills and benefit from any success and pay the penalty for any failure. Mr. President, do you not agree that the people of our region are better capable of answering these questions than the bureaucrats here in Washington, DC? Should not authority over how we deal with these runs be turned over to us, collectively--our sportsmen, our commercial fishermen, our citizens in cities and towns, our irrigators and farmers, our Indian tribes? Are they not going to be able to come up with a better answer to this question than we have gotten so far from Washington, DC? Mr. President, I am convinced that is the case. I am convinced that this Congress should require a significant amount of money to be spent on the restoration of our salmon runs, should allow our people to spend more, if they wish to do so, should allow us to come up with a predictable number of dollars for this effort, and then, most vitally, should allow us, using the best science we can possibly find through these wonderful national and international scientists, to decide how best to spend that money so that we, you and I and all of us from the Pacific Northwest, may be able to pass on to our children and grandchildren the wonderful heritage of an abundant fishery at the same time that we preserve power for our cities and towns, water for our farms, rivers for our recreation, and safety for our citizens. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Indiana, has spent much of his time over the course of the last year as a candidate for President of the United States. He traveled about the country, speaking calmly, without invective, with common sense to the American people. The American people in large measure did not listen to that message, thoughtful as it was. In his usual gracious fashion, the Senator from Indiana, when that became apparent, withdrew, and endorsed the candidacy of our joint good friend, the majority leader of this Senate. I must say that in some sense the loss of the people of the United States in that candidacy directly resulted in the great gain to the people of the United States in the construction of this farm bill, the most dramatic change in agricultural policy since the 1930's, one of great thoughtfulness and great promise not only for our agricultural community but for the people of the world in providing for them more and better food prospects. So I express my deep gratitude to the Senator from Indiana for the job he has done for the people of the world, the people of the United States, and most specifically the farmers and agricultural businesses of the State of Washington. I cannot let this part of my remarks go without also remarking on the actions of the Acting President of the Senate, the Senator from Idaho. I believe he is the only western member of the Agriculture Committee who specifically directed his attention at the needs for various policies for the farm community of the Pacific Northwest. We share extensive wheat ranching, and his attention to the problem of those ranchers is a matter for which I am most grateful. But particularly the Senator from Idaho was an eloquent advocate of the so-called Brown amendment during the conference over the farm bill. That was an issue of great importance, not just to people in agriculture but to people in cities and towns and communities all over the West. The President of the United States, in his State of the Union Address, repeatedly spoke about a smaller and less intrusive Government. But agency after agency in his administration in Washington, DC, has been busily attempting to aggrandize more and more control over the lives of the people of the United States and most particularly over their lives in the West, where water is such a great necessity. This aggrandizement was particularly evident as the administration's Forest Service has been attempting to require water permit holders, some with permits more than 100 years old, in many Western States literally to donate to the Forest Service a significant portion of their water rights as a condition for the issuance or reissuance of their permits. Led by the Senator from Idaho, the conferees agreed at least to an 18-month moratorium on these Forest Service demands. They agreed to create a water task force to study Federal water policy and water rights across Federal lands, and no later than 1 year after the enactment of this bill to submit recommendations to the Congress on how best to resolve the controversy. Obviously, I would have preferred, as the Senator from Idaho would have preferred, to see language that would have permanently prohibited the Forest Service from this practice. But at least this gives us relief for the time being and an opportunity to take an objective look at these demands and to deal with them at length in the Congress later. So I must say that Washington State agriculture thanks the Senator from Idaho for his magnificent work in that connection. Overall, the 1996 farm bill is a wonderful step forward. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am delighted it makes a contribution toward a balanced budget both, as the Senator from Indiana said, in allowing us precisely to determine how much money will be spent with respect to income support and in the promise of a significant contribution toward a balanced budget within a 7-year period. Even more significant is the fact that this bill is a dramatic step toward a free market economy in agricultural policy. Farmers and ranchers all across our country have asked for freedom from Government regulation, for the right to farm to the market rather than to particular programs, and to be able to respond to the demands of emerging world markets. No longer will farmers be told by the Federal Government what crop to plant, when to plant it, and how much to plant. These decisions ought to belong to the farmer, and now they will belong to that farmer. One other detail: I am delighted to see the conferees agree to authorize the Market Promotion Program, I believe now called the Market Access Program, at $90 million. This program is vitally important to all agricultural exports. It is particularly important in Washington State. In the last decade, for example, we have seen an increase in apple exports from 4.3 million cartons to 25.1 million cartons, an increase of more than 500 percent, enriching growers in the State of Washington and making a real contribution to lower our trade deficit. The Market Promotion Program has made a significant contribution to that increase. With the implementation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the North American Free-Trade Agreement, we will see an increased demand for agricultural exports. I believe that both will successfully open new worldwide markets for United States agriculture. As a consequence, we need to provide our farmers with the ability to develop, maintain, and expand commercial export markets, and the Market Access Program will help us do exactly that. As does the President, I believe in a smaller and less intrusive Government. The 1996 farm bill represents that less intrusive Government, a Government with faith in its farmers, its ranchers, and its local communities to make decisions for themselves. Simply put, this farm bill puts the decisionmaking process back into the hands of the farmer and gets the Federal Government significantly out of the business of telling our farmers how to farm. I enthusiastically support its adoption and its transmission into the law of the United States.