T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. Did not wish to deal just with those items. He was faced with a set of rescissions at varying levels of study and of actual construction. He and the Senator from Iowa can deal with other matters, but the swine research facility is one that will be before a conference committee along with all the other cuts and reductions, where members of the Subcommittee on Agriculture can determine a priority order of rescissions, designed to meet the very real goal of this rescissions bill. I think sometime during the course of this afternoon, not only Members, but the general public may have lost track of the extraordinary nature of this bill. I do not believe there is a Senator alive who has dealt in the middle of a fiscal year with the rescission of so many billions of dollars as this one does, in order to make at least a modest downpayment on balancing our Federal budget. It seems to me the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture deserves a great deal of credit for being willing to rescind a wide range of appropriations which, just a few months ago, he felt were appropriate. Let me also speak, of course, to the other side of the equation and that is the $5 million restoration for the Bureau of Indian Affairs concerns. Unlike the agricultural section of this bill, where the Senate rescissions are greater than the House rescissions in total for Indian purposes in general, the Senate rescissions are less and fewer than the House rescissions. When I, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, was faced with a table of what the House had done, it had, I must say, fewer rescissions than we ended up with for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But the No. 1 goal of those who were concerned with and sensitive to Indian affairs, Madam President, was not the particular line items for the BIA, which, of course, is bitterly criticized by many of its purported beneficiaries, but was directed at the total rescission of all money for the National Museum of the American Indian--two facilities which have been planned and promised, one storage facility in Suitland and a museum on The Mall here in Washington, DC. Another part of this bill for the Smithsonian Institution restores almost $20 million for this year's progress in the creation of that National Museum for the American Indian. It seemed to me in making that restoration we needed some balance from other Indian appropriations, and for that reason, many of those which are the object of this amendment were included. But the total of all of the additional rescissions for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Madam President, is nowhere near the amount restored for the museum. Granted, the beneficiaries are different. There is no question about that. But we did not go dollar for dollar any more than the Senator from Mississippi did. He rescinded more dollars than he restored. In our case we rescinded fewer dollars than we restored, in the broad sense of the term--matters of great interest to the native American communities of this country. In fact, of the $5 million which the Senator from Arizona seeks to restore, $1.9 million, almost 40 percent, is for a program which the President in his budget for next year has recommended zero dollars. So all we are doing here is anticipating the recommendations of the President of the United States--these are Indian direct loans--because there is another guarantee, there is a guaranteed loan program for Indians. And in each of the other cases, we are dealing--which is not the case with all of these agricultural rescissions--with unobligated funds in smaller amounts than had originally been intended and in much smaller amounts than the otherwise total of rescissions for Indian matters. So I suppose it is possible to say that in one or more of the four objects of restoration here, we might have done a better job. But I know I have been approached by many Senators from my part of the country, as has the Senator from Mississippi, protesting individual rescissions while in general terms, as is the case with the Senator from Arizona, feeling that, if anything, we have not cut out enough spending overall. But the spending that we have not cut off overall almost always seems to be spending in an area which is not of much interest to that particular Senator; and the areas which are of interest are matters of great sacrifice. So I hope we have been reasonably sensitive in this case, to native American concerns. I know that we have been more generous to them than was the House of Representatives. And I know that the Senator from Mississippi was tougher on agriculture, overall, than was the House of Representatives. I do not think that we should, by this amendment, exacerbate or make worse differences which already exist. So, Madam President, with regret I oppose the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, as the distinguished Senator from Arizona has pointed out, this amendment has two quite separate and distinct parts. And of course, the arguments relating to those two separate and distinct parts are quite separate from one another as well. The Senator from Arizona has fought a long and often lonely fight with respect to many items and many appropriations bills. He was quite eloquent, just a few moments ago, on the misuse of the defense appropriations bill for nondefense items, and went through quite a number of them. Yet this budget for nondefense items. But, for some reason or another, it takes on the agricultural appropriations bill which, as has already been pointed out by the distinguished chairman of that subcommittee, has in it an amount of rescissions far greater than those proposed by the House and I think proportionately as high as any portion of this rescissions bill. So let me speak very, very briefly to those agricultural projects because I know the Senators, both from Iowa and Mississippi, will do so themselves. At least a significant number of the Cooperative State Research Service proposals here are for money for facilities which are in the process of being constructed, and where the removal of the money might well cause a cessation of those construction projects. It is, I am certain, for exactly that reason the Senator from Mississippi did not wish to go along with the House of Representatives. Because there will be differences on each one of these issues, a conference committee may well determine that some of the studies for new projects, which might be very expensive, should be dismissed-- should be eventually rescinded. But the Senator from Mississippi----

Mr. GORTON. Did not the Senator from Mississippi inform the entire Appropriations Committee that total rescissions falling within his jurisdiction were, by percentage, either the highest, or one of the highest, of any of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee?

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Again, I answer my friend from Arizona in the following fashion: I do not see the Senator from Iowa on the floor, though I suspect he will be back soon. I think he or the Senator from Mississippi can better answer the Senator from Arizona. This Senator is here in anticipation of an amendment by the Senator from Arizona on the subject of the Interior Department Bureau of Indian Affairs, and I intended, in connection with the offsets, to defer most of the debate to those who were familiar with the program. I do notice the Senator from Mississippi here. The Senator from Mississippi is now on the floor. He is the manager of the portion of the bill dealing with the Department of Agriculture, and I think he can probably better deal with that question. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona has asked a question about a rescission included on page 7 of the House committee report with respect to the construction of the swine research center and has asked for its justification. I wonder if the Senator from Mississippi would prefer to answer that question.

Mr. GORTON. I may say to my friend from Arizona that I have the House report here in front of me. My page 6 deals with the Department of State international organizations----

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment. The distinguished Senator from Arizona has agreed it can be done by voice vote.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am here to support this proposal and to praise the Finance Committee and those in the House of Representatives who thought of a way in which to do justice on both sides of the equation of a tax proposal and to provide an extension and ultimately an increase in an overwhelmingly just--but still inadequate--deduction for the health care expenses of the self-employed. For many years, the Tax Code has permitted a modest deduction of 25 percent of the health care insurance costs of the self-employed-- modest, of course, in comparison with the very, very large number of Americans who have health care insurance premiums paid for by their employers, fully deductible to those employers. Yet, even this 25- percent deduction for the self-employed, for hard-working Americans in small towns and large cities and on farms across this country, is threatened. It has for years been a deduction with a terminal point. In every previous year in which that terminal point was reached, the Congress has extended the deduction for a few more years. In 1994, it did not do so and technically there is no such provision today. There will be, however, if this bill passes. A deduction will be effective for the current year and will move up modestly from 25 to 30 percent next year. I believe that almost every Member of this body hopes that the time will come that, with a more sound and all- encompassing set of health care reforms, we will be able to allow the deduction of 100 percent of such health care insurance costs. In the meantime, however, to extend the present deduction and modestly to increase the present deduction is clearly overwhelmingly in the public interest. Standing alone, that would not be a difficult task, except for its effect on the budget deficit. It is here that the thoughtfulness and the genius of the sponsors of this bill are in particular evidence. This bill is going to be paid for by four changes in the Internal Revenue Code, three of which are of considerable significance with respect to the amount of money that they produce. The first is a denial of the earned-income tax credit to those who have substantial unearned income; that is to say, investment income. The earned-income tax credit, of course, is designed to see to it that the working poor--those who are trying to move out of poverty, who are below the level at which they would normally pay an income tax-- literally get some money back from the Government as a reward for that work. To allow it, however, to those who have low levels of earned income but significant levels of unearned income is, of course, a perversion of the whole design of the earned-income tax credit itself. So this narrowing, this focus of the earned-income tax credit on those who are truly the working poor is a matter of tax justice and fiscal equity without regard for its use for this health care insurance deduction. Second, we are for the first time actually going to penalize those Americans, those I think perverse Americans, who renounce their citizenship in order to save on taxes. They will be hit when they renounce that citizenship with what amounts to a capital gains tax on the assets they take with them out of the United States. The Finance Committee, I should note, has said that this provision is not designed to be a direct offset against the health care insurance premium deduction for the self-employed, but literally to be a modest contribution to our budget deficit. The most significant of the tax changes, of course, is the cancellation of section 1071 of the Internal Revenue Code, which started out as a recognition of forced sales some 50 or more years ago, when we first developed rules that did not allow more than one radio station, in that case, to be owned by the same people in the same community; but since, that has become a rather famous and notorious form of affirmative action. This provision, of course, was triggered by a huge sale involving Viacom and one member of a minority group, the cost of which to the Federal Treasury would be over half a billion dollars. It may very well have been one of the triggering causes of the attention being paid today to the whole subject of affirmative action. Yet, I think it is safe to say that this provision should be repealed without regard to the varying views of Members of this body and of the public as a whole on affirmative action overall. The kind of affirmative action that benefits one quite successful and fairly wealthy member of a minority group at the cost of half a billion dollars to the State treasury is a perversion of any kind of theory of equity, affirmative action or otherwise. We will have in this body more than enough time to debate the whole subject of affirmative action, whether or not it has been a success, whether or not it deserves continuation in whole or in part in the future. In the meantime, however, we need to pass this bill in order to prevent this perverse use of affirmative action and in order to provide justice for literally hundreds of thousands of self-employed Americans. Here, a handful of people who do not deserve tax benefits will be penalized. Hundreds of thousands of hard-working self-employed Americans will at least retain, and ultimately have a slight increase, in a tax deduction for a highly worthy social and economic purpose. This bill, in other words, does justice to the self-employed, ends a terrible loophole in the field of affirmative action, ends a loophole in the earned-income tax credit, and ends up helping us in some slight manner to reduce our deficit. We very rarely get bills through this House in which every single element is a plus for our society, and it deserves the support of all Members of the Senate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Texas is, I think, constructive and vitally important to people in many parts of the United States. With each passing month we learn more about the distortions in the lives of our people caused by the application of the present Endangered Species Act. A mere finding of threatened or endangered status for any species subject to listing automatically results in restrictions on the use of property, restrictions in economic activity, and in cultural, social, and community disruptions. This amendment will give both the country and the Congress breathing space for a period of approximately 6 months during which the Endangered Species Act itself can be examined, as it will be, by a subcommittee headed by the present Presiding Officer presiding over this body. I know he and I and the Senator from Texas all believe the Endangered Species Act should be continued, as it represents a real value held by all Americans, but that it must be changed so factors and values other than the species itself must be considered. Human values, people's jobs, their communities, their society, their culture must be weighed as we come up with balanced solutions to Endangered Species Act findings. That is not possible today under the act. The breathing space which will be imposed by the amendment of the Senator from Texas will allow that careful consideration to take place in this body. It will restore a degree of balance which is presently lost. This is not and has not been asserted by the Senator from Texas to be a long-term or full solution to the necessity of balancing human and other interests in our environment. It is a step to allow that process to take place in a more careful and rational and thoughtful manner. As such, to protect our people and our communities for a 6-month period while we discuss the Endangered Species Act, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Texas is valuable, I may say vital, and I hope it will be adopted by this body.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that dramatically changes how we clean nuclear waste sites across the Nation. Clearly we have a window to address these profound national problems. My bill does just that. Mr. President, this legislation is designed to change how DOE manages the cleanup of its defense nuclear sites. This bill applies to all DOE nuclear defense sites, because the cleanup problems we are addressing are national concerns--not parochial. The bill's strengths rest in addressing how DOE compensates performance. Today we are cornered into agreements based on cost plus scenarios. The taxpayer reimburses the contractor for all costs related to overhead, salaries and other out-of-pocket expenses. On top of that sum comes a bonus which is a percentage of those direct costs. That means that higher overheads mean bigger bonuses. My bill dictates the opposite: You don't do the job, you don't get paid. Period. Mr. President, this bill makes good sense. I know that the American people are anxious for cleanup to happen at our nuclear defense sites. The people of Washington State are anxious too. This bill takes the DOE out of the managerial role and puts it into the role of client and consumer. It puts the burden of capital risk on investors eager to join the cleanup process, yet does not hold them responsible for a mess that is not theirs. Under this bill, the Secretary of Energy will have the authority to enter into long-term contracting arrangements--30 years plus two 10- year renewals--for the treatment, management and disposition of nuclear waste and nuclear waste by-products. The contractor's facility must be within a 25-mile radius of the DOE site. Community development and site-worker preference are key to this bill. The Secretary is instructed to give preference to those contractors who intend to reinvest in the communities where their work is conducted. The Secretary must also give preference to contractors whose bids include employment for local workers, or workers with previous site experience. Indemnification and other legal protection is included to inoculate contractors from preexisting conditions that were not caused by the contractor. This bill places strict limits on contractor liability during cleanup, except in cases of negligence. This ensures that a contractor is not responsible for waste not created on their watch. Through commercialization, the bill will encourage innovation in cleanup. By permitting the contractor to use technologies developed at the site for commercial use and resale even while cleanup is taking place, the legislation rewards success instead of stifling it. In the past, DOE has frowned on similar allowances, primarily because of the Government's desire to keep new technology ``in house.'' Instead, the bill grants contractors immediate patent rights to new technologies developed in the cleanup process. Another important provision protects the contractor from subsequent rule changes by the Department of Energy or Congress that directly affect cleanup efforts. Language states that if the Department of Energy mandates new environmental regulations or laws which will adversely affect the cleanup schedule and performance, the contractor is entitled to renegotiate the contract without penalty. Likewise, if regulations are eased, the contractor is given the option of abiding by the rules in place, or opening discussions again to adjust for the less stringent requirements. This legislation also allows the Secretary to lease federally owned land to contractors at a negotiable rate. By leasing the land, the Government permits the contractor to undertake non-DOE site related activities. For example, a contractor may retain a non-DOE client who wants to vitrify waste at the DOE site. With this legislation the contractor could open its facility to such an endeavor. I urge that all of my colleagues, particularly those with similar interests in their States, support this bill and join as cosponsors. Mr.President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. printed in the Record as follows:

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Rockefeller to introduce legislation that will bring common sense back to America's product liability system. The Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995 is a bipartisan proposal that takes a moderate, sensible approach to product liability reform. As an attorney myself, I recognize that America's trial lawyers would like to see me disbarred for introducing this bill. It should come as no surprise that they are planning to spend $20 million to defeat this legislation. They're making millions off the current system, and the legislation we're introducing today will put an end to the lawyers' financial free-for-all. Consider just a couple of cases from my own State of Washington. Connelly Water Skis of Lynnwood pays $345,000 a year for liability insurance even though they have never lost a liability case. They paid more than $83,000 in legal expenses to defend themselves in a case in which the plaintiff has asked be dismissed. They paid more than $12,000 to defend themselves in a case in which no Connelly product was involved. Commercial Plastics of Seattle, which manufacturers candy dispensers, has been sued in a case involving a drunken woman who pulled a unit off a grocery store shelf on New Year's Eve. She wasn't hurt, but she is suing for mental anguish caused by the embarrassment of the incident. Bayliner Boats of Everett manufactures a 25-foot hard-top boat with the steering station inside. The plaintiff sawed a hole through the hard top--kind of like a sunroof. He was sitting on the top driving the boat with his feet. He saw an oncoming boat and tried to honk the horn with his toe. He turned the boat to the left with his feet, and shifted his weight to the right to counter the turn. He fell overboard, was injured, and is now suing Bayliner. Keep in mind that these examples come from a State where limits on punitive damages are already in place. Does it make sense for consumers to pay higher prices for water skis or other equipment because the person used the product incorrectly? Does it make sense for consumers to pay higher costs for products because someone did something that defies all common sense? Does it make sense for consumers to pay higher prices for products because some inebriated person injures, and even embarrasses him or herself? And most importantly, does it make sense that trial attorneys are ripping off consumers around the country when they make millions of dollars off these cases? Out of every dollar spent on product litigation, more than 50 percent of the money goes to the lawyers. They're the only ones winning anything. Their opposition to this legislation is only about protecting their fees--not protecting consumers. Consider the Chicago law firm that issued a bulletin to its clients stating: ``We are pleased to announce that we obtained for our client the largest verdict ever for an arm amputation: $7.8 million.'' Consider the new Florida company, called ``Went For It,'' that researches the names of accident victims and sells them to lawyers. Consider the New York lawyer found guilty of using a pickax to enlarge a pothole before he photographed it for a client with a personal injury claim. It's outrageous. This country desperately needs a fair and efficient product liability system. A fair and efficient product liability system should have consistent standards and yield predictable results. It should award damages in proportion to the harm suffered and those damages should be paid only by those responsible. A fair and efficient system should award damages in a timely manner without incurring large, wasteful transaction costs. The status quo defended mightily by the trial lawyers is far from fair or efficient. Consumers, those injured by faulty products, and American businesses all suffer as a result of selfish lawyers. Fair compensation is not awarded in a timely fashion. Cases drag on for years. Over 20 percent of seriously injured persons receive no compensation for 5 years. A 1989 GAO study says that the average case takes nearly 3 years to resolve, and longer if there is an appeal. When compensation is awarded, transaction costs--such as attorney's fees-- absorb too much money that should have gone to injured persons. Not only does the present product liability system generate excessive costs and delay, it does not compensate injured persons in proportion to their losses. If a person's injuries are minor, they can expect to receive a windfall of nearly nine times their losses. If their injuries are severe, they should expect to receive only 15 percent of their losses. A severely injured person cannot afford to gamble on the outcome of lengthy litigation. As a result, many are forced to settle for an amount far less than their injuries merit. Injured persons are not the only ones that are treated unfairly by the tort system. That system imposes inordinate costs on the U.S. economy. Domestic manufacturers face product liability costs up to 20 to 50 times higher than those paid by foreign competitors. These excessive costs put American business at a competitive disadvantage in world markets. Important sectors of our domestic economy are losing substantial market shares to foreign competitors. For example, the Association of Manufacturing Technology estimates its member companies have lost, in recent years, nearly 25 percent of their market share to foreign competitors. Much of this loss is attributed to the excessive costs of the current product liability system, which wastes vital resources and inhibits the development and marketing of innovative products. The U.S. machine tool industry spends seven times more on product liability costs than on research and development. When the job creators have to pay insurance premiums instead of salaries, we've got a lot of people on unemployment for no good reason. Listen to the small business owner in Hoquiam who pays more in product liability premiums than he does in Federal taxes. Listen to the small business owner in Spokane who says his insurance premiums often equal his before-tax profits. This is outrageous. Innovation is also squelched because manufacturers decide not to market new products due to these excessive transaction costs and the possibility of unjustified, unpredictable but nonetheless crushing liability. These concerns further stifle innovation because scientific research essential for advanced product development, is foregone. For instance, promising AIDS vaccines have been shelved. New hazardous waste cleanup technologies have been shelved. Asbestos substitutes have been medicines that have been shelved and kept from the market goes on, and on, and on, and on. The current system is clearly broken, and it must be fixed. I hope that my colleagues will join with Senator Rockefeller and me in supporting a bill that seeks in a balanced way to introduce fairness and efficiency to our product liability system.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, March 20, 1995, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the Mexican peso.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment be granted permission to meet Friday, March 10, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing regarding the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA].

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet for a classified briefing during the session of the Senate on Friday, March 10, 1995, at 11 a.m.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Friday, March 19, 1995, beginning at 10:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on welfare reform.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend from Illinois on the remarkable eloquence of our senior colleague from West Virginia. I was thinking during his remarks how much they will be appreciated in printed form by Chaplain Halverson himself during the course of his retirement. They show a thoughtfulness and a sense for history and our culture which is unique with our friend from West Virginia. One particular set of remarks made by my friend from Illinois were particularly appropriate, I think, and they had to do with the impact of Chaplain Halverson on the other people, other than the Members in the Senate. One of the great occasional pleasures I can remember would be to walk down one of the Hallways here or in one of the Senate office buildings with the Chaplain and see how the faces of all we passed, all of the people who serve us and serve this body, would simply he was never in too much hurry not to stop and have a good word or two of greeting for each and every person. He was truly a Chaplain not just for 100 Senators but for all of the broad Senate family and for those in some sudden need who were just here as visitors as well. As he retires and leave us, my own remembrance, my own memory of him will be of a man who comes closer in character to what we read about when we read about the saints and the great religious leaders in history, that he partakes of more of those qualities than any other individual whom I have been privileged to know, not just during my career here but during my life. Chaplain Halverson, at some different time and some different place, might well end up being nominated a saint because his character was and remains a saintly character, who brings joy and sustenance and strength and peace into the lives of all with whom he associates.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have come over here to the floor this afternoon believing that the subject was the President's almost certainly unlawful Executive order with respect to striking replacements. I have not understood the debate was going to be on the entire panoply of social programs piled up over the course of the last 20 or 30 or 40 years on the backs of the people of the United States. But I think comments on those programs do deserve at least a certain degree of response. Last week, many of the most eloquent proponents of a wide range of social and cultural programs voted to reject the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Many of them, at least, on the grounds that it should be the Congress itself which provides the necessary discipline to protect future generations from the consequences of our propensity to run up huge unpaid debts. And yet when it comes to any criticism, any reduction in even the growth rate of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of those programs, the proponents of fiscal responsibility are denounced as uncaring and indifferent to the needs of the American people. Perhaps that argument would carry some weight if the growth of those programs had been accompanied by greater opportunities, a higher degree of family stability, more unity--in other words, had been accompanied by some demonstrable success as a result of all of those spending programs. Of course, the contrary is true. During exactly the period of time during which there have been growing social and economic challenges to this country, deterioration of the society of this country has accompanied the growth of those programs hand in hand. That does not prove in and of itself a cause and effect relationship, Mr. President, but it certainly makes dubious the proposition so eloquently presented here by the Senator from Massachusetts. The real burden which we have imposed on the people of the United States is the burden of debt, a burden which day after day, week after week, month after month, constricts our ability to provide jobs and opportunities for the people of this country. We need a change in direction, and the debate here today, as it was last week and the week before, is paradoxically between those who over the years have been known as conservatives but who now believe that radical changes are necessary for this country, and those who have led the drive for all of these social programs, these spending programs, one piled on top of another, who are now so intensely conservative that we hear from them no desire for any change whatsoever, save perhaps to spend more money on programs which have not worked in the past. The true proponents of the status quo are those who constantly fight against any change in our spending priorities whatsoever, who ask for more of the not just in our society and our economy but even our civility. I am firmly convinced, Mr. President, that we need a new way, a new direction. The failure to take that new direction, that new road last week has been accompanied in the last week by a substantial loss in the value of our currency, the dollar, a substantial loss in confidence in nations and among people overseas in our seriousness in the retention of our leadership. If we cannot pass a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, at least we have to be willing to do something about out-of-control spending programs even though we are almost certain to be criticized, no matter how small the changes in our priorities, as being somehow or another unfeeling. We are not unfeeling, Mr. President. It is our set of policies that will provide true opportunity for the people of the country in the future. And now to the amendment proposed by my distinguished colleague and seatmate, the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]. I believe that, as important as the issue of striker replacement is, the issue of who can make such rules under our constitutional system is even more important. This debate is not so much over the merits or lack of merits of striker replacement as it is over the wrong, and I believe almost certainly unlawful, action of the President of the United States to attempt to impose by fiat, by dictate, a policy which has been rejected explicitly in a long series of debates by the Congress of the United States. This action, Mr. President, is without precedent. This action is clearly in defiance of laws relating to labor/management relationships dating back some 60 years, expressly interpreted and approved by the Supreme Court of the United States, and debated in each of the last several Congresses without change. And yet, in spite of this statutory history, in spite of this judicial history, in spite of this political history, the President of the United States purports to change those rules. When his action is challenged, Mr. President, I am convinced that it will be overturned by the courts as entirely unlawful and beyond his authority. However, we should not wait passively, without reaction, to have the constitutional separation of powers be upheld by the courts of the United States. We should take that action ourselves. We should take that action ourselves, whatever our views on the merits of striker replacement, but simply to protect the rights and the duties of the elected representatives of the people of the United States to make fundamental determinations about statutory policies with respect to labor-management relations. That is the issue, Mr. President, with respect to the Kassebaum amendment. And it is for that reason that all Members of this body who care about the Constitution and the laws and about the separation of powers should vote for this amendment, whatever their views on the merits of the underlying policy itself. I am convinced that the Senator from Kansas should be commended. She has a special responsibility as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor. She is carrying out her duties under difficult circumstances, knowing that the issue itself is a contentious one, but she by this action has reminded us of our duties which we should now undertake to perform.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wonder if the managers of the bill would object if I went off this while they are looking for that approval and spoke as if in morning business for a short period of time.

Mr. GORTON. There will be no problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last Thursday at the end of the dramatic vote on the balanced budget amendment and its rejection by a single vote, there were many who felt that this was a tragedy with respect to dealing with the problems facing the United States and its huge budget deficits now and during the course of this year. While I was a strong supporter of that amendment, and while I hope that the majority leader is able to bring it back up for another and more successful vote sometime in future, I believe that its rejection not only did not reduce the pressure on Members of the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives or the President of the United States to work toward a balanced budget, but I believe that in fact it increased that pressure. On several occasions during the 5-week long debate on that proposition, I observed, as did others, that this body was divided essentially into three groups of Members with respect to the balanced budget and the balanced budget amendment: First, the rather large majority, those who believe that the present system was broken and needed to be fixed by radical and dramatic action, the imposition of an outside discipline on all of us to see to it that we did what we know needs to be done, but against which political pressures have for some 30 years been invariably successful; A smaller group of Members, who not only thought that a balanced budget amendment was undesirable but thought that a balanced budget itself was undesirable, who favor the status quo, not only with respect to the Constitution, but with respect to our own fiscal actions; And a third group who were very prominent in the debate who agreed with the proposition that we need a more responsible fiscal policy, that we need to work toward a balanced budget, but that we did not need the discipline of a constitutional amendment to cause that to take place. It is in one sense to that group, but also those who supported the constitutional amendment, that I speak here this evening. I believe that all of us are under the gun at this point. I think it behooves the party on this side of the aisle, the conservatives in this body, to seriously attempt to pass a budget resolution which, if followed for a 7-year period, would lead to a balanced budget in the year 2002, and to do that without touching Social Security and to do it with at least a modest tax cut on the level proposed by the President of the United States. I think that Members on this side will undertake that very, very difficult task. I believe that, if anything, the great majority of those who voted for the constitutional amendment find themselves even more determined today than they were a week ago to follow in fact the discipline they wanted to set for the indefinite future, even without that constitutional discipline. But I believe that goal encompasses not just those on this side of the aisle, not just the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, but his distinguished ranking Democratic member, who also voted for the constitutional amendment, and the majority of the members of the Senate Budget Committee. More important, however, Mr. President, I hope that that goal, in reality, will be shown to be the goal of all of those Members who said that they believe in a balanced budget but not in the amendment. If they will join with us, if they will express their support for a course of action bringing us to a in Social Security benefits, and with some reduction in taxes, they will have done in fact what they claim to support in theory. And if they will join with the 66 Members who voted for the constitutional amendment, we should have upward of 80 votes in this body for a responsible budget resolution, for the actions in reconciliation and outside of reconciliation necessary, to meet that goal this year, right now. I am optimistic, Mr. President. I think that determination is there, and I hope that the leadership of this body will be able to see to it that we start working toward it in fact, not just in theory, very soon, in the course of the next few weeks. We have all had our say. Those of us for the constitutional amendment should remain committed. Those against it, who claim to believe in a balanced budget, should be even more dedicated to the proposition that we do the job. If that is the result of last week's debate, our loss will not have been in vain. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.