T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 514, S. Con. Res. 81.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2443 be star printed with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3642, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein has a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 521, S. Res. 272.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to share with you an example of how local educators are using the innovations in the high tech field to improve our children's education. David Forrester, founder and director of the Learning Opportunities Center in Tumwater, Washington, has created a program that gives students with unique needs the opportunity to work at their own pace in an environment that teaches them new skills and encourages them to excel. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Mr. Forrester's outstanding work and give him my next Innovation in Education Award. David Forrester is the mastermind behind the Learning Opportunities Center which has grown over the last six years and now supports 150 students ages 9 to 21 from high schools in nearly ten separate school districts. The Center supports students from extremely rural areas or who have struggled in the traditional education system. Through this center, students succeed and take courses in English, Math, and Science through a computer system specifically created for their needs. With the help of grant money, Mr. Forrester has designed software which he has named Pathware. Pathware allows him to manage a large scope of curriculum and organize it to fit each student's needs. In essence, each student has their own personalized program that can help them work at their own level and pace in multiple subject areas, allowing him to maintain one-on-one relationships with his students. Pat Cusack, the Coordinator of the School to Work program at the New Market Vocational Skills Center considers David Forrester to have, ``He's a man with a big heart who puts kids first with tireless energy and tremendous vision.'' Shaun Rohr, a student of Mr. Forrester, has told me that because of the Learning Opportunities Center and Mr. Forrester's motivation, he has been offered a job in web-page design. Shaun says, ``Mr. Forrester is always there to help, and shows you different ways to approach a problem. At first I was not ready to learn web-page design, but Mr. Forrester kept asking me and showed me how. Without his belief in me and his patience with me, I probably would not have learned.'' I applaud the dedication and hard work of Mr. Forrester who has found new and creative ways to serve the needs of his students and I am proud to recognize his contributions and his persistence in carrying out his vision. By creating so many new options for children, Mr. Forrester is giving back to local schools and setting a wonderful example for those around him.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, next week when the Senate takes up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it will be dealing with the most important single issue, with the most vital single goal with which it will deal during the course of this session of Congress. That debate will be about our children, about their education, and about their future. There is unanimous recognition in this body that a good education, an education for the 21st century, will help our children and our grandchildren have an economically independent future, to understand the history of their tradition and their culture, and will open to all of their lives an opportunity for lifetime learning and personal enrichment. At the same time, as citizens, we recognize that the future of our democracy depends upon an educated citizenry and that we will need more and better educated people in an ever more complicated future. This year alone, I have had an opportunity, both in person and through video conferencing, to visit dozens of schools in individual school districts in my own State, an experience I know many of my colleagues have shared. More than a year ago, we developed a system of recognizing on almost a weekly basis an outstanding educator or an outstanding program someplace in the State of Washington, to both recognize and reward the innovation, the new thinking we all approve but sometimes find difficult to discover. Educators in my State--teachers, principals, superintendents, school board members--and thoughtful and involved parents are proud of their successes, but that pride is mixed with frustration, a frustration from the limitations placed on their ability to do what they think best for schoolchildren under their care because of the massive rules and regulations emanating from Washington, DC. Massive, I say, out of all proportion to the amount of money that comes to facilitate that education from sources in the District of Columbia. With all the good will in the world, we now, for 35 years, have attempted to reduce the gap between underprivileged and normally privileged children through title I. The Federal Government has spent more than $100 billion to reach that goal. But, bluntly, the goal has not only not been reached, it has not even been approached. We find in the country as a whole that two out of every three African American and Hispanic fourth graders can barely read. We find that 70 percent of children in high-poverty schools score below the most basic reading level. We find that fourth graders in high-poverty schools remain two or three grade levels behind their peers in low-poverty schools. For these kids, and for the future of our country, we can do better. We must do better. How can we possibly argue that maintaining the present system, or by adding to its complexity by increasing the number of rules and regulations coming from Washington, DC, we can help these disadvantaged students in the light of this history, or help any of our other students, for that matter? The status quo in the future will mean what the status quo in the past has meant. I am convinced--I hope all of us are convinced--that no child should be left behind. For the last 3 years, I have worked on, spoken for, and proposed to this body, new and better approaches that are now a part of the bill we will be dealing with next week called Straight A's, to allow innovation in States and in local communities in school districts across the United States, and to serve those children who are left behind by the present system. Straight A's would change the present pattern--unfortunately, in the form in which this bill appears before us in only 15 States; but in 15 very fortunate States--by giving them far more flexibility to use the money that comes from the Federal Government in the best interests of their children, without the blizzard of forms and paperwork that plagues our schools at the present time but with one overwhelmingly important underlined requirement: that the academic achievement of our children demonstrably improve on the basis of objective tests imposed by each of the States that take advantage of Straight A's. Under Straight A's, States and local communities could target more dollars to high-poverty areas if they believe that is an effective use of the money. In a very real sense, they would be encouraged to do so or to change the system for the better because, for the first time, States and local school districts would be rewarded--tangibly rewarded--by receiving an increased appropriation if, and as, they reduce the gap between disadvantaged students and other students in their systems. Right now there is no such incentive, simply hundreds of different categorical aid programs, many of them highly duplicative in nature, creating all kinds of bureaucracies that have succeeded in either getting dollars through to the classroom or in the far more important goal of raising student achievement. Yesterday, at a news conference, the State superintendent of schools in Georgia said 50 percent of the money that her schools received from the Federal Government went to administrative costs--50 percent--a terrible indictment of the present system. That money should be found in our schools educating our children, not creating more paperwork and more forms. The most dynamic forces in our schools today, in our education system today, are found in our States and in our local communities, not here in Washington, DC. Parents want a better education, and, Lord knows, those men and women who dedicate their entire lives to teaching our children--teachers and principals and superintendents--wish for exactly the same thing. I am convinced that we can enable them, we can empower them, to provide a far more effective education system for all of our children than we are doing at the present time. The way that we will provide that power, the way we will enable them, will be to trust them to make the right decisions, but in an expression borrowed from the cold war: Trust but verify. And we will verify. The only valid method of verification: A set of tests under which their actual objective achievement will be measured and reported here to Washington, DC, and to this Congress. This should not be--and I hope will not be--a partisan issue. I am convinced that working together we can significantly improve our system of public education in the United States and significantly increase the participation--the constructive participation--that this body, the Congress, and the President, make to that. I hope next week will be the advent of debate that will have exactly those results.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will direct the U.S. Trade Representative for the next year to negotiate fairer and more equal prices from foreign governmental purchasers, and, in the absence of success of doing so, make specific statutory recommendations to this Congress. This is a proposal the drug companies themselves suggested to me. I regard it as a constructive proposal, but not as a solution to the problem standing alone. But it is a tangible result of the course I have already charted, and one that came as a result of my communication with drug companies of my concerns and the earlier draft of the bill I am introducing today. The problem is a very simple one. American citizens are paying too much for prescription drugs because our companies are allowing foreign purchasers to pay too little for exactly the same drugs. At the very least, American citizens who have spent so much of their tax money in financing the research and development of these drugs should not be paying more than purchasers in other countries. That is the goal of each of the two bills I am introducing today, but what I really want and what the American people really want is a solution and answer to this problem.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday, a group of 22 Washington State senior citizens boarded a bus in Seattle and drove to British Columbia in Canada to purchase their prescription medicine. Collectively, those 22 individuals saved $12,000 by taking that bus ride--an average of more than $550 per individual. It is stories like this that have taken place over the last 2 or 3 years that bring me here today. Every day, all across our northern and southern borders, Americans leave the U.S. in order to purchase products discovered, developed, manufactured, and sold in the United States, but substances, prescription drugs, that are far less expensive in Canada, Mexico, and for that matter, in the United Kingdom and across Europe than here in the United States. My own office did an informal survey and found that for the ten most commonly prescribed drugs, prices in British Columbia average 60- percent less than prices for the identical drugs in the identical quantities in the State of Washington. These lower prices don't apply only in Washington State or in our northern border States. For example, Prozac, to treat depression, is 95 cents a pill in Mexico and $2.21 in the United States. The allergy drug, Claritin, costs almost $2 a pill in the United States and 41 cents in the United Kingdom. Rilutek, to treat Lou Gehrig's disease, costs $9,000 in the United States and $5,000 in France. Now, it is simply unfair to impose these higher prices on citizens of the United States at the drugstore cash register, when the same drugs are being sold by the same companies at wholesale, at so much lower prices almost everywhere else in the world. What is the reason for this price differential? It is a simple one. Each of these other countries imposes price controls on the price for which they allow their purchasers to pay. The American company, on the other hand, looks at the situation and says that price is too low to cover my costs of research and development, but I can impose all of the costs of research and development on American citizens. The marginal cost of manufacturing more pills and selling them in France, Mexico, or in Canada is really very small. So I can sell for half the price in Canada that I charge in the United States and still make a profit. The company makes out just fine. The American citizen pays the price. The American citizen pays the price more than once because the American citizen has already paid roughly 50 percent of the cost of developing that drug through our tax system, either through direct appropriations at the National Institutes of Health or through various research and development tax credits. Just on Sunday morning, the New York Times had an extensive article on a drug called Xalatan, which is used for glaucoma, an eye condition, developed by an NIH grant in the original instance at Columbia University, sold to an American drug company which did the rest of the research and development but sold today for one-third of the American price in Hungary, and barely half or a third of the American price in France and Canada and in the rest of the world. That is all due to the fact that these other countries are getting a free ride on the backs of American citizens, American purchasers, for the research, development, marketing, and sale of these drugs. Now, I have labored for the last 5 months to find an answer to this question, and my favorite answer to this question at this point is included in the bill. The bill is very simple. It builds on an almost 65-year-old precedent, which is the Robinson-Patman Act. In 1936, this Congress passed the Robinson-Patman Act and prohibited price discrimination, with very minor exceptions, in sales to U.S. purchasers from manufacturers and from wholesalers, designed originally to prevent the big chain company from getting such a price break from the manufacturer that it could drive its smaller competitors out of business. It simply prohibited that kind of price discrimination. My bill amends that 65-year-old Robinson-Patman Act by extending that nondiscriminatory provision from interstate commerce to interstate and foreign commerce with respect to prescription drugs. Remember, this law has applied to our American drug manufacturers for 65 years, as far as their sales within the United States are concerned. Now, if my bill passes, it will apply to their sales overseas, outside of our country. That will spread the cost of research and development fairly across all of the purchasers, not just the American purchasers, and will inevitably result in lower prices for American prescription drug users, which is exactly what we ought to do. We will give the drug manufacturers not only the opportunity, but the requirement that they treat their American purchasers fairly, just as they have been required not to discriminate among American purchasers for more than six decades. As you know, we are in the midst of a national debate over prescription drugs and, most particularly, over whether or not we should grant a prescription drug benefit to at least certain senior citizens who are the beneficiaries of our Medicare system. Just 2 weeks ago in this body, we voted on a budget resolution that authorizes up to $40 billion for such a drug benefit over the course of the next 5 years. I supported that budget resolution, and I will support what our proper committees report to us in response to that resolution. That will benefit one distinct group of senior citizens, those whose income levels are low enough to benefit from this assistance in purchasing their prescription drugs. It will do absolutely nothing for other seniors. It will do nothing for the 44 million uninsured in the United States. It will do nothing for the costs of health care insurance--for those policies that prescribe prescription drug benefits and, therefore, have that cost reflected in the insurance premiums at all. In other words, as important as it is to certain seniors, it won't go to the heart of the problem--the high and increasing cost of prescription drugs. Part of those high costs are due to the great success of our drug companies. More and more, a greater share of our health care dollars go to the prescription drug feature every year because they are now successful in treating conditions that previously could not be treated at all or required hospitalization. We should hail that progress. We certainly should support drug companies' research and development of new medicines, but we should not countenance discrimination against American citizens and against American purchasers by allowing those companies to sell precisely the same prescription in almost every other country in the world at prices half or less than half of what they sell them for in the United States. I have been working on this proposition ever since a November 1999 cover story in Time magazine which first illustrated the stark nature of this problem and its costs. With all of this work and with my consultation over the last month with the drug companies themselves, which do not like my bill one bit, I have sought a goal. I am not wedded to a particular means. I think this bill is a good way to reach that goal, but it is not necessarily the only goal. I want the drug companies themselves to come up with an answer to this question. Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced so-called ``reimportation'' bills, which I find relatively attractive though rather bizarre. At the present time, my senior citizens can go up to Canada, as they did yesterday, and buy a 3-month supply of prescriptions for their own personal use and bring them back to the United States. But the pharmacy in Bellingham, WA, can't go up to a wholesaler in Canada and get the lower Canadian price and pass it on to that pharmacy's customers in the State of Washington. That kind of reimportation is barred, even though we are talking about precisely the drug that the Bellingham pharmacy is now required to buy directly from the manufacturer. Reimportation bills with certain limitations would lift that restriction and would allow the bizarre situation where the drugstore in the United States could purchase an American-manufactured drug in Canada for less than it could buy it for in the United States. I think that solution may very well be the direction in which we ought to go. I am also convinced that there are other ways of doing it. I will say that the drug companies made a reasonable suggestion to me for a tiny bit of the problem.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will direct the U.S. Trade Representative for the next year to negotiate fairer and more equal prices from foreign governmental purchasers, and, in the absence of success of doing so, make specific statutory recommendations to this Congress. This is a proposal the drug companies themselves suggested to me. I regard it as a constructive proposal, but not as a solution to the problem standing alone. But it is a tangible result of the course I have already charted, and one that came as a result of my communication with drug companies of my concerns and the earlier draft of the bill I am introducing today. The problem is a very simple one. American citizens are paying too much for prescription drugs because our companies are allowing foreign purchasers to pay too little for exactly the same drugs. At the very least, American citizens who have spent so much of their tax money in financing the research and development of these drugs should not be paying more than purchasers in other countries. That is the goal of each of the two bills I am introducing today, but what I really want and what the American people really want is a solution and answer to this problem.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday, a group of 22 Washington State senior citizens boarded a bus in Seattle and drove to British Columbia in Canada to purchase their prescription medicine. Collectively, those 22 individuals saved $12,000 by taking that bus ride--an average of more than $550 per individual. It is stories like this that have taken place over the last 2 or 3 years that bring me here today. Every day, all across our northern and southern borders, Americans leave the U.S. in order to purchase products discovered, developed, manufactured, and sold in the United States, but substances, prescription drugs, that are far less expensive in Canada, Mexico, and for that matter, in the United Kingdom and across Europe than here in the United States. My own office did an informal survey and found that for the ten most commonly prescribed drugs, prices in British Columbia average 60- percent less than prices for the identical drugs in the identical quantities in the State of Washington. These lower prices don't apply only in Washington State or in our northern border States. For example, Prozac, to treat depression, is 95 cents a pill in Mexico and $2.21 in the United States. The allergy drug, Claritin, costs almost $2 a pill in the United States and 41 cents in the United Kingdom. Rilutek, to treat Lou Gehrig's disease, costs $9,000 in the United States and $5,000 in France. Now, it is simply unfair to impose these higher prices on citizens of the United States at the drugstore cash register, when the same drugs are being sold by the same companies at wholesale, at so much lower prices almost everywhere else in the world. What is the reason for this price differential? It is a simple one. Each of these other countries imposes price controls on the price for which they allow their purchasers to pay. The American company, on the other hand, looks at the situation and says that price is too low to cover my costs of research and development, but I can impose all of the costs of research and development on American citizens. The marginal cost of manufacturing more pills and selling them in France, Mexico, or in Canada is really very small. So I can sell for half the price in Canada that I charge in the United States and still make a profit. The company makes out just fine. The American citizen pays the price. The American citizen pays the price more than once because the American citizen has already paid roughly 50 percent of the cost of developing that drug through our tax system, either through direct appropriations at the National Institutes of Health or through various research and development tax credits. Just on Sunday morning, the New York Times had an extensive article on a drug called Xalatan, which is used for glaucoma, an eye condition, developed by an NIH grant in the original instance at Columbia University, sold to an American drug company which did the rest of the research and development but sold today for one-third of the American price in Hungary, and barely half or a third of the American price in France and Canada and in the rest of the world. That is all due to the fact that these other countries are getting a free ride on the backs of American citizens, American purchasers, for the research, development, marketing, and sale of these drugs. Now, I have labored for the last 5 months to find an answer to this question, and my favorite answer to this question at this point is included in the bill. The bill is very simple. It builds on an almost 65-year-old precedent, which is the Robinson-Patman Act. In 1936, this Congress passed the Robinson-Patman Act and prohibited price discrimination, with very minor exceptions, in sales to U.S. purchasers from manufacturers and from wholesalers, designed originally to prevent the big chain company from getting such a price break from the manufacturer that it could drive its smaller competitors out of business. It simply prohibited that kind of price discrimination. My bill amends that 65-year-old Robinson-Patman Act by extending that nondiscriminatory provision from interstate commerce to interstate and foreign commerce with respect to prescription drugs. Remember, this law has applied to our American drug manufacturers for 65 years, as far as their sales within the United States are concerned. Now, if my bill passes, it will apply to their sales overseas, outside of our country. That will spread the cost of research and development fairly across all of the purchasers, not just the American purchasers, and will inevitably result in lower prices for American prescription drug users, which is exactly what we ought to do. We will give the drug manufacturers not only the opportunity, but the requirement that they treat their American purchasers fairly, just as they have been required not to discriminate among American purchasers for more than six decades. As you know, we are in the midst of a national debate over prescription drugs and, most particularly, over whether or not we should grant a prescription drug benefit to at least certain senior citizens who are the beneficiaries of our Medicare system. Just 2 weeks ago in this body, we voted on a budget resolution that authorizes up to $40 billion for such a drug benefit over the course of the next 5 years. I supported that budget resolution, and I will support what our proper committees report to us in response to that resolution. That will benefit one distinct group of senior citizens, those whose income levels are low enough to benefit from this assistance in purchasing their prescription drugs. It will do absolutely nothing for other seniors. It will do nothing for the 44 million uninsured in the United States. It will do nothing for the costs of health care insurance--for those policies that prescribe prescription drug benefits and, therefore, have that cost reflected in the insurance premiums at all. In other words, as important as it is to certain seniors, it won't go to the heart of the problem--the high and increasing cost of prescription drugs. Part of those high costs are due to the great success of our drug companies. More and more, a greater share of our health care dollars go to the prescription drug feature every year because they are now successful in treating conditions that previously could not be treated at all or required hospitalization. We should hail that progress. We certainly should support drug companies' research and development of new medicines, but we should not countenance discrimination against American citizens and against American purchasers by allowing those companies to sell precisely the same prescription in almost every other country in the world at prices half or less than half of what they sell them for in the United States. I have been working on this proposition ever since a November 1999 cover story in Time magazine which first illustrated the stark nature of this problem and its costs. With all of this work and with my consultation over the last month with the drug companies themselves, which do not like my bill one bit, I have sought a goal. I am not wedded to a particular means. I think this bill is a good way to reach that goal, but it is not necessarily the only goal. I want the drug companies themselves to come up with an answer to this question. Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced so-called ``reimportation'' bills, which I find relatively attractive though rather bizarre. At the present time, my senior citizens can go up to Canada, as they did yesterday, and buy a 3-month supply of prescriptions for their own personal use and bring them back to the United States. But the pharmacy in Bellingham, WA, can't go up to a wholesaler in Canada and get the lower Canadian price and pass it on to that pharmacy's customers in the State of Washington. That kind of reimportation is barred, even though we are talking about precisely the drug that the Bellingham pharmacy is now required to buy directly from the manufacturer. Reimportation bills with certain limitations would lift that restriction and would allow the bizarre situation where the drugstore in the United States could purchase an American-manufactured drug in Canada for less than it could buy it for in the United States. I think that solution may very well be the direction in which we ought to go. I am also convinced that there are other ways of doing it. I will say that the drug companies made a reasonable suggestion to me for a tiny bit of the problem.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, during this week prior to the April deadline for filing income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service, Congress often focuses on the high tax burden shouldered by American families and the need for tax reform. Fundamental reform is my top tax legislative priority. I believe the entire confusing and incomprehensible tax code should be scrapped and replaced with a system that is fair, simple, uniform and consistent. Until such fundamental reform can take place, I will continue to work in support of tax reform measures that correct unfair aspects of the existing tax code mess. One section of the code that I believe needs to be changed and changed soon is Section 415. Section 415 of the tax code was enacted in 1974 for the purpose of limiting the pensions of corporate executives. Section 415 no longer impacts corporate executives, but it does unfairly impact middle income workers who are prevented from collecting the full pensions they earned and deserve from their multi-employer plan. This is as simple as the tax code keeping workers from being able to collect their own money. I believe this injustice should be corrected, and I have cosponsored legislation, Senate bill 1209, that will restore fairness to this section of the tax code. The Senate version of the 1999 tax relief bill included the fix to Section 415. I am pleased that the Senate joined me in recognizing the absolute need to correct Section 415 and to stop unfairly punishing workers by blocking access to their hard-earned pensions, though I am disappointed that this change did not become law last year. It was, however, an important step towards achieving reform. As the nation focuses on tax season, I reaffirm my dedication to fighting to pass legislation to bring fairness to Section 415 of the tax code and ensure our nation's workers collect what they have rightfully earned.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, next Monday is the deadline for all Americans to file their 1999 income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service. This week the Senate has appropriately dedicated its attention to the tax burden placed on Americans, particularly the unfair marriage tax penalty. Simply, the marriage tax penalty is an injustice in the current Federal income Tax Code that results in a married couple filing a joint tax return paying more in taxes than if the same couple were not married and filed as individuals. Every week of the year I receive letters from Washington state constituents outraged by the marriage tax penalty, but during tax season my mailbox is deluged with the protests of married couples. Last year, Congress passed a tax relief bill that would have eliminated the marriage penalty, but President Clinton vetoed this needed reform. This year, Democrats have spent this entire week delaying and then blocking a Senate vote on a bill to end the marriage penalty. Maybe some of my colleagues should hear what I read in the letters I receive asking for action by Congress and the President to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. From an email I received from a constituent in Maple Valley, Washington: ``I wanted to express my hope that you and the other members of Congress will be able to eliminate the marriage penalty tax * * * Why should I pay more in taxes since I am married?'' From Bellingham, Washington: ``Fairness! It all comes down to fairness. Please stop penalizing us for being married. We deserve the same as two single taxpayers.'' From a family farmer in Eastern Washington state: ``I believe the marriage tax penalty is a mistake that should be corrected. It would establish fairness in our tax system.'' This is merely a sampling of the hundreds of letters I have received, but it is an accurate representation of the views of my constituents and the vast majority of Americans. My No. 1 tax legislative priority is complete tax reform. I believe the entire confusing and incomprehensible Tax Code should be scrapped and replaced with a system that is fair, simple, uniform and consistent. Until such fundamental reform can take place, I will continue to work in support of tax reform and relief measures that correct unfair aspects of the existing tax code mess. The marriage tax penalty is absolutely one of the most outrageous and indefensible injustices in the current Tax Code. Efforts to delay and block the elimination of the marriage tax penalty are clearly an affront to a sense of fairness, the institution of marriage, and they are contrary to the desires of an overwhelming majority of Americans. The Senate should vote now to correct the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there are, in my view, two remarkable aspects to the budget resolution conference report before the Senate this afternoon. The first is, I believe for only the third or fourth time since the Budget Act was passed, the promptness with which the Senate is dealing on a final basis with a budget resolution that is the springboard from which we will do the substantive work of the appropriations for the balance of this year. For that promptness, for the efficiency with which the Senate has dealt with this issue, we owe our deepest and sincerest thanks not only to the chairman of the committee, my friend, Pete Domenici, but to the staff who have labored so long and so hard on a highly technical and complicated task. More significant perhaps than the significance of finishing our work on time is the substantive nature of this budget resolution. It is exquisitely balanced among three separate needs: The need to adequately fund those programs that are already major responsibilities of the Federal Government; the need to provide for additional programs of considerable interest, the most significant of which being the Medicare program about which Senator Domenici spoke earlier, but also including priorities with respect to education--particularly close to my heart-- and to our national defense. The second substantive element of this budget resolution is the dramatic reduction in the national debt it will cause. It is only a short period of time since we were discussing how we could reduce annual national deficits of upwards of a quarter a trillion a year. Now we face the equally difficult but far more pleasant prospect of paying off the national debt at a very substantial rate. The third element in this budget resolution is the opportunity to provide tax relief for hard-working Americans who pay taxes. The chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, pointed out the importance of the bill, which regrettably was subjected to a filibuster earlier today, to end the unconscionable penalty against married Americans, both of whom are at work. The thought that a couple in love, even in relatively modest professions, should pay a penalty for getting married rather than receiving the approbation of society for doing so is bizarre. To have the ability to provide for that marriage tax penalty relief, amounting, as the chairman pointed out, to almost half of the allowed tax relief in the bill, is a vitally important part of this budget resolution. As the chairman himself pointed out, if for some reason we cannot pass tax relief, or if for some reason we pass a tax relief bill that is vetoed by the President, then that money should go to further pay down the national debt. Regrettably, many of the Members on the other side, as evidenced by their actions just a week ago when we were debating this issue on the floor of the Senate, would prefer to spend it. I suspect if we added up the expenditures contained in all of their unsuccessful amendments, we not only would have spent the entire general fund surplus, but we would have once again eaten into the Social Security surplus as well. In summary, we have a budget resolution that allows us adequately to fund the functions of government. It allows us to meet some new needs and desires of the American people. It allows us modest but still significant room for tax relief. It makes dramatic payments on the national debt. For each and every one of those reasons, we not only owe our thanks to the chairman of the Budget Committee and to his staff, I believe we owe our votes in favor of the resolution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Every April, Americans are reintroduced to the beauty of Spring by blooming tulips, green lawns, and the 5.5 million word federal income tax code. As every citizen wrestles with the complexity and incomprehensibility of the mammoth tax code to file his or her return by the April 15th (April 17th this year) annual deadline, there is virtually universal agreement that change is desperately needed. I believe that amending the tax code is not enough. I believe that we must scrap the entire tax code--it is too complicated, too burdensome, too unfair. How complicated is the tax code? Here are some illustrative facts and figures. The current federal income tax system was born in 1913 as a law under 100 pages in length. The original 1040 form covered two pages, front and back. This included instructions. Today, the 1040 form has 76 pages of instructions alone. The most basic tax form today, the EZ1040, has 33 pages of instructions. The annotated tax code fills 14 volumes of some 11,700 pages, and it takes an additional 19 volumes totaling another almost 11,750 pages to contain the regulations governing the code. To implement the code, the Internal Revenue Service prints over 400 forms and more than 100 pamphlets with instructions on how to complete these forms. We need to focus our attention in Congress on developing a new tax system, and we need the President to support changing the current tax code, instead of defending it from reform. Fundamental reform of the tax code is my number one tax priority and I believe a new federal tax system must be based on four principles: fairness, simplicity, uniformity and consistency. My support for tax reform should not be interpreted as opposition to providing tax relief to American families and working individuals who are sending more of their paycheck to the federal government in taxes than at almost any point in our nation's history. I absolutely support allowing people to keep more of the money they earned, and am pleased that the budget resolution adopted by Congress allows for a responsible reduction in taxes of $150 billion over the next 5 years, rather than the $13 billion tax increase for next year that the Clinton-Gore Administration proposed in their budget. The budget plan will allow Congress to consider several tax relief measures that not only reduce the tax burden on Americans, but also make the tax code simpler and more fair. Congress has already passed legislation to repeal the Social Security Earnings Limit that penalized working seniors one dollar of Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn over the limit of $17,000. Congress is engaged in a debate to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Eliminating the estate, or death, tax is not only a priority of mine and many in Congress, it is a priority for small business owners and family farmers whose very existence is threatened by this disgraceful tax. Americans deserve a tax code they can understand and predict. About the only thing Americans can predict about the current tax code is that every April they will likely be sending a big check off to Uncle Sam, and about the only thing they understand is that the IRS will find them if they do not. This must change and it is why I am working for a new tax system that is fair, simple, uniform and consistent. A new code based on these four principles will free Americans from suffering through the forms and tax tables of April tax season, and allow them to enjoy the blossoms and sunshine of the April Spring season.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, American consumers are feeling the impact of high oil prices. Obviously, the increase is noticeable at the gas pump, but it also is being felt in less visible ways through increases in the cost of goods and services as airline prices and shipping costs escalate. I have stated, in no uncertain terms, that I consider responsibility for the current situation largely to lie at the feet of the Clinton-Gore Administration. Thanks to nearly eight years of their short-sighted policies, we are increasingly dependent on foreign oil. To make matters worse, not only does the Clinton-Gore Administration not have any clear plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they actually appear to be moving in the opposite direction, seeming at every turn making it more difficult to develop domestic energy sources, whether it be gasoline, petroleum products, coal, oil, or hydropower. As it is largely through the bungling efforts of the current Administration that we are in this situation, I believe it is appropriate that the U.S. Senate counterbalance their efforts with some modest relief. A suspension of the 4.3-cent federal fuel excise tax, imposed in the early days of the Clinton Gore administration, should provide the short term relief consumers deserve. As Congress addresses these issues, however, we must seek a solution that not only attacks this problem from the perspective of energy supply, but also energy use. A key aspect of any debate on this subject must focus on motor vehicle fuel consumption. The United States currently uses about 17 million barrels of oil per day to run cars and trucks. Thanks to the existence of Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, three million barrels of oil are conserved each day. Despite the clear success of CAFE standards, however, Congress has prevented the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from even considering whether we can do better, particularly in relation to the fuel efficiency standards of lights trucks, which haven't been significantly increased in ten years. Many constituents and colleagues are often surprised to learn of my advocacy for CAFE standards. My motivation is simple, and is based on the success of the original CAFE statute. I feel that NHTSA should at least be allowed to study whether an additional increasing CAFE standards is an appropriate action. As you may know, light truck standards have not had a significant increase in the last ten years. Light trucks are regulated separately from cars and are only required to get 20.7 mpg on fleet average as opposed to 27.5 for cars. In 1983, the average fuel economy of light trucks was already 20.7 mpg. Since 1983 it has dropped .3 mpg to 20.4. This is hardly a technological breakthrough. I am not swayed by doomsday predictions from automakers who claim they will be forced to manufacture fleets of subcompact cars. These are the same arguments that were used during the original debate in 1974. One only needs to examine the possible options available to consumers today to disprove this theory. When consumers can purchase SUVs as large as the Chevy Suburban or Ford Excursion, it is hard to argue that consumer choice has been compromised. I have complete faith in American automobile manufacturers that they can continue to produce fuel efficient vehicles that are the envy of the world. Therefore, it was with great interest that I listened to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson testify before the Interior Subcommittee this morning on the Clinton Administration's multi-faceted plan to address high gasoline prices. This testimony focused on a lengthy discussion of the results of last month's diplomatic efforts. When pressed on the Administration's plan to decrease this country's dependence on foreign oil sources, Secretary Richardson went on to tout his proposals to improve alternative fuel options and fuel efficiency. He suggested tax incentives and credits for U.S. oil producers, fuel efficient vehicle production, and alternative fuel development. Unfortunately, there was no mention of CAFE standards. In response to this omission, I had to ask why this Administration has failed to actively support new fuel efficiency standards. When I pressed Secretary Richardson to commit to making CAFE standards a centerpiece of the Clinton-Gore Administration's effort to address the current fuel shortage and long-term foreign oil dependency of this country, he ducked the question and told me he wished the EPA Administrator was available to answer. I am perplexed by this response. Obviously, U.S. auto manufacturers have demonstrated they are more than up to the challenge of producing more fuel efficient light trucks and SUVs. In fact, Ford Motor Company just announced plans to start selling within three years a hybrid gas- and-electric-powered SUV that gets about 40 miles per gallon. Therefore, I fail to understand why the Clinton-Gore Administration can't make simply studying a possible increase in CAFE standards a top priority in this debate. I challenge the White House to embrace this common sense approach, which is certainly preferable to the groveling diplomacy it engaged in just weeks ago.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the past seven years, the children at Franklin Middle School in Yakima, Washington have benefitted greatly from the dedication and hard work of their principal, Mr. Rick Otto. He has been credited by his colleagues for turning the school around with his new ideas, helping disadvantaged students, and creating a positive atmosphere. I applaud Principal Otto's work to bring about such important changes and improvements in his school and am proud to present Principal Otto with my next ``Innovation in Education'' Award. Principal Otto has a distinguished record of service at Franklin Middle School. For many years, he taught technology classes before working as an assistant principal. In 1993, he became the principal and realized that in order to improve Franklin Middle School, the community would have to become more involved. Throughout his tenure, Principal Otto has built a strong relationship with parents, community leaders and residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. The work of Principal Otto and the community has made a tremendous impact resulting in a renewed sense of discipline and higher expectations in student performance. One of the challenges taken on by Principal Otto was improving the academic achievement of its high-concentration of non-English speaking families as well as helping students traditionally described as disadvantaged. Under Mr. Otto's leadership, Franklin created an ``At- Risk'' program which targets the children who are having trouble in school, gives them more attention in the classroom, and monitors their improvement. In the past five years, 69 percent of the students participating in the ``At-Risk'' program have improved in all areas of their education. The ``At-Risk'' program has also vastly improved the morale of students and staff across the Franklin campus. I have heard many words of praise from members of the Franklin Middle School community who regard him as a model educator and admire his steadfast dedication to his students. Their words speak more highly of Principal Otto than I, as a United States Senator, ever could. Clearly, Principal Otto is a leader in the field of education who recognizes the challenges that exist in his school and works each day to meet those challenges and make his students better learners. I applaud Principal Otto and know that the past, present and future children attending Franklin Middle School will be better students because of him.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in a continuing effort to recognize excellence in education I would like to award Darvin Ecklund of the Cedar Heights Environmental Resources Learning Center in Port Orchard, Washington with an `Innovation in Education' Award. Two years ago, Mr. Ecklund, a Natural Resources teacher at Cedar Heights Junior High, created an after school center that focuses on environmental activities and teaches students the importance of rehabilitating our local natural resources. I think Mr. Ecklund's concept is a remarkable after school option for junior high students as an alternative, safe environment where they can learn and have fun at the same time. The focus of the Cedar Heights Environmental Resources Learning Center aims to stimulate kids toward saving the environment around them. Recently, the Center renovated local ponds and developed plant life to be used in future rehabilitation projects. Children learn to identify common and scientific names of plants and wildlife. To date, over six hundred salmon have been raised in this Center! This is a truly remarkable way to integrate science into children's lives with a hands on approach. We all know that we live in a busy world where sometimes kids end up waiting for their parents to return from work. I cannot think of a better way to see kids spend a few hours after-school, as well as getting parents involved in their children's after-school activities. Currently, there are over one hundred kids participating in this program. High school students are also part of Mr. Ecklund's staff and help organize activities and provide assistance as well. Mr. Ecklund has also found a way for kids at the Cedar Heights Environmental Resources Learning Center to develop a relationship with the retirement community across the street. The Center offers retirees an educational as well as relaxing place to come and share time with the students. The Center has made the paths around the Environmental Center wheel-chair accessible. After hearing this, I was encouraged that this community has found a way to connect young people not only to the environment, but to their elders. I applaud Mr. Ecklund for creating such an innovative program that connects older and younger students to helping the environment and spending time with seniors. Ms. Pat Green, Principal of Cedar Heights Junior High, said the following about Mr. Ecklund: ``He is passionate about the environment and teaching kids how to raise fish as a sustainable resource. The kids are learning hands-on science in action!" Mr. Pat Oster, Assistant Principal of Cedar Heights Junior High commends Mr. Ecklund's efforts, describing him as, ``a very caring and energetic person who devotes generous time to the many students he interacts with on a daily basis.'' I have been a long supporter of preserving the environment. I am impressed by the originality of this program and hope other after- school centers will follow in the footsteps of the Cedar Heights Environmental Resources Learning Center. This is truly science in action!

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is an amendment by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin regarding the establishment of a national background check system for long-term care workers. It has been agreed to, and I think we can take it directly to a vote.

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

Mr. GORTON. Two minutes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside and we call up, first, amendment No. 2942, and then 3011, both of which have been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Daly, a fellow in the office of Senator Abraham, be granted floor privileges for the period of consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 101.