T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Two minutes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the discrimination in the price for prescription drugs on the part of American companies between drugs sold in the U.S. and drugs sold for less overseas, and it expresses the concern of the Senate about that discrimination and the desire that it be reduced or eliminated.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

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.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have listened with great care to the Senator from Connecticut paradoxically claiming that to create a half dozen new categorical education aid programs and keeping control over all of them, to enable the U.S. Department of Education to write a few hundred pages more of rules and regulations, somehow or another enhances local control. Mr. President, that is an Alice in Wonderland argument. A debate that will be at the heart of education will take place in this body next month when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act comes to the floor. By a regrettable partisan vote, that committee has proposed an Elementary and Secondary Education Act renewal that gives more promise to increase the academic performance of our students than has any other educational debate in this body for a decade or more. On one side, including the chairman of the committee whose bill that is before us, are those who believe in true education reform and the kind of innovation that focuses not on how well teachers and superintendents and principals fill out Federal forms but on how well our students actually do. On the other side is the attitude that the Federal Government knows best and that somehow or other men and women all across the United States of America--parents and teachers and principals and superintendents and elected school board members, most of them working without compensation--somehow or other don't know or don't care what is best for their kids and we have to provide them with guidance. Recently on this issue, one of my colleagues said that if we give these local communities the right to set their own education priorities, they will likely use the money for ``building a new locker room or redecorating office space.'' On hearing this charge, one of my superintendents, the superintendent of the Oak Harbor School District, had this to say: School boards are very close to their constituencies. Probably more than any other type of governing body, they are sensitive to the needs and demands of their communities. After all, they see their constituents on a daily basis at grocery stores, soccer fields and dance concerts. A parent can easily influence all five of our board members. Ten parents can move mountains locally. By contrast, what influence would these same people have on the education department, or even Congress? The best opportunity to avoid wasteful expenditures of education funds is at the local level where individual citizens have the greatest power and influence. Yet what do we have from the minority party in the health committee on this request? Twenty new Federal education programs. We already have teacher training programs, to early childhood programs, to programs for delinquent and at-risk youths. They offered these new programs in that committee even though the General Accounting Office finds that we already fund 127 at-risk and delinquent youth programs in 15 Federal agencies and departments, 86 teacher training programs in 9 Federal agencies and departments, and more than 90 early childhood programs in 11 Federal agencies and departments. But, according to them, we need 20 more to be added to all of these. Our view, to the contrary, is just this. We should allow our States and local education agencies to make the determinations of how best to use this money, and we should hold them accountable in only one way so the students actually do better. We have offered three alternatives. One is that any State that likes the present system, that believes it is perfectly all right to fill out these forms, that doesn't mind a bureaucracy with hundreds of different education programs, can continue to do it the way they do it today. Any State that likes the present system can continue it. Fifteen States will be allowed the opportunity under Straight A's simply to take all of the money, give 95 percent of it to the school districts in the same proportion they get it today, and be accountable only for the performance of their students. And all of the other States will be allowed the program proposed by the National Governors' Association, both Democrats and Republicans, that would require title I money at least to go directly down to the school district in exactly the amounts that it does today. For 35 years under title I, we have attempted to reduce the disparity between title I-eligible students and the more privileged students who are not eligible for title I. That disparity has not increased. For the first time in these programs, we are actually offering an incentive-- more money to those States that work to decrease the disparity and show they have actually been successful. There is, unfortunately, a great gulf between the two sides on this issue. The one side likes the present system and, in fact, apparently believes we need more than 127 programs for at-risk and delinquent youths, more than 90 early childhood programs, more than 86 different and distinct teacher training programs, more forms from the Federal Government and from the bureaucracy, and less trust in the ability and interest of either State officials or local school officials in making the determination as to what our children need to succeed. That is simply wrong. The men and women who know our children's names know best what they need to succeed in education. The accountability we set out for them in our proposal is the most fundamental accountability of all. It is: To see to it that your students do better, come up with a system of tests that show whether or not they are succeeding in their academic subjects, and if they do succeed, you will go forward with this flexibility; you will in fact get more money. The difference is striking. It is a great contrast. But those who believe in local control will allow the people in our States and communities to have that control, and we will not tell them they have to spend their time filling out forms and following hundreds of pages of Federal regulations. There is a great gulf between the two sides in this debate. But our side is the one that believes in the future of our children and believes the future can best be determined by their parents, by their teachers, and by their elected school board members at home. To go down the road putting more money into a failed system is to put new wine in old bottles. The bottles will simply burst and the wine be wasted.

Mr. GORTON. Ten minutes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the manager of the bill is on the floor. I ask to be yielded some time, if he would.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to sit down and listen to military retirees during their veterans service organizations' annual visit to Washington, DC. Without exception, access to health care was a priority for each and every group. As a retired officer in the Air Force Reserve, I understand the interest in and importance of this issue to those who dedicated a career to serving and defending our Nation--I speak not only of the service members themselves, but their spouses and dependent family members as well. After listening to retirees' personal stories and policy presentations, as well as reading the numerous letters on health care legislation I receive each week from military retirees across Washington State, I am convinced that Congress, the President and the Department of Defense must address the issue of retirees' access to health care. In response to the requests of my military retiree constituents, I am cosponsoring Senate bills 915 and 2003, the ``Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act.'' In the past several years, I cosponsored and supported efforts to establish the Medicare subvention demonstration program, now known as Tricare Senior Prime, and the FEHBP demonstration program. The Tricare Senior Prime demonstration program allows Medicare-eligible retirees to receive care at military facilities with Medicare paying the Department of Defense for the costs of that care. Some retirees in my State of Washington have been able to participate in the Tricare Senior Prime demonstration program as Madigan Army Medical Center was one of the designated test sites. I have spoken with the Commanding Officer at Madigan, my staff has met at length with those overseeing the test at Madigan, as well as the participating retirees, and it appears the test is a significant success. Two concerns I have heard about the Tricare Senior Prime program are that this is a demonstration and is scheduled to end in December of this year, and that Medicare's current reimbursement scheme to the Defense Department will not fiscally support a permanent program. Senate bill 915 will make the Tricare Senior Prime test program permanent and expand it nationwide to facilities not in the test. It is important for the Defense Department and Congress to act to ensure Tricare Senior Prime demonstration program does not expire at the end of this year and I will be working hard to ensure Tricare Senior Prime is maintained. I also intend to work to see that Medicare fairly reimburses the Defense Department so that the costs of the Tricare Senior Prime program do not impact the services' ability to care for active duty service members and their families. Senate bill 2003, sponsored by Senators Tim Johnson, Paul Coverdell, and 24 other Senators, would entitle all retirees, and their widow or widower, access to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP), to which all federal non-military retirees have access. As I stated previously, I supported establishing the current FEHBP demonstration program. My support for the demonstration and my decision to cosponsor this bill is driven, to a great degree, by the fact that there are many retirees who do not live in close proximity to a military treatment facility, some due to base closures that shut down facilities in their area of the country. This legislation would provide retirees access to health care regardless of where they choose to live. S. 2003 will also expand access to Tricare to allow Medicare-eligible retirees. One other issue that I know is of considerable concern to military retirees is the cost of prescription drugs. This concern is heightened, in a border State like Washington, by the disparity in drug prices between the United States and Canada--an issue on which I am working for a common-sense, straight-forward solution. Of interest to Medicare- eligible retirees is access to prescription drugs from DoD facilities or a mail-order program. I believe that it is only fair and appropriate for Congress to consider military retirees when debating the creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, which I support. My cosponsorship of Senate bill 2003 and 915 is driven by the firm belief that Congress must address the current health care situation of military retirees. The President and Defense Department must be active participants in this matter. Military retirees dedicated their lives to defending our Nation and protecting our interests around the world-- they are due a serious legislative response.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business, the time not charged under cloture.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, good health is one of life's greatest blessings. Over the last 25 years, there has been a tremendous change for the better in the delivery of health care. New drugs help to prevent heart disease and provide better treatments for cancer, allergies, depression, and many other debilitating conditions. In short, prescription drugs can help people live longer, lead healthier, happier, more productive lives--and can help lower the overall cost of health care. We all applaud. The United States leads the world in the development of new drugs. Almost half of the new drugs developed in the last 25 years were created in the USA. But new drugs are expensive to develop. Only one of every five candidate medicines will turn out to be effective, be approved by the FDA and make it to drug store shelves. Last year, the drug industry spent $24 billion on research and development. U.S. taxpayers also invest $18 billion every year in the National Institutes of Health, which provides grants for basic health research. Drug companies that are willing to take on the risk of developing new treatments receive tax credits for their research and development costs. Yet when American consumers pick up their prescription at the drugstore they pay again for research and development in the form of higher prices. Why? Every other developed country imposes some form of price control. Those countries pay for the cost of manufacturing the drug, which is normal, and maybe some profit; but they don't even come close to paying a fair share of the research and development costs of new drugs developed in the United States. So when some Americans get sick, they can't afford the medicine they need to stay healthy. Instead they go without or they ration medicine. If they are able to travel, Americans cross the borders to Canada or Mexico to buy for much less, the prescriptions they need to stay healthy. I was curious to know just how much my constituents were savings by traveling to Canada. My office recently conducted an informal study comparing the prices of the top ten most commonly prescribed prescription drugs in several Washington state retail drug stores to the price paid in a typical Canadian pharmacy. I was astounded by the results: on average prices are 64% lower in Canada. Here are a few examples: The average cost of 30 pills of Zocor, which used to treat high cholesterol, is $76 in our state, in Canada it costs $38; Premerin, an estrogen replacement therapy used by many women, is $26 in our state and $10.50 just across the border; and a popular new allergy treatment, Claritin, is just $34 in Canada but almost $80 in Washington State. During last week's break, I spent time talking with seniors, doctors, hospital administrators, and others about the cost of prescription drugs. All expressed their concern about the growing amount spent on medicine and the ability of people to continue to have access to the medication that keeps them healthy. While this debate has properly focused a lot of attention on uninsured seniors and their daily struggle to pay for needed medications, the costs of prescription drugs affect every American-- even those with health insurance coverage. Drug spending is a growing part of our overall health care costs. The rising cost of prescription drugs is one of the biggest problems facing health plans, hospitals and others in the health care field. Obviously, American drug companies have to pay for this huge amount of research and development and the years that it takes to get these drugs licensed. But, what I am outraged about is a set of foreign policies that means that Americans who by drugs that were developed in America pay substantially more for those drugs than the same manufacturers sell--them for in Canada or Mexico. I think that is unconscionable. Those countries are riding on our research and development. The cost issue is one important part of the debate as we talk about modernizing the Medicare program to include a prescription drug benefit. I do think that Medicare should be updated and that prescription drugs should be covered under the program. Expanding this benefit, however, must be done responsibly--it must not jeopardize the solvency of the current program and that benefits now available to seniors. It is also fairly contentious. Most agree that we should add a drug benefit to Medicare, however, good people have honest disagreements about the best way to do it. Addressing cost is something we can do now. It is no fair to the American consumer to let other countries get away with policies that make drug companies sell their products cheaper in their country because they don't want to pay for any of the development costs. It's not right, and I will work actively to see that Americans are not overcharged. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my number one priority as I represent the people of Washington state in the U.S. Senate is protecting the Northwest way of life. An intricate part of that Washington way of life is preserving our healthy and productive forests and streams. With that goal in mind, I am delighted to recognize the Centennial Anniversary of the Weyerhaeuser Company--an organization whose dedication to sustainable forestry has enriched Washington state with both a vibrant timber industry and a tradition of preservation to keep our forests healthy for generations to come. In 1900, Frederick Weyerhaeuser and fifteen partners began the company that would revolutionize the timber industry. They purchased 900,000 acres of Washington forest land from the Northern Pacific Railway and began the Weyerhaeuser Company. It quickly grew to become one of the most vibrant and remarkable companies, not only in Washington state, but around the world. The Weyerhaeuser Company had a vision for sustainable and environmentally responsible forest management before ``green'' became fashionable. In 1904, General Manager George Long sponsored a study to look at the impacts of growing timber as a crop--replenishing the resource with every harvest. Under Long's leadership, Weyerhaeuser pioneered many of the conservation, fire protection and reforestation techniques used in forest management today. I am proud of and thankful for the great legacy that Weyerhaeuser has given to Washington--the Evergreen State. I hope that with balanced policies and responsible stewardship, Weyerhaeuser will continue to prosper in the next century.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with some hesitancy I will vote in favor of the flag protection constitutional amendment. My hesitancy stems not from any doubt that our Nation should provide specially protected status to our flag--I firmly believe the flag should be protected from desecration. I am hesitant because we are voting to amend our Nation's Constitution and every Senator should exercise extreme caution when considering such changes. I have given careful consideration on the important amendment currently before the Senate. A decade ago, when the Supreme Court issued its 5-to-4 decision invalidating flag desecration statutes, I read each of the three opinions filed by Justices of the Court. I was convinced then, and remain convinced now, that the Court erred in its decision and that such statutes, if properly written, are constitutional. For this reason, I shall vote in favor of both the constitutional amendment to protect our flag and the proposed amendment to substitute a flag protection statute for the constitutional amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I take the floor today to recognize the contributions of two remarkable residents of my state, Dr. Michael and Shainie Schuffler, who have dedicated their lives to strengthening their community, fostering leadership qualities in our young people and working tirelessly to improve the health of countless people. Michael and Shainie met during their college years in Chicago where they both shared a keen interest in medicine. In 1970, the couple moved to Seattle and have since continued to make the Seattle area a better place. After their move to Seattle, Shainie became actively involved in the Hadassah Hospital. Hadassah is a volunteer women's organization that works to strengthen a partnership with Israel, ensure Jewish continuity, and realize their potential as a dynamic force in American society. In Seattle and around the United States, Hadassah enhances the quality of American and Jewish life through its education and Zionist youth programs, promotes health awareness, and provides personal enrichment and growth for its members. After joining Hadassah, Shainie found herself inspired by its founder, Henrietta Szold, and has worked tirelessly for the past fifteen years on specific projects at both the chapter and regional levels including the Women's Symposium and last year's Bigger Gifts dinner and has served as the President of Hadassah's Seattle Chapter. Shainie's dedication to the Seattle community is also evident in her many other involvements such as the Council of Women's Presidents for the Jewish Federation, Jewish Family Service, and the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. I believe that one of the most important aspects of Shainie's work is her dedication to today's youth. Under her leadership as the Seattle area's Director of Admissions for the Alexander Muss High School in Israel, hundreds of local students have been given the opportunity to attend the Alexander Muss High School in Israel and has become one of the most successful youth programs in Seattle. I applaud her tireless efforts and believe that her work has directly impacted the lives of thousands of people throughout our state. Michael has been equally dedicated to both his career as a leading doctor of Gastroenterology and as a volunteer in his community. Michael is a world authority on the pathology and clinical manifestations of neurological disorders of the intestinal tract and has been recognized by his colleagues for his many accomplishments. Michael's work does not end, however, when he leaves the hospital. Like his wife, he has dedicated countless hours to Hadassah by serving as a visiting professor of Gastroenterology and as an Hadassah associate. He has also worked to encourage leadership qualities in our children through the Jewish Federation's Young Leadership Program, serving as its co-chair for three years. One of his greatest loves in life is pro-Israel activism and has dedicated his time to furthering this cause through American Israel Public Affairs Committee otherwise known as AIPAC. He served as the Chairman of AIPAC from 1986 to 1994, strengthening the support of AIPAC across Washington state and furthering its reputation as the leading organization on United States-Israel relations. Throughout their different commitments Michael and Shainie have always supported one another and recognized the importance of each other's work. Theirs is a true partnership and one that has positively impacted the people of our state. I ask my colleagues to join me as I applaud the outstanding and inspiring work of Dr. Michael and Shainie Schuffler.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murray from Washington State in introducing legislation that will authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to develop a water reuse project with Lakehaven Utility District in Federal Way, WA. The Lakehaven Utility District is one of Washington State's largest water and sewer utilities, providing 10.5 million gallons of water a day to over 100,000 residents in South King County. The utility depends on a groundwater supply system that is replenished by local precipitation. As development in this Seattle suburb has increased, aquifer recharge has diminished. The utility district recognizes it must protect its precious resources and has undertaken several projects to ensure it will have an adequate water supply for future generations. One of these projects involves extensive treatment of the utilities effluent for reuse. Some of the treated water will be used to irrigate golf courses and other facilities, while the rest of the water will be returned to the aquifer through injection wells. The techniques for water reuse are innovative, yet proven, and have been implemented throughout Nevada and California. Currently, the Lakehaven Utility District discharges 6 million gallons of treated water into Puget Sound every day. This new program will allow the district to reuse these crucial resources while replenishing its precious groundwater supply. This legislation amends title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide the Lakehaven Utility District the technical and financial assistance necessary to implement its reuse project. I am pleased to support this project, which I believe is crucial to maintaining wetlands and rivers in Washington State. The Northwest is faced with a salmon crisis that demands every available drop of water remain in our streams and riparian areas. The Lakehaven Utility District water reclamation project will ensure that the South King County community continues to rely on groundwater resources rather than turning to other sources that must be preserved for fish recovery.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, throughout Washington state there are thousands of people who volunteer their free time to tutor, mentor, support our teachers and make a difference in their communities and in lives of our children. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding volunteer, Captain Jerry Burke of the Everett Police Department who has passed his love of the theater onto a group of elementary students at Madison Elementary in Everett. For his efforts, I am proud to award him with my ``Innovation in Education'' Awards. Captain Burke participates in a program in which members of the Police Command Staff adopt an elementary school in the Everett School District. While it is no surprise to see a police officer donating his or her time to a local school, Captain Burke is teaching something a little out of the ordinary for a cop who used to go undercover to bust drug dealers--he teaches a drama class. When Captain Burke first approached principal Joyce Stewart, she was intrigued by his Fine Arts Degree in Designing for the Theater and his experience teaching theater arts prior to entering law enforcement. Furthermore, she was already interested in creating a drama program to expose interested students to the fine arts. Though he had no prior experience in creating such a program, or in teaching drama to elementary school students, Captain Burke agreed to take on the challenge. This program has been a tremendous success. Captain Burke and the school created a drama club open to fourth and fifth graders that meets after school one day a week. The program continues to grow and approximately 35 students are now participating. The program combines lectures with creative drama games that emphasize communication, visualization, creativity, and improvisation. More importantly, the students enjoy the club and Captain Burke. Fourth grader Shawn Cook said, ``Police officers are always supposed to be tough. Mr. Burke is funny and tough.'' This spring's club is limited to 10 weeks since Captain Burke is attending the FBI academy in April, but he and Ms. Stewart are already considering options for spring of 2001 that would create a second creative drama class of third and fourth graders. The more experienced fifth grade students from this year's club are planning to put on the school's first ever dramatic production. Clearly, Captain Burke has made a significant contribution to the lives of these students and given them an interest that will last throughout their life. One remarkable aspect of this program is that it demonstrates the importance of community involvement in our local schools. From this program, students will not only have an appreciation for the fine arts, but the will also have an appreciation for police officers and have a greater sense of community. I applaud the work of Captain Burke and wish his students the best of luck in producing their first play. Thank you to Captain Burke, and to all the members of the Everett Police Command staff for your contributions to local elementary schools.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, when I travel across Washington state, one of the first topics I hear about from local businesses and high-tech companies is their need for people with high-tech skills. A Poulsbo company, Paladin Data, has taken their efforts to find skilled employees to a new level by donating its time and resources to train teachers in some of Washington state's public schools. For its commitment to working with teachers, improving student learning and expanding their skills, I am pleased to present Paladin Data with one of my ``Innovation in Education'' Awards. Several years ago, seven school districts in Kitsap, Mason, and Pierce Counties developed the West Sound School-to-Career Consortium which provides approximately 14,000 students with high-tech classes. This year Paladin Data will begin its first year of a three-year project that provides high-tech training to teachers involved with the West Sound School-to-Career program. Paladin Data is also contributing $50,000 in matching funds to a state grant of $100,000 to provide needed curriculum materials and onsite teacher training in either a Paladin facility in Poulsbo or at a designated school district site. Moreover, each school district will determine what training their teachers will received based on the needs of their district and their students. Paladin is giving our teachers more information and skills that they can take back to their classrooms and shows teachers what skills employers are looking for in perspective employees, giving their students a leg up on the competition. Paladin's involvement is not only improving the education of our students, but also giving them an accurate picture of what skills they need well-before they enter the job market. The Washington Software Alliance reports that over 64,000 computer- related jobs are currently unfilled in the State of Washington--all for lack of properly trained workers. I find it encouraging to see companies like Paladin Data, that are contributing to our booming economy, are taking an active role in ensuring the quality education of our children. I am proud to acknowledge Paladin Data Systems Corporation's commitment to education and I look forward to hearing about more companies making a contribution to our children's future.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, Members of this body, in speaking against a similar, though not identical, attempt to amend the Constitution of the United States 2 or 3 years ago, I spoke of amending the first amendment. As I read this short and very simple proposal from the Senators from South Carolina and Arizona with respect to political speech, it does not amend the first amendment. It repeals it. It states that the Congress of the United States has the power reasonably to limit contributions or expenditures with respect to elections for Federal and State offices. That is exactly the power the Congress of the United States would have were there no first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Our actions in that respect would have to meet some test of reasonableness under the 14th amendment in that field as they do in every other. But for all practical purposes, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified by the States 209 years ago, would be repealed with respect to political speech. Now, it is not deemed that obscenity is a significant enough threat to the people of the United States to repeal or even to amend the first amendment in that respect. It is not considered important enough to change the first amendment with respect to tobacco or alcohol advertising. But it is considered that free and open political speech, through anything other than an individual's voice, is now such a great threat to the free institutions of the United States that Congress--that is to say, incumbent officeholders--ought to be able to limit it in any way they deem reasonable. This is clearly, as was its predecessor in 1997, the most profound threat to first amendment rights, literally, since that Constitution was adopted. The Alien and Sedition Acts in the last decade of the 18th century were, after all, only statutes that were subject to challenge under the Constitution. They also had an automatic termination date to them. They are nonetheless constant examples of how a Congress can misuse its powers to limit speech and are considered such in almost any thorough history of the Constitution and of the United States itself. Now, what is it that leads us to this moment? Clearly, it is the feeling, the opinion, that too much money is spent on politics, that there is too much political speech, and that it is clearly too free. The distinguished colleague who sits in front of me and was recently a candidate for President was, I think, rightly critical of two Texas millionaires who advertised in a way he considered misleading and false. This proposal would say that they could be completely muzzled, that they could be denied the right to speak at all, if it was deemed unreasonable. And certainly the candidate who was the victim of such speech deems it to be unreasonable, as would many incumbents in many Congresses in the United States. We are here dealing with this proposition: Too much money is being spent on politics. Not that too much money is being spent on regulating the activities of the people of the United States, not that too much money is being spent on social or political programs of the United States, but that too much money is spent in responding to those programs and to that regulation and that somehow or another the power of the Federal Government to regulate economic, environmental, and social activities is so benign that we can muzzle the criticisms of those who are adversely affected by that regulation. At least we can muzzle those expressions which are directed at changing the people who write the very laws that impose those regulations. We can at the very least ascribe consistency and thoughtfulness to the promoters of this constitutional amendment who are also eloquent spokespersons for the original McCain-Feingold legislation, legislation that limits, that comes close to eliminating the right of an outside person so much as to mention the name of a candidate 6 weeks before an election. Yes, if you want to say that anyone--including a newspaper editorialist but even more significantly, someone who does not own a newspaper--who wants to criticize a candidate for office in the 6 weeks before an election, if you want to eliminate that right, if you think it is desirable to limit or to eliminate that right, you do, in fact, need this constitutional amendment. McCain-Feingold, as it came before this body, in that respect at least is clearly and blatantly and openly in violation of a constitutional provision, the first amendment, that says: ``Congress shall make no law respecting freedom of speech or of the press.'' That may be the single most quoted line in the entire Constitution of the United States. But the proponents of this amendment here today propose effectively to strike it from the Constitution as it relates to election campaigns for Federal or State or local office. The statement of the case should assure its defeat. The statement of the case that somehow or another we are too political, that campaigns for office are too robust as they deal with this massive engine of the Federal Government, and that we should repeal one of the founding theories of this Government, the right of completely untrammeled and totally free political speech, to state that proposition is to defeat. We should not repeal the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to free political speech. We should not modify the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to free political speech. We should, though we may lack the imaginations of James Madison and his colleagues in the first Congress, at least have the wisdom and the humility not to destroy what they wrought at the very founding of this constitutional Republic.

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

Mr. GORTON. Is it appropriate, I ask my friend from Kentucky, to describe 38 votes to repeal the first amendment to the Constitution as ``only'' 38?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. With any time limitations?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last week the city of Bellingham was the site of a Senate field hearing on pipeline safety. This hearing comes after the unspeakable tragedy that took place when three young boys were killed after a gasoline pipeline exploded in Bellingham on June 10. I want to share with you my thoughts from the hearing and outline future congressional action as the Senate Commerce Committee prepares to reauthorize the Office of Pipeline Safety this year. Unfortunately, my Senate Commerce Committee colleagues were unable to attend last Monday's hearing in Bellingham, but I believe the committee has no greater priority than to making sure the pipelines running underneath our schools, neighborhoods, churches, and senior centers are safe. Pipeline safety concerns aren't unique to Washington. We're seeing States such as Texas, Wisconsin, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania respond to various local pipeline issues from oil spills and leaks to siting battles. In the last decade, there were 3,917 liquid fuel spills and natural gas leaks, averaging roughly one per day. These accidents resulted in 201 deaths, close to 3,000 injuries and $778 million in property damage. And for the first time, a National Pipeline Safety Conference will be held in Washington, D.C. next month. Though the sacrifice is one that no family and no community should have to make, the tragedy in Bellingham would be even worse if we did not learn from it and apply those lessons to try to prevent other accidents. To this end, last week's hearing was invaluable. While the cause of the explosion remains under investigation, here's what we do know: We know that many people in Bellingham were unaware that a pipeline was even running through their neighborhood. We know that the Office of Pipeline Safety ignored enhanced safety requirements, including increased inspections inside pipes, in highly populated and environmentally sensitive areas as Congress required in 1992 and 1996. We learned that cities through which the Olympic Pipelines Company line runs have tremendous concerns with the integrity of the pipelines, and have had problems getting information and cooperation from the company. We know that the National Transportation Safety Board has criticized OPS for its poor record of responding to NTSB recommendations. NTSB Chairman Jim Hall has even said, ``There's no indication that the Office of Pipeline Safety is in charge or that its regulations, its inspections, its assets, its staffing and its spirit are adequate to the task.'' We know that right now, the power to oversee and regulate the safety of the millions of miles of pipelines running underneath our communities rests with the federal Office of Pipeline Safety under the supervision of the Department of Transportation. And in the case of implementing pipeline safety standards in Washington State they have failed miserably. We learned that only a handful of States have the power to implement tougher safety standards, and when States are given this authority, their safety record is equal if not greater to that of OPS. So, where does this leave us? State government, local government, and citizen groups in Washington State were quick to answer the wake-up call from Bellingham and examine what they could do to improve pipeline safety. What they found was that while there are significant actions Washington can take to prevent and respond to accidents, such as improving the State's call-before-you-dig requirements, increasing public awareness, and training emergency response personnel, there is a lot the state cannot do with respect to prescribing safety standards because Federal law preempts state regulations. Today is already March 23. We know this is going to be a short legislative year. Many will say we won't have the time to address this issue this year. I disagree. Congress is due to reauthorize the Office of Pipelines Safety and we've been told the administration will submit its proposal to Congress any day now. Senator Murray and I are supporting legislation to give states greater authority in adopting tougher pipeline safety standards. Given the Office of Pipelines Safety's failure to make pipeline safety a priority, its reluctance to cede any authority to states, I feel we must move forward. When I asked both the Office of Pipeline Safety and the NTSB last week to take a position on our pipeline legislation, the answer was less than clear. After listening to the painful and damaging testimony that scourged OPS's safety record and failure to comply with congressionally-mandated safety requirements, I was speechless at their unwillingness to relinquish oversight authority to the states. The State of Washington, the people of Bellingham and communities along the pipeline route are ready and capable of implementing tougher safety standards. I demand OPS to take a firm position on this pipeline legislation. I also request that my good friend and colleague, Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, schedule a vote on the various pipeline safety proposals. As I have said before, this pipeline legislation may not be perfect, and I believe we need to do some more listening before we arrive at the final pipeline safety proposal. NTSB officials highlighted the complexities of regulating pipelines that pass through a number of States. They made their case as to why they should retain sole authority to regulate interstate pipelines. But it was an unpersuasive case. I encourage the Office of Pipeline Safety to consider my proposal to allow States which have at least 90 percent of a pipeline passing through their borders, to have greater authority in setting and implementing its own safety and inspection standards. As Senator Murray and I await the administration's proposal, we agree that the following proposals must be included in the final legislation: Allow States greater authority to adopt and enforce safety standards for interstate pipelines, particularly in light of the absence of meaningful federal standards. This increase in authority should be accompanied by an increase in grants to States to carry out pipeline safety activities. Improve the collection and dissemination of information about pipelines to the public and to local and State officials responsible for preventing and responding to pipeline accidents. This includes ensuring that operators are collecting the information necessary to accurately assess and respond to risks. The public should be informed about where pipelines are, what condition they are in, when they fail and why they fail. Adopt more stringent national standards for pipeline testing, monitoring, and operation. Ensure congressional mandates are followed, and make sure there are sufficient resources to enforce regulations. Invest more in research and development to improve pipeline inspections. Create a model oversight oil spill advisory panel in Washington State. This body would have the authority to not only respond, but to initiate the development of pipeline safety measures. I have long believed that those closest to the problem are in a better position to help develop the solution. Families in Washington state, and across the country, have already paid to high a price for us to miss this opportunity to put higher federal safety standards into law.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a number of my Republican colleagues have spoken on the floor about the absence of an energy policy on the part of the Clinton-Gore administration. I believe that description is only half right. It is true the Clinton-Gore administration has no express energy policy that would lead or even contribute to U.S. energy independence. But the Clinton-Gore administration, on the other hand, does have a very significant implicit energy policy. Under that policy, it discourages or prohibits exploration for either oil or natural gas over extensive and increasingly large areas of our country. Under that implicit energy policy, it proposes to reduce the amount of hydroelectric power we have and, in fact, to treat hydroelectric power as though it were not renewable. Under that implicit energy policy, it has given us an increasing dependence each year on foreign sources for petroleum products, now at 55 or 56 percent, and inevitably directed at 65 percent or two-thirds of that oil. Implicitly, it has given us an energy policy that resulted last month in the largest single trade deficit in the history of the United States, due, in major part, to imports of petroleum products and a trade deficit that will inevitably continue to increase. So suddenly we do have a short-term explicit energy policy. It is to send the Secretary of Energy of the United States of America, hat in hand, to countries in Latin America, in Southwest Asia, and now most recently into Nigeria, to plead with these countries to lower the cost of the oil they send to us. This is a total abdication of the appropriate policy of an administration interested in the trade balance of the United States and in energy independence for the United States. Mr. President, what is the answer to this question? Obviously, in the short term our hands are relatively tied. We do, however, have one option in front of us which we can engage immediately that will provide at least modest relief to the American people during the course of this energy crisis, and that is the elimination--whether permanent or temporary--of the 4.3-cent motor vehicle fuel tax that was imposed by the President and the Congress in 1993. I am convinced we should follow that course of action. It is urgent for everyone. It is overwhelmingly urgent for the airlines of the United States that operate in a highly competitive atmosphere. They are being brutally punished, along with their passengers, with the increased airfare caused by that tax. This is an option the Congress could and should take up and pass with extreme promptness. However, in the long run, the more important solution is a longer-term solution. That solution lies on two sides: the supply of energy for the people of the United States to use and the way in which we use that energy with appropriate conservation measures. From the point of view of supply, when we deal with petroleum alone, we should change policies which have discouraged production in the United States--policies of regulation and taxation and hostility that have closed down existing sources of supply in various parts of the United States. We should very seriously consider and move toward the creation of new sources of supply rather than cutting them off and prohibiting them, whether they are in the North Slope of Alaska or in various parts of the lower 48 States of the United States. We need to do this in order to have any leverage with the rest of the world with respect to the prices it charges us for petroleum supplies. This policy should apply not only to petroleum but to natural gas as well. Second, I am convinced we should continue to encourage and should encourage even more the production of at least supplements to our petroleum supply that are totally within the control of the United States and that are renewable in nature. Ethanol perhaps ranks as No. 1 on this particular list. It can be produced by American grain. It adds to our supply, and it is, of course, completely within our own control, and it enriches the people who provide these agricultural commodities. Next, from the point of view of conservation, I point out the utter and insane folly of proposing to remove dams from the Snake River that produce renewable and environmentally benign electric power. If those dams are removed, as many in the administration wish to do, we will end up putting 700,000 trucks on the roads of the northwestern part of the United States each and every year more than are on those roads at the present time--major trucks that carry grain and other products for export. The idea that we should be using all of that additional amount of diesel and gasoline fuel is simply, in my view, beyond reasonable consideration. Finally, I believe we have to aim at the way in which we as Americans use power, and particularly motor vehicle fuels. Last July, for the first time in several years, this body was asked once again by me and by other Senators to go back to the successes of the 1970s and to reestablish a Government program to improve the energy efficiency of our automobiles and small trucks, the so-called CAFE standards. In the 1970s, this was one of the most successful programs--the single most successful governmental program--in history. We came close to doubling the average mileage of our passenger automobiles during that period of time. This crisis would not be a crisis; it would be an unmitigated disaster had those who perceived it not established and implemented those policies of the 1970s. But in the early 1980s, we abandoned that policy, and we have abandoned it ever since. We have even gone so far in this body and in the other body to prohibit any study of increasing CAFE standards, as far as small trucks are concerned, and even automobiles at any time in the immediate future. When we voted on that proposition last July, 40 Members of this body--not a majority but a very substantial minority--voted in favor of it before there was a crisis. Now the crisis is upon us. Now we have people wondering why it is our small trucks and SUVs are so energy inefficient. People are being punished by the lack of foresight of this administration and having the cost of operating those vehicles increase exponentially, and it is often not affordable. I am convinced that in addition to providing a greater degree of supply from sources within the United States we must, once again, focus on making our use of that energy and particularly making petroleum energy more efficient. The best way we can do that is by going back to the CAFE standard regime we had a generation ago in the United States and doing what is technologically quite feasible to do by increasing anywhere from 20 to 50 percent the efficiency of the engines that use petroleum products. That would be a true energy policy--an energy policy both for the short term and the long term, a policy which is totally and completely lacking in the Clinton-Gore administration at the present time. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for too many years I have worked in support of repealing the unfair Annual Earnings Test on Social Security. Incredibly, working seniors currently forfeit one dollar of Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn over the earnings limit of $17,000. If an American spends a lifetime paying into the Social Security system with the guarantee that he or she will get their money when he or she turns 62 or 65 years old, no one should be able to take those benefits away simply because the beneficiary wants to keep working. Why should the federal government be discouraging those seniors who want to keep on working from doing so? As our country faces increasing demands for labor, we can ill afford to deprive ourselves of the skills and experience America's seniors have to offer. The federal government shouldn't be in the position of discouraging anyone from working: seniors should be allowed to make their own decisions. Over the past few weeks, I have listened to and read the comments of numerous Washington state seniors who lose a portion of their hard- earned Social Security benefits simply because they do not wish to retire or stop working. I have been listening to these same comments for many years, and I can honestly say that today it looks as if common sense will finally prevail and a solution will pass the House and the Senate. Importantly, President Clinton recently changed his position on this issue and now says he will sign this legislation to abolish the Earnings Test. I will cast my vote for abolishing this unfair tax. Repeal of the Social Security Earnings Test is a victory for seniors and every generation of Americans.