T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, during the past several weeks, a community in my state has come together to combat racism in their schools. One person, a student at Puyallup High School, has taken this problem head on and devised a way to bring his fellow students together in their fight against racism. This student, David Poffenberger, an 18-year-old senior, designed a t-shirt that will be distributed to all of his 1,900 classmates in order to demonstrate Puyallup High School's united front against racism. In one of his art classes, David created a design for the shirt--two silhouetted groups, one black and one white, united by a single handshake. David completed the shirt by adding the phrase, ``Bridge the Gap.'' With the encouragement from one of his art teachers, Candace Loring, David took a week off from swimming practice and visited with local community groups to turn his plan into reality. The high school Booster Club, alumni association, the Puyallup Elks, and the Good Samaritan Hospital all contributed to his effort, raising over half of the $5,128 needed to print and distribute the shirts. The Booster Club has also agreed to cover the remaining amount in addition to their own $1,000 contribution. David's principal, Wanda Berndston, credits him for single-handedly spearheading this effort to improve awareness throughout the school. In the midst of an unfortunate situation, it is often the individuals who are closest to the problem who can best offer solutions. I commend David for his determination to make his school a better place for all students and am proud to present him with one of my ``Innovation in Education'' Awards.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there is a long-standing body of law that addresses the issue of when an acquisition or change in control of a savings association or thrift holding company occurs. Is it intended that the Office of Thrift Supervision would apply to existing body of law to determine if an evasion has occurred?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, under section 401 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Office of Thrift Supervision has the authority to prevent evasions of the unitary thrift holding company grandfather provisions of the act. Will the chairman tell me if that is correct?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the chairman yield to me for a question?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I expect the financial services modernization conference report will pass both the Senate and House with large majorities. I certainly understand the strong support for this sweeping legislation, though I must register my strong displeasure and firm opposition to the punitive unitary thrift charter provisions included in this measure. The language approved by the conference committee and favored by the Clinton-Gore administration unfairly, unnecessarily and without compelling reason eliminates and restricts existing authorities and powers of the unitary thrift charter. I am proud to represent a state where the thrift industry is thriving. Washington state thrifts manage over $200 billion in assets. It may surprise some to learn that the largest unitary thrift in the nation, Washington Mutual, is headquartered in Washington state. One does not expect a financial institution of this size to be based in Washington. Though, knowing this fact, one should not be surprised to learn of my significant interest in how this legislation affects my largest financial institution constituent and a major Washington state employer. I support virtually all of the conference report's modernization provisions: eliminating the 1933 barrier to the affiliation of banks, insurance companies and securities firms that will allow consumers greater choice at reduced costs; the compromise agreement reached between the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department on the regulation of operating subsidiaries; improving the Community Reinvestment Act; expending Federal Home Loan Bank provisions that will allow greater access for small business and farm loans; and the inclusion of privacy protections for consumers. These provisions do contribute to the modernization of our nation's financial services industry from the Great Depression era laws under which they have been operating. These changes represent positive advances for the future. Such is not the case with the unitary thrift charter provisions. The unitary thrift language is regressive and punitive--a step backwards for financial modernization and a black-mark on an otherwise favorable bill. I sincerely regret that delusional fears about the non-existent and impossible mixing of banking and commerce under a unitary thrift charter have prevailed over fact and reason. Neither the FDIC or the primary regulator have identified any safety and soundness concerns during the three decade existence of unitary thrifts. Not one. It is clear that this legislation unfairly treats Washington Mutual and other unitary thrifts, and for this specific reason I seriously considered voting against the conference report to protest the injustice of the unitary thrift provisions. After listening to and speaking with Chairman Gramm to clarify the impact of the unitary thrift charter provisions, however, I concluded that I will support passage of the conference report. The unitary thrift provisions are completely contradictory to this legislation's goal of modernization, yet I find the clarifying statements of Chairman Gramm to be of sufficient reassurance that I will not vote against this conference report.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I take the floor today to applaud the members and volunteers of the Mt. Baker Parent-Teacher Association that have successfully raised over $100,000 for its schools. Mt. Baker is a small, rural community just south of the Canadian border that lacks a sufficient tax-base to cover the costs of buying new technology for its schools. In an effort to raise funds to purchase up-to-date resources for their students, volunteers from the PTA opened a small restaurant with their own time and resources. To date, this venture has provided over $100,000 to improve education in Mt. Baker. For that reason, I am pleased to present one of my Innovation in Education Awards to the Mt. Baker PTA. In January of 1989, 20 parents took out a loan and purchased a run- down restaurant booth at the Northwest Washington Fair Grounds. Parents and volunteers spent countless hours cleaning and preparing the restaurant for its opening in March of 1989. For the past 10 years, volunteers and parents have worked at hundreds of community events to feed the fairground visitors, raising money that funded new research and learning equipment for math and science students, field trips across western Washington, and countless other tools for learning that have enhanced the education at all Mt. Baker schools. The volunteers at the Mt. Baker PTA demonstrate that local educators and parents know what their students need to succeed and deserve the freedom and flexibility in the Federal education funds to better educate their children. The innovative thinking and hard work of the Mt. Baker community teaches its students of the importance of a good education and how a community can work together to achieve a common goal. The Mt. Baker PTA is an example for all of us to follow. I hope that my colleagues will join me in commending the people of this community for their hard work to improve the education for their children.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on few occasions is this body faced with a bill that is supported by such a vast, diverse, and a broad based list of industries and organizations, such as the NAACP, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Corporate Council on Africa, and the National Retail Federation. The African Growth and Opportunity Act provides a real chance for the U.S. to engage in new trading partnerships with the sub- Sahara Africa, but also provides a mechanism to assist those countries to bolster their own economies. This bill is important not only because of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, but for the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), the Generalized System of Preferences Program (GSP), and the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs contained therein. It is essential that the Senate reauthorize the GSP and TAA and discontinue the practice of simply extending these programs year by year. This all encompassing trade package, the result of three years of negotiation, deserves passage. What is also essential about this trade bill, is the manner in which the United States can give a hand-up to the Caribbean Basin and sub- Sahara Africa. After the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch, the Caribbean nations have been struggling to regain the economic hold necessary not only to sustain their inhabitants, but to continue to prosper in the world economy. Instead of providing blanket financial assistance, the Caribbean Basin Initiative provides a mechanism and an avenue for these nations to begin rebuilding their economies. The tariff preferences provided in this bill, on products not previously covered by the 1990 CBI, will allow this region to expand economically, and integrate them into the international trading system. In addition, these Caribbean nations have asked and desire similar treatment to those afforded Mexico in the North American Free Trade Agreement. These nations aspire to have the ability to broker trade deals with the United States in order to ensure their economic longevity in the region. Trade with Africa is just as significant. According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa in 1998 was approximately $6.7 billion, or 1% of total U.S. exports. Conversely, the U.S. imported approximately $13.1 billion from sub-Saharan Africa. The African Growth and Opportunity Act establishes the protocol and trade mechanisms necessary to engage in future endeavors with these countries. The bill provides for benefits under the GSP for sub-Sahara Africa as well as benefits for the textile and apparel industries. As my colleagues know, these benefits were constructed not to inhibit, but to enhance these industries in the United States. All garments and apparel manufactured in Sub-Sahara Africa must consist of U.S. thread, yarn, and other components. For my own State of Washington, passage of this bill means additional export markets for our highly sought after wheat, world-renowned aircraft, and the various other commodities and goods and services that has made Washington the most highly trade dependent state in the nation. For example, the leading exports to sub-Saharan Africa include aircraft, wheat, and aircraft parts. Incidentally, 68% of the aircraft utilized in sub-Saharan Africa is produced by the Boeing Company. Boeing estimates that these nations will eventually require at least 270 new aircraft valued at approximately $20 billion. Naturally, the 330 in the current fleet will require new parts and services. I cannot over emphasize the importance of these numbers alone, not only to Washington state, but to all the Boeing employees nationwide. But free trade does not exist for the soul purpose of exports. Through the mechanisms and tariff reductions provided in the CBI, Northwest companies such as Nordstrom and Eddie Bauer have an opportunity to expand and import new materials and apparel. Mr. President, again I reiterate the importance not only of the content of this trade bill, but of the far-reaching support for its passage. Senators Roth and Moynihan have repeatedly reminded our colleagues of the many, many organizations and entities that support this bill. Religious leaders coupled with business, and agriculture working with the apparel industry--these partnerships emphasize the importance of expanding and enhancing free trade to sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this omnibus trade bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, I am not speaking in morning business; I am speaking on the bill.

Mr. GORTON. It will be approximately 10 minutes. It will be on the bill. If the unanimous consent request is amended in that form, I am perfectly happy with that.

Mr. GORTON. While I think it would be about 10 minutes, I do not want to be called down if I go over 30 seconds.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is a landmark Labor, Education, and Health appropriations bill. It is a landmark in more than one respect. From my perspective, however, it is especially notable for two features relating to our assistance to the education that is being provided to children all across the United States of America. The first is this bill, in reaction to the President's budget message of much earlier this year, ends any dispute about the generosity of support for education on the part of either the President or the congressional majority. In fact, this bill includes some $300 million more for education purposes than did the President's budget message earlier this year; $2 billion more than last year--$35 billion in total. Mr. President, $35 billion is not an inconsiderable sum. But of that portion that goes to our common schools from kindergarten through 12th grade, it still will represent only about 7 percent of the number of dollars that go into providing an education for future generations of Americans. But there is not a dispute in this bill over whether or not we should fund education with this relative degree of generosity. In that respect, this is a landmark bill. But as we deal with the question of education, I believe it to be a landmark in more than just that respect. This bill, in its present form, represents the first modest turn from a direction that we have taken for three decades or more. During the last 30 or 35 years, the Congress and Presidents of both parties have piled one categorical aid program for education on top of another. Each of those programs has its own rules for eligibility. Each has its own rules as to how money should be spent. Each carries with it its forms to be filled out and its audits to be performed and to be examined after the fact. The President's proposed budget added a number of new categorical aid programs to those already in existence and, I believe, shortchanged a number of the most vital educational programs that have been a part of our system literally for decades. As a consequence, this bill provides considerably more money for impact schools than the President's budget called for. Impact schools, of course, are those schools on or near military reservations, Indian reservations, or other Federal property in which a peculiar and unique burden is placed by the fact that the Federal Government has employees or beneficiaries in the immediate vicinity while at the same time owning tax-exempt property that does not, as property, pay its fair share or any share of the cost of operating those schools. Most national administrations, most Presidents of the United States, have not much liked impact aid. It took me some time to determine in my own mind why that was. I think it is because once the formula distributes so many dollars to a school district in impact aid, the school district decides how the money is going to be spent to advance the education of its students. There aren't any rules and regulations from the U.S. Department of Education telling school districts how they must use that impact aid. As a consequence, it has never had much of a lobby in the Department of Education or in administrations either Republican or Democratic. A second area in which this bill includes more money for education than did the President's original request is for IDEA, the education for the disabled. This body proudly reauthorized IDEA just 2 years ago, including in it a provision that we would come up with 40 percent of the costs that that bill, for the education of the disabled, imposed on school districts all across the country--40 percent of those costs. This bill, more generous than the President's budget, actually funds about 9 percent of those costs. Members of the Congress and the President got to congratulate themselves on passing a bill mandating education for the disabled. They got to congratulate themselves on a promise that, very bluntly, I think, neither side had any intention of keeping. We do not, in this bill, come close to that 40-percent requirement, but we do better than the President of the United States did in his budget submission. From my perspective, however, the most important change takes place in connection with a program that began last year designed to put more teachers in the classroom, especially more teachers in the classroom up through the third grade, a proposal that, for all practical purposes, could be used only for that purpose, whether more teachers in those primary grades was the primary need for each and every one of the 17,000 school districts in the United States or not. I don't believe my State is different from many others. My great friend and frequent ally, the Senator from West Virginia, is on the floor. I suspect he has a greater percentage of school districts in his State than does Washington State that don't receive enough money under this program to hire one teacher because they are simply too small. So this bill, after an extended debate between the two sides in which one side said we have to continue the program entirely unchanged, whatever those school districts' priorities are, and our side that says we have to trust the school districts to spend that money for any educational purpose they desire--two rather dramatically opposed points of view-- takes a halfway position between the two. It states that the primary goal of this $1.2 billion is to put more teachers in the classroom but that if school districts have other priorities or if they don't get enough money to do that for even one teacher, they can, in fact, use it for improving the quality of teachers they already have through more training or for some other educational purpose they believe is more significant than the top-down mandate in this bill. I hope that will be appealing to the President of the United States. It does express at least a qualified degree of trust on the part of the Congress in the dedication and intelligence and knowledge of the men and women who run our schools, either as elected members of school boards or as full-time superintendents, principals, and teachers, to make decisions that will improve the quality of education of their children. I have never been quite certain why it is that Members of the Senate think they know more about the needs of schools all across the country than do the people who make their entire careers out of providing that education, but that has been the net result of what we have done. This is a modest move in the other direction, a reflection of the fact that early next year, when we debate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will debate exactly that kind of issue: Who knows best what our young people need, we in Washington, DC, or those who run the hundreds of thousands of schools in the United States of America. This bill also begins to keep a promise we made a relatively short time ago significantly to increase funding for health research through the National Institutes of Health. This bill is a landmark in one other vitally important respect. As generous as this bill is to education, as generous as it is to health programs and to other programs included within it, it is a part of a pattern of 13 appropriations bills that spend almost $600 billion in discretionary money in the course of the next year but do not touch the Social Security trust fund. Last year, for the first time in decades, we ended up with a budget that was not only balanced but in surplus to the tune of $1 billion without touching a dime in the Social Security trust fund. We are absolutely convinced, I think most of us, that we should make the year 2000 the second consecutive year in which that takes place and keep on following exactly those same policies. We can pass this bill and the other appropriations bills still unresolved without dipping into the Social Security surplus and without increasing taxes on the American people. That truly is a landmark. We thought when we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we might get to this point in 2002 or 2003. We got to it in fiscal year 1999. This morning's newspapers printed excerpts of a speech by Alan Greenspan on the nature of our economy and on the fact that it has actually been growing more rapidly and is more robust than most of our statistics had indicated. Chairman Greenspan has made it very clear that actually balancing the budget and paying down the debt is a key factor in keeping the economy of this Nation moving forward. We have a bill that I commend enthusiastically to all of the Members of this body. It is generous with education dollars, as it ought to be for one of the highest of all priorities in any society, the education of its future generation; it provides at least a modestly greater degree of trust in our professional educators and in our elected school board members with respect to how to spend that education money; it deals generously with our need for health research; and it is a part of a pattern that will continue the 1-year precedent of balancing the budget without invading the Social Security trust fund, without breaking the promises we have made not only to those who are retired today but those who are working today but will depend on Social Security in the future, that the money they pay into Social Security is for that purpose and that purpose only. For that reason, I highly commend this bill to the Senate of the United States and hope it is passed and approved by the President of the United States.

Mr. GORTON. Fine.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, in introducing a bill to rationalize the federal management of spectrum that is used by entities for their internal wireless communication needs. The legislation does essentially three things. First, it recognizes that auctions are not an appropriate means of allocating spectrum for these private users, and so exempts from auction that spectrum that is used for private wireless applications. Second, it directs the FCC to reallocate an additional 12 megahertz of spectrum to private wireless users, who, over the years, and despite the efficiencies they have obtained through shared use, have lost spectrum and currently do not have enough to meet demands in some areas. Third, the legislation authorizes the FCC to collect lease fees for the use of the 12 MHZ to be reallocated. One of the biggest challenges in preparing this bill, Mr. President, has been to define the class of beneficiaries, that is, to identify what is a ``private wireless'' system. The definition in the measure we are introducing today may not be perfect, and I look forward to working with all interested parties to ensure that the definition covers the appropriate class of users. The intent, however, and one that I believe is captured in the current definition, is that we recognize that there are thousands of corporations, utilities, farmers, and other entities, that use spectrum purely for their internal communication needs, with applications that range from reading utility meters from a distance, to operating sprinkler or irrigation systems, to communicating over hand- held radios in the middle of the woods, a factory floor, or a construction site. This use of the spectrum, Mr. President, is economically vital to our economy, as it enhances the productivity of all of these users and, in many cases, makes their operations possible. A distinguishing characteristic of private wireless users, and a reason that we are proposing that they be treated differently than other spectrum users, is that the private wireless users' application of the spectrum is often specifically tailored to the needs of that user, that is, it is a unique application that is not offered by commercial wireless providers. Currently, private wireless users are licensed on a site-by-site basis by the FCC. Their license applications are coordinated by spectrum managers who attempt to maximize the efficiency of the spectrum and eliminate mutually exclusive applications by requiring that the spectrum be shared by multiple users. In this way, hundreds of different users can and do operate their internal wireless communications systems within a given geographic area. When the users' needs change, as they frequently do, as companies open new production facilities, begin work at new construction sites, or extend their service area, the spectrum coordinators, (spectrum allowing), will propose a new sharing arrangement and obtain a new site-specific license for the user. The geographic based auction concept that the FCC is currently proposing for some of the spectrum now being used by private wireless, makes little sense for these private users. Unlike a commercial wireless provider, whose service must be operational within the entirety of a broad geographical license area, an individual private wireless user may require use of the spectrum only at single site within the area proposed to be auctioned. Moreover, private wireless system users are not in the business of providing communications services, and don't want to be--so it is not in their interest to acquire, through auction, exclusive rights to the use of spectrum in a large fixed geographic area, when they will use only a small fraction of it, their site may change, and they lack both the expertise or the desire to rent out what they do not need. Recognizing that auctions are ill-suited as a means of allocating spectrum to private wireless users, however, is not to say that the public should receive no compensation for the use of this public resource. Unfortunately, the desire to raise revenue from the sale of spectrum appears to have overtaken the need to ensure that spectrum is used efficiently and that current, economically valuable applications, are not disrupted by a rush to sell in order to raise revenue. The proposal in this measure to allow the Federal Communications Commission to collect lease fees for the use of private wireless spectrum is, I believe, a way to reintroducing some rationality into our spectrum management policies, while ensuring a return for the taxpayer. The legislation we are introducing today, Mr. President, is not a final product. It stakes out, however, a very important claim, and that is the importance of the private wireless spectrum users to the smooth and efficient operation of our economy. I look forward to working with all interested parties to improve, and pass swiftly, this important measure.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, in introducing a bill to rationalize the federal management of spectrum that is used by entities for their internal wireless communication needs. The legislation does essentially three things. First, it recognizes that auctions are not an appropriate means of allocating spectrum for these private users, and so exempts from auction that spectrum that is used for private wireless applications. Second, it directs the FCC to reallocate an additional 12 megahertz of spectrum to private wireless users, who, over the years, and despite the efficiencies they have obtained through shared use, have lost spectrum and currently do not have enough to meet demands in some areas. Third, the legislation authorizes the FCC to collect lease fees for the use of the 12 MHZ to be reallocated. One of the biggest challenges in preparing this bill, Mr. President, has been to define the class of beneficiaries, that is, to identify what is a ``private wireless'' system. The definition in the measure we are introducing today may not be perfect, and I look forward to working with all interested parties to ensure that the definition covers the appropriate class of users. The intent, however, and one that I believe is captured in the current definition, is that we recognize that there are thousands of corporations, utilities, farmers, and other entities, that use spectrum purely for their internal communication needs, with applications that range from reading utility meters from a distance, to operating sprinkler or irrigation systems, to communicating over hand- held radios in the middle of the woods, a factory floor, or a construction site. This use of the spectrum, Mr. President, is economically vital to our economy, as it enhances the productivity of all of these users and, in many cases, makes their operations possible. A distinguishing characteristic of private wireless users, and a reason that we are proposing that they be treated differently than other spectrum users, is that the private wireless users' application of the spectrum is often specifically tailored to the needs of that user, that is, it is a unique application that is not offered by commercial wireless providers. Currently, private wireless users are licensed on a site-by-site basis by the FCC. Their license applications are coordinated by spectrum managers who attempt to maximize the efficiency of the spectrum and eliminate mutually exclusive applications by requiring that the spectrum be shared by multiple users. In this way, hundreds of different users can and do operate their internal wireless communications systems within a given geographic area. When the users' needs change, as they frequently do, as companies open new production facilities, begin work at new construction sites, or extend their service area, the spectrum coordinators, (spectrum allowing), will propose a new sharing arrangement and obtain a new site-specific license for the user. The geographic based auction concept that the FCC is currently proposing for some of the spectrum now being used by private wireless, makes little sense for these private users. Unlike a commercial wireless provider, whose service must be operational within the entirety of a broad geographical license area, an individual private wireless user may require use of the spectrum only at single site within the area proposed to be auctioned. Moreover, private wireless system users are not in the business of providing communications services, and don't want to be--so it is not in their interest to acquire, through auction, exclusive rights to the use of spectrum in a large fixed geographic area, when they will use only a small fraction of it, their site may change, and they lack both the expertise or the desire to rent out what they do not need. Recognizing that auctions are ill-suited as a means of allocating spectrum to private wireless users, however, is not to say that the public should receive no compensation for the use of this public resource. Unfortunately, the desire to raise revenue from the sale of spectrum appears to have overtaken the need to ensure that spectrum is used efficiently and that current, economically valuable applications, are not disrupted by a rush to sell in order to raise revenue. The proposal in this measure to allow the Federal Communications Commission to collect lease fees for the use of private wireless spectrum is, I believe, a way to reintroducing some rationality into our spectrum management policies, while ensuring a return for the taxpayer. The legislation we are introducing today, Mr. President, is not a final product. It stakes out, however, a very important claim, and that is the importance of the private wireless spectrum users to the smooth and efficient operation of our economy. I look forward to working with all interested parties to improve, and pass swiftly, this important measure.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the 2000 presidential election has already captured the interest of the national media, and once again the media struggles to make sense of one of this nation's most complex and confusing practices--the presidential nomination system. It is a tenet in this country, the greatest democracy in the world, that all citizens have an equal voice in choosing who will be the nominees for the final race for President of the United States. If there is one thing that has remained constant in the American system, it is democratic participation in our electoral process--a basic creed that has guided us toward wider participation and more direct election of our leaders. Ironically, however, every four years we are witnesses to the fact that the current system by which this country chooses its presidential nominees is not only arbitrary, but in many ways incompatible with the notion of equal participation in the nominating process. One of the most memorable political cartoons I have had the pleasure of reading was drawn during the 1996 election by the cartoonist for a local paper in my home state of Washington. This cartoon illustrates just how bizarre the current presidential primary process really is. The cartoon features Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton brainstorming at the Constitutional Convention. Ben Franklin turns to his colleagues in jest and rattles off an idea for the presidential election system. He reads from his sheet of paper, The President shall be chosen from among those persons who can hone complex ideas into simplistic sound bites, defame the character of their opponents, hide their own blemishes from an intrusive swarming press corps and--get this--win the most votes from a tiny number of citizens in a remote corner of New England! To which Alexander Hamilton replies, Very droll Franklin, you're quite the comedian. Mr. President, I agree with the cartoonist that what our Founding Fathers would have regarded as a ridiculous way to choose a president is now reality. It is no joke--this IS how our Presidential nominating system works. For some time Members of Congress, party activists, the states, and academics have all advocated reform of the Presidential nominating system in this country. The flaws in our current system are obvious. The system is unstructured, confusing, and it gives small states that hold early primaries or caucuses a disproportionate amount of influence on the final outcome. The lack of uniformity and clear guidelines in the system creates a system whereby states compete for an early position in the nominating process in order to attract candidates and to have some kind of influence in the nominating process. Small to middle-sized states that select delegates later in the game risk being shut out of the process all together and face having a limited role in choosing the Presidential nominee. While the 2000 primary schedule has not yet been solidified, the first primary will be held at the earliest date in history, and an alarming number of states have moved or are considering moving their primary earlier in the year with the hope of influencing the nomination process. Clearly, the system does not allow for equal participation by all the states. It undermines the ideal of equal participation in the electoral process by giving certain states, year after year, far more leverage than others. This unequal balance of power, if you will, compromises the integrity of the nominating process. At this time, while this country's Presidential nominating system again begins to receive national attention, I believe it is fundamental that the American people and this Congress begin discussing methods to improve the current system and introduce reforms to encourage wider participation and more direct nomination of Presidential candidates. I am introducing, today, a bill to provide for a rotating regional selection system for the nomination of candidates for Presidential elections. This bill will establish four regions comprised of 12-13 states from the same geographic area in the country. All states in a region will hold primaries or caucuses on the same date either the first Tuesday in March, April, May, or June and no region will vote in the same month. The order in which each region votes will rotate with each presidential election cycle, allowing each region to have the opportunity to be the first, second, third, and last region in the country to vote. This bill introduces much needed uniformity and structure to a system that lacks real composition. It will eliminate the drive by the States to gain ``first-in-the-nation'' status and the ability for one or two small states to influence the entire nomination process. Under this plan each state will have equal opportunity to participate and influence the nomination process. This bill will also establish greater uniformity and structure by instituting much needed guidelines for states, delegate selection, and the role of Federal Election Commission. Obviously, since we are well into the presidential nomination process for the 2000 Presidential race this bill, if enacted, will apply to 2004 and election years thereafter. In summary, Mr. President, I look forward to discussing this proposal with my colleagues in the coming weeks and months. I believe it is imperative that we do everything we can to improve the practice by which we nominate our country's leader.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the 2000 presidential election has already captured the interest of the national media, and once again the media struggles to make sense of one of this nation's most complex and confusing practices--the presidential nomination system. It is a tenet in this country, the greatest democracy in the world, that all citizens have an equal voice in choosing who will be the nominees for the final race for President of the United States. If there is one thing that has remained constant in the American system, it is democratic participation in our electoral process--a basic creed that has guided us toward wider participation and more direct election of our leaders. Ironically, however, every four years we are witnesses to the fact that the current system by which this country chooses its presidential nominees is not only arbitrary, but in many ways incompatible with the notion of equal participation in the nominating process. One of the most memorable political cartoons I have had the pleasure of reading was drawn during the 1996 election by the cartoonist for a local paper in my home state of Washington. This cartoon illustrates just how bizarre the current presidential primary process really is. The cartoon features Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton brainstorming at the Constitutional Convention. Ben Franklin turns to his colleagues in jest and rattles off an idea for the presidential election system. He reads from his sheet of paper, The President shall be chosen from among those persons who can hone complex ideas into simplistic sound bites, defame the character of their opponents, hide their own blemishes from an intrusive swarming press corps and--get this--win the most votes from a tiny number of citizens in a remote corner of New England! To which Alexander Hamilton replies, Very droll Franklin, you're quite the comedian. Mr. President, I agree with the cartoonist that what our Founding Fathers would have regarded as a ridiculous way to choose a president is now reality. It is no joke--this IS how our Presidential nominating system works. For some time Members of Congress, party activists, the states, and academics have all advocated reform of the Presidential nominating system in this country. The flaws in our current system are obvious. The system is unstructured, confusing, and it gives small states that hold early primaries or caucuses a disproportionate amount of influence on the final outcome. The lack of uniformity and clear guidelines in the system creates a system whereby states compete for an early position in the nominating process in order to attract candidates and to have some kind of influence in the nominating process. Small to middle-sized states that select delegates later in the game risk being shut out of the process all together and face having a limited role in choosing the Presidential nominee. While the 2000 primary schedule has not yet been solidified, the first primary will be held at the earliest date in history, and an alarming number of states have moved or are considering moving their primary earlier in the year with the hope of influencing the nomination process. Clearly, the system does not allow for equal participation by all the states. It undermines the ideal of equal participation in the electoral process by giving certain states, year after year, far more leverage than others. This unequal balance of power, if you will, compromises the integrity of the nominating process. At this time, while this country's Presidential nominating system again begins to receive national attention, I believe it is fundamental that the American people and this Congress begin discussing methods to improve the current system and introduce reforms to encourage wider participation and more direct nomination of Presidential candidates. I am introducing, today, a bill to provide for a rotating regional selection system for the nomination of candidates for Presidential elections. This bill will establish four regions comprised of 12-13 states from the same geographic area in the country. All states in a region will hold primaries or caucuses on the same date either the first Tuesday in March, April, May, or June and no region will vote in the same month. The order in which each region votes will rotate with each presidential election cycle, allowing each region to have the opportunity to be the first, second, third, and last region in the country to vote. This bill introduces much needed uniformity and structure to a system that lacks real composition. It will eliminate the drive by the States to gain ``first-in-the-nation'' status and the ability for one or two small states to influence the entire nomination process. Under this plan each state will have equal opportunity to participate and influence the nomination process. This bill will also establish greater uniformity and structure by instituting much needed guidelines for states, delegate selection, and the role of Federal Election Commission. Obviously, since we are well into the presidential nomination process for the 2000 Presidential race this bill, if enacted, will apply to 2004 and election years thereafter. In summary, Mr. President, I look forward to discussing this proposal with my colleagues in the coming weeks and months. I believe it is imperative that we do everything we can to improve the practice by which we nominate our country's leader.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a life lived richly is the phrase that comes to my mind as I think of John Chafee: A life lived richly, not of the material things of this world but in the magnificent service he provided from the time before he was old enough to vote until his dying day; a life lived richly in the love and honor and respect of those who knew him best, many of whom are Members of this Senate, but love and honor and respect that came from his fellow citizens of Rhode Island and from men and women all across the United States of America. I knew John Chafee for only 18 years. The word ``only'' and the phrase ``18 years'' do not generally go together, but even that relatively extended period of 18 years was only a modest fraction of the life of service performed by John Chafee. As a U.S. Marine before his 21st birthday, and through many battles and two wars, as Governor of the State of Rhode Island, as Secretary of the Navy, and for almost 23 years as a Member of this body, John Chafee dedicated his life and his entire career to the people whom he represented in the State of Rhode Island and, beyond that, to the grand concept that is the United States of America. Unlike my eloquent colleague from New York who just spoke, I only served on a committee of this body with John Chafee for a relatively short 2 years. But I do remember vividly the work of several years in his office here in the Capitol in what seemed at the beginning almost a forlorn hope to balance the budget of the United States and to put this Nation and its economy on the sound footing that has been so evident in our economic successes over the course of the last few years. As was the case with his work on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, that effort was a bipartisan effort, with most of its time being spent with the cochairmanship of the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux. It was not at first successful, but it was the immediate parent of the success that this body, the entire Congress, and the President of the United States had in 1997 with a result that was greater than the expectations of any of those who began that lonely struggle or who were in on its completion. It might accurately have been said that success would not have taken place as dramatically or as soon without the dedicated efforts of John Chafee. On a lesser but still significant level because, of course, each one of us does represent a particular constituency, I can remember vividly the way in which John Chafee, a Senator from Rhode Island, would make requests of me in connection with each of the year's Interior appropriations bills I have managed, softly and diffidently, but with a persuasive manner and reasoning and a persistence that lasted until the conclusion itself--a conclusion that, if my memory serves me correctly, was always favorable to Rhode Island and to the specific requests John Chafee made, partly on the merits of the case and partly because of the respect and love I held for John Chafee, along with all of my colleagues. He did love his small State. He cared deeply about its people and carried the burden and responsibility of representing them both lightly and well. John Chafee, not surprisingly for a former member of the U.S. Marines with many battles and much conflict under the flag of his country in his early life, was not afraid to be alone even in this body and even in contentious times when he believed, as he often did, that his position was the right one. Equally, he was not afraid to join with others to test his ideas against the ideas of others and to reach a conclusion that could command the respect and the votes of a majority of this body. He was a highly successful Member of the Senate, and so we will miss him, even though, in a way, some can envy a man who, continuously from the age of 18 or 19 until his dying day, was permitted to serve his country in so many ways and in so vital a fashion. Now we are constrained to bid him farewell. But he goes with our admiration, our respect, and our prayers.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to express my gratitude and my appreciation to the House of Representatives for an action it took last week, under the leadership of Congressman Goodling, chairman of the House committee dealing with education. The House has now passed the Academic Achievement For All Act, or Straight A's, a concept and a crusade in which Mr. Goodling and I have joined as sponsors in our respective Houses of Congress. It is so dramatic a reform, so dramatic an expression of understanding on the part of the majority of the Members of the House of Representatives, that those who provide educational services for our children--their teachers and principals and superintendents and elected school board members, not to mention their parents--ought to be empowered to use the money they receive from the Federal Government for that education in a way they deem best, given the circumstances of each child and of each of the 17,000 school districts in the United States. That philosophy is very much at variance with the standard philosophy of Acts of Congress, which increasingly over the years have told our schools in detail what they must teach, how they must teach it, and how they must account for it if they are to receive a modest percentage of their budgets that Congress itself supplies to them. In order to pass Straight A's through the House of Representatives, Mr. Goodling and his supporters had to scale it back to a 10-State experiment. Even at that level, I believe it will be a dramatic reform, not simply because it provides this trust in our local educators and parents and school board members, but because it carries with it a requirement for accountability that is a real bottom line requirement; that is to say, in order to take advantage of Straight A's, a State must have a system of determining, through some type of examination or a test, whether or not it is actually improving the educational achievement of the children under its care. It is only results that count in Straight A's and not how you fill out the forms or what the auditors say you have done with the money. I believe we in the Senate will take up Straight A's in that form, or in some similar form, sometime during the winter or very early spring of the year 2000 when we deal with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But I am delighted that we have made such progress already in the House of Representatives. Simply to ratify some of my remarks, I want to share with my colleagues comments that we have received from across the country about this dramatic change in Federal education policy: I am pleased to offer my support to the Academic Achievement for All Act. This proposal, if enacted into law, would serve to complement the Commonwealth of Virginia's nationally-acclaimed national education reforms. Governor James Gilmore of Virginia. A new relationship between the states and Washington, as reflected in Straight A's, can refocus federal policies and funds on increasing student achievement. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. Straight A's would allow us to use federal funds to implement our goals while assuring taxpayers that every dollar spent on education is a dollar spent to boost children's learning. Governor John Engler of Michigan. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm a superintendent. And what Gorton is trying to do would be the best for our kids. Superintendent Joseph Olchefske, Seattle public schools. The Straight A's Act will allow those closest to the action to make decisions about education in their own local school district. Robert Warnecke, Washington State Retired Teachers Association. Senator Gorton's Straight A's proposals is well-conceived with great flexibility for states and districts. It would help to focus federal resources where they are most needed. Janet Barry, Issaquah Superintendent and 1996 National Superintendent of the Year. I look forward to the debate in the Senate on these changes with particular delight because the House of Representatives' majority has already said that this is the direction in which we ought to lead the country. (The remarks of Mr. Crapo pertaining to the introduction of S. 1795 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, earlier this week, I had the pleasure of visiting twice with students, educators, and parents from the Edmonds School District. During that visit, I heard more about a community effort that demonstrates the value of local ideas and local innovation. The program is titled, Wake Up. Get Real. and is the product of Edmonds-Woodway High School students who are taking leadership roles in eliminating substance abuse and violence in their schools. Some of those students are here this week in Washington, DC, and were able to join me on one of my regular radio shows where they shared their creative work with members of the media from across Washington State. While they are in town, I would like to take this opportunity to present them with one of my ``Innovation in Education'' Awards. Wake Up. Get Real.'s strength lies in the grassroots, community- oriented nature of its effort, led by students, to reduce the violence and substance use that can tarnish a school's learning environment. The program is young, as it was only created this past spring, at the behest of students concerned about the perception of unsafe schools and an increasingly negative public perception of teens. Rather than accept such a situation, the students embarked on a crusade that upholds respect, dignity, and integrity while teaching their peers that there are a vast number of students who choose not to participate in substance abuse or in violent activity. Additionally, the students are teaching educators about what is causing problems in their school and helping them to eliminate alcohol and drug use and violence in their classrooms. All told, Wake Up. Get Real. generates increased community awareness; provides intervention and prevention from dangerous behavior at all grade levels (K-12); promotes increased educator focus on health as a factor in student learning; provides education materials for adults and students; and offers efficient access to referral resources. For a program with such young roots, one would expect that it would still be in its infant stages. Rather, Wake Up. Get Real. already touts widespread community support from the school district, local health care providers, area law enforcement, and even the Drug Enforcement Administration. Community support has been so strong that public service announcements are currently being run on various cable channels to heighten local awareness of this important campaign. When I began my Innovation in Education award program, my goal was to highlight the importance of local control in education. I couldn't ask for a better example than the students who lead Wake Up. Get Real. They have rallied the support of the community behind them and I commend them for their work in changing their schools for the better.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed the conference report on the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The conference report represents a good faith effort to merge the spending priorities of the House, the Senate, and the administration, and to resolve the concerns voiced by the administration about various legislative provisions in the bill. I think the conference report is a solid, bipartisan bill that deserves the overwhelming support of the Senate and the signature of the President. The bill totals roughly $14.5 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is a significant increase from the levels contained in the House and Senate passed bills. Some of this increase is attributable to the House and Senate insisting upon funding for specific programs, and much of the increase is due to the efforts of the conferees to meet the spending priorities of the administration. While the bill before you represents an increase of about $500 million over the fiscal year 1999 level, it is still $500 million below the administration's request level. In developing the fiscal year 2000 Interior bill, the top priority for both the House and Senate committees was to maintain the core operating programs of the land management agencies, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, and the cultural agencies funded in this bill. Because Interior bill agencies are highly personnel-intensive, simply keeping pace with the cost of Federal pay raises requires an increase of more than $300 million over the fiscal year 1999 level. This leaves little room from programmatic increases and new initiatives. The conference report before you, however, does contain significant increases for targeted, high-priority programs. The bill provides roughly $28 million to increase the base operating budgets of more than 100 units of the National Park System, while also providing funds for a focused effort to enhance our limited understanding of the tremendous natural resources present within the Park System. The bill also includes an increase of $25 million for the operation and maintenance of the National Fish and Wildlife Refuge System, and increases for critical grazing management, road maintenance, wildlife and fisheries management, and recreation programs within the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. For Indian programs, the bill provides the full administration request for the Office of the Special Trustee--the Secretary of the Interior's No. 1 priority within this bill. I fervently hope that these funds will enable the Secretary to clean up the Indian trust fund management mess that has been allowed to accumulate over many years. The conference agreement also provides an increase of $130 million for the Indian Health Service, and increases within the Bureau of Indian Affairs for law enforcement, school operations, school repairs, and school construction. With regard to the cultural agencies in this bill, I am pleased that the conferees agreed to the Senate position with regard to the National Endowment for the Humanities, thereby providing a $5 million increase. I was disappointed that the House would not agree to a similar increase proposed by the Senate for the National Endowment for the Arts, but anticipate we will try again next year. I also note that the bill includes $19 million for the Smithsonian to complete the federal commitment to construction of the National Museum of the American Indian on The Mall, and $20 million to continue renovations at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. In addition to the programs I have mentioned, the conferees made a concerted effort to address some of the specific funding priorities voiced by the administration that were not included in either the House or Senate bill. The conference agreement includes $30 million for the Save America's Treasures Program for historic preservation, a grant program of particular importance to the First Lady funded for the first time last year. The conference agreement also provides funding for Federal land acquisition at levels higher than in either the House or Senate bill, including $40 million for the purchase of the Baca Ranch in New Mexico. With regard to issues of policy, the conference agreement embodies a great number of compromises with both the House and the administration. The legislative provisions, or ``riders'' about which the administration has complained most vociferously have all been modified or scaled back significantly to address administration concerns. The one year moratorium on oil valuation regulations contained in the Senate bill has been modified to provide a maximum of a 180-day delay while the Comptroller General reviews several aspects of the proposed regulations. The provision in the Senate bill regarding millsites--which would have permanently refuted the Solicitor's opinion on this issue--has been limited to a 2-year provision that prohibits application of the new Solicitor's opinion to existing plans of operations, plans of operations filed prior to May 21, 1999, and patent applications that have been grandfathered under the terms of the Interior bill since fiscal year 1995. This provides some degree of fair treatment to those who have invested millions of dollars in the permitting process, only to find that the ground rules have been radically changed by the actions of a single bureaucrat. With regard to grazing, the conference agreement includes a 1-year provision that is substantially similar to the provision signed into law as part of last year's bill. This provides for renewal of expired grazing permits pending completion of environmental review, but maintains completely the Secretary's right to renew, alter, or reject a renewal application upon completion of such review. The Senate bill included a permanent provision that was opposed by the administration. The conference report embodies many more compromises such as those I have just described. I want to thank Chairman Regula, his staff and the House conferees for their willingness to work through these many complex and difficult issues. I have thoroughly enjoyed my relationship with Chairman Regula since becoming chairman myself, and admire his commitment to supporting, overseeing and, when needed, critiquing the important programs and agencies funded in this bill. Finally Mr. President, I note that there are three corrections that need to be made to the conference report. The number for the Historic Preservation Fund in the National Part Service should be $75,212,000, the number for Forest Service land acquisition should be $79,575,000, and in section 310, ``1999'' should read ``2000.'' Mr. Regula and I will take the necessary steps to ensure that thee corrections are made. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. It is a good bill that deserves our vote, and deserves the signature of the President. mms royalty valuation

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, under those circumstances, for the majority leader, I can now say that in light of this agreement, there will be no further votes today. The next vote will occur at 9:50 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on adoption of the pending motion to proceed at 9:50 a.m. on Wednesday, October 20, with the 20 minutes prior to vote equally divided between the majority leader and the minority leader.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for all of the hours that have been spent on the debate on the particular bill that has been before the Senate, this year's form of McCain-Feingold, I believe it was summarized best, with the most striking degree of contrast to the paradox imaginable, last Friday by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold. He came to the floor of the Senate and specifically singled out the Microsoft Corporation, based, of course, in the State I represent, in an attempt to make a direct link between campaign contributions and/or contributions to political parties and the appearance of political corruption. In order not to misstate in any respect, I will quote briefly from the remarks of the Senator from Wisconsin: Apparently Microsoft and their allies are not seeking to directly affect the litigation that is being conducted with regard to Microsoft by the Justice Department at this time; what they are trying to do, according to this article [an article in the newspapers on that day] is cut the overall funding for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. In this context, if somehow things don't look right, there is the ever present possibility that there would be an appearance of corruption. The Senator from Wisconsin then went on to relate how he recently read that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is the world's wealthiest individual. This led the Senator from Wisconsin to say: I have no idea what Microsoft's or Bill Gates' actual contributions are, and I am not suggesting that they are making those contributions to influence funding of the Justice Department. But for us to create a scenario where Mr. Gates could give unlimited amounts of money rather than the old $2,000 of hard money, or a Microsoft PAC could give more than $10,000, to just have it be unlimited I believe almost inherently . . . creates an appearance of corruption that is bad for Microsoft, bad for the Justice Department, and bad for the country. It is 2 weeks ago that the General Accounting Office issued a report indicating the Department of Justice had spent, so far, $13 million in a lawsuit that it has brought against the Microsoft Corporation. Included in that $13 million is a considerable amount of money for public relations efforts on behalf of that lawsuit. I think much of the speculation fueled by those public relations experts is that the Department of Justice, if it has the opportunity, may well ask the court literally to break up what has been the most successful single corporation, the single corporation most responsible for the dramatic change in the way our economy is run of any corporation in the United States. So we have an administration and a Government spending $13 million to prosecute a case against this corporation, speculating that it may ask for the breakup of the corporation. But for the CEO of that corporation to spend more than $2,000 in political contributions or for its political action committee to spend more than $10,000, that is an appearance of corruption which must be controlled by the Federal Government. The bill the Senator from Wisconsin was promoting at the time he made this speech would say that corporation and that individual could not give $1, either to the Republican or the Democratic Party or to any of their subsidiary organizations, designed to be used for the education of voters or indirectly for the election of an administration more favorable to entrepreneurship in the United States. And this is denominated campaign election reform designed to deal with an appearance of corruption. Absolutely amazing--the Microsoft Corporation, not accused of doing anything wrong at all but simply because a Member of this body or the Department of Justice itself says there might be an appearance of corruption, should be deprived of any effective means of defending itself in a political court of public opinion. The Government can spend $13 million or twice or three times $13 million engaged in the prosecution; the company cannot attempt to influence either the amount of money the taxpayers give to that Department of Justice or, more profoundly, the nature of the next administration that may or may not follow the same antitrust philosophy itself. Now, I guess I can lay it out. I am the Senator from the State in which Microsoft is located. Close to 15,000 of my constituents are employed by that company. They have transformed not only my State and my constituency in a magnificently positive fashion but the entire United States of America and have had a tremendously positive impact not only on America's image in the world but on its economic success in the world. You bet I defend them. You bet I hope in my next political campaign I will have its support. I already do, to a certain extent. That is totally public and above board. I would be totally remiss in my duties if I didn't do so. But to say, in a world with a Government that may be trying to destroy the company, that it is appropriate for this body to tell it that it effectively cannot participate in the political system or, for that matter, its employees can't effectively participate in preventing the Government from destroying their livelihoods in the corporation that they bring up is bizarre. Apparently, those who want to change the laws and ban political parties from raising so-called soft money say they do it to remove the appearance of corruption. But they will define what the appearance of corruption consists of so once anything that they dislike is described by them as an appearance of political corruption, all limitations are off. They can do whatever they want. They can restrict first amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States in whatever way they would like to restrict them. The first amendment may permit, to an almost unlimited extent, pornography, but it doesn't guarantee the right of an individual or a group of individuals operating through a corporation to defend their livelihoods and their existence. At the outset of this debate, the proponents were asked to come up with any incidents of actual corruption. In fact, they go out of their way to say there aren't any, or there aren't any that they know of, or there aren't any that they are willing to report. But they say: In our mind's eye, the present system creates an appearance of corruption; therefore, we can say to Microsoft, we can say to General Motors, we can say, for that matter--in theory, as they work through political parties--to liberal individuals or interest groups that you cannot contribute one dollar to the political party of your choice, to the political party you deem is most likely to allow you to conduct your business and your affairs in a profitable and constructive manner. No attack on the first amendment rights of free speech could be more open or blatant than that. It says, simply, once we use those magic words ``appearance of corruption''--and we will define that phrase and we will define every activity that can be described by that phrase in our minds--we can then tell you that you are out of business; you can no longer participate, except with very modest contributions directly to candidates of hard money. And this philosophy isn't limited to the rather bizarre nature of the bill before us, which says that of the 5,000 to 7,000 registered organizations that say they want to participate in the political system through the use of soft money and so-called issue advertising, it prevents only six of them from doing so--three Republican formal organizations and three Democratic formal organizations. This bizarre bill says it is perfectly all right to contribute this money to any of the other several thousand such organizations, but it is only the historic political parties in the United States, around which we have organized for almost our entire history, the activities and support of which somehow or another create an appearance of corruption. Now, of course, the original McCain-Feingold bill did go beyond that and did say that no matter how seriously your most passionate interests as an individual or a group are attacked by the Government, or by a rival political organization during the last 60 days before an election, you could never mention the name of the candidate for office. Well, I think, for all practical purposes, we all know that proposition is simply blatantly unconstitutional. It flies in the face of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. But, this afternoon, at least for the more than 1 hour that I listened to speeches on this subject, the actual bill that is before us was almost not mentioned at all. All of the criticisms were aimed at the money chase through which candidates go, the demeaning nature of having to ask people directly for money to fund candidates' activities. But neither in McCain-Feingold 1 nor McCain-Feingold 2 is that subject dealt with at all. Not a word, not a line has anything to do with contributions to individual candidates. ``McCain-Feingold lite'' has to do only with contributions to political parties for purposes other than the direct advocacy, election, or defeat of a particular candidate. How that is supposed to corrupt the process is, for all practical purposes, unstated. There is not the slightest allegation that Members somehow do things that they would not otherwise do because someone has given their political party an amount of money that can't be used directly for their own election. ``McCain-Feingold heavy'' is hardly a selfless effort on the part of any Member of this body because what ``McCain-Feingold heavy'' says is that your name, Mr. President, my name, and the names of all other Members can't even be mentioned in one of these ads for 60 days before an election. Boy, that is certainly comfort for the political class-- take everyone out of the business for the last 2 months before an election of communicating their own ideas about candidates independently of a candidate himself or herself. Now, we are also told that we didn't get enough time to debate this matter and that the debate wasn't broad enough. I was here when we came very close to a unanimous consent agreement for a week's worth of debate on this issue. The whole thrust of that set of negotiations was that we could start with whatever the Senators from Wisconsin and Arizona wished, but there would be lots of amendments--amendments from the Democratic side of the aisle, amendments from the Republican side of the aisle, and several votes on a wide range of ideas. But what actually happened was, on the second day--I must say, over the objections of the Senator from Arizona, who sits right in front of me--the minority leader and the minority whip set up a situation under which nobody else's amendments except theirs could be brought up, until theirs were completely dealt with. My friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, came down here with a proposal in which I joined that said, OK, let's have a little bit more balance; let's increase the amounts of hard money contributions that we like--almost, though not quite, back to the level they were in 1974, in real dollars. And then at the same time, we will impose soft money limitations of the same amounts in which we have hard money limitations. There are even a few Members on the other side of the aisle who thought that was an idea worthy of discussion. But we weren't allowed to discuss it. We weren't allowed to put that one up. They used their perfect parliamentary right to squeeze it down to their own proposals. And now they complain because their own proposals could not get a sufficient number of votes to bring them to any kind of final decision. Now, in an ideal world, I don't think we should limit either of these kinds of contributions. I think we should make them all public and make them public promptly. But if we are going to do so, I can't see the slightest rationale in the world for saying that the limitation in certain forms of speech to six organizations across the United States of America is zero, while limitations on everyone else with that kind of money do not exist at all, and limitations on direct contributions of candidates are so low as a result of 25 years of inflation that anyone who truly wants to participate has to do it in a different division. One of the primary reasons more money goes every year into so-called soft money contributions is the fact that hard money contributions directed to candidates are increasingly limited simply by the passage of time and by inflation. But then, of course, there would be other forms of soft money that aren't even remotely covered by even the broad version of McCain-Feingold. That is the political advocacy of every major media in the United States--of newspaper, radio station, and television station. What is the value of those contributions on editorial pages across the country? Does the average citizen who is brought up having an interest in government have the same influence over the political process as the editorial director of the New York Times? Of course not. Does that individual have the same influence as the head of Common Cause or the National Rifle Association or the AFL-CIO? Of course not. Both latter organizations are at least membership organizations which sometimes to a certain extent reflect the views of their members. The newspaper editorial writer reflects only the views of the newspaper owner or the newspaper publisher or the decisionmaker within that newspaper. Of course, those newspapers want to limit other people's voices. From their perspective, the first amendment is the total protection, from their view, and it is. But to exactly the extent they can limit the voices of others, their voices will be heard more loudly. And little is heard about the fact their voice is louder than that of the average citizen. But the first amendment does not say everyone has an equal voice in the public marketplace. It does say everyone has an equal vote in an election. But with respect to the marketplace and political ideas, it simply says Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. And every member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1974, when the last case came before it, said that freedom of speech to be effective does allow and require the use of money to make it carry further than any of our individual voices do on a windy day out of doors--every single one of them. So the idea that somehow or other all voices have to be heard equally is not only not found in the Constitution, it is not found in any free society. To allow the Government to try to determine what voice each person sends is exactly a power James Madison and the draftsmen of the first amendment said they would not allow the Government to do. Let me return to the point at which I started, which does at least have a virtue of dealing with the bill that is before us and not the lamentations of many of the Members on this floor that have nothing to do with the bill that is before us. They are saying, in effect, in one instance named by the Senator from Wisconsin, that a company now being prosecuted by the Federal Government may not participate effectively in the political world out of which that prosecution grew, may not participate effectively in supporting candidates or a political party that will have a profoundly different view on antitrust laws. The Government can spend an unlimited amount of money. Editorials writers can write an unlimited number of editorials. But the very subject of that prosecution, the very subject of those editorials, cannot participate effectively in the political process that brought about the prosecution in the first place. The very statement of that kind of limitation is an argument--in my view an overwhelming argument--against this proposal at the present time. The marketplace of ideas is disorderly. The marketplace of ideas is open. The marketplace of ideas is often dominated by those who have the most ideas, the greatest stake in whether or not they carry. No citizen is limited in his or her participation. But each citizen can spend as much of his or her time and effort and money as he or she deems necessary at least to see to it those ideas are heard effectively by the people of the United States in a free country. I deeply hope Microsoft and the employees who work for it in my State and elsewhere will have decided by this time next year that they need a new administration with a very different direction of the United States in order to keep providing for this country the kind of leadership they have provided. I am not sure I have persuaded them of that yet, but if I do, and if others do, they should not be artificially limited with the statement that freedom of speech is for someone else but, for all practical purposes, not for you when your very existence is threatened. That is what this is all about. And I don't think views on the floor of the Senate--or at least the votes--are going to be changed by another week's worth of debate. I am unhappy only with an alternative idea, somewhat more reasonable and somewhat more balanced, that the very tactics of the people who are now protesting the end of this debate prevent this presentation. We will try at least to put it in play for the next time around. But for now, it seems to me appropriate to move on to another subject.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield to me for a procedural request?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will object to the request at least in the form in which it was presented. It seems to me there ought to be a right for anyone on this side of the aisle to speak first, after the conclusion of any speech on that side of the aisle. If the request is only for the order of speaking of Members of that side of the aisle, with the clear understanding that if a Member on this side of the aisle wishes to succeed one of them, that he or she may do so, then I will not object.