T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may go over that 5-minute limit by not to exceed an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I can do no better than to echo the eloquent remarks of my friend and colleague from New Hampshire. The debate over education today is not a debate over its importance. It is not a debate over the relative commitment of Republicans and Democrats to increase the educational opportunities for our children. The debate, as we have it today, is over who determines how and where that money should be spent--bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or the parents, teachers, principals, and elected school board members in thousands of school districts across the United States. That debate is a vitally important one. In his 1997 state of education speech, Secretary Riley said, ``We should not cloud our children's future with silly arguments about Federal Government intrusion.'' But that is exactly what this debate is about. It isn't silly, and it couldn't possibly be more important. Secretary Riley may feel it very natural that he and the President and his bureaucrats in the Department of Education here in Washington, DC, should set those priorities for all of the thousands of school districts across the country. We do not. We believe in the wisdom of school board members and in the dedication of principals and teachers and parents to the quality of their children's education. I want to emphasize once again, the President in his budget this year asked for $31.4 billion for education. The budget passed by the Senate of the United States has $31.4 billion for education. Later, the President came back and asked for an additional $1.1 billion. Republicans have agreed that that $1.1 billion is appropriate. But in negotiations, of which I have been a part, the President has narrow prescriptions for the use of that $1.1 billion. In fact, when I looked at the statutory language that the President's people asked for, the first two lines were about the appropriation of $1.1 billion. All of the rest of the language was designed to restrict the discretion of State and local education agencies in connection with the spending of that $1.1 billion, narrowly focused on teachers, focused even more on teachers in the first three grades; subject to the rules and regulations of the Federal Department of Education at every possible turn, the distribution formula and the set of rules already adopted for the spending of money from the pot into which this $1.1 billion is to go, according to the President. The formal rules take up just 15 pages of regulations--perhaps 15 pages too many. But the nonregulatory guidance for those regulations is another 171 pages. And, of course, there would have to be additional regulations on top of those, and additional guidance on top of those, for this program as the President has recommended it. In its publication called ``Education At The Crossroads,'' the Education Committee of the House of Representatives reports that there are now 760 Federal education programs, requiring something over 48,600,000 hours of paperwork per year--48,600,000 hours of paperwork. We simply need not add to that burden. Mr. President, 90 percent of those hours now paid for out of the education budgets of our school districts and of our States, 90 percent of those hours could be far more profitably spent on additional instruction for our students or the money spent on improving the physical quality of our schools or the equipment that our schools and our teachers use to train our children. But those moneys are now spent meeting the regulations of the Federal Government accompanying the modest amount of money--some 7 percent to 8 percent--the modest amount of money that the Federal Government supplies as against the States and local taxpayers for the maintenance and the instruction in our public school program. We, on the other hand, without a debate with the President over the amount of money to be spent on education, prefer that it be distributed through an existing Federal program, the one existing Federal program that carries very few regulations with it, directly to the school districts of the United States, to be spent in the way that each of those school districts feels most appropriate. More teachers? Yes, where those school districts feel that is their No. 1 priority. Focused on special education where, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, we have imposed innumerable burdens and regulations on our school districts but supply less than 10 percent of the money to meet those regulations? On other matters that may be more significant to particular school districts across the country? Yes. In discussion of this issue in the course of the last 24 hours with a distinguished Democratic Member of the House of Representatives on the committee there dealing with education, we were told that even in that Representative's own district, the school boards could not be trusted. This Representative was eloquent on the tumbled-down nature of many of the schools in his city, eloquent on the lack of adequate teaching in that school district, but he was totally unwilling to let the people who elected both him and the school board members in his city--he was unwilling to allow those elected school board members to decide how this new money should be used. He was convinced, for some reason or another, that they would ignore the condition of their schools and the quality of their teachers and find something else to spend the money on. Between that idea and ours, there is a great gulf fixed. We feel that if the school boards are allowed to determine how this money should be spent, it will, in the vast majority of all cases, be spent more wisely than it could possibly be spent under a set of one-size-fits-all regulations from Washington, DC, and we feel that there will be more money in the schools because less of it will be used for this 48-plus million hours of filling out paperwork. Those are the two principal reasons for our perspective on this issue--a trust in the dedication of the parents and teachers and principals and superintendents and school board members to the education of the children committed to their care, and to the belief that the less the paperwork, the fewer the regulations, the more dollars that can get actually into the classroom. That may be the last major issue separating us from the President in coming up with an overall omnibus budget and allowing this Congress to finish its work. But it is an issue of profound importance to every American--our students and our parents and all other Americans who wish to bequeath to their children and their grandchildren an even stronger America than the one they inherited from their parents. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members have until October 28, 1998, to submit tributes to Senators Coats, Kempthorne, Ford, Glenn, and Bumpers, and further that the statements be compiled and printed as Senate documents.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. For the information of all Senators, on Wednesday there will be a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate may begin debate in relation to the omnibus appropriations bill, notwithstanding whether or not the papers have been received from the House. It now appears likely that a rollcall vote will be requested on passage of the omnibus bill. Members will be given 24 hours notice when the voting schedule becomes available.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the title amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk offered by Senator Kyl, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3267, which was received from the House.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess, under the previous order. Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:53 p.m., recessed until Wednesday, October 14, 1998, at 12 noon.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 12 noon on Wednesday, October 14, 1998. I further ask that the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Mr. GORTON. I further ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, at this desk on the floor of the Senate, I am surrounded by Indiana--the senior Senator from Indiana on my left, the junior Senator from Indiana on my right. Together, they have come to reflect the character of their sober, peaceful, and productive section of middle America. So close are the two Senators to one another, almost alone among Members of this body, they share offices in the State of Indiana, they share a strong and calm temperament, and they share a commitment to the people they represent and to the people of the United States. When this Congress adjourns in a few short hours, however, we will be losing one of those Senators, Dan Coats. Dan Coats has grown in wisdom and in the respect that his fellow Senators have for him in each of the 10 years during which he has served in the Senate--10 years that seem to me, in retrospect, to be all too short. With Dan Coats, what you see is what you get, a man who lives and defends and projects solid American values, a love of family, a love of country, a love of God, a man who works hard, a man whose convictions are strong and unshakeable but who combines with those convictions a willingness to listen to views different from his own and to reach accommodations on matters of policy when those accommodations do not shake his solid philosophical foundation. During the course of his 10 years in the Senate, Dan Coats has become a good friend. I do not believe I can say that he is my closest friend in the Senate, nor I his. I can say, however, that I will greatly miss his calm good humor, his ability to get to the central point of any debate over policy or political philosophy, his rich dedication to the Constitution of the United States, to this body, and to the friends he has made in this body. We are only 100 men and women in the Senate, Mr. President. We see a great deal of one another, and we see ourselves and our colleagues under great stress and under high pressures. As a consequence, it is very difficult for any of us to hide the vital features of our character or our personality from one another. Dan Coats, I must say, has never attempted to hide anything about his character or about his personality, and with me and with all of us it has worn well. He is the kind of individual whom you like and respect more and more with each passing day, and it is for just that reason that even if this Congress ends up by accomplishing many of the purposes that each of us as individuals set out to accomplish at the beginning of this Congress, we will still go home with an empty heart, knowing that those of us who return in January will return without the daily advice, counsel, and friendship of a magnificent U.S. Senator, Dan Coats of Indiana.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. He will.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Idaho exaggerates a little bit. It was a winning vote; it wasn't quite resounding.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it has been interesting to listen to the Senator from Massachusetts beating so industriously upon a dead horse. But the issue before the Congress, I suspect, in these last few days is not going to be on the level of support that the Congress and our appropriations bill provides for the education of our children in all 50 States across the country. The debate now between the President and the leadership who are working on this budget is over who gets to spend it. The President believes, and the Senator from Massachusetts has outlined in his remarks a whole series of categorical aid programs--money for this specific program, money for that specific program--each of which carries with it its own bureaucracy here in Washington, DC, and, generally speaking, a bureaucracy of the State and always administrators in each school district to fill out all of the forms and to make all of the applications for assistance from the Federal Government. To that extent, an individual school district is lucky if 60 cents or 70 cents out of every dollar supposedly devoted by the Federal Government to education, in fact, ever gets to the classroom and to the students. No, the battle in these last few days is not going to be over whether or not we shouldn't supply perhaps another billion dollars or more than a billion dollars above what we are already appropriating for the education of our children. It is going to be over whether or not we trust the teachers, the parents, the principals, the superintendents, the elected school board members and thousands of school districts across the United States to determine how that money can be most effectively spent on their students.

Mr. GORTON. This Senate voted for just such a program last year. This Senate voted for just such a program this year. This Senate did so, I am convinced, because while the Federal Government, in spite of all of the speeches on the floor of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, comes up with only about 7 or 8 percent of the money that is spent in our schools that are, of course, primarily locally and State-operated, it comes up with 50 or 60 percent of the rules and regulations that must be met by our school districts, by hiring administrators, not teachers, people to fill out forms and read Federal regulations rather than librarians and new equipment for our students. It was our attempt last year, and has been our attempt this year, and I hope and trust will be our policy when we finish an appropriations bill in a few days, that we trust the people in the States and in our communities and in our schools to come up with better judgments about the varying priorities of their students than can President Clinton or a Department of Education bureaucracy here in Washington, DC. The thrust of the point that I have been attempting to make for a couple of years now is just exactly that: Where should this money be spent? Are we the experts here in this body on how each of 14,000 school districts should go about educating its children? Or is the true expertise in those school districts themselves?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I speak today in recognition of a young woman from my home state of Washington, Ms. Veronica Calvillo. Ms. Calvillo, a sophomore at Seattle University, is the recipient of a scholarship from the Hispanic College Fund. While I did not have the good fortune of attending the recent awards dinner at which Ms. Calvillo spoke, I have heard from many who did attend that she made a remarkable impression. After reading the remarks she made at that dinner, I can certainly understand why. Through her remarks, Ms. Calvillo shows herself to be an intelligent, mature and centered young woman. Ms. Calvillo and her family are truly an example of what is best about America. I ask that Ms. Calvillo's remarks be printed in the Congressional Record. The remarks follow. Remarks by Veronica Calvillo [Veronica Calvillo is a sophomore majoring in business and engineering at Seattle University] Good Evening, I am very honored to have been selected as a scholarship recipient by the Hispanic College Fund. I am especially pleased to have been asked to speak on behalf of this year's scholarship recipients. I wish to begin by thanking American Airlines for making it possible for ten of us to travel from various parts of the country to be here tonight. I also wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to all the individuals and companies, in particular Eddie Bauer, for making our scholarships possible. This support will enable me and the other recipients to begin or continue our pursuit of a higher education. This evening, I would like to share with you my story, a little piece of history about who I am and why it means so much to me that I am here standing on this podium as a scholarship recipient. The best place for me to begin is by telling you what I do almost every weekend. Every weekend when I drive to the city where I grew up, I feel like the most privileged Hispanic on the planet. Why do I feel this way? Well, every weekend I am able to witness two individuals that optimize Hispanic Business Leadership and I am able to learn from them firsthand. You are probably wondering who these people are. The two Hispanic leaders have no education, not even elementary education, and they live in a low-income neighborhood--they are my parents, Angel and Lupe Calvillo are their names, and in my opinion they are the two most successful Hispanic business leaders. I base this opinion on the description of what I believe ``Hispanic Business Leadership'' is. I believe that a Hispanic leader in business should have the characteristics that are common in the mother and father family figures in Hispanic families. I believe this because running a business is like managing a big family, where the children are the employees and you are there to manage them into becoming successful individuals for their benefit as well as the family, which is a sort of business. My parents were extremely successful in managing their children, or their ``employees,'' into becoming successful individuals. How, you may ask? First of all, I don't think many could argue that Hispanic parents, with their strict and religious way of raising their families, are the most successful at running any kind of family. This is why many Hispanic businesses that are family owned, for instance the explosion of family restaurants, are so successful. The Hispanic businesses are managed with the same leadership skills that my parents had as they were raising their children. The skills my parents embody and that they taught me, in preparation for becoming successful, are summed up in three words; integrity, dignity and faith. Integrity-- doing what you say you're going to do, Dignity--meaning your daily actions should bring honor and humility, and Faith-- having loyalty to God's teachings and confidence in God's plan for you. Three characteristics needed to be a successful business leader in any community, whether it be Hispanic or not. My parent's climb to success with their own family happened because they are living every day those three characteristics they taught my brothers, sisters and me. My parents came to America in 1963 with hopes of a better future for themselves and their children. They have no education whatsoever and to this day, many years later, barely utter the English language. They were migrant workers in California and Washington. My older siblings vividly remember their childhood when they, too, had to work in the fields, alongside my parents. When my parents first arrived in America, they made a pact with each other that the life they lived was not going to be the destiny of their children. They had arrived in the ``land of opportunity,'' and they would do anything to give their children the best education available to them. This is exactly what they did. My Dad eventually obtained a job as a welder and my Mom as a motel housekeeper. Although together they averaged a meager income, they were able to send all five of my siblings and me to private schools. I know this seems unimaginably hard to do, but my family succeeded because of my parents' immense faith in God, family, and in this country. My siblings and I obtained jobs at young ages so we could help out financially; we understood and accepted why we couldn't go see a movie on weekends, or why in winter we would double layer our clothes and sleep with our jackets on. Yes, we were poor, but I never really knew my family was poor until I went to Bellarmine Prep. High School and visited my friends elegant homes and saw how they lived. However, I still never felt the negative associations that are usually paired with being poor. I was happy, because God gave me more blessings than money could ever give me. God gave me two extraordinary parents who instilled Christian morals in their children and taught us how to live with integrity and dignity in the eyes of God. Because God is guiding my family, He made our experiences make my family strong and united--truly engulfed in love for one another. My parents worked hard, harder than any human being should ever have to. They have gone without, so that we wouldn't . . . the most unselfish human act possible . . . and this is why under all my extreme circumstances I prevail. Looking at my father's leathered hands alone send me soaring. Now it is my turn to help them. I have responsibilities after school that few others have. I must fill out forms, pay bills, send letters, read letters, make phone calls for appointments, go to appointments to translate and much more. I do all of this for my parents because they do not speak English, read or write. Sometimes, I feel like I am the parent. It is frustrating at times when I have a test to study for, but can't because I have to translate for my parents somewhere, at some meeting, or appointment, etc. However, I do it because I love them and like I mentioned before, I know their hands are thick and knotted because of the lifetime of work they have done for their children. This is why I am going to college--to further my education and make myself and my parents proud. I have concluded that all of my parents' dreams and hopes live in their children. When we succeed, they have succeeded. My parents' hard work and the values they instilled in us started to pay-off with my eldest sister--Lorena. She was the first person in my family to even attempt to go to college. She left my parents' home with just her clothes and my parents' blessing. She eventually graduated from Seattle University. I will never forget how my parents felt when they heard my sister's name called out at the graduation. They cried and my Dad cheered wildly, this is something he rarely does. It had been a struggle for her, but finally a Calvillo made it. My sister also set an example for the rest of the family. My twenty-one year old brother is in his second year at Seattle University, my first cousin, Aida Calvillo (whom worked alongside my sister, Lorena, in the fields with her parents), in 1996 graduated from the University of Washington medical school, and the list continues as more Calvillos are graduating from college. This is my second week attending Seattle University and I am relishing every moment of it. My sister utilized her education for others, and preached to her younger siblings the importance of a higher education. She told me my junior year of high school, as I was contemplating college, ``Veronica, you can't determine what you are born into, but you can determine what you will become with the leadership skills our parents gave us.'' I took her advice and have kept, and will keep, moving forward until I become what I have determined I will become: a successful Hispanic business leader. With the help of the Hispanic College Fund Board of Trustees and the generous financial support of Eddie Bauer, I am on my way. Once again, thank you and good evening.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I share the background of the Senator from Alabama as attorney general of my State. I agree with much of the philosophic underpinning of his remarks directed at the judicial philosophy of Mr. Fletcher. I disagree, however, as to the conclusion, and intend to vote for his confirmation. The Constitution of the United States says that the President shall nominate and by and with the advice of the Senate shall appoint judges to positions like the one we are debating here today. In my view--I have some differences even with my good friend from Utah on this subject--I believe that does permit a Senator to vote against a judicial nominee on the grounds that the Senator disagrees with the fundamental legal philosophy of that nominee. I also believe, however, that when the President has sought the advice as well as the consent of the Senate, and when that advice has been heated, at least to the extent of being given significant weight, it is then appropriate to vote for the confirmation of a judicial nominee, even though one, as an individual Senator, might well not have nominated that individual had he, the Senator, been President of the United States. That is the situation in which I find myself here. I have met with and talked about Mr. Fletcher's ambitions on two or three occasions at some length. I have found him to be a thoughtful, intelligent, hard- working individual dedicated to the law as he sees it, and, perhaps even more importantly than that, as the Constitution and the statutes of the United States lay it out. He would certainly not have been my first choice had I been the nominating authority in this case. But, I am not. I am an individual Senator. At the same time, the President of the United States and his officers have, in fact, sought my advice as well as my consent on judicial nominees, both to the district courts in the State of Washington, and to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when those nominees come from the State of Washington. While again I have not necessarily gotten my first choices for those positions, I believe that in a constitutional sense my advice has been sought and my advice has been given considerable weight by the President of the United States. As a consequence, the combination of the punctual adherence to constitutional requirements with my own belief that Mr. Fletcher will fill the position of a judge on the Ninth Circuit honorably, and in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States, causes me to feel that he is a qualified nominee and that he should be confirmed by the Members of the Senate to the office to which the President has nominated him.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I speak today in defense of an essential freedom--the right to make health care decisions outside of the governmental bureaucracy. Yet there is a segment of our population--our seniors--who have lost that freedom. At the administration's insistence a provision was included in the budget reconciliation bill of 1997 that prohibits physicians from participating in the Medicare program for two years if they accept private payment for services normally covered under the Medicare program from a patient who is eligible for Medicare--essentially trapping our seniors in a government controlled health care program. It is clear that the provisions included in the Balanced Budget Act are hurting seniors. One of my constituents stories was featured in the Reader's Digest. Ray Perry wanted to pay for routine screening tests for he and his wife because years before, prior to enrolling in Medicare, the Perry's had conducted a similar series of tests and were able to detect his wife's lymphatic leukemia very early when it was still treatable. Medicare decided not to pay for the tests because the Perrys didn't have certain symptoms that would indicate these tests were required. But, when the Perrys offered to pay out of their own pocket, the doctor still wouldn't order the tests for fear of being penalized by Medicare. While both the Perrys and their doctor wanted medical services that were clearly reasonable, and the Perrys were willing to pay for these services, the restrictions currently found in Medicare prevented them from getting the kind of health care they needed. It is unconscionable that in a nation founded on the principles of freedom that we would limit the freedom of the Perrys and millions of American seniors just like them.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the substitute amendment to S. 852, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Protection Act of 1998. The substitute makes a number of changes to the Committee-passed bill. While not as far reaching as some would like, I believe that the changes improve a measure that has always had a very laudable intent, but which was criticized nevertheless by attorneys general and consumer groups for preempting, in some instances, more favorable state law and not providing consumers with enough information about a vehicles' history. As a former Attorney General, I was particularly sensitive to these criticisms, and last Fall I placed a hold on the measure with the expectation of facilitating a consensus between the bill's supporters, the attorneys general, and various consumer advocate groups. Regrettably, a consensus of legislation was not to be had. While the changes in the amendment are generally intended to address concerns raised by the attorneys general and, to some extent, consumer advocates, neither of these groups has endorsed this measure. I removed my hold on the amendment despite this, however, because there is a consensus, of which I am a part, on the need for federal legislation regarding salvage and rebuilt vehicles. The bill, as amended, is not perfect. But as my months of trying to broker an agreement revealed, ``perfect,'' even if defined to mean the best interest of consumers, is a subjective term. S. 852, as amended, is, in my view, and in that of over 50 co-sponsors, better than the status quo. I remain troubled that the attorneys general and some consumer advocate groups do not agree. I am also somewhat baffled by the seemingly studied misconstruction of the bill, and my amendment to it by some who continue to oppose it. Let me explain the changes in the amendment to S. 852. In response to complaints that S. 852 set too high a damage threshold for designating a vehicle as ``salvage,'' the amendment lowers the threshold from 80% to the lower of 75% or the percentage threshold in a state as of the date of enactment. Seventy-five percent is the threshold recommended by the task force created by the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, on whose work this legislation is based. Industry defenders of the higher threshold argued that lowering it would hurt, not help, consumers because it would devalue vehicles even when there is no legitimate safety-related reason for mandating the disclosure of prior damage. I understand their point, but don't agree. Yes, there is some threshold at which mandatory labeling, and the bureaucratic burden that attends it, is more costly than beneficial for both buyers and sellers, but I do not believe we have come close to that turning point. The attorneys general's concern that S. 852 did not provide for sufficient disclosure applied not only to the percent of damage threshold, but also to limited scope of the vehicles covered by the bill. S. 852 proposed to permit the ``salvage vehicle'' label to attach only to vehicles less than seven years old or with more than $7500. While states were free to use any other label they chose for all vehicles, including older vehicles, state attorneys general wanted to be able to use the term ``salvage'' to describe older vehicles because it is the term most commonly used today to advise of prior damage. The amendment to S. 852 permits states to do this, and explicitly provides that states can use the term ``older model salvage vehicle'' to label older vehicles. Complaints about the mandatory nature of S. 852 ran the gamut. Some critics of S. 852, including the Department of Transportation, objected to the fact that states were not obligated to comply with the Act, arguing that states could opt out and become regional title washing capitals. Others complained that the bill was too prescriptive, and did not allow states (the majority of which, until now, do not appear to have adopted very consumer-friendly laws) to set the standards for labeling and disclosure. Rather than refight the battle that led the House to conclude that a mandate would be unconstitutional, and because I was unable to persuade anyone to agree that we should use a big stick as opposed to a carrot approach, the amendment to S. 852 does not make the labeling system mandatory, but incorporates a provision to address concerns that opt-out states will become title-washing capitals. The amendment to S. 852 makes it a violation of the Act to move vehicles, or vehicle titles, across state lines for the purpose of avoiding the requirements in the Act. Another minor modification to S. 852 corrects what I believe was an oversight in S. 852, and makes it a violation of the Act not to comply with the labeling and disclosure requirements for ``flood vehicles.'' Another modification made to S. 852 clarifies that states that choose to abide by the provisions of the Act must carry over not only the ``salvage vehicle,'' ``nonrepairable vehicle,'' and ``flood vehicle'' labels on titles, but also any other disclosure that states prescribe. This concept was contained in S. 852, but the language was unclear. The legislation does not restrict states from labeling a car with any term, and prescribing treatment of a car so labeled with any term, other than the very limited list of terms used in the bill. In other words, a state that accepts federal funds for the national motor vehicle identification number database, and that does not specifically state on its titles that it is not complying with the federal titling standards, must use the definition of ``salvage vehicle'' and ``nonrepairable vehicle'' prescribed in the bill. However, S. 852 permits that state to label the same vehicle with any other term it chooses and imposes any restrictions attendant to the other label. The amendment clarifies that states that chose to use the national labels, including those for ``salvage vehicle'' and ``nonrepairable vehicle,'' must not only carry over these labels from other states, but must also carry over any other labels another state chooses to affix, and specify the state that so labeled the vehicle. Other modifications specifically permit state attorneys general to bring actions on behalf of individuals for violations of the Act, and clarify that the Act in no way affects individuals' ability to bring private rights of action. In response to concerns that S. 852 preempted state causes of action and created a sole remedy for violations relating to title labeling and disclosure, the amendment specifically provides that the Act does not preclude any private right of action available under state law. This provision was intended to provide assurances that nothing in the Act restricts individuals, or attorneys general, from pursuing any claims under state law, such as claims based on violations of consumer protection laws, unfair trade practices, or failures to disclose the material terms of a contract. Curiously, the inclusion of this provision, designed to allay concerns about preemption, appears to have unreasonable stirred them. Some appear to have drawn the illogical and legally unsupported conclusion that any claim not specifically preserved is implicity barred. Let met again try to clarify. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that suggests that the remedies it provides (action by attorneys general) are exclusive. Simply because the legislation states that private actions are specifically preserved does not mean that all other actions are barred or restricted in any way. The modification that has drawn criticism even from those consumer groups whose interests I was attempting to advance in my amendment, is the striking of the criminal penalty provisions. This modification was not requested by anyone seeking to avoid accountability. Rather, I sought to strike the criminal penalties because I believe that the criminal sanctions in S. 852 were inappropriate in most instances, and unnecessary in others. As a general matter, I believe that Congress creates too many federal criminal offenses, when it should leave this task to state law. A violation of this bill, such as a failures to make disclosures about a vehicle's history, generally is not the type of violation for which people should be sent to jail. If the conduct is so egregious that criminal sanctions are warranted, then existing state laws against fraud, theft, and the like are available based on which to prosecute violators. The change I have just described to S. 852 are not extensive. They are, nevertheless, important and, in my opinion, improve a bill that is needed at this time.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this year began in a way unprecedented during my years as a U.S. Senator. Just months after passing the balanced budget agreement of 1997, budget forecasters released projections that included the possibility of a budget surplus as early as 1999. By March, the Congressional Budget Office estimated an $8 billion surplus by the end of fiscal year 1998. I'll skip ahead a few months, because we all know that the surplus projections continued to grow. Last week, fiscal year 1998 came to an end with the President and Congress announcing a $70 billion budget surplus. In less than a year, the deficit-busting efforts started early in the 1980s and culminating in last year's balanced budget agreement reached the climax we have been waiting for since 1969--the first budget surplus in 30 years. All of this is very good news, everyone on Capitol Hill wants to take credit for it. Despite the euphoric attitude that has overcome the congressional budgeteers and appropriators, however, I want to sound a note of caution. This weekend, the Seattle Times published an editorial that sums up my hesitation to jump on the pig pile scrambling to spend the projected surplus on tax cuts, as advocated by a number of my colleagues, or new government programs, as suggested by the President and Democratic leadership. The editorial, aptly titled ``Surplus? What Surplus?'', reminds us all of a reality few are willing to face. In July, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the Federal Government will run a $63 billion surplus in 1998 if the Social Security trust fund is included in the budget calculations. We still are running a $41 billion deficit, however, if the surplus in the Social Security trust fund is excluded. The Federal Government will not run a surplus without the inclusion of the Social Security trust fund until 2002, when CBO expects a $1 billion surplus. By 2008, the surplus will rise to $64 billion, without including the Social Security trust fund. We are close, but we are not out of the woods yet. I remain deeply concerned about the future viability of Social Security. Social Security is a sacred contract between the Federal Government and seniors. We cannot and must not use the current surplus in the Social Security trust fund to offset deficit spending in other Government programs. Unfortunately, the President, among others in Government, has proposed to do precisely that. As Congress speeds toward the end of the 105th Congress, we must keep the future of the Social Security trust fund paramount in our deliberations. Some Members of Congress want to pass a tax cut package before the election, which will be funded by the projected surplus. The President--who urged us to ``Save Social Security First'' during his State of the Union Address in January--opposes tax cuts for the American people but has been pushing for $20 billion in so called emergency spending since September. He does not propose to offset this spending with cuts in other Government programs. In fact, by categorizing his spending requests as ``emergencies,'' he plans to spend a large part of the surplus he himself designated for saving Social Security in January. Frankly, I question the legitimacy of the ``emergencies'' identified by the President--the year 2000 computer problem, military responsibilities in Bosnia, and the decennial census. These so-called emergencies have been on the radar screen for years. Unfortunately, the President failed to place a priority on these challenges when he gave Congress his budget in February. Now we have several ``emergencies'' for which the President is willing to dip into the surplus he deemed sacred in January--a surplus that does not exist unless we tap into the Social Security trust fund. Allow me to discuss the trust fund for just a moment. Today the Social Security trust fund is running a surplus. But that is by design. When the baby boom generation begins retiring in just a few years, that surplus will be needed to ensure that Social Security can meet its obligations. I believe that all Government surpluses must be used to guarantee the stability of the Social Security system so that everyone relying on Social Security today, and everyone working and paying into the system today, will be able to count on Social Security without any cuts or increased taxes tomorrow. The President has said that he wants to save Social Security, but in fact his budget proposed to spend billions of dollars over and above the balanced budget agreement he signed a year ago. Now he wants more money for the so-called emergencies I described earlier. Every one of those dollars will inevitably come out of the surplus I am convinced we need to preserve for Social Security. That is wrong. We must use all of the Social Security and other future budget surpluses to make entirely certain that the current generation, and at least the next generation, have Social Security in its present form. I believe so strongly in this position, that in a July strategy meeting to discuss tax and budget issues my advice to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was to ``save Social Security first.'' I believe now that that is exactly what we will do. We cannot play smoke and mirrors with the Social Security trust fund. At the beginning of September, I sent this chart, which you can see, Mr. President, to more than 300,000 seniors in Washington State. I have received thousands of responses over the last 3 weeks. This is a difference between a true deficit in our normal accounts and a surplus that is created simply by counting the Social Security surplus, with the 0 point, as I said earlier, not reached until in the year 2002. Margaret Collins of Kent wrote: ``Keep Social Security money for Social Security only.'' Alice Crawley of Seattle wrote: ``I am 82 years old and I say they should use any available surplus, Social Security and otherwise to preserve and protect Social Security.'' Mr. and Mrs. Bill Pennock of Redmond wrote: ``The American people pay into Social Security believing the money will be there when they retire. Our generation depends on Social Security and we feel future generations will also need it. Please do not spend the fund on other government programs.'' Wallace Wickland of Bothell wrote: ``You people in Washington have got to keep your hands off Social Security. This is all some people have. Voting for Social Security will save your jobs!'' Anna Green of Tacoma wrote: ``We always voted for you, and I hope you think of our children and grandchildren to preserve and protect the Social Security for them.'' Barbara Murphy of Tumwater wrote: ``I'm in favor of using all the surplus to shore-up Social Security. I know House Republicans propose a tax refund for citizens, but let's wait on that.'' My constituents support using all of the Social Security surplus and future budget surpluses to make entirely certain that the current generation and future generations are protected. Once Congress and the President agree to a plan that shores up Social Security for our children and grandchildren who will retire during the next century, I gladly will join my colleagues in providing tax relief for hard-working Americans. I want to make that point crystal clear. I am not opposed to tax relief. In fact, I'm all for across-the-board tax cuts that provide relief for middle class taxpayers. In fact, I have cosponsored two bills that reduce or eliminate tax penalties on married couples--a major component of the House-passed tax relief package. The taxpayers have contributed more than their fair share to the balanced budget for which we so desperately want to claim credit in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, we have to eat the spinach on our plate before we eat dessert. We have one more challenge to face--one more hurdle to jump-- before we can claim victory on balancing the budget and start returning their hard-earned dollars to taxpayers. Let's secure and protect the Social Security trust fund for current retirees and future generations first. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on March 28, 1996, Congress passed the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, most commonly referred to as the farm bill. This comprehensive, forward looking legislation provides U.S. agriculture the free market principles that our farmers and ranchers requested and desired. Government no longer dictates to farmers how much to plant, when to plant, when to buy, or when to sell. The farm bill provides the flexibility, predictability, and simplicity that our farmers and ranchers asked for from their government. In the past few months, agriculture in the United States has been impacted by chaotic world markets, natural disasters, and disease. These occurrences are not the result of the Farm Bill, but without a doubt have impacted the prices paid for U.S. commodities. As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I had the opportunity to review and subsequently pass a disaster package as part of the Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. This package includes relief for those farmers who experienced one or all three of the aforementioned occurrences. The Pacific Northwest is experiencing misfortune that is not weather or disease related, but market related. Producers in the State of Washington rely heavily on international trade. Wheat growers in the state export approximately 85 percent of their crop. Our apple and minor crop industries rely heavily on Asia as an export market. When world markets collapse, so too does the price paid for each of these commodities. The disaster package which is included in the conference report provides some relief for growers in Washington state. However, because a bulk of the assistance provided in the package will benefit farmers in the mid-west states, I voted with Senator Burns to increase the relief plan by $610 million. Although this plan was defeated, I believe the overall package is adequate and a necessary starting point for recharging the cash flow to the family farm. This package, combined with the Agriculture Market Transition Act payments farmers will receive in October and December of this year, and the loan deficiency payments for program crops totals over $17 billion in cash payments for 1998 and 1999. Because Pacific Northwest agriculture is so trade dependent, I believe we must focus on expanding trade and gaining new markets. In this arena, I fear that the administration's silence has been deafening. Two weeks ago the House defeated the bill to provide the President fast track-trade negotiating authority. Unfortunately, a wounded President and a weak Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to convince our colleagues the importance of passing this legislation. With one in four jobs in the State of Washington directly related to trade, and with agriculture being the State's number one employer, the passage of fast track was essential. Just last week I made a statement regarding the administration's trade policy with China. Finally, a member of the Administration commented on the inability of the President to make headway with China's protectionist position. The Undersecretary of International Trade at the Department of Commerce admitted that U.S. trade policy with China is flawed and that the Administration's policy of `engagement' has not moved China toward free trade practices. China claims that wheat from our region is inflicted with a disease called TCK smut. At the bipartisan request of many Senators from the Pacific Northwest, the President was asked to discuss this bogus phytosanitary concern with Chinese President Jiang Zemin. The President personally met with President Zemin twice in the last two years, but the Pacific Northwest wheat industry remains locked out of another potential, enormous market. As a border state of Canada, Washington has encountered many trade discrepancies with our Northern counterparts. The beef trade between Washington and Canada has evoked bad feelings and more recently tensions escalated. Just two days ago, United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced their intention to begin intensive negotiations to resolve some of the restrictive trade practices utilized by Canada. While I applaud the Administration for taking this action, it is unfortunate that it comes only after ranchers in bordering States began blockading Canadian farm shipments. Agriculture trade relations have been thorny with Canada for quite some time, and many believe that the Administration's inability to support and defend the U.S. beef and wheat industries in negotiations with Canada have left agriculture with the short end of the stick. We are consistently being out-witted by the Canadian trade negotiators and the farmers and ranchers in this country are expected to pick up the pieces. These are just a few of the Administration's trade policies which directly impact the bottom line of farmers in the State of Washington. While I recognize and empathize with the family farm at a time when cash flow is sparse, I do not support the President or the Administration in its threats to veto the Agriculture Appropriations bill because the disaster package is not to their liking. There are several items that in addition to this disaster package, AMTA payments, and LDP payments which deserve attention. While expansion of trade is of obvious importance to the State of Washington and is certainly a long-term goal, regulatory relief, tax relief, adequate funding for agriculture research, and deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed are immediate mechanisms to provide assistance to the family farm. Unfortunately, the vehicles providing this relief--the Interior appropriations bill and the House passed tax package--are also under the threat of a Presidential veto. Mr. President, the Agriculture appropriations bill is a constructive piece of legislation that deserves our support. While the unfortunate politics of partisanship has appeared to weigh heavily on this legislation, I sincerely hope that the Administration would remember the family farm and the longevity of production agriculture in this country and sign the bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed for up to 10 minutes in morning business.