T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Do they apply to the Internet?

Mr. GORTON. So the Senator feels that----

Mr. GORTON. Do they apply to the Internet?

Mr. GORTON. Or she thinks it is a good idea.

Mr. GORTON. Now, Madam President, that is not a statement of the Supreme Court of the United States that is going to admit exceptions and say, oh, well, we really didn't mean it in a political race, we really didn't mean it in connection with an advocacy organization like the Christian Coalition or the labor unions; though, perhaps, we did mean it with respect to television networks. They will not do that. Madam President, with respect to this attempt to limit freedom of speech, the views of the American Civil Liberties Union are particularly eloquent, and I do want to share just a handful of them at this point on this specific amendment. We are writing today . . . to set forth our views on an amendment to that bill dealing with controls on issue advocacy which is being sponsored by Senators Snowe and Jeffords. Although that proposal has been characterized as a compromise measure which would replace certain of the more egregious features of the comparable provisions of McCain- Feingold, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment still embodies the kind of unprecedented restraint on issue advocacy that violates bedrock First Amendment principles. They go on eloquently to discuss exactly this proposition. They say, ``The Court''--referring to the Supreme Court--``fashioned the express advocacy doctrine to safeguard issue advocacy from campaign finance controls, even though such advocacy might influence the outcome of an election. The doctrine provides a bright-line objective test that protects political speech and association by focusing solely on the content of the speaker's words, not on the motive in the speaker's mind or the impact on the speaker's audience, or the proximity to an election.'' Madam President, this proposal is blatantly unconstitutional. It is overwhelmingly discriminatory among organizations engaged in identical activity. It is overwhelmingly discriminatory in treating the forum or the particular medium by which a group advocates its views differently depending solely on the sponsor's views on the effectiveness of that particular medium in influencing the outcome of an election. It discriminates between a commercial corporation ownership of a television or radio medium and a political ownership of the same medium. Madam President, it is exactly these prohibitions that the first amendment of the United States to the Constitution of the United States was designed to prohibit. And, of all forms of speech, the first amendment was aimed primarily at political speech. Here we have an attempt not only to ration political speech but to discriminate against certain forms of political speech and in favor of other forms of political speech, thus accomplishing the goal of violating not only the first amendment but the 14th amendment as well. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield such time off of Senator McConnell's time as I may use.

Mr. GORTON. Thank you.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, would the Senator from Maine tell us, am I correct in reading the requirements relating to electioneering communications, that they apply to broadcast stations, television and radio broadcast stations, but not to newspapers or to direct mail?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a set of factual questions about her amendment?

Mr. GORTON. I take it the Senator from Maine believes it is constitutional to target one medium of communication but not to target a separate, a different, medium of communication?

Mr. GORTON. I think I do understand the Senator's feelings on that. I was simply asking whether she is exempting the television stations because she thinks she is required to by the first amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is with intense regret that it's my view that this amendment, representing a good-faith attempt by two of my friends and my Republican colleagues, it seems to me, is subject to even more widespread and deeper constitutional objections than the original McCain-Feingold bill--a bill that seems, to this Senator at least, to be unconstitutional on its face. The fundamental objection to all of these attempts to limit the freedom of speech, of course, is that they fly in the face of the unrestricted language of the first amendment, language that does not-- though the Senator from Maine might wish to permit it to do so--permit exceptions to every general rule. This amendment, however, seems to me to violate the 14th amendment in many respects, with respect to both equal protection and due process. This amendment imposes broad and what some may consider to be onerous disclosure requirements with respect to what it calls ``electioneering''--on electioneering in certain ways through the mass media, but not at all in other ways, and even in the ways in which it covers electioneering by certain groups and organizations and not by other groups and organizations. The Senator from Maine said, during the course of her comments, that she does not think that she could constitutionally apply these requirements to electioneering by mail. She has not applied them to electioneering through newspapers, nor has she applied them to electronic electioneering through the Internet, but only to electronic electioneering by television or by radio. She does that, she says in all candor, because those seem to be the most effective methods of electioneering, the methods of choice by those who have engaged in what the law now calls ``express advocacy'' and what she calls ``electioneering.'' Well, Mr. President, it seems to me hardly to be subject to argument that you can say that the Government can regulate your speech in one medium, but cannot or will not regulate it through another medium. That is a fundamental denial of the most fundamental of all of our constitutional rights. It does, however, illustrate the flaw in this entire debate, and that is that effective electioneering should be banned, or severely controlled, and that certain kinds of speech are so unfair or so late in a political campaign that we ought not to allow them; and if we have to allow them, we ought to impose on them such heavy restrictions as to discourage them, even though we are going to permit exactly the same kind of communication, as long as it is done in a relatively ineffective fashion. To claim, Mr. President, that the Constitution of the United States, in the first and 14th amendments, permits those distinctions is to fly in the face of all rationale, all logic, and all constitutional law. But the amendment doesn't stop there. Even with respect to radio and television electioneering, it makes an exception. What is that exception? It is any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of a broadcasting station. So now we will have a law that clearly states that no matter how expensive, no matter how unfair, no matter how late in a campaign, a television station or a television network can do whatever it wishes without any of the restrictions of this statute; but no one else can without being subject to the restrictions of this amendment. Is there something that is so much superior in an editorial appearing on a television station over similar opinions expressed by a labor union, or by the Christian Coalition, or by any other political organization, that one should be discouraged and the other should be encouraged? Mr. President, that is a terrible policy in any political debate, and it is clearly a policy that is so discriminatory as to run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. And, Mr. President, this discrimination doesn't even stop there in distinguishing between a communication paid for by a labor union or the Christian Coalition with one paid for by the facilities of the television station and network. Oh, no. The prohibitions do apply to a television, or a radio station, or a network owned or controlled by a political party, a political committee, or a candidate. So, Mr. President, we have the spectacle of all of these requirements being applied to a radio station or a television station owned by a candidate, but not applied to the National Broadcasting Company and, say, Tom Brokaw, the company owned by General Electric. So a corporation can purchase a television station or a network and do whatever it wants in politics. But a candidate can't and a political party can't. Mr. President, how can that possibly, under any circumstances, be valid under the equal protection clause? How does that grant due process to candidates, political parties, or to any other organization, except for a corporate owner of a television station, a radio station, or a network? The Senator from Maine also deals with the NAACP case and says, well, yes, the Supreme Court has ruled rather expressly that you cannot require a group expressing its point of view on a political subject to list its membership. She says every rule has its exceptions and there are certain kinds of organizations where that should be the case, but there are other kinds where it should not. Last June, in testimony I think, on a bill like this, top officials of two organizations, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club Foundation, refused to expose the identities of their members. ``As I am sure you are aware, citizens have a first amendment right to form organizations to advance their common goals without fear of investigation or harassment,'' Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook told GNS. We respect our members' rights to freely and privately associate with others who share their beliefs, and we do not reveal their identities. We will not violate their trust simply to satisfy the curiosity of Congress or even the press. Evidently, the sponsors of this amendment feel that they need pay no attention to that proposition. But I look through the NAACP case without finding the slightest hint that the Supreme Court will oblige the sponsors of this amendment. The Supreme Court in that case said: Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. . . . It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ``liberty'' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . It is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious, or cultural matters . . . . In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association, the decisions of this Court recognize that abridgement of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. The Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations. When referring to the varied forms of governmental action that might interfere with freedom of assembly, it said, ``A requirement that those in adherence of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying armbands is obviously of this nature. To compel the disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in the advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privacy in group association may, in many circumstances, be indispensable to the preservation of freedom of association.'' (Ms. COLLINS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. GORTON. Does the Senator from Maine believe, in connection with the exceptions for the broadcasting stations' own editorial comments, which is granted here, that in fact she is granting that exception simply because she feels it to be desirable, or does she--let me rephrase the question. Does the Senator from Maine believe that she could have constitutionally applied these rules and regulations to the television station's communication of its own ideas?

Mr. GORTON. I understand what it is being aimed at. My question is, is this exception a part of the amendment of the Senator from Maine because the Senator from Maine believes that it is mandatory that she could not constitutionally apply these electioneering communications to TV stations? Or is she doing it because she does not think it is a good idea to apply it to them?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am here today to speak about one of the federal government's bureaucracies: The Army Corps of Engineers. More specifically, however, I note recent actions and inactions by the Corps that provide excellent examples of a DC government bureaucracy intent on accomplishing its own agenda at its own pace, and out of touch with the American people. The first situation I will address involves specific direction by the Congress of the United States. The Corps is required to provide the Senate Appropriations Committee with an outline of its proposed study on the economic, biological and social implications of a drawdown of the John Day Dam reservoir on the Columbia River. Specific instructions were given to provide this information to the Committee within 90 days of the President's signing of the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. The President signed the bill on October 13, 1997. As of today, more than 130 days later, we still have not seen the report. Mr. President, the Portland District of the Corps sent the report to its Washington, DC, headquarters in mid-December. But, there is still no final document. Assuming that the Corps began work immediately after the bill was approved by the President, or even a month earlier, the field office spent between eight and twelve weeks preparing the report. It has now been nine weeks since it was sent to Headquarters for approval, and we still have no idea when the Corps will finally issue it. Should a document take longer to be approved than it did to be drafted? Apparently, if it is to be approved by the Corps, it does. But it shouldn't. Why is this document important? Countless residents of the rural Pacific Northwest rely on the benefits that the Columbia and Snake River dams provide to our region and our nation. If the Corps of Engineers is to study the drawdown of a major multi-purpose federal project like the John Day Dam, it is imperative that its plans be subjected to an open review by those of us sent back here to Washington, DC to represent these communities. Without the formal views of the Corps, these communities are left with excessive and inexcusable uncertainty over the future of their livelihoods. Mr. President, I will continue to wait for the Corps to provide a report. I do not intend to wait patiently. While I am on the topic of waiting, I will address a second issue. The communities in the Tri-City area of Washington state have been waiting since 1996 for the Corps of Engineers to complete a legally required transfer of riverfront land to local governments. The Corps has claimed that it does not have the funds to begin the process, and although it has recently begun working with the local communities to come to a resolution, it still claims it cannot complete the process without an additional appropriation from this Congress. Along similar lines, the Corps claims that it cannot come up with approximately $60,000 to manage the Wallula, Stateline and Juniper Canyon wildlife habitats, and must lease the management of this important, pristine land to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. This transfer of land management has raised many serious questions in the minds of a number of my Tri-City constituents, who have yet to receive a comforting answer. Taken on their own, these incidents might not seem odd. The very same office of the Corps that claims poverty in these latter two cases, however, sees fit to spend freely in other areas. Mr. President, I am sure you are aware of Kennewick Man. Kennewick Man's remains were discovered in July, 1996, on the shore of the Columbia River, near Kennewick, Washington. Using carbon dating techniques, scientist have determined Kennewick Man's remains to be more than 9,000 years old, by far the oldest human remains ever found in North America. This represents a major breakthrough for the study of ancient peoples in North America. Mr. President, what would be the logical thing to do with the land on which Kennewick Man was discovered? Should we study if further, or cover it with boulders? Some of our nation's most esteemed anthropologists and archaeologists have answered--as I am sure you or I would--that we should allow the site to be studied further, in the hope that we can learn even more about early North American inhabitants. But that is not the way the Corps sees it. If the Corps has its way, it will helicopter tons of ``rip-rap''--large stones--to the river and use them to cover the site, after which it will plant numerous willow trees, completely covering, and possibly destroying, important geological and archaeological evidence. Scientists studying the site claim that this will erect an ``impenetrable barrier'' to future research. How much will it cost to cover this important site? The Corps has not disclosed its estimate, but I have been told by people in the local community that it is likely to cost at least $100,000, and perhaps as much as $250,000. In addition, the Corps claims, that should scientists want to study the site in the future, the boulders and trees can be removed--at a cost of course. How much? Another $100,000. Even then the boulders are likely to have crushed any remaining archaeological objects and possibly changed the chemical makeup of the soil, rendering future tests worthless. Mr. President, if the Corps of Engineers cannot come up with $60,000 to manage important wildlife habitats, and cannot put together enough money to begin satisfying its legal requirement to transfer land to local authorities, how can it possibly justify spending upwards of a quarter-million dollars, which the Congress never appropriated, to cover a potential gold mine of archaeological information with boulders and trees? Of course It cannot. In fact, it has not even attempted to do so. The Corps spokesman in Walla Walla has refused to answer specific questions about the pending contract to cover the Kennewick Man site. If this bureaucracy has its way, it will ignore the concerns of the residents of its district, lease important and pristine land to an outside group to manage, and then apparently use that money to cover a site to which countless members of the scientific community have requested access. This is nothing short of unbelievable. Mr. President, The Corps of Engineers has a lot of explaining to do. It owes answers to Congress and it owes answers to the people of the Tri-Cities. I sincerely hope it will be more forthcoming in the near future than it has been in the recent past. If not, I anxiously await an opportunity to question the Corps of Engineers during this year's appropriation process. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will next vote back to back at 6 o'clock p.m. this evening. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today the Senate resume consideration of the pending Snowe amendment and that there be 3 hours and 50 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to a motion to table, with the vote occurring on the motion to table immediately following the scheduled 6 o'clock p.m. vote with respect to the veto message.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent at 5:50 p.m. this evening the Senate lay aside the pending business in order to resume the veto message to accompany the military construction appropriations bill and that there be 10 minutes remaining for debate to be equally divided between Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd. I further ask that the vote occur at 6 o'clock p.m. on the question: ``Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?''

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent to have 2 extra minutes added to that 5 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads in relative part ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.'' Today, once again, we are engaged in a debate in which the proponents propose to limit the freedom of speech, and most particularly, to limit freedom of speech in political debate about the policy and political future of the United States. At the time of an identical debate last fall, George Will wrote, and I wish to quote him in full: Nothing in American history--not the left's recent campus ``speech codes,'' nor the right's depredations during 1950s McCarthyism, or the 1920s ``red scare,'' not the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First Amendment posed by campaign ``reforms'' advancing under the protective coloration of political hygiene. Mr. Will concludes by saying: As Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and others filibuster to block enlargement of the Federal speech- rationing machinery, theirs is arguably the most important filibuster in American history. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has just said that fewer people vote because of cynicism about the 1996 campaign and the blatant violations of the present law that took place during the course of that campaign. Mr. President, the cure for the blatant violations of present campaign laws is not a new set of laws. It is the simple enforcement of the laws we already have. Laws, incidentally, that were passed in 1974 with arguments identical to those that are being made here today; laws that themselves seem to have been accompanied by a drop-off in the number of people who are voting. If we simply look at our history and desire to have more people voting, we would presumably repeal all of those laws and go back to a pre-1974 situation in which at least we had a greater participation in our election process. So what do the proponents today ask us? They ask us to limit severely the right of political parties to raise money and to use that money in order to express the ideas that motivate those political parties. In other words, they ask us to limit the ability to communicate the freedom of speech of those organized parties that have spanned most of the history of the United States, parties that most academics studying our political system say are too weak, not too strong. Most academics in this field feel that party discipline ought to be stronger rather than weaker. Yet the heart of McCain-Feingold is the philosophy that parties should not be able to communicate their ideas to people during election campaigns in any significant fashion whatever. The predecessors of those who make these arguments today successfully limited the ability of political candidates for Congress to raise and to spend money and now criticize the very condition that they caused by saying that candidates spend too much time in raising money. It is a paradoxical set of arguments to say that the very cause that we espoused has caused candidates to spend too much time campaigning or raising money for campaigning and therefore we ought to have more laws of exactly the same type. Mr. President, whatever the constitutionality of limiting the right of people to contribute to political parties and the right of political parties to solicit contributions, it can hardly be proposed with a straight face that we can limit the right of third parties, of independent organizations, to express their ideas on matters of politics and on candidates and on incumbents at any time, much less in the 30 or 60 days preceding an election. There is simply no indication in any decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that such limitations are appropriate. There is also no indication that such limitations are a good idea. I wonder what the editorial page of the New York Times would say if the proposal before the Senate today said that newspapers would be limited to one or two editorials about election-year politics and none at all in the 30 days before an election. Yet, Mr. President, unless you can say in order to make elections fair, in order to give each citizen an equal right to participate, we can and should tell the New York Times, and every other daily newspaper in the country, all television networks and television stations, that they should shut up in the 30 days before an election takes place and let the election work its way out on the basis of whatever individual candidates say-- unamplified, of course, by any mass media--and that even outside of that period of time they should be strictly limited in the number of statements that they ought to make about politics because, after all, they have a much larger voice than does an individual citizen. We know exactly what they would say. They would say that is a blatant violation of the first amendment of the Constitution. They would go to court and they would get any such statute immediately thrown out. But if the New York Times and NBC and an individual television station are free to communicate their ideas about politics and about political candidates without restraint, how, then, can an organization, whether it is the Christian Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal or a conservative organization, be so limited? And why, if an organization of that nature can't be limited, should a political party be limited in what it can say and how it raises money in order to make any such statement? Mr. President, all we have done is to make political speech less responsible rather than more responsible. We limited the amount of money candidates can get, and candidates, of course, can be called to account for any misstatement they make in a political campaign or for any unfair tactics. We now propose to limit the parties to which those candidates belong, so we force those who are interested in the political system whose lives are affected by the political system to operate entirely independently of parties or of candidates and to make whatever statements they wish for which those candidates and parties will, of course, bear any responsibility whatever. Finally, I find it extraordinarily curious that the proponents of this bill--most recently the Senator from Minnesota--will say that the original proposal before the Senate by the majority leader, Senator Lott, is a poison pill. Now, what is that poison pill? It is the totally constitutional and totally valid requirement that a labor organization to which people in given bargaining units must belong and to which they must contribute can only use the dues and the payments of their members for political purposes with permission. Now, this is the one area which is not only obviously constitutional but obviously desirable. Why should any American, why should any American have his or her money used by an organization to which he or she is required to belong to promote an idea and candidates with which whom he or she disagrees? I do have in this connection, Mr. President, one advantage over, I believe, every other Member in this body, except for my own colleague from the State of Washington. In 1992, at a time in which Bill Clinton won the State of Washington in his Presidential campaign, the people of my State passed Initiative No. 134 by a 73-27 percent margin. Initiative 134 simply said that neither an employer nor a labor organization could withhold a portion of a worker's wages or salary for political contributions without receiving written permission from that worker each and every year--the so-called ``poison pill,'' which is anathema to Members on the other side. Seventy-three percent of the citizens of the State of Washington voted for that proposition, Mr. President. Now, what happened? Let's take one such organization, the Washington Education Association. Immediately after the passage of that initiative, fewer than 20 percent of the members of the Washington Education Association gave that association permission to use their money for its political purposes. Where it had 45,000 members who were constrained to contribute to its political action committee previously, the figure, after the election was over, was 8,000. Well, that is why 45 members on the other side of the aisle feel the Lott bill to be a ``poison pill,'' because it deprives one of their principal supporters of the right to force people to contribute to their campaigns. That is a ``poison pill,'' Mr. President. It is a ``poison pill'' to restrict political parties the right to speak and the right to effectively participate in politics, or even to restrict certain other organizations. Mr. President, I understand--and perhaps the Senator from Kentucky will enlighten me on this--that the United Kingdom had similar restrictions to those proposed here with respect to issue advocacy. If my understanding is correct, the court of the European Community has just determined that those restrictions were a violation of human rights; is that correct? I ask the Senator from Kentucky that question.

Mr. GORTON. I was simply going to ask that question of the Senator from Kentucky. Does the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo not deal with this question of issue advocacy?

Mr. GORTON. If I may conclude, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for those comments. In reflecting back on the article from which I read excerpts by George Will, if we had detailed Congressional Records of what was said in Congress in 1797 and 1798, at the time of the Alien and Sedition Act, I think we would see a philosophy quite similar to the philosophy that is being expressed by the proponents of McCain- Feingold: People aren't smart enough to know what ought to be said or not said or to sort out the quality of what is being said and not said, unless we here in Congress tell them who can say it, when they can say it, and how much of it they can say. This bill, under those circumstances, Mr. President, does have distinguished antecedents, the most significant of which is the Alien and Sedition Act. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. ``People need a vision greater than themselves. Without a vision, there is no goal. This vision has to be larger than yourself. It has to dignify you. Then, goals become the navigational stars to guide you in the vision.''--Stanley O. McNaughton. These are the words Stanley O. McNaughton lived by until his sudden death on January 19th. Stan McNaughton was a man who rose from modest beginnings in a small British Columbia town, who would later become the CEO of PEMCO Financial Services and who would leave behind one of the greatest legacies of goodwill Washington state will ever see. I could spend an evening recounting Stan's business successes. I could spend even greater time speaking of Stan's dedication to community service, his exceptional character, integrity and the countless personal accolades. Yet the two worlds are intertwined. The man who was once named Seattle-King County First Citizen and Seattle University alumnus of the year relied on the same values to achieve personal and professional success and improve the lives of others. As Stan used to say, ``Our security lies in our values. And from values flow principles.'' Stan placed profound importance on family, philanthropy, and leadership. Stan donated money to causes involving children and education, and often said: ``A corporation is the greatest vehicle ever created to do good. Corporations have a responsibility to raise the quality of life in the communities where they do business.'' I know I can speak for all of us by saying: Stan McNaughton succeeded in leaving his community a better place. Tomorrow in Olympia, the extraordinary life of Stan McNaughton will be honored with a Medal of Merit, one of the highest awards that the State of Washington can bestow upon a citizen. to quote from the resolution: ``Stanley O. McNaughton exemplified the best characteristics of an employer and community leader by his constant concern and activities for those employed by him and others in the community.'' Stan had the amazing ability to see the potential in everyone, inspiring his employees, friends and family to be the best they could possibly be. There are countless ``Stan stories'': the woman who remembered the time Stan sent her child a birthday card; the man who lost his wallet and Stan offered to reimburse the money; the donations to charities, particularly those that benefitted people disadvantaged through no fault of their own; and his special efforts to know every name of the more than 1,000 PEMCO employees. Of course, there is the definitive ``Stan story'' of the great lengths he went to for one of his employees, Mark Roberts who had broken his neck and become paralyzed from the neck down. Stan could have sent a card or even a bouquet of flowers, but in true Stan McNaughton fashion, Stan went the extra mile. He assured Mark he would still have a career at PEMCO and went about changing the dynamics of Mark's job. By computerizing much of the workload, Stan made it possible for Mark to succeed and recover from what would have ordinarily been a career ending accident. Stan even went so far as to buy Mark a specialized van, for his professional and personal use. Stan McNaughton touched the lives of so many different people. His personal philosophy of seeing life as a batting average: ``You must give people enough chances at bat'' represents the spirit of this great leader and sets an example for all of us to follow. My heart goes out to his wife Clare of 55 years, his six children, and 10 grandchildren. Stnaley O. McNaughton will be very much missed.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to state that I intend, with my colleague from Washington state, Senator Murray, to introduce legislation shortly after this recess to ensure fair management of Dungeness crab on the West Coast. The legislation is supported by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and represents an agreement reached by industry representatives, tribal representatives, and state fishery management agencies in Washington, Oregon, and California. The legislation will extend and expand the current interim authority for these states to manage Dungeness crab beyond three miles from their shores. Historically, the crab fisheries off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington have been managed by the three states, and through cooperative agreements between them. The state jurisdiction, however, extends only to three miles. This limitation is particularly significant in Washington state, where approximately 60-80 percent of the crab is caught beyond three miles. While states can regulate their own fishermen beyond three miles, they have not historically been able to regulate fishermen from other states. Although Washington, Oregon, and California have all adopted limited entry programs to conserve and manage crab, Oregon vessels can and do fish for Dungeness crab in waters more than three miles off Washington, and, until interim authority was granted in 1996 in the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Washington could not regulate these vessels. The same, of course, was true of Washington vessels fishing off the coast of Oregon. The problem with the inability to manage out-of-state vessels beyond three miles became critical in 1995, when a Federal district court allocated a large portion of the crab to Indian tribes, and threatened in this way to deprive non-tribal fishermen, who have been fishing for generations, of their livelihoods. Without the ability to regulate vessels from Oregon, all of the allocation to the tribes would come from Washington non-tribal fishermen. This simply is not fair. The bill I will introduce will continue to give the fishery managers in Oregon, California, and Washington, the authority to regulate all crabbers equally in the exclusive economic zone adjacent to the state. This regulatory authority will help to ensure that the cost of the tribal allocation will be borne more fairly by all commercial crabbers who fish in the EEZ adjacent to Washington, not just crabbers whose vessels are registered in the state. As I mentioned, in 1996, I succeeded in obtaining a provision in the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which gave limited interim authority to the West Coast states to manage the Dungeness crab fishery beyond three miles. This interim authority expires in 1999. It was anticipated that the Pacific Council would, by that time, prepare a Fishery Management Plan that could be delegated to the states. The Council has determined, however, through a careful, public, and inclusive process, that, given the unique nature of the West Coast fisheries in which you have effective state management, cooperation among the states, and agreement on the legislation I will introduce, there is no need for Federal management of this fishery. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure quick passage of the bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I intend to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to Senator Frist's bill this morning because I believe it is imperative that we move the debate on human cloning forward. The lightening pace of scientific and medical advances, while holding immeasurable promise, often leaves society unprepared to answer the moral and ethical questions that follow. The technology used to clone ``Dolly'' the now famous Scottish sheep, somatic cell nuclear transfer, clearly should not be used to clone a human child; this is neither a moral nor medically ethical procedure. Yet it is clear that the scope of possibility for this new technology has not been fully explored. It may hold the potential to develop new lifesaving therapies for diseases that have historically plagued mankind. Can we close the door on new opportunities to heal cancer patients, those afflicted with Alzheimers, or burn victims? Few of us in this body have background in science, medicine, or medical ethics. Yet we are being asked to make decisions that have tremendous consequences for the lives of every American. We are being asked to examine some of our fundamental beliefs about life and the ethical use of science. We must be exceedingly cautious before legislating in an area we admittedly know little about. I commend Senator Frist for his leadership in bringing this issue before the Senate. I hope that we can reach consensus; that prohibiting the use of somatic cell nuclear technology to produce a human child and promoting responsible biomedical research are not mutually exclusive goals. But we cannot do so unless we thoughtfully debate the issue; we cannot ignore it.