T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to express my deep gratitude and pride in recognizing the Wenatchee National Forest as a recipient of the Salvage Sale Showcase Award under the U.S. Forest Service's Fiscal Year 1995 Timber Salvage and Recovery Program. The Wenatchee National Forest encompasses 2.2 million acres of Washington's finest forest lands--lands providing for an abundance of recreational activities and employment and resource opportunities for Washington State residents. In July 1994, however, a lightning storm followed by a severe fire, threatened to suddenly demolish this majestic landscape within days. When the last flame had been extinguished, the damage was daunting. Three fires of unprecedented intensity had consumed 186,000 acres of Wenatchee National Forest lands, destroying 37 homes and 76 outbuildings and threatening the lives of human beings who had dared to cross its massive path. Firefighters from various parts of the country, 8,000 in all, fought valiantly to save the precious resources endangered by runaway wildfires. It is to their credit that so many homes, communities, and human lives are intact today. Determined and resolute, the employees of the Wenatchee National Forest went to work. Less than 2 months after the first spark ignited, the largest emergency rehabilitation effort ever undertaken by the Forest Service was launched with the cooperation of other Federal, State, county, and local agencies. The rehabilitation effort addressed and executed projects which included erosion control, road rehabilitation, wildlife habitat, helicopter seeding, and collaborative learning. The effort was successfully completed by mid-November 1994, for $18 million--$2 million under budget. With the worst behind them, Forest managers looked ahead toward long- term forest health and sustainability. Interdisciplinary teams consisting of personnel from all six ranger districts combined their knowledge and know-how to develop the necessary environmental documents. Within 11 months, these teams assembled an astounding 10 environmental analyses and 1 environmental impact statement. Science- based decisionmaking rendered a total of 22 timber sales, resulting in landscape level fuel treatment on over 30,000 acres. Nearly 138 million board feet of fire killed or damaged timber was offered for sale. Salvage was the key to this vision. Removing dead and dying trees provided the much needed opportunity to reduce stress and preserve larger, healthier trees. In addition, salvage logging in the Wenatchee has enhanced wildlife habitat and supported the perpetuation of ancient forest conditions. Mr. President, it is for this very reason that I sponsored timber salvage legislation in the spring of 1995. Not only was the forest able to begin healing and promoting catastrophic fire prevention through salvage operations, it was also able to provide a significant amount of timber for the public benefit. In conclusion, I want to congratulate and commend the efforts of all of those who contributed to the successful and innovative restoration of the Wenatchee National Forest. Their accomplishments over the past 3 years are proof positive that we can effectively balance environmental and economic concerns in our national forests if we give local forest managers the flexibility they need to do their jobs. The employees of this forest are outstanding examples of the teamwork desperately needed throughout our national forest system. Because of their professionalism, tenacity, and courage, the Wenatchee National Forest is on its way back to health and sustainability. My congratulations to them on a job well done. Keep up the good work.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Conservation Reserve Program, a program vitally important to my State and many others, has recently been threatened on many fronts. I would like to make clear my intentions and views on several matters relating to the CRP. Last week Congressman Bob Smith was successful in passing H.R. 1342, legislation requiring USDA to reenroll winter crop land not accepted in the new CRP for one year. For the record, H.R. 1342 has received strong support from producers in my State and like Chairman Smith, I, too, am very concerned for winter crop producers throughout the country. Unfortunately, we have received a loud message from the President that he strongly objects to the bill and would veto the measure if passed by Congress. Knowing the President would veto H.R. 1342, I felt it necessary, at the very least, to send a letter to Secretary Glickman requesting that he permit producers to begin preparing CRP ground immediately for fall planting. I would like producers in my State to know that I will continue to work with Secretary Glickman to see that he addresses this problem. Further, let it be known, that I will oppose any attempt to cap or earmark enrollments to the Conservation Reserve Program. Yesterday, 13 Senators joined me in sending a letter to Secretary Glickman outlining 3 critical issues concerning the Conservation Reserve Program. Let me now outline the issues raised in the letter. First, producers throughout the country are currently faced with serious uncertainty as to whether or not their bids to enroll land in the CRP will be accepted. I believe it is very important for Secretary Glickman to notify producers this month whether their offers are accepted. I understand that Secretary Glickman is sympathetic to this problem and has announced he will notify all producers by late May. I have expressed my concern to Secretary Glickman and have encouraged him to allow producers to immediately begin preparing their land for fall planting of winter crops without penalty. This will allow producers to begin ground preparation in the event they are not accepted into the program. Producers in my State are concerned they will not have enough time nor enough moisture in the ground to grow winter crops if they do not begin preparing their land immediately. Simply put, time is running out for producers in my State. I understand that Secretary Glickman is willing to help solve this problem and I am hopeful that he will address this situation in a timely fashion. Second, the House Appropriations Committee has placed a provision in the Emergency Disaster Supplemental bill capping CRP enrollments at 14 million acres. Many Senators, including myself, believe that this cap threatens the environmental commitment we made when we passed, and the President enacted, the 1996 Farm Bill. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will work hard to see that this provision is omitted during the Emergency Disaster Supplemental Conference. Third, the President has proposed reducing CRP enrollments by 2 million acres to pay for the development rights of Crown Butte, Inc. I believe, as do many other Senators, that any cap or reduction in CRP enrollments would jeopardize the commitment Congress made to improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and reduce wind and soil erosion. In closing, I thank my colleagues for their support. The CRP is a vitally important program and I look forward to working with my colleagues and Secretary Glickman as we address these concerns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous connsent that our letter to Secretary Glickman be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of those individuals involved with the Outlook Elementary School project in Outlook, WA. Their tremendous generosity will provide the technology our students need to succeed in school and in life. The importance of keeping our children abreast of technology is hard to exaggerate. The National Science Foundation reports that over 700,000 new technicians, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers must be found by the year 2010 simply to keep up with technological demands. Business and political leaders from around the country have called for increased emphasis on technology in education. Some fear, however, that rural and small-town America could be overlooked in this effort. Seeing this potential problem, Astronaut Bonnie Dunbar enlisted the support of MCI in providing free computers and Internet access to the students of Outlook Elementary School in Outlook, WA. Bonnie Dunbar is a graduate of Outlook Elementary, and is a model and inspiration to many. In the hallway of this small school is the phrase ``From Outlook to NASA.'' With the generosity of MCI, and the efforts of Bonnie Dunbar, more students will have the benefits of state-of-the-art technology, and also have the stars within their reach.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am introducing this evening, along with Senators Ashcroft, McCain, and Lott, a bill to reform and rationalize our product liability system. At the beginning of this session, Senator Ashcroft and others introduced S.5, another measure to address product liability. Although I agreed with the substance of S.5, which was identical to the conference report on Product Liability that the President vetoed in the 104th Congress, I did not co-sponsor S.5 because I knew that that particular bill would not be enacted into law and because I wanted to craft another bill that would obtain bi-partisan support in the Senate, address the President's legitimate concerns with the conference report, and accomplish meaningful reform. Mr. President, I cannot say that the measure I am introducing tonight fully accomplishes that. But it comes very close. I introduce this measure without the co-sponsorship of my good friend and long-time companion on this worthy mission, Senator Rockefeller, but I introduce it with the sincere belief that we will continue to work together to enact product liability reform in 1997. I introduce this measure to get the process started. It is a good measure that I believe goes a long way toward meeting the goals I described above. But as I said, the process is just starting. I welcome input from my Republican and Democratic colleagues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have thought long and hard on whether I should vote to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. I must admit that as the Convention was originally presented, I was inclined to oppose it. But after three weeks of hard work with the Majority Leader and with the many thoughtful opponents of ratification, I believe we have resolved a significant number of issues in contention and now believe that ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention will do more to reach our common goal of eradicating these deadly and detested weapons from the earth than will non-ratification. First, I would like to commend my many constituents, and the thousands of Americans like them, who were relentless in raising their voices against many dangerous aspects of the treaty and its interpretation. Without their vigilance, we would never have reached the point we have today. I also commend Senator Helms, Senator Kyl, and the Majority Leader for their work and negotiations with the Administration that has led to vast improvements in the Chemical Weapons Convention ratifying documents. Since the beginning of the debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention, I have stated that the real question is not whether to support the cause of restricting the production, stockpile, and use of chemical weapons throughout the world, but whether the Chemical Weapons Convention itself advanced or inhibited this honorable cause. As it was originally presented to the Senate for ratification, Mr. President, I believe the treaty did not advance our cause, but instead inhibited it by making sensitive information on chemicals and chemical weapons technology so readily available as to encourage the proliferation of these hideous weapons. But through the good work of Senator Helms and Senator Kyl, we were able to reach 28 agreements with the Administration. These 28 agreements went a long way toward advancing our cause. I think three of these agreements are particularly important. First, I shared the concern of many of my constituents and several former Secretaries of Defense who testified before the Armed Services Committee that the convention would create a false sense of security, not only in the United States, but in nations around the world. It would be easy, Mr. President, for governments to believe that, because the Chemical Weapons Convention is in force, we no longer need to worry about the use of chemical weapons or to prepare ourselves to defend against them. I found this aspect of the treaty to be quite troubling. No arms control treaty has yet proven to be perfect. And chemical weapons are far more difficult to detect than missiles or nuclear warheads. Thus, I originally feared that ratification of the treaty would lull us into a false sense of security in which our armed forces would not be properly prepared to deal with a chemical attack. I now believe, however, that the agreement reached between Senator Helms and the Administration that ensures our armed forces will continue to receive the equipment and training necessary to complete their missions in the face of chemical weapons is a major improvement which will guard against a debilitating false sense of security. Second, I and many of my constituents had grave concerns about the treaty's impact on Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The treaty, in its original form, did not go far enough to protect U.S. citizens and businesses from involuntary inspections. The treaty's provisions on challenge inspections of chemical producing facilities in the United States did not, in my opinion, comply with the Constitution. I am pleased that the administration has agreed to a condition to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of all Americans and to conform the Chemical Weapons Convention to the United States Constitution. According to this condition, before the U.S. deposits its instrument of ratification, the President must certify to Congress that for any challenge inspection in the United States for which consent has been withheld, the inspection team must first obtain a criminal search warrant based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. For any routine inspection of a declared facility in the United States that is conducted on an involuntary basis, the inspection team must obtain an administrative search warrant from a United States magistrate judge. I am now confident that this agreement will ensure that the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and businesses will be protected under the treaty. I commend Senators Helms and Kyl and the administration for their work on this vitally important condition. Third, I was troubled by the treaty's impact on the use of non-lethal riot control agents. Since the Chemical Weapons Convention was originally drafted, there has been a great deal of debate in the United States on whether the treaty language would preclude American armed forces from using non-toxic riot control agents. Tear gas and other such chemicals provide the United States military with an invaluable tool when conducting sensitive operations. Tear gas, for example, is an excellent means of rescuing downed pilots, or avoiding unnecessary loss of life when enemy troops and civilians are in the same area. I am pleased with the agreement that has been reached on this issue. According to a condition the administration has now accepted, the President will certify to Congress that the United States is not restricted by the convention in the use of riot control agents in the following situations: (1) in the conduct of peacetime military operations within an area of ongoing armed conflict when the United States is not a party to the conflict; (2) in consensual peacekeeping operations when the use of force is authorized by the receiving state; and (3) in peacekeeping operations when force is authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The agreement also leaves in place Executive Order 11850 signed by President Ford which cites four cases where the use of riot control agents should be permissible under the Chemical Weapons Convention: avoiding unnecessary loss of life, subduing rioting enemy POWs, protecting supply convoys, and rescuing a downed pilot from enemy troops or a POW from behind enemy lines. I commend the administration for agreeing to this reasonable and necessary condition. It will ensure that the men and women of the United States armed forces have the tools necessary to do their jobs in precarious situations. While the 28 agreements made did go a long way to improve the Chemical Weapons Convention, I still had one remaining concern, in my view the most important concern, until this morning. That concern relates to Articles X and XI of the convention and the proposition that they might well force the United States to share sensitive information on our chemical weapons defense capabilities and to eliminate our export controls on dangerous chemicals. Article X of the treaty obliges all parties to provide assistance and protection to any State Party threatened by the potential use of chemical weapons, including information on chemical weapons defense and detection. Article XI of the treaty obliges all parties to freely exchange chemicals, equipment and scientific and technical information relating to the development and application of chemistry for purposes not prohibited by the Convention. It forbids parties to the treaty to maintain export controls that would restrict the trade and development of chemicals and chemical technology with other treaty parties. Ironically, these provisions of the treaty, a treaty designed to eliminate the proliferation of chemical weapons, could in fact promote that very proliferation. If the United States is forced under the treaty to provide this sensitive technology to countries such as Iran, China, or Cuba, those countries could use that information to develop weapons against which we have no ability to defend. It is my contention that Articles X and XI do more to inhibit the cause of eradicating chemical weapons than they do to promote it. Thus, they comprise a fatal flaw in the Chemical Weapons Convention. And, until today, I was inclined to vote against ratification because of my concerns on Articles X and XI. I am pleased to say, however, that the distinguished Majority Leader was remarkably successful in his negotiations with the President on this most important aspect of the debate on the treaty. I commend him for his diligence and commend the President for his wisdom in responding to our concerns. This morning, the President sent Senator Lott a letter in which he extended a promise that the United States will withdraw from the Convention if Articles X and XI are used by other treaty parties to undermine the intent of the Convention. The specific circumstances under which the President agreed to withdraw from the treaty are as follows: (1) if Article X is used to justify actions that could degrade U.S. defensive capabilities; (2) if Article XI erodes the Australia Group export controls; and (3) if Article XI promotes increased proliferation of chemical weapons. With this assurance from the President, I am now prepared to support the Chemical Weapons Convention and will vote for its ratification. With the 28 agreements Senator Helms and Senator Kyl were able to negotiate, and with this final commitment from the President, I am comfortable with the treaty. The Convention has been transformed from one doing more harm than good, to one promoting rather than inhibiting the cause of eradicating chemical weapons from the earth. In closing, Mr. President, let me say that these changes could not have been made without the diligent and good-faith negotiating done by the majority leader, and without the voices raised by thousands upon thousands of Americans who went out of their way to draw attention to the treaty's many flaws. They should be given the lion's share of credit for the conditions and modifications we have made that make the Chemical Weapons Convention a more workable, more responsible treaty.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I want to introduce my remarks by expressing my view that this has been a remarkably thoughtful and important debate in the finest traditions of the Senate, not only here on the Senate floor but during the months leading up to it. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is that all Members are united in detesting the use of chemical weapons, divided only by their views on how best to succeed in reaching that goal, and working toward reaching that goal with a high degree of good will and accommodation to one another. So, essentially, from the beginning, the only real question has been: Does this convention advance or inhibit the cause of limiting or eliminating the use of chemical weapons all around the world? Mr. President, at the very beginning of the debate when the convention was first submitted to the Foreign Relations Committee, I was inclined to fall on the side of that debate that said that the convention probably was worse than nothing because of the overwhelming false sense of security it created, a sense of security that it could not match in its provisions on a wide range of activities attempted to be covered by it. But as we vote tomorrow, Mr. President, I don't believe we are going to be voting on the original bare bones understanding of the convention. The administration and the proponents on this floor have agreed to some 28 conditions, or explanations, or interpretations of the convention, each of which has contributed to a greater degree of comfort with the balance of the convention and its ratification. Three are particularly important to me. One measure ensures that the Chemical Weapons Convention does not lead to a false sense of security--a false sense that is going to be there no matter what we do, but is at least limited by some specific promises on the part of the administration. Second, the clarification of the affect of the convention on the use of riot control agents. Third, and vitally important to us and to our constitutional rights, are the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. That is not to say that the other 25 conditions aren't important, Mr. President, but these 3, at least, have been particularly significant, in my view, as I have listened to both sides during the course of this debate. Nevertheless, I am not yet willing at this point to commit to voting in favor of ratification because of my deep concerns with articles X and XI of the convention, and the proposition that they might well force the United States to share technologies and allow the world, by its sale of chemicals, to a far greater extent, and those technologies and chemicals may be sold at least by responsible and free nations in the world today under the aegis of the Australia Group. It would be ironic indeed if, in the guise of passing a treaty or a convention to lessen the opportunity for the use of chemical weapons in the future we actually enhanced it by assisting those nations that are willing to sign the convention but which, like Iran, have shown, without the slightest ability to contradict the proposition, that they do not regard any treaty, any convention, as binding on them, and who are more likely than not to use the convention to advance their own ability to violate it. And so, Mr. President, as I make up my own mind during the course of the next 24 hours, it is the impact of articles X and XI that cause me the greatest degree of concern. I don't believe that we can simply strike them from the treaty. That vote tomorrow seems to me to be the equivalent of saying, no, of killing the convention in its entirety. I do believe, however, that we should continue to work toward clarification and understandings on the part of the administration, as I know the majority leader is doing in this, as he has in many of the other questionable elements of this convention, so that we can be assured that the United States at least will not be required to do something that will undercut its own security and that of its friends and neighbors by the convention, that it is not required to do in the absence of that convention. So if my concerns with respect to the actual impact in the real world of articles X and XI are met, I will vote to ratify the convention. If they are not, it will remain, in my mind, a situation in which the convention increases our danger rather than obviates them. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators McConnell, Grams, Moynihan, and Lieberman in cosponsoring the Auto Choice Reform Act, a measure that offers consumers a quick-pay, low-cost policy to replace their current policies--policies that are grossly inflated by the costs of damage claims for pain and suffering. Auto Choice Reform Act. Choice. Removing the perverse incentives to inflate damages that our current system creates, and allowing consumers to make rational choices, lies at the heart of this bill. Unlike some other no-fault measures, the Auto Choice Reform Act gives consumers, and States, choices. Choices which, if exercised, should significantly lower insurance premiums. For States, the choice is whether or not to offer the no-fault option to residents. A State can opt out legislatively, or if the State commissioner of insurance shows that a no-fault system will not result in a 30 percent decrease in bodily injury premiums for those who choose PPI. If States choose to offer the no-fault option, however, consumers still have the choice of whether or not to participate in the no-fault system. No driver will be deprived of her ability to sue, but instead, can choose between two systems. If they want, consumers can avail themselves of the new no-fault insurance system that the bill creates. If a consumer elects the personal protection insurance [PPI] system, then, in the event of an accident, and regardless of fault, she is compensated by her own insurer for economic losses, such as car repair, medical expenses or lost wages, up to her policy limit. She does not, however, recover for noneconomic losses, pain and suffering, and she may not be sued for pain and suffering damages. If her economic damages exceed her policy limit, however, she may sue for economic damages. By taking the often- inflated damages for pain and suffering out of the equation, consumers choosing PPI should see a significant savings in their insurance premiums--a savings that has been estimated at $243 per policy. Motorists who choose not to participate in the no-fault system are allowed that option under this legislation. Again, the choice is with the consumer. By opting for what the bill refers to as tort maintenance coverage, a TMC driver can keep her traditional liability policy under which she can sue other TMC drivers for both economic and noneconomic damages. To cover noneconomic damages in accidents with PPI drivers, who TMC drivers cannot sue for noneconomic damages, the TMC driver can purchase a supplemental policy and recover the noneconomic damages from her own insurer. What does all of this mean? The New York Times perhaps summed it up best in an editorial that predicted that Auto Choice ``would give families the option of forgoing suits for non-monetary losses in exchange for quick and complete reimbursement for every blow to their pocketbook. Everyone would win--except the lawyers.'' Mr. President, I hope the Senate will act promptly to pass this bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like a clarification of the scope and intent of the committee's third amendment to S. 104. That amendment, which is incorporated into section 204(b)(1)(D) of the act, states that the President shall not designate the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the State of Washington as the site for construction of an interim storage facility. Am I correct in my belief that this amendment defines interim storage facility in a way that would not preclude steps that the Washington Public Power Supply System might need to take with regard to the storage of the spent nuclear fuel generated at the WNP-2 facility?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today, the Senate will take up and pass H.R. 412, legislation authorizes a settlement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District in Washington State. Senator Murray and I introduced identical legislation on this subject earlier this month. The reason for the speedy passage of this legislation is directly related to the settlement entered into between the Bureau of Reclamation and the irrigation district. This legislation will authorize a carefully negotiated settlement between the BOR and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District. When enacted, this legislation will save the BOR, and therefore the Nation's taxpayers, money that would otherwise be spent fighting with the irrigation district in court. The administration supports the legislation. The reason for quick action on this legislation is the fact that the settlement between the irrigation district and the BOR requires enactment of the legislation by April 15, 1997. If the legislation is not enacted by that date, the irrigation district would have to refile its claim against the Government, and we'd be right back where we started--in court. As a result, Chairman Murkowski, and Senators Bumpers and Kyl have carefully considered my request for quick action and have noted the unique circumstances surrounding this legislation. I would like to thank Senators Murkowski, Bumper, and Kyl for working with me to get this legislation passed quickly. This is truly a unique situation, which calls for quick action.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, agriculture is a cornerstone of Washington State's economy. Washington State farmers produce over $5.8 billion worth of agriculture products, employ more that 100,000 people, and export nearly a quarter of all their goods to international markets. Without a doubt, Agriculture is Washington's No. 1 industry. As I travel around the State I have listened closely to the comments, suggestions, and concerns of our State's agriculture community. Farmers and ranchers in Washington have without exception told me they want a smaller and less intrusive Government; a Government that lets farmers, ranchers, and local communities make decisions for themselves; and most importantly, a Government that will step up to the plate and fight for issues that affect their lives. As Washington's senior Senator, I plan to work for just that. The web of Federal practices, laws and regulations governing agriculture in the United States should offer our farmers consistency, flexibility and market access for their goods. Farmers view the Federal Government, like the weather and seasons, as an outside force to be dealt with. I want to ensure that the Federal Government is a partner with agriculture, instead of an east-coast overseer. This year, the wheat, barley, canola, pea and lentil, potato, hops, sweet cherry, and apple associations, as well as countless other growers' organizations, have visited me in Washington, DC. From our discussions, I have compiled a list of broad agriculture priorities on which I will focus in the 105th Congress. I have always had, and will retain, open channels of communication with my State's agriculture communities. Firsthand knowledge of the situations and problems that farmers and growers face is, for me, an invaluable tool as I work on issues that impact their way of life. So, I intend to meet with farmers, ranchers, irrigators, processors, shippers, and other agricultural interests during the April recess to discuss these matters. For 3 days I will tour eastern Washington to discuss private property rights, tax reform, salmon recovery issues, agriculture research, transportation issues, the Endangered Species Act, trade policies, regulatory relief, the future of the Hanford reach and the reform of immigration policies important to the agricultural communities throughout Washington State. During my visits to Yakima, Spokane, and the tri-cities, I will discuss my top 10 priorities for agriculture, refine them, and solicit feedback from the various agriculture interests that are affected by a wide range of intrusive Federal policies. My visit to eastern Washington will give me the opportunity to continue discussions already begun with Washington State's farmers, explain my intentions, and reaffirm my commitment to the agriculture community. To reiterate, the agriculture community's interests are Washington State's interests--Washington's economic health and job base are greatly affected by the success or failure in this sector of our economy. I will therefore pursue my 10 priorities, which I believe will help build a stronger future for Washington State. Two years ago agriculture communities in eastern Washington gave me the opportunity to work for them, represent their interests, and fight against policies that threaten their livelihood. As their Senator, I will be working aggressively to promote their interests in the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I take this occasion to thank my friend and colleague from Hawaii who has been here longer than I have and has waited patiently for recognition, allowing my short remarks to precede his longer ones. He is a kind and thoughtful gentlemen.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, has just introduced and explained to the Senate two alternative budget resolutions. He has, as a matter of courtesy, introduced the President's budget without change, but with the analysis and economic impacts that it will cost made by the Congressional Budget Office. The Senator from New Mexico has also introduced a budget, a sparse and bare-bones budget, that he feels will be required as almost the only responsible answer to the refusal of the President of the United States seriously to consider entitlement reform in his budget. In order to bring the budget of the United States in balance by the year 2002, in order to get the huge fiscal dividend of more than $75 billion that economists tell us will result from a balanced budget, in order to provide the economic opportunities and the increased income to Americans across the country that a balanced budget will provide, in order to end the practice of spending money today and sending the bills to our children and grandchildren, the Senator from New Mexico has introduced a budget that does no more and no less in the way of entitlement reform than the inadequate proposals of the President of the United States, accepts the conservative projections of our economy made by our own Congressional Budget Office and, therefore, includes no room--and I emphasize no room, Mr. President--for overdue and deserved tax relief for the American people. Even without any tax relief for the American people, this set of decisions requires reductions in domestic discretionary spending that are extremely drastic, more than twice those that either the President or most of us, as Republicans on the Budget Committee, feel to be appropriate. In addition to leaving no room for any tax relief, this budget has no room for any of the new initiatives proposed by the President himself. The Senator from New Mexico has introduced this budget in this form to indicate precisely what the real world consequences of a failure to reform entitlement spending will be. In addition, in order to end or to mute the debate with the President over whether the President's far more rosy projections of our economy are correct as against those of the Congressional Budget Office, the proposal of the Senator from New Mexico says if, in fact, the economy operates in a better fashion than is projected by the Congressional Budget Office, half of those additional revenues will be devoted to tax relief and half to reducing the cuts in domestic discretionary spending. In other words, instead of the policies proposed by the President, which is ``spend now and then cut everything to ribbons if my projections don't work out,'' this proposal says, ``take the more conservative projections now and spend and provide tax relief in the future if the President's projections show themselves to be correct in whole or in part.'' The chairman of the Budget Committee did not present this proposal as his preferred budget, nor is it mine, nor is it, I am sure, that of the distinguished Presiding Officer at this point. It is simply what we are likely to be forced to do if we cannot agree on significant reform in the entitlement programs which are growing both so rapidly as to crowd out all other spending and all tax relief, but also so rapidly as to threaten their own very existence. What the Senator from New Mexico would prefer, what this Senator would prefer, would be an engagement, a budget resolution reflecting a strong bipartisan consensus in this body and the strong enthusiastic support and recommendations of the President of the United States himself that will require us to deal with entitlements. It will require us to look into the accuracy, or lack of accuracy, in the Consumer Price Index, because it is only if we have a more equitably distributed budget that we can provide for tax relief and for necessary discretionary spending programs. Only then we can have a conversation with the President and between the two parties on exactly what tax relief should be granted to the American people and where additional discretionary funds may be spent. As I began these remarks, there was on the floor the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, and there is now my friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. Each of them was a leader, one a Republican and one a Democrat, in a bipartisan budget proposal which was presented to this body almost a year ago on this floor. It courageously dealt with each one of these issues, dealt with them in a balanced fashion and dealt with them in a way that decisively would have brought the budget into balance by the year 2002. One of the curious elements of that budget, I may say, Mr. President, and I am sure my friend from North Dakota agrees with me, was that we hear today numerous favorable comments about it from those who did not vote for it. In fact, if we could try it again and put ourselves back into April of last year, it looks like it might have gotten 70 votes rather than 46. In any event, that time is past, that time is lost and because we lost it, the challenges we face are even more difficult today. But I know that my friend from New Mexico, who has now returned to the floor, means the introduction of these two alternatives to be a trigger toward an agreement with the President and with many members of the Democratic Party on a budget that will realistically reach balance by the year 2002 which will give needed tax relief to the American people, tax relief that they deserve, that will allow us sufficient money for the important discretionary programs of this Government, whether they are the building of an infrastructure or for education or for environmental purposes, and that will not only reform entitlement programs so that these other goals can be reached, but will reform them so that they are themselves secure and financially sound for the future, and so that what we do reflects the real world and not an artificial set of statistics. So I came to the floor this evening, Mr. President, to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his thoughtfulness and his tremendous amount of work for the two resolutions that he has submitted, and to simply try to emphasize that with him I hope not that either of these proposals passes and becomes a guideline for the U.S. Senate and for the Congress, but that they help us reach a goal that is not a Republican goal, not a Democratic goal, but a goal for all Americans.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator would.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, would it be appropriate to say, I ask my friend from Kentucky, that at the present time under the first amendment the American people are free to participate in their political system and in public affairs pretty much in any way they wish, that their freedom of speech is entirely unlimited? And would it be fair also to say that the thrust of this constitutional amendment is that its sponsors are asking the American people to give the Congress of the United States the right to devise, to knit together a gag which is then to be applied to the American people themselves, not just candidates but to any American who wishes to express his views about a candidate, any organization that wishes to express its views about a candidate, for that matter, any newspaper or television station that wishes to express its view about a candidate; that this constitutional amendment says that what has been entirely free, an entirely free process, we now ask that you allow us to impose whatever we consider to be a reasonable gag upon your exercise of that right?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Congress, if this should be part of the Constitution, might well make just such a decision on the relatively rational grounds that all political speech they want to be directly attributable to candidates and not to permit anyone to engage in a partisan political debate except through the candidate's committees. Now, I must say to my friend from Kentucky, I doubt that would happen in the Congress immediately after the adoption of a constitutional amendment like this. The sponsors of this constitutional amendment are all supporters of the McCain-Feingold proposal, and my inclination is that they would be content with the passage of that legislation with this constitutional provision in effect. They know, or at least the most thoughtful and principled of them know, that McCain-Feingold is blatantly unconstitutional under the first amendment as the first amendment exists today. I rather imagine they would be satisfied with this reform as their predecessors were satisfied with the 1974 reforms. As soon as this reform showed itself to be as ineffective as 1974 has, as soon as it had pushed communication into another channel, they would be back to close off that channel. At the present time, their frustration stems almost entirely from the fact that they are only permitted to dam one channel of the river, and all the water just goes around the other side of the island and flows into the political system to the same extent or to a greater extent than it does at the present time. This constitutional amendment allows them to dam the whole river for good and permanently. It is for exactly that reason that I say, Mr. President, this is certainly the most fundamental attack on the most fundamental of American freedoms that has taken place in this body in the 14-plus years during which I have served and, I think, probably in the 210 years since the first amendment was adopted by the first Congress.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senate Joint Resolution 18 almost certainly represents the most serious and fundamental attack on first amendment rights of free speech in the 210-year history of that first amendment. Senate Joint Resolution 18 is not aimed at the entire ambit of free speech rights. It in no way grants Congress authority over obscenity, over beer advertising, over fine arts. It is focused solely on allowing the Congress sweeping authority over the freedom of political speech, not just of politicians but of all citizens and of the news media that serve those citizens. The first Congress of the United States responded to the most serious objection to the ratification of our Constitution that was presented during those ratification debates--the absence of a bill of rights and, most particularly, the absence of a constitutional guarantee of free speech. When James Madison and his colleagues drafted the first amendment and worked on its protection of free speech, they were not concerned, Mr. President, about defending obscenity. They were not concerned with limitations on beer advertising. They were not concerned with playwrights. They were concerned with debate over the political future of the people of the United States of America. They believed, as did almost all of the citizens who worried about a new Constitution, that the new Government might, like its British predecessors, attempt to gag newspapers and individuals in their pursuit of a free and open debate over matters political. So they wrote a first amendment that was unconditional in that respect. They wrote a first amendment that said, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .'' They did not write, as this resolution would, in paraphrase, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except such restrictions as Congress may deem reasonable.'' Mr. President, you and I and all the other Members of this body and every American who has ever run for office recognizes that, other than that vitally important meeting of people as individuals on a one-to-one basis, doorbelling, canvassing, and the like, important even to those of us who run for the U.S. Senate but obviously an impossible tactic when one represents hundreds of thousands or millions of voters, that there are fundamentally four ways in which we can communicate political ideas in the course of the campaign to the people who are constituents or whom we seek to represent. The first of those, Mr. President, is through our own campaign committees. ``Gorton '94,'' ``McConnell '96,'' ``Hollings '98,'' formally organized and set up, receiving campaign contributions, writing advertisements, scheduling the candidates, doing so in a fairly transparent fashion. That is the first one. The second way which our ideas can be communicated to those whom we seek to represent is through the party organizations with which we are affiliated. All candidates for Federal office are members of organized political parties. Most candidates for State office and many for local office are as well. In fact, in almost every State the only identifier on the ballot in addition to the name of the candidate is the political party that candidate identifies with. So the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, and the Socialist Worker Party also, involves itself in campaigns communicating en mass in the ways that they consider to be most effective with the voters. The third way of communicating political ideas, Mr. President, is by the independent activity of individuals or organizations who are not, under most circumstances, directly connected with either the candidate or with any political party but who have a vital interest, on behalf of themselves as individuals or as members of organizations in which they are a part in the political future of the country, in who is elected to particular offices. As I say, they may be individuals, they may be very wealthy individuals, they may be organizations from one end of the political spectrum to another, but they communicate quite freely and without any censorship from Congress their ideas about political elections, their support for candidates, their opposition to candidates. Finally, the fourth way in which political ideas about elections get to the voters is through our mass media--through radio, television and the newspapers--many of which are vitally interested in these ideas, many of which literally editorialize and endorse, but even when they don't, they communicate such ideas as they deem relevant in explaining the positions of the various candidates. Senate Joint Resolution 18 is, I must say, philosophically consistent and intellectually honest in that it permits Congress to regulate all four of those activities. It allows Congress to put reasonable limits on contributions or expenditures by, in support of, or in opposition to candidates for Federal office. That covers the candidates' committees, that covers the political parties, that covers the totally independent individuals and groups, and that covers the newspapers and television stations and radio stations that participate in these political campaigns. I say, Mr. President, that this proposal is philosophically consistent and logical and principled in making no real distinction among those four methods of contribution, because, of course, the present campaign law does not. The law under which we operate today puts very real limits on candidates' campaign organizations, limits which, by the operation of inflation, have grown smaller in each successive election cycle on contributions from organizations or from individuals to those candidates, significant disclosure requirements on the source of those contributions, so significant that on many occasions, it would seem that our newspapers spend more time and more column inches reporting contributions than they do on reporting ideas. The 1974 law imposes some, but vaguer, restrictions on contributions to and expenditures by political parties. It was unable, as a matter of constitutional law, to impose any significant restrictions on independent expenditures, and it made no attempt to impose any restrictions on the news media, recognizing even then the unconstitutionality of doing so. What has been the net impact of the set of restrictions that we have today? In almost direct ratio to the restrictions on the amount of money that individuals and organizations can contribute to candidates, it has caused those individuals and organizations, when they feel passionately about a candidate, either for or against, to funnel their contributions to the political parties whom they know would support those candidates. And so we have the challenge of soft money today, largely because those who contribute soft money to political parties cannot contribute that money in hard form to the candidates themselves. This, all by itself, has made political campaigns less satisfactory and candidates less responsible. Each of us as a candidate is responsible directly for the way in which he or she conducts his or her campaign. When our name is on the disclaimer of a television ad, we cannot disown it. When we have reported a contribution from an individual or a group, we cannot disown it. But even when that advertisement or that political activity comes from our political party, we can, to a certain extent, disassociate ourselves from the ideas or the messages involved. We may very well, we hope, benefit from it when they support us, but we cannot guarantee that we will gain such a benefit. Now we have waiting in the wings, subject to validation only, I believe, if we adopt this constitutional amendment, a set of similar restrictions on political parties. If we adopt such a system of restrictions on political parties, Mr. President, it seems to me we know clearly what will happen, because it is already happening. Those same groups, those same individuals who feel passionately about Federal elections today and who are barred from providing the support they want to provide to the candidate directly, are barred from providing that support to the candidate's political party, will simply do it on their own. Last Sunday's Washington Post had an interesting article about the 1996 campaigns, the headline of which is: ``For Their Targets, Mystery Groups' Ads Hit Like Attacks From Nowhere.'' The airwaves were filled with this kind of activity at the end of 1996--organizations with fictional names engaged mostly in negative advertising against particular candidates, the source of support for which was unknown and, therefore, the responsibility for the content of which was unknown. But as long as we have a Congress that impinges on every aspect of our social and individual and economic lives, we will have individuals who wish to participate and will participate in that fashion if they are not allowed to participate more directly and more openly. So Senate Joint Resolution 18 very clearly will allow Congress to put limits on that kind of political participation. So it will say, in the ultimate analysis, we can do whatever we think is reasonable to shut people up when it comes to political debates. Now, that still leaves the fourth element of communication: the radio, television stations, and the newspapers of this country. Very likely, the first bill that went through Congress after this constitutional amendment passed would not affect them, but they would sure be in clover, Mr. President, because then, with the candidate and the candidate's supporters and the candidate's proponents all muzzled, the only source of information would be the mass news media. But now this passionately devoted and wealthy individual or this passionately devoted organization would soon find the answer to that question: Buy a newspaper; buy a television station. Then you are entirely free to spend all the money you want on political communication, totally divorced from any responsibility on the part of the candidate at all. So the next law, Mr. President, will limit what the newspapers and the television stations and radio stations can do.

Mr. GORTON. Congress would certainly have the authority to pass just such a law, I say, Mr. President, to my friend from Kentucky. I think as a former State attorney general, he has argued a number of cases in the Supreme Court. I would probably be willing to take that challenge on a reasonable basis to the Supreme Court of the United States, and I might well win at that $50,000 figure. But the vice of this constitutional amendment is that I would have to do that in the first place, and there would be an argument that that was a reasonable limitation. When we start down this road, we put the right of free speech and political matters of the people of the United States into the hands of Congress. As the Senator from New Mexico said earlier, each of us believes sufficiently in this system to hold the opinion that most of the time we do the right thing and that almost all of the time we try to do the right thing. We are probably least likely to do the right thing when it affects our own individual fates and our own individual careers. Even when we are, we sometimes, at least, can make mistakes. That, I must say, is obviously the reason that Madison and the first Congress wrote the first amendment in unequivocal terms with a primary focus on political speech. They simply did not wish to give this authority to Congress, and they were right. The Supreme Court of the United States, in dealing with the 1974 law in Buckley versus Valeo, I think put the issue in the simplest and clearest fashion when it says, In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not the Government, but the people individually as citizens and candidates, and collectively as associations and political committees, who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. That is the central issue here. Is this a matter that is up to the judgment of the people as individuals and as members of organizations? Or is it up to the Government--in this case a self-interested Government--to say what is reasonable? You and I, Mr. President, and the Senator from Kentucky and I believe that this is a matter for people as individuals and as members of voluntary associations. The proponents of this constitutional amendment believe this is a matter for the Government. Between us, there is a great gulf fixed which cannot be bridged. We stand on the Constitution as it was written by the Founding Fathers. We stand on a faith in the people, and we reject the interference of the Federal Government on this question.

Mr. GORTON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. GORTON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted to confirm Federico Pena to be Secretary of Energy. As a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I have met with Secretary Pena and discussed issues of importance to Washington State, the Northwest, and the Nation. I understand that some Senators had reservations about Secretary Pena because he does not have a great deal of experience on energy related issues. I do not hold this same reservation. I do not necessarily view Secretary Pena's lack of expertise on energy issues as a liability, but rather as an opportunity to educate the new Secretary on issues important to the people of Washington State and the region. Two issues immediately come to mind--Hanford and electricity deregulation. I look forward to working with Secretary Pena on the many challenges facing the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the southeastern part of my State. While there are many difficult issues facing Hanford, there are also many exciting opportunities. One of these opportunities is the Fast Flux Test Facility [FFTF]. FFTF is a valuable asset for our national security interests and a potential cure for diseases and other medical conditions. Scientists believe FFTF can begin producing tritium--an essential part of our nuclear deterrent--within 5 years. Moreover, nearly 70 of our Nation's leading medical researchers have validated claims that FFTF is essential to the production of medical isotopes which could one day be a valuable weapon in the fight against cancer. FFTF is by no means the only important issue that Secretary Pena will face at Hanford in his new position. In addition, I look forward to working with him on maintaining an adequate budget to meet the site's cleanup mission. It's no secret that Hanford has been one of the most contaminated sites owned by the Federal Government. Despite the enormity of the cleanup, I believe we are making real progress due in large part to the extraordinary efforts and talents of the people who work at the site and make up the surrounding Hanford communities. The DOE, in coordination with Congress, is also playing an important role prioritizing, streamlining, and increasing efficiency at Hanford, I look foward to continuing my already strong working relationship with Secretary Pena in his new role to preserve continuity in funding at Hanford and other DOE sites. On the subject of electricity deregulation, it is critical that Secretary Pena listen and work closely with the Northwest congressional delegation on electricity issues unique to the Northwest. The Northwest has its own peculiar set of challenges--namely the ability of the Bonneville Power Administration to market its power while paying nearly $500 million in annual fish and wildlife costs. Secretary Pena and I have discussed these issues and he has committed to work with the Northwest members of the Senate Energy Committee on these difficult Northwest issues. I intend to take Secretary Pena up on his offer, and hope that together with my Northwest colleagues that we can work on these issues critical to Northwest ratepayers, an the environment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will authorize a settlement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District in Washington State. I introduced similar legislation last year. Congressman Doc Hastings has introduced legislation on this subject in the House of Representatives, and the House Resources Committee will mark up the legislation today. This legislation will authorize a carefully negotiated settlement between the BOR and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District. If enacted, this legislation will save the BOR, and therefore the Nation's taxpayers, money that would otherwise be spent fighting with the irrigation district in court. Earlier this week the administration sent a letter to me indicating that it would support the settlement bill, provided that several changes be made to the legislation. The legislation that I introduce today includes the changes requested by the administration. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the administration's letter of support for the legislation in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to voice my strong support for the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky as U.S. Trade Representative. Ambassador Barshefsky has done an outstanding job as acting USTR since her appointment last April. I believe Ambassador Barshefsky is one of the best nominations President Clinton has made and am honored to have the opportunity to speak on her behalf. Charlene Barshefsky is an aggressive and articulate advocate of U.S. trade interests and has been very successful in defending U.S. business and agriculture throughout the world. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is vital to opening up trade markets to U.S. goods, and Charlene Barshefsky has proven herself to be very effective at doing just that. Ambassador Barshefsky understands that U.S. agriculture and industry can compete very effectively in the international market, but only if trade barriers are torn down. She has been relentless in her efforts to expand market access for U.S. exports and to promote U.S. trade interests abroad. I am particularly impressed with Ambassador Barshefsky's work on intellectual property rights. My State is home to the Nation's largest software producer and to many smaller software and video game companies. These businesses have faced devastating problems with the counterfeiting of their products overseas. Ambassador Barshefsky has been a leader in the fight to end such violations of U.S. intellectual property rights. Last year, she negotiated a tough deal with China. By threatening sanctions against $2 billion in Chinese exports to the United States, she was successful in forcing Beijing to crackdown on software counterfeiters. While intellectual property theft still occurs, Ambassador Barshefsky has made great strides in defending United States interests in Asia. She has also worked as a tough negotiator on Pacific Northwest wheat exports to China. As many of my colleagues know, China has, for the past 25 years, imposed arbitrary restrictions on the importation of wheat from the United States. The Chinese Government claims that Washington State wheat is infected by TCK Smut disease and therefore forbids its import into China for fear that the disease will spread to Chinese wheat. Unfortunately, their claim has no scientific basis. Ambassador Barshefsky has worked diligently to eliminate trade restrictions based on unsound science. Although her efforts have not yet been successful, she has been the strongest voice Washington state wheat growers have had in the administration for several years. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm her as U.S. Trade Representative. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will authorize a settlement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District in Washington State. I introduced similar legislation last year. Congressman Doc Hastings has introduced legislation on this subject in the House of Representatives, and the House Resources Committee will mark up the legislation today. This legislation will authorize a carefully negotiated settlement between the BOR and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District. If enacted, this legislation will save the BOR, and therefore the Nation's taxpayers, money that would otherwise be spent fighting with the irrigation district in court. Earlier this week the administration sent a letter to me indicating that it would support the settlement bill, provided that several changes be made to the legislation. The legislation that I introduce today includes the changes requested by the administration. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the administration's letter of support for the legislation in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the economic arguments for this constitutional amendment were eloquently stated--lower interest rates, more jobs, and a higher standard of living for Americans in the future. I want to emphasize that the moral arguments favor this constitutional amendment. Mr. President, it is simply morally wrong for us, year after year after year, to consume the services of government and to send the bills to our children and to our grandchildren, who have not had a voice in this body. We must be responsible enough to see to it that what we want from government today we pay for today. The fact is that we will not do it without a constitutional amendment, as evidenced by the heavy stack of unbalanced budgets in front of the leader of the debate on this issue. This balanced budget is for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch today in introducing the Software Export Equality Act. In 1971, Congress created foreign service corporations [FSC] in order to encourage U.S. exports and increase U.S. competitiveness in the international marketplace. Under current law, FSC legislation gives U.S. manufacturers a tax incentive for exports of domestically produced goods. Today, virtually every U.S. product manufactured for export abroad qualifies for FSC benefits. Yet current tax laws continue to discriminate against one of the America's fastest growing exports: software. Due to the IRS's narrow interpretation of FSC rules, the software industry is precluded from qualifying for any FSC benefits despite the fact that approximately 85 percent of products sold by U.S. software companies are developed in the United States and it currently ranks seventh in U.S. industry exports. This bill will clarify that computer software qualifies as export property and is eligible for FSC benefits. Continuing to deny the benefits of FSC rules to the software industry is not only unfair, it poses a serious impediment to the competitiveness of U.S. manufactured software. Software is one of the America's fastest growing industries, with revenues of more than $200 billion and a growth rate of 13 percent per year on average. As the world leader in software development, the United States is home to more than 8,000 software companies that provide, directly and indirectly, millions of high-paying, high-skilled American jobs in many States. Software is a vital and growing part of many State economies, including my own State of Washington. In Washington State, the software industry accounted for $3.5 billion worth, and 12 percent, of Washington State exports and employed over 22,509 people in 1995. Microsoft, the State's largest software producer, alone supported 1.5 percent of the State's economy in 1995. But these impressive numbers do not even take into account the significant impact the numerous small and middle-sized software companies that make up the majority in Washington State have on the State's economy. The worldwide market for software is exploding and global competition is quickly on the rise. In this increasingly competitive world economy, incentives to encourage firms to develop and export from the United States are more important than ever to job creation and economic stability. This bill provides a simpe way to ensure the U.S. software industry remains the world leader in software manufacturing and American software jobs are protected. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this very important legislation and urge its quick passage in the Senate.