T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge a very unique school district in a forested area of Washington State. The Index School District may be small in size but if measured by the creativity and dedication of its teachers, staff, and parents, it would be one of the largest districts in Washington state. Index School District is one of the smallest in the state, with only 35 students from preschool to 7th grade. Because of the district's size and location in a rural area, the district has constantly struggled to find funding that could boost student achievement. Index's Superintendent and Principal, Martin Boyle, took the funding challenges head on and has worked tirelessly to find money for Index's students through federal grants and a $298,208 bond levy that was passed in 1998. After four years of hard work, the Index School District has become a model for other schools. Improving student reading levels was one of the first goals Boyle and his colleagues accomplished. The district hired a reading specialist and with the help of parents and local volunteers, reading levels have soared. Recently, Boyle started a new mentor reading program called, ``Help One Student to Succeed.'' He hopes it will get parents involved in teaching their children to read, as well as a new way to promote and innovate reading skills, advancing student reading levels by an even greater margin. Index School District's includes 20 staff members and 5 board members who work tirelessly for their students and are constantly brainstorming new activities and new programs that will help their students learn. They have even started an after-school program for children who in the past, were sitting outside waiting for their parents' workday to end. Students now use this extra time to participate in fun activities that reinforce classroom curriculum. In addition, last summer, the district implemented the Index Elementary Summer School Program where students take part in hands on art and cultural activities. Students also visit art museums and theaters, as well as travel to other parts of the state for hiking and camping activities, giving children opportunities to learn and challenge their knowledge outside the classroom. Many students at Index also depend on their school as a home away from home, relying on the school for three meals a day. While a majority of students qualify for free and reduced lunches, the staff of Index understands the importance of meals for their students and have made it a priority to create and fund a food program which was recognized with a ``Children's Alliance Award.'' The innovation and commitment of the Index School District's staff is truly inspiring. Clearly, the children are succeeding in the classroom and will be ready to take on any challenge. I think it is uplifting to hear that the power of a few can empower many, as the educator's of Index have done. Every local school district is unique. I hope that highlighting Index with my ``Innovation in Education'' Award will show others that wonderful things happen when you put children first.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor in the presence of my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, the primary sponsor of this proposal. For well over a year, the Senator has shared his thoughtful ideas with me and with other Members on this side of the aisle. While this is certainly not my proposal--it is not Straight A's by any stretch of the imagination--it does represent, in the view of this Senator, a genuine and thoughtful approach to the proposition that we haven't been doing everything right for the last 10, 20, 30, 35 years and that there is a newer and better way to provide education services to our children directed at seeing they get a better education and their achievement improves. The proposal the Senator from Connecticut has before the Senate is a thoughtful and imaginative approach to our innovation in education. There have been a number of comments during the course of the day and earlier that the Senator from Connecticut and some of his friends and allies have been working with this Senator and others to see if we could marry most or many of the propositions contained in the current amendment--relating to Straight A's, to the Teacher Empowerment Act, and to portability --in a way that would reach across the aisle not with a half a dozen Members on each side of the aisle supporting the proposition but perhaps with a majority of the Members of the Senate. While I can't say I am a supporter of the proposition exactly as it appears before the Senate, it does offer very real possibilities not only for a constructive debate on education policy but for a constructive resolution to the better education that every Member in this body, whatever his or her philosophy, seeks. I hope there may this afternoon even be a symbol of the fact we are beginning to work together. I must say, there are clear differences even in negotiations over a middle ground. It is certainly possible they will not be surmountable. This Senator, however, hopes they will be. I think the Senator from Connecticut does. At the same time, there may be Members who do not desire a partnership that has involved matters other than this from time to time in a way that has upset certain Members of this body. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his thoughtful and sincere efforts and express the hope publicly that they may lead to something which will unite, rather than divide, members of both parties.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the subject before the Senate this afternoon, and until the vote is taken on it tomorrow, is the Lott- Gregg amendment to the Teacher Empowerment Act section of this bill. The Teacher Empowerment Act itself is quite significant in a number of ways, primarily in focusing on increased teacher quality across the United States of America but, at the same time, allowing a maximum degree of flexibility in local choices with respect to how that teacher quality is, in fact, enhanced. It provides a significant amount of money for teacher training that can also be used for increasing the number of teachers, for increasing the competition of those teachers most prized by our school districts across the country. For with the amendment that is added today--with the recruiting of people in midcareer from other professions, who will be quality teachers of particular subjects--it will provide a degree of protection against frivolous lawsuits when teachers or administrators or school authorities have taken actions that will protect the safety and security of students in classrooms and of the faculty and administration of the schools themselves. We literally have faced the situation in which actions taken in good faith, and for valid reasons, have subjected teachers and administrators to frivolous lawsuits brought by lawyers for highly disruptive and destructive students. It does seem to me that the specific amendment on which we are going to vote will be effective in providing that kind of protection, providing a modest program to recruit quality people in midcareers into teaching, and to assure that the $2 billion authorization for teacher quality can be used in a widely significant fashion for increasing the quality of teaching, not only the quantity, though that is there, but the quality of teaching in our public schools. The accountability, in this case, again, is going to be a student accountability. Are the results positive, from the perspective of student achievement in our schools? In that respect, of course, both the amendment that is before us at the present time and the portion of the bill to which the amendment applies are consistent with the overall philosophy of the bill, a philosophy that is perhaps summarized best by saying that after 35 years of procedural accountability--that is to say, proving that money was used for the precise purposes for which the authorization was directed, with a seeming total indifference to whether or not student achievement improved, a procedural accountability which was satisfied by filling out forms correctly and by having clean audits--now it is to be succeeded by a performance accountability, accountability that says, after all, that we aim our assistance to public education across the United States of America to see to it that our students themselves are better educated; that their test results in the multitude of achievement tests being developed across the United States show actual progress; that this is the accountability we wish; that this is the accountability that is found in Straight A's; that this is the kind of accountability that is found in the Teacher Enhancement Act in this bill; and that this is the goal of these amendments today. We have a curious debate on the other side, one speaking about the successes of title I, a title with which all the goodwill in the world has not reduced the disparity between its beneficiaries and other students in the extended period of time; a position that says the status quo is to be protected at all costs; and a position that says parental control and influence over public education is something to be feared. We on this side of the aisle have every hope that the rather dramatic change from procedural accountability to performance accountability will result in a true improvement in the quality of education being given to our schoolchildren as measured by their actual achievement. That is, in fact, our goal. Having said that, I should also say there are at least some signs during this second week of debate over the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that we may be able to reach across the political divide and find a way to satisfy a substantial number of members of both parties in a way consistent with the precise goals I have outlined here with the proposition that we need to encourage innovation, that we need to encourage parental involvement, and that we need to provide a degree of trust and confidence in those men and women across the United States who have devoted their lives and their professional careers to the education of our children, together with those who volunteer for the slings and arrows of political campaigns and run for office as school board members--that perhaps all wisdom with respect to education policy does not preside in this body and in the Department of Education down the street; that perhaps those who know our children's names may very well know best what priorities should be funded in 17,000 different school districts with 17,000 different types of challenges across the United States. The amendment before us at the present time leads us in that direction. The Teachers Enhancement Act that is a part of this bill leads us in that direction. Straight A's leads us in that direction. I hope we will soon have a proposal involving some reason from both sides of the political aisle in this body that will lead us in that direction as well. At the present time, however, I commend to my colleagues the Lott- Gregg amendment. I think it improves an already very first-rate bill-- the product of a tremendous amount of work on the part of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, one of the best pieces of working proposals in this body and by one of its committees in an extended period of time. I have a far greater hope today than I did 2 or 3 weeks ago that this body may actually not only begin a debate on education but may conclude a debate on education with a successful vote, and at the very least send this thoughtful bill, slightly amended, to a conference committee, and one hopes from that conference committee to the President of the United States.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record. The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 109) was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 109 introduced earlier today by Senators Schumer, Brownback, and others.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 517, S. 1452.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 1 p.m. on Monday, May 8. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or his designee, 1 to 2 p.m.; Senator Thomas or his designee, 2 to 3 p.m.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 1 p.m. on Monday. It will be in a period of morning business until 3 p.m. Following the morning business, Senator Lott will be recognized to offer the Lott-Gregg amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Debate on that teacher quality amendment is expected to consume the remainder of Monday's session. By previous consent, Senator Lieberman will offer his substitute amendment on Tuesday morning. Any votes in relation to the Lott-Gregg amendment will not occur until Tuesday, at a time to be determined.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 505, H.R. 2412.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, environmental protection and states' rights were dealt a blow on March 6th, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of United States vs. Locke. The Court, noting that even though federal and international laws ``may be insufficient protection,'' invalidated Washington laws, and potentially laws in eleven other states, that provide protections against spills by oil tankers. I disagree with the Court's decision, because I believe that Washington state should be allowed to protect its shores as it sees fit. That is why, today I am pleased to introduce the ``States Prevention of Oil Tanker Spills Act'' (SPOTS)-legislation that will reinstate the right of all states to adopt additional standards beyond existing federal requirements governing the operation, maintenance, equipment, personnel and manning of oil tankers. While this legislation will apply to all shoreline states, it is particularly important to Washington. Washington has always taken seriously its duty to protect the health and safety of its citizens, and has historically supported aggressive protections of its treasured natural resources, including Washington shorelines and waterways. Oil refineries and product terminals located in Cherry Point, Ferndale, Tacoma, Anacortes, and nearby Vancouver, British Columbia make Washington an international destination and shipping point for millions of tons of oil annually. A large volume of crude oil is transported to and from the state near heavily populated Puget Sound. The frequent traffic of large vessels carrying vast amounts of oil increases the risks to the environment and public safety, and unfortunately, has resulted in devastating spills. The 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster was one of the most environmentally devastating in United States history. The huge oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, dumping 11 million gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean, and damaging more than 1,000 miles of coastline in south-central Alaska. The massive spill resulted in billions of dollars in damage claims by over 40,000 people, including some 6,500 Washington fishermen who have yet to be compensated for their loss. Incidents such as the Valdez disaster served as a catalyst for Washington and many other ocean shoreline states--as well as Congress-- to enact laws to prevent similar catastrophic events. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Washington passed its own legislation in 1994, which created the state Office of Marine Safety and directed the establishment of prevention plans for ``the best achievable protection'' from the damage caused by oil spills. Washington's law enhanced, or added a number of requirements to, the federal law. For example, instead of merely requiring tanker crews to ``clearly understand English,'' as federal law prescribes, the state regulation required tanker crews to be proficient in English in order to prevent miscommunication between American navigators and foreign crews. To heighten safety protection in times of limited visibility due to fog or other inclement weather conditions common to the Puget Sound, the state also added a requirement that a tanker have on its bridge at least three licensed officers, a helmsman, and a lookout. Among other requirements adopted by Washington are prescriptions regarding training, location plotting, pre-arrival tests, and drug testing for tanker crews. While federal law governs the design and construction of tankers, as well as issues affecting Coast Guard and national security, I believe that states should have the right to enact additional regulations that they believe will enhance the safety of their citizens and natural resources. Twenty states' Attorneys General signed an amicus brief in United States vs. Locke, agreeing with Washington on this point. Unfortunately, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, (``INTERTANKO''), a group of companies that own or operate more than 2,000 tankers in the United States and foreign nations, does not agree with this common sense proposition. Shortly after Washington's oil tanker law was enacted. INTERTANKO filed a lawsuit to overturn it. A federal district court ruled in Washington's favor, but the Administration voluntarily intervened in the oil tanker companies' appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Coast Guard's weaker regulations superseded the state's requirements on oil tankers. Some have suggested that additional state regulation would interfere with the federal government's relations with foreign governments. In my view, allowing states to add common sense safety measures would have little, if any, impact on foreign relations. It would, however, enhance environmental protection. This legislation won't eliminate all oil spills. I believe, however, that it will help to prevent some. Laws protecting our shores from dangerous oil spills should not be brought to the lowest common denominator. Rather, allowing states to enhance federal laws where appropriate, will ensure an even greater level of protection for our citizens and resources in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 103, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements in relation to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Mr. McCullagh did an excellent job of outlining these extraordinary regulations. I will highlight a few. Under the Department of Justice proposal, the Government would require Microsoft to create an entirely new executive position, as well as a new committee on its corporate board of directors, the function of which would be to ensure the company's compliance with the Government's new regulations. The Department of Justice would require Microsoft to ``maintain for a period of at least 4 years the e-mail of all Microsoft officers, directors, and managers engaged in software development, marketing, sales, and developer relations related to Platform Software.'' Under the proposed remedy, Microsoft would also be required to give the Government ``access during office hours'' to inspect and demand copies of all ``books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, source code, and other records and documents in the possession or under the control of Microsoft'' relating to the matters contained in the final judgment. Not only that, the Government, ``without restraint or interference'' from Microsoft, could demand to question any officers, employees, or agents of the company. Together with the other sanctions, these proposals would guarantee that every Microsoft competitor would know everything the two Microsofts plan long before the plans became reality. Mr. President, that is a death sentence. The function of relief in an antitrust case is to enjoin the conduct found to be anticompetitive and to enhance competition. Any objective review of the ``remedies'' proposed by the Department of Justice and States, however, can only lead to the conclusion that the Government is not seeking relief from anticompetitive behavior but to punish Microsoft with unwarranted sanctions for allegations by threatening its very existence. There is no question that the Department of Justice initiated this antitrust action at the behest of Microsoft's competitors. Those competitors have said they sought Government intervention because it would be ``too expensive'' to pursue private litigation. This unjustified case has been too expensive--way too expensive--but not in the way the competitors envisioned. In the 10 days following the breakdown of settlement talks, there was a $1.7 trillion loss in market capitalization. The damages from that huge loss were not limited to Microsoft--a broad range of companies, including many of Microsoft's competitors, were affected. More importantly, so, too, were millions of American investors. As one would expect, the millions of Americans who hold Microsoft shares have taken a bath in recent weeks. The day after the trial court issued its ``Findings of Law'' on April 3, Microsoft stockholders lost $80 billion in assets. The decline in Microsoft stock helped fuel a 349-point slide in the NASDAQ, the biggest 1-day drop in the history of the exchange. The pain wasn't limited to individual Microsoft shareholders, however. At least 2,000 mutual funds and countless pension funds include Microsoft shares. I find it curious that the Vice President of the United States criticizes as the ``risky scheme'' tax proposals in this body that would reduce taxes by $12 billion in 1 year and $150 billion in 5 years. Yet the very administration that he supports has caused a loss in the pockets of very real American citizens of far in excess of that amount. The ``risky scheme'' is the Microsoft lawsuit and we have now suffered damages from that risk. It is unfortunate that those who were so anxious to bring the heavy hand of Government into this incredibly innovative and successful industry didn't listen to some of the more cautious voices, such as that of Dr. Milton Friedman, who warned early on to be careful what you wish. Dr. Friedman recently reinforced that sentiment in a statement to the National Taxpayers Union: Recent events dealing with the Microsoft suit certainly support the view I expressed a year ago--that Silicon Valley is suicidal in calling Government in to mediate in the disputes among some of the big companies in the area of Microsoft. The money that has been spent on legal maneuvers would have been much more usefully spent on research in technology. The loss of the time spent in the courts by highly trained and skilled lawyers could certainly have been spent more fruitfully. Overall, the major effect has been a decline in the capital value of the computer industry, Microsoft in particular, but its competitors as well. They must rue the day they set this incredible episode in operation. One of the biggest tragedies of this case is that it has all been done in the name of consumer benefit. So far, the only real harm to consumers I have seen has come from the resources wasted on the case itself and from the market convulsions that resulted from the mere specter of the Government's punitive relief proposal.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the proposed remedies submitted last Friday by the U.S. Department of Justice and 17 States in the antitrust suit against Microsoft. As my colleagues know, the Department of Justice and the States have asked the court to break Microsoft into two separate companies, and to require significant Government regulation of the two companies. Let's begin by reviewing the charges in the case. First, the Government has alleged that Microsoft entered into a series of agreements with software developers, Internet Service Providers, Internet content providers, and online services like AOL, that foreclosed Netscape's ability to distribute its Web browsing software. Despite claims by Government lawyers and outside commentators that this was the strongest part of the Government's case, the trial court--even Judge Jackson--disagreed. The court ruled that Microsoft's agreements did not deprive Netscape of the ability to reach PC users. Indeed, the trial court pointed out the many ways in which Netscape could, and did, distribute Navigator. Direct evidence of this broad distribution can be found in the fact that the installed base of Navigator users increased from 15 million in 1996 to 33 million in late 1998--the very period in which the Government contends that Microsoft foreclosed Netscape's distribution. The second charge involves what the Government alleged was the unlawful ``tying'' of Internet Explorer to Windows. The Government argued that this ``tying'' was one of the primary means by which Microsoft foreclosed Netscape's ability to distribute Navigator. The trial court agreed with the Government, finding that Microsoft violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act in its design of Windows 95 and 98. The court's conclusion is astounding in two respects. First, as I mentioned, the trial court determined that Microsoft had not deprived Netscape of distribution opportunities. Second, and even more important, the trial court's conclusion is in direct contradiction to that of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. In June, 1998--before the antitrust trial even began--that court of appeals rejected the charge that the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows 95 was wrongful. In its June, 1998 decision, the appeals court stated that ``new products integrating functionalities in a useful way should be considered single products regardless of market structure.'' Despite the fact that trial courts are obliged to follow the rulings of appellate courts, the trial court in the Microsoft case has singularly failed to do so. In its third charge, the Government alleged that Microsoft held a monopoly in Intel-compatible PC operating systems, and maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive tactics. The trial court agreed, and determined that there were three anticompetitive tools employed by Microsoft: (1) the series of agreements that the trial court itself held did not violate antitrust law; (2) the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows, which the Appellate Court already determined was not illegal; and (3) a random assortment of acts involving Microsoft's discussions with other firms, such as Apple and Intel--none of which led to agreements. In relying on these three factors, the trial court seems to have concluded that, while Microsoft's actions, taken individually, might not constitute violations of antitrust law, the combination of these lawful acts constitutes a violation of law. This approach to antitrust liability has generally been rejected by courts, in part because it fails to provide guidance allowing businesses to understand their legal obligations. Such a rule effectively chills desirable competitive conduct. Finally, the trial court agreed with the Government's allegation that Microsoft unlawfully attempted to monopolize the market for Web browsing software. This conclusion is directly at odds with the court's own previous finding. In the findings of fact released in November of last year, the trial court found that Microsoft's conduct with respect to Netscape was aimed at preventing Netscape from dominating Web browsing software--not at gaining a monopoly for Microsoft. Under antitrust law, a firm cannot be found liable for attempted monopolization unless it specifically intends to monopolize the market. Seeking to prevent somebody else from acquiring a monopoly is not attempted monopolization. To summarize, one of the Government's charges was dismissed by the trial court; another flouts a specific decision of the appellate court; and the remaining two simply provide no legal basis as antitrust violations. I am highly confident that the appeals court will once again recognize the fundamental flaws in the trial court's decision and find in favor of Microsoft. In the meantime, however, let's examine the ``remedy'' proposed by the Department of Justice and 17 States for these fictional violations. First, and most obvious, is the Government's proposal to break Microsoft into two separate companies. Under the Government plan, Windows would be retained by the new ``Operating Systems Business,'' while the remainder of Microsoft, including its office family of products on its Internet properties, would be moved into a new ``Application Business.'' The Department of Justice plan effectively prohibits these two companies from working together for a period of 10 years and effectively freezes fundamental components of the operating system from improvement, thereby crippling in this fast-moving world of technology the very technology which is one of the principal bases of our present prosperity. As outrageous as the proposal to break up Microsoft is, the heavyhanded regulations the Government proposes to impose on Microsoft are at least as outrageous. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that an article by Declan McCullagh, published in the April 29, 2000, edition of Wired News be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 248, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 108 submitted earlier by Senators Lieberman and Gregg.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed at the appropriate place in the Record. The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 108) was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 504, S. 2370.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, here we go again. Fourteen pages of the statute set out precise and detailed requirements to be imposed on 17,000 school districts around the country, the bottom line of which is that we know what they need better than any of them do. Fourteen pages of statute that, if the precedent has any value, will turn into 114 pages of regulations from the U.S. Department of Education, all under the mantra of smaller class sizes. Well, in spite of conflicting views on the precise impact of smaller class sizes in various parts of the country, one may even start by admitting that in many cases this is a good idea. But this amendment says not only is it a good idea, it is the only idea; it is the only way to spend a very considerable amount of money in every single school district around the country, no matter what its own priorities. No matter what its own parents, teachers, superintendents, and elected school board members think, we are telling you right here--100 of us in this national school board--this is what you need. Will it naturally put any more money into the schools? I doubt it. It is a large authorization, but we have already passed the budget resolution, and we pretty much know how much money there is going to be available for education. So, essentially, if it is passed and if it is appropriated for, it will come out of other educational priorities. Let's just take one. Thirty years ago, and again 3 or 4 years ago, we passed 150 pages of a law for special education. Most of the Members who are voting today were Members of the Senate then. We promised we would pay 40 percent of those costs. Due primarily to efforts on this side of the aisle, we have gone from 8 percent to 11 percent. In another 30 or 40 years, we might get to the promise that we made with respect to education for the disabled. But that was a priority of 3 years ago. What we need now are another bunch of new programs which have one thing, one feature alone, in common. They say school board members, superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents all across the United States are not the best judges of what they need to provide a better education for our children. The Senator from Arkansas, who is on the floor, has pointed it out, and the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out that the bill before us, which will end up supplying as much money as the other bills will, certainly allows any school district with a primary goal of more teachers to use much more money for hiring new teachers. It differs in the fact that it doesn't mandate that as the No. 1 priority for every school district. Maybe most will want to hire new teachers, and some will want to keep their best teachers in place by paying them more money. Some may want to use the money for physical infrastructure. Some may want to use it for specialized teachers and specialized courses that are not allowed under this amendment. Some may want to train their teachers better. Some may wish for more computers. But the most difficult virtue to practice in this body is the practice of letting go, saying we don't know it all; we can't set the absolute priorities for every school district in the United States. Let's stick with what we have on the table at the present time. Let's stick with the bill that dramatically says the present system of more and more statutes and more and more requirements has not been a striking success over the last 35 years. Let's try, at least in a few places in this country, to let our schools' own people, our professional educators, those who care most, those who know our children, make the decisions that will affect their lives and their education.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, environmental protection and states' rights were dealt a blow on March 6th, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of United States vs. Locke. The Court, noting that even though federal and international laws ``may be insufficient protection,'' invalidated Washington laws, and potentially laws in eleven other states, that provide protections against spills by oil tankers. I disagree with the Court's decision, because I believe that Washington state should be allowed to protect its shores as it sees fit. That is why, today I am pleased to introduce the ``States Prevention of Oil Tanker Spills Act'' (SPOTS)-legislation that will reinstate the right of all states to adopt additional standards beyond existing federal requirements governing the operation, maintenance, equipment, personnel and manning of oil tankers. While this legislation will apply to all shoreline states, it is particularly important to Washington. Washington has always taken seriously its duty to protect the health and safety of its citizens, and has historically supported aggressive protections of its treasured natural resources, including Washington shorelines and waterways. Oil refineries and product terminals located in Cherry Point, Ferndale, Tacoma, Anacortes, and nearby Vancouver, British Columbia make Washington an international destination and shipping point for millions of tons of oil annually. A large volume of crude oil is transported to and from the state near heavily populated Puget Sound. The frequent traffic of large vessels carrying vast amounts of oil increases the risks to the environment and public safety, and unfortunately, has resulted in devastating spills. The 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster was one of the most environmentally devastating in United States history. The huge oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, dumping 11 million gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean, and damaging more than 1,000 miles of coastline in south-central Alaska. The massive spill resulted in billions of dollars in damage claims by over 40,000 people, including some 6,500 Washington fishermen who have yet to be compensated for their loss. Incidents such as the Valdez disaster served as a catalyst for Washington and many other ocean shoreline states--as well as Congress-- to enact laws to prevent similar catastrophic events. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Washington passed its own legislation in 1994, which created the state Office of Marine Safety and directed the establishment of prevention plans for ``the best achievable protection'' from the damage caused by oil spills. Washington's law enhanced, or added a number of requirements to, the federal law. For example, instead of merely requiring tanker crews to ``clearly understand English,'' as federal law prescribes, the state regulation required tanker crews to be proficient in English in order to prevent miscommunication between American navigators and foreign crews. To heighten safety protection in times of limited visibility due to fog or other inclement weather conditions common to the Puget Sound, the state also added a requirement that a tanker have on its bridge at least three licensed officers, a helmsman, and a lookout. Among other requirements adopted by Washington are prescriptions regarding training, location plotting, pre-arrival tests, and drug testing for tanker crews. While federal law governs the design and construction of tankers, as well as issues affecting Coast Guard and national security, I believe that states should have the right to enact additional regulations that they believe will enhance the safety of their citizens and natural resources. Twenty states' Attorneys General signed an amicus brief in United States vs. Locke, agreeing with Washington on this point. Unfortunately, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, (``INTERTANKO''), a group of companies that own or operate more than 2,000 tankers in the United States and foreign nations, does not agree with this common sense proposition. Shortly after Washington's oil tanker law was enacted. INTERTANKO filed a lawsuit to overturn it. A federal district court ruled in Washington's favor, but the Administration voluntarily intervened in the oil tanker companies' appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Coast Guard's weaker regulations superseded the state's requirements on oil tankers. Some have suggested that additional state regulation would interfere with the federal government's relations with foreign governments. In my view, allowing states to add common sense safety measures would have little, if any, impact on foreign relations. It would, however, enhance environmental protection. This legislation won't eliminate all oil spills. I believe, however, that it will help to prevent some. Laws protecting our shores from dangerous oil spills should not be brought to the lowest common denominator. Rather, allowing states to enhance federal laws where appropriate, will ensure an even greater level of protection for our citizens and resources in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.