T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I join with my distinguished colleagues to agree that HCFA should move forward expeditiously to resolve this issue.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. Additionally, I also understand that the day before this ``deal'' was announced, Judge Dwyer held a status conference with all the parties, including the defendant- interveners. The government attorneys told him that no agreement had been reached, and that the next mediation session was to occur on December 2. The Judge then set December 3 for the next status conference. Apparently, this Administration has as much trouble speaking with any probity to the Judicial Branch as they have recently with the Congress. It appears that the Judge's admonition to include the ``defendant-interveners'' in the discussions was ignored.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. I understand that the BDS technology is ideally suited to small refineries. Therefore, I believe that the grant should be made available only to a refinery that meets the Small Business Administration's definition of small; that is, less than 75,000 barrels per day capacity of petroleum-based inputs and less than 1,500 employees.

Mr. GORTON. I concur with the observations of my colleague from Idaho. The sales in question have not been made available to operate. They are still subject to the impossible survey requirements that caused the injunction to begin with. That is why I would urge the Administration in the strongest terms to return to the negotiating table with the defendant-interveners and address their concerns. Specifically, there should be an agreed-upon time-frame and a date certain for the completion of the agreed-upon survey requirements. Failure to conduct a good-faith effort to complete the settlement process in the fashion ordered by the Judge should be grounds for withholding final approval of the agreement.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I concur with the Alaska Senator's intent, and I believe the Interior and Agriculture budgets are sufficient to allow the Department to contract with these schools to provide the training we called for. Each of these Alaska laws referred to in the report language last year is important, is unique, and needs appropriate training for our managers to ensure that Congressional intent is followed.

Mr. GORTON. Yes, I would like to clarify that matter. There is no language whatsoever in the Interior portion that provides an authorization for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.

Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. GORTON. Yes, certainly. The statement of the managers provides a limitation on spending for the Forest Service for purposes related to designated American Heritage Rivers. This is not an appropriation, but it provides a maximum that may be spent from funds appropriated for other purposes on any efforts that are consistent with existing authorized programs. I would also like to point out that the Interior subcommittee has questioned this initiative previously. The Committee reports accompanying the FY 1999 bill clearly stated that efforts on this initiative by agencies covered by the Interior bill must complete with, or be normal part of, the authorized program of work of the agency. intellectual property and communications

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like briefly to address Section 2002 of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, which is an amendment to the Omnibus package, to clarify its meaning with my colleague who drafted the provision. There are a number of United States companies that have applied to the FCC for licenses to operate non-geostationary satellite systems in the so-called ``Ku-band.'' These firms are spending substantial amounts of private capital to develop satellite systems that will provide a host of telecommunications services to benefit the public. The satellite systems that have applied for licenses in the Ku-band are designed to operate globally on a primary basis, and already are treated as primary users of the Ku-band in the International Table of Frequency Allocations. Mr. President, I bring this up because section 2002(a) directs the FCC to consider issuing licenses, possibly in the same bands, for new terrestrial communications services that provide local television to rural areas. Section 2002(b)(2) provides that the FCC must ensure that any new licensees for local television in rural areas do not cause harmful interference to primary users of the spectrum, presumably the Ku-band spectrum. I want to clarify that Section 2002(b)(2) requires the FCC to prevent harmful interference not only with those who have been designated as primary users on the date of enactment of this Act, but also with prospective primary users of the Ku-band. If the FCC were to misinterpret this section, that is, if the FCC prevented only harmful interference with those who are primary users on the date of enactment, the public could be denied the substantial benefits of emerging satellite technologies.

Mr. GORTON. Certainly.

Mr. GORTON. Yes, it is true that there is no appropriation for the American Heritage Rivers initiative in the appropriations act. In fact, the bill includes in Title three a provision that clearly prohibits the transfer of any funds from this act to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for purposes related to the American Heritage Rivers initiative.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I am pleased that the Senate will pass the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act before the end of this session. Each year 250,000 Americans suffer from sudden cardiac arrest. It can claim the life of a promising young athlete, a friend of family member regardless of age or health. Sudden Cardiac Arrest occurs when the heart's electrical impulses become chaotic causing the heart to stop pumping blood. Tragically, 95% of Americans who suffer from sudden cardiac arrest will die. This bill helps to fight this killer by asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop public access to defibrillation programs for federal buildings. Public access to defibrillation programs include improving access to automated external defibrillators (AEDs), training those likely to use the devices, ensuring proper medical oversight of the program and maintaining the devices according to manufacturer's guidelines. An AED is a small, laptop-sized device that is easy to use and can alalyze the heart rhythms of cardiac arrest victims to determine if a shock is warranted and, if necessary, deliver a life-saving shock to the heart. The devices are so important because for every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim's heart is returned to normal rhythm, his or her chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. This bill also provides important gap-filling Good Samaritan immunity for the few states that have yet to pass AED access laws. It will help ensure that people who respond to an emergency and use an AED to help cardiac arrest victims needn't fear frivolous lawsuits. It also provides reassurance to nonmedical facilities such as adult day care centers, the first aid station in a shopping mall, casinos, fitness clubs, sports stadiums, a health clinic in a business, an airport, ambulance, firetruck or other locations where AEDs may be beneficial that they can make these lifesaving devices available. I want to thank Senators Jeffords and Frist for their help in moving this bill forward. I am also grateful to the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross and the thirty-three other health organizations that have worked so hard to ensure passage of this bill. This is a good bill, it will help save lives and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to ensure that it is signed into law.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the confirmation of Ronald Gould to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since 1975, Ron has practiced law at the Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, specializing in commercial litigation, and the numerous letters of support and recommendation that I have received throughout this long process attest to the high regard in which he is held by the legal community in Washington state. Ron's admirable professional and academic record, however, while alone enough to qualify him for the federal bench, is only a small part of what will make him an asset to the Ninth Circuit. While distinguishing himself professionally, Ron has actively participated in volunteer legal, civic, and community organizations and projects too numerous to recite in full. In addition to being a former President of the Washington State Bar Association, Ron Gould has served on the historical societies for the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has co-chaired, with Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregoire, a project to develop mediation in high schools, and has been a member of Washington Women Lawyers, and the Washington Association of Lawyers with Disabilities. Among the many non-legal, civic organizations in which Ron has been involved is the Boyscouts of America, for which Ron has served on the Executive Board of the Chief Seattle Council since 1984. Ron's legal and life experience has been extraordinary. So extraordinary that I am pleased to vote to confirm him to one of the positions of highest honor and responsibility in this country.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 228, submitted earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 76, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 10. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, 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 then resume on S. 625, the bankruptcy reform bill, under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 229 submitted earlier by Senator Lott.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the bankruptcy bill at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday. Under the previous order, there will be up to 4 hours of debate on the Hatch amendment No. 2771 regarding drugs, with a vote to follow the use or yielding back of that time. The votes on the nomination of Carol Moseley-Braun and Linda Morgan will be stacked to follow the vote on the drug amendment. Thus, Senators can expect three back-to-back votes between 12 noon and 1 p.m. tomorrow. There are a number of amendments pending on the bankruptcy bill, and it is hoped that they can be disposed of in a timely fashion, along with any other amendments Senators intend to offer to this legislation. The Senate may also be ready to take action on the remaining appropriations bills during tomorrow's session of the Senate. Senators should adjust their schedules for the possibility of votes throughout the day and into the evening. The leadership appreciates the patience and cooperation of his colleagues as we attempt to complete the appropriations process prior to Veterans Day.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, two major debates are taking place in the Congress and in the White House at the present time, two major debates relating to education. Tomorrow we are likely to take up an amendment to establish the Teacher Empowerment Act. And tomorrow we will almost certainly deal, finally, with the appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, an appropriations bill that includes billions of dollars for public education in the United States of America. There is a profound difference between the President of the United States and what I believe is a majority of the Members of both Houses of Congress over how that money on education should be spent. This morning's Washington Post summarizes that argument in quotations from our majority leader, Senator Lott, and the President of the United States. Senator Lott said: The big issue is, who controls it? Will Washington bureaucrats assert and control where this money is used, or will there be some discretion at the local level, based on what local needs are, whether it's books or computers or training for teachers, or for teachers themselves? The President of the United States, according to the Washington Post: . . . told reporters that the federal money for new teachers does not belong to states and local school districts. ``It's not their money,'' he said. What arrogance. The money does not belong to President Bill Clinton. This is money that comes out of the pockets of the American people across the United States, money they want to be used on the most effective possible education for their children. The American people believe very firmly that decisions relating to the education of their children can be made more effectively and more sensitively at home by elected school board members, by superintendents, by principals, by teachers, and by parents than they can be by bureaucracies in the Department of Education in Washington, DC, or even by that national superintendent of public instruction, the President of the United States. In fact, during the course of this debate over whether or not we should grant more authority to local school districts and to teachers and parents, a number of studies have come out on the question of whether the primary need in education in the United States is more teachers. One of them comes from my own State from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, the ``K-12 Finance and Student Performance Study.'' That study, just a little bit earlier this year, stated: An analysis of 60 well-designed studies found that increased teacher education, teacher experience, and teacher salaries all had a greater impact on student test scores per dollar spent than did lowering the student-teacher ratio. According to one researcher, ``Teachers who know a lot about teaching and learning and who work in settings that allow them to know their students well are the critical elements of successful learning.'' Given limited funds to invest, this research suggests considering efforts to improve teacher access to high quality professional development. A recent national survey of teachers found that many do not feel well prepared to face future teaching challenges, including increasing technological changes and greater diversity in the classroom. The legislature's approach to funding K-12 education is consistent with the JLARC [Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee] and national research. The legislature has provided additional funding for teacher salaries, staff development, and smaller classes, with more funding going to support teachers and less for reducing the student-teacher ratio. In fact, the chart accompanying this study shows that increasing teacher salaries is 4 times more cost efficient than reducing class size, increasing teacher experience is 4.5 times more cost efficient than reducing class size, and increasing teacher education is 5.5 times more cost efficient than reducing class size. Given this information, it is clear that the President of the United States is putting politics ahead of academic achievement for our children. There is another interesting statement on this subject written in April of this year by Andy Rotherham at the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council. He now, incidentally, works for the President. But he wrote in April: . . . President Clinton's $1.2 billion class-size reduction initiative, passed in 1998, illustrates Washington's obsession with means at the expense of results and also the triumph of symbolism over sound policy. The goal of raising student achievement is reasonable and essential; however, mandating localities do it by reducing class sizes precludes local decision-making and unnecessarily involves Washington in local affairs. During the debate on the Clinton class-size proposal, it was correctly pointed out that research indicates that teacher quality is a more important variable in student achievement than class size. In fact, this crucial finding was even buried in the U.S. Department of Education's own literature on the issue. Finally, another quite liberal organization, the Education Trust, agrees that we cannot afford to make schools hire unqualified teachers. Kati Haycock, executive director of the Education Trust, said yesterday: The last thing American children need--especially low- income children--is more under-qualified teachers. If the White House hopes to ensure that the Class Size Reduction program will boost student achievement, it should accept the Congressional Republicans' proposal that would allow only fully qualified teachers to be hired with these funds. Teacher quality matters, and it matters a lot. Highly qualified teachers can help all students make significant achievement gains, while ineffective teachers can do great and lasting damage to students. The difference between an effective teacher and an ineffective teacher can be as much as a full grade level's worth of academic achievement in a single year. That--for many students--can make the difference between an assignment to the ``honors/college prep track'' and an assignment to the remedial track. And that assignment can be the difference between entry into a selective college and a lifetime at McDonald's. Yes, small classes matter, but good teaching matters more. Our kids can have it all--smaller classes and better teachers. But first, the adults in Washington need to put aside the partisan bickering and remember what really matters--the best interests of American students. This is exactly what we are trying to do. It is what we are trying to do in this last great appropriations bill: Saying yes, more teachers is a very important priority, but school districts ought to be able to decide that perhaps teacher training is even more important than that, or perhaps there is another higher education priority in their schools, in their communities, in their States. Tomorrow, when we debate whether or not to add to this bill the Teacher Empowerment Act, we will be doing exactly the same thing, saying we in this body in Washington, DC, do not know all the answers, that there is not one answer for 17,000 school districts across the country; and we ought to trust the people who are spending their lives educating our children. This is a vitally important debate, and one that the children can only win if we grant flexibility to those who are providing them with that education.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it was recently reported that Department of Justice anti-trust chief Joel Klein attended a party to celebrate James Glassman's new book ``Dow 36,000.'' During the party, Mr. Klein, who is prohibited from buying and selling stocks while he serves in his current post, was overheard saying to the author, ``Wow. Dow 36,000--I hope it'll wait until I get out of office.'' Mr. Glassman reportedly responded that Mr. Klein was already doing his part to keep the Dow down. Mr. President, I am here to report that not even Joel Klein and the Department of Justice can shake the confidence of investors all across this great land who responded to Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact with a mild yawn. Apparently, investors understand that punishing trail blazing companies that have brought dramatic and positive change to consumers never has been, and never should be, the American way. Despite the Government's attempts to turn the public against Microsoft, Microsoft continues to be one of the most respected companies in America. A majority of Americans believe Microsoft is right and the Government is wrong in this current lawsuit. In fact, a Gallup poll conducted over the weekend suggested that 67 percent of Americans still have a positive view of Microsoft despite the efforts of the Federal Government. Judge Jackson made clear early in the case that he shared the administration's desire to punish Microsoft for being too successful. His Findings of Fact do not remotely reflect the phenomenal competition and innovation that is taking place in the high-tech industry every day. Reading the Findings, it is clear that even this judge could not document tangible consumer harm. Judge Jackson's thesis is that Microsoft is a tough competitor and that that toughness must stifle innovation and must harm consumers. But the judge could document no tangible harm * * * and this is why he will be reversed. When you look at the world around us, whether in the workplace, at home, in schools, you see first-hand how 25 years of innovation in the high-tech industry has empowered and enriched people from all walks of life. Every family and every community in America has benefited from the information revolution fueled by Microsoft. Sitting on the desktop in every office, school and hospital is a machine that brings power directly to people. Ten years ago only governments and large institutions had the power that so much information and knowledge brings. Today, because of competition among software and Internet businesses, that power runs to people and to families in cities and towns everywhere. While the trial was going on, the high-tech industry has changed dramatically and reinvented itself a dozen times. Competition is alive and well and consumers are reaping the benefits. Do the following numbers sound like they come from an industry that is stifled by monopolistic practices? In 1990, there were 24,000 software companies. Today there are 57,000. And this growth shows signs of accelerating even further. The high-tech industry accounts for 8.4 percent of America's GNP and one-third of our economic growth. This year, the software industry alone will add almost $20 billion in exports to America's balance of trade. It is particularly amazing that Judge Jackson found that barriers to entry into the market are too high. Apparently Linus Torvalds didn't get that memo. The 21-year-old student at the University of Helsinki recently disseminated into cyberspace the code for a computer operating system he had written. This experiment has evolved into the Linux operating system, which now has over 15 million users and is supported by such industry heavyweights as IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and Sun Microsystems. Also fascinating is the fact that the co-founder of Netscape, Marc Andreessen, created the technology for the Netscape web browser when he was a student at the University of Illinois. Four years later, the company he founded sold for $10 billion. Clearly, anyone with a great new idea can compete in this fast-paced competitive economy. Although Microsoft is at the center of this fantastic growth that has helped the economy and brought incredible technological advances to consumers, its position as a market leader is not secure. It remains true that anyone, from any background, can by hard work and determination, take on the most successful corporation of the 20th century. As the explosive growth of Linux shows, Microsoft, too, must be allowed to compete, or be relegated to the slow lane of the information superhighway. The competitive environment in high-tech has never been stronger. Every day new alliances change the face of the industry. America Online has transformed itself into a web, software, and hardware dynamo by purchasing Netscape, forming an alliance with Sun Microsystems, and investing heavily in Gateway. It is competitors like this who are positioned to ensure that vigorous competition, which is a boon to consumers, will lead the way into the 21st century. Should the Federal Government intervene, our entire economy will suffer. By picking winners and losers, stifling innovation and attempting to regulate through litigation, the Federal Government can do immeasurable harm to an industry it admits it doesn't even understand. Need I remind you that these are the same people who have brought you models of efficiency such as the IRS? Regardless of the exponential growth and vigorous competition in the high-tech industry, Judge Jackson seems convinced that consumers have been harmed by Microsoft. This he believes despite the testimony of the government's own witness, MIT professor Franklin Fisher, who when asked whether consumers have been harmed by Microsoft, responded, ``On balance, I'd think the answer is no.'' Nevertheless, I was stunned when listening to Joel Klein proclaim that the Findings were great news for consumers. When is it good news for consumers to learn that the Federal Government is now running the high-tech industry? When Bill Gates, Scott McNealy (Sun CEO), or the head of a new high-tech start-up want to integrate new products or features into their software they will first have to get clearance from the de facto CEO of high tech, Joel Klein. Speaking of the Associate Attorney General, if you were watching CNN last Friday evening without the volume on, you would have thought from the looks on their faces that Janet Reno and Joel Klein had just won the POWERBALL lottery or been given $10 million dollars by Ed McMahon. Mr. President, I repeat--this decision is not good news for consumers. The findings represent a terrible precedent, not only for Microsoft, but for high-tech companies in Silicon Valley, Austin, TX and the Dulles corridor in Virginia. The message is: if you get big, or too successful--you will be punished. The Department of Justice is keeping an eye on you--be careful or you may be next. The capital of the high- tech world isn't in Silicon Valley or Washington State, it's conveniently located within our Department of Justice on Pennsylvania Avenue. But, Mr. President, I have been a frequent critic of the Department of Justice's attacks against Microsoft and the high tech industry for a long time now. I will continue to ask questions--I will continue to defend the ability of high-tech companies that wish to compete without the threat of government intervention. I will continue to be deeply concerned about how the Department of Justice's action on Friday will jeopardize America's standing as a global leader in the field of technology. The Department of Justice has now invited Microsoft's foreign competitors to use their governments to limit Microsoft's success. Joel Klein has just tilted the balance of power in favor of high tech companies abroad, in effect saying to Microsoft: Slow down and let the rest of the world catch up. But I am sure many of these same questions and concerns will be raised by Microsoft's own employees next week when they host Vice President Gore on the Redmond campus. To conclude, I repeat: This case should be dropped because antitrust laws exist to protect consumers--people who buy goods and services. Antitrust laws were not created to protect Microsoft's competitors, but that is what this Justice Department is doing. It is using the power of the Federal Government to punish Microsoft for being too successful in comparison to its competitors. In the end, I believe, higher Federal courts will throw this case out. The truth and the correct legal analysis will prevail--Microsoft has not harmed consumers and, thus has not violated our antitrust laws.