T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene at 12 noon on Monday, July 12, and will immediately proceed to a period of morning business until 1 p.m. By previous consent, the Patients' Bill of Rights will be the pending business at 1 p.m. Amendments to that legislation are possible. Any votes ordered, however, will not take place until Tuesday, July 13, at a time to be determined by the two leaders. As previously announced by the majority leader, there will be a cloture vote on the pending lockbox amendment to S. 557 on Friday, July 16.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the committee amendment to the preamble be agreed to, and the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 184, S. Res. 109.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 186, S. Con. Res. 36.

Mr. GORTON. 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 any statements relating to this resolution be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 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 now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 196, (S. 1260).

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 136, introduced earlier today by Senators Boxer and Feinstein.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. 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 any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 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. 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 any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am greatly dismayed by and strongly opposed to the amendment introduced by Senator Bingaman that seeks to express the Sense of the Senate that the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should not receive accelerated consideration for membership in NATO. This amendment most assuredly does not reflect the views of this Senator, and I am certain that of many more of my colleagues. I fail to comprehend the purpose in singling-out these independent nations in this manner. It appears to this Senator, after reviewing both the Foreign Appropriations bill and accompanying report, that there is nothing contained in either document that should provoke the offering of this amendment. It is my firm belief that the NATO alliance can benefit from the inclusion of new Central and East European nations, including the three Baltic states. The Baltic peoples have asked for and deserve protection from foreign invasion, and are willing to join the NATO security alliance to protect other European nations in need of help. Future NATO membership for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is essential to their safety and prosperity. Security concerns will take precedence over continued democratic and economic reforms if the Baltics continue to exist, unprotected, in the shadow of an increasingly nationalistic Russia. The United States should and must be vigilant in our efforts to extend NATO's reach to all democratic nations in Europe who cannot protect themselves. If we leave these nations exposed to the risk of foreign invasion and influence, the gains made in expanding democracy and freedom around the world will be vulnerable to erosion. The United States must continue to set an example for the world as a promoter and protector of democratic freedom. As victors in the Cold War, we have never had a greater opportunity than this to show democracy's enemies that we have the courage and the will to stand firm against them. NATO expansion is of vital importance to the future of democracy. The amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico can only have a negative effect on the United States's efforts to expand and protect democratic development in Central and Eastern Europe. To punitively single-out these three nations as they strive to protect their right to independence and freedom, following decades of Soviet domination, is neither constructive, nor in the interests of the United States. It is my sincere hope that this language will not be included in the final Foreign Operations Appropriations bill passed by Congress for Fiscal Year 2000.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just a few short weeks ago, on the anniversary of the filing of the government's antitrust suit against Microsoft, I took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to detail the rapidly changing nature of the information technology industry over that twelve-month period of time. I noted that, just one year ago that day, AOL and Netscape were two large successful companies. A year later, they were a gigantic conglomerate, teamed with Sun and ready to compete in the next frontier of the information technology industry. MCI Communications and WorldCom were two separate companies, as were Excite and @Home. Yahoo hadn't yet bought GeoCities and Broadcast.com. AT&T was a long distance company. A year later, AT&T could have influence over 60% of cable systems in the United States. The stock market had risen dramatically over that year, fueling our unprecedented economic boom. What difference a year makes, I said at that time. Now, last week, we were joined by some of the most brilliant and visionary minds in the world as they testified before the Joint Economic Committee High-Technology Summit. Two of the most brilliant, even among that gathering, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, reinforced the notion of an extraordinarily dynamic industry, and painted a future promising more dramatic change than we have already seen. As the two men who arguably have had more to do with our extended economic expansion than any other in the world--one for his contributions in creating the high-tech boom that has driven the economy, the other for judiciously guiding that economy--we would do well to listen to Mr. Gates and Mr. Greenspan when they offer their thoughts about America's next century. I was struck by the similarity of their views this week as they testified on the future of the information-technology industry, the profound benefits it has bestowed on the U.S. and world economies, and the role government has and should continue to play in sustaining this dynamic and literally world- changing force. To begin with, both Mr. Gates and Chairman Greenspan point to the momentous changes in the way the world operates as a result of this industry's influence. Its innovations are not confined merely to IT products, but to the repercussions of how those products are used. According to Chairman Greenspan, ``innovations in information technology so-called IT have begun to alter the manner in which we do business and create value, often in ways that were not readily foreseeable even five years ago. As this century comes to an end, that defining characteristic of the current wave of technology is the role of information.'' Mr. Gates underscored that sentiment and gave us a glimpse of an even more information-defined vision of the future in which, ``there will be a proliferation of smart, connected devices, from palm-sized digital assistants and tablet personal computers to smart TVS and Web-enabled cell phones. All of your files,'' he told us, ``schedule, address book and everything else you will need will automatically be available on each of these. When you're traveling you'll be able to call up your itinerary, book an appointment or view your stock portfolio using the device you have in hand. It will know the information you need, and when and where you need it. Wherever you are, you'll be able to access your own digital dashboard--your personal portal to your own secure office desktop on any PC.'' Where will this information revolution lead us? If the past five years are any indication of the future, it looks bright, indeed. According to Mr. Gates, ``The continuing rapid growth in the Internet will help power this information revolution, just as the proliferation of new devices will help make the Internet more useful and accessible to everyone. Five years ago. who would have imagined that people would now be shopping for automobiles, home loans, airline tickets or clothing on the Web? Electronic commerce has increased tenfold in the last few years, making it convenient for people to purchase almost anything, anytime, from anywhere. By 2002, nearly 50 million Americans will be shopping online, spending almost half a trillion dollars on the Web. There is endless speculation about which companies will be successful. The big winner will be consumers. They will see better prices, more choice, more opportunities to do the things they want to do.'' Chairman Greenspan agreed with Mr. Gates' sentiment that consumers have been, and will continue to be, the main beneficiaries of the IT revolution. ``Every new innovation,'' he told us, ``has suggested further possibilities to profitably meet increasingly sophisticated consumer demands. Many ventures fail. But the few that prosper enhance consumer choice.'' Both men pointed to the enormous economic benefit that has accrued from the IT industry's success. ``The unexpectedly strong economic growth this country is experiencing can, in large measure,'' noted Mr. Gates, ``be traced to the vibrant, competitive and fast-growing computer technology industry. This sector has created more new jobs than any other part of the economy. In fact, we can predict today that by the year 2000, the software industry's contribution to the U.S. economy will be greater than the contribution of any other manufacturing industry in America, an extraordinary achievement for an industry that is less than 30 years old.'' Chairman Greenspan underscored just how strong that contribution has been already by stating flatly that, ``An economy that twenty years ago seemed to have seen its better days, is displaying a remarkable run of economic growth that appears to have its roots in ongoing advances in technology. Nor, have the benefits been limited to just our country. All else equal, the enhanced competition in tradable goods enables excess capacity previously bottled up in one country to augment worldwide supply and exert restraint on prices in all countries' markets.'' Chairman Greenspan offered a note of caution, though, as it is his job to do, and as he has done so brilliantly to our economic benefit in the last few years. ``The rate of growth of productivity cannot increase indefinitely,'' he warned us, adding, ``experience advises caution.'' We would do well to heed the Chairman's admonition, Mr. President. The IT industry has indeed been a vibrant enterprise, but as Mr. Gates accurately noted, ``the incredible success of this industry in the United States owes a lot to the light hand of government in the technology area, the fact that people can take incredible risks and if they're successful they can have incredible rewards.'' Mr. President, Alan Greenspan and Bill Gates are precisely correct. We must not take for granted the unprecedented success of this industry and the bounty it has conferred upon our country and, indeed, upon the rest of the world. The United States government must refrain from yielding to the temptation to pick winners and losers in the marketplace according to arcane and discredited economic theories that are rooted in ``what if'' wishes rather than ``what is'' actualities. The freedom to innovate and provide quality products that will continue to improve lives is only possible when government does not dictate how young, vibrant, entrepreneurial companies can compete. Again, Chairman Greenspan stated the case lucidly: ``at this stage,'' he told us, ``one lesson seems reasonably clear. As we contemplate the appropriate public policies for an economy experiencing rapid technological advancement, we should strive to maintain the flexibility of our labor and capital markets that has spurred the continuous replacement of capital facilities embodying older technologies with facilities reflecting the newest innovations. Further reducing regulatory impediments to competition, will, of course, add to this process. The newer technologies have widened the potential for economic well-being. Governments should seek to foster that potential.'' Mr. President, I could not agree more. We should be fostering the growth of the dynamic Information Technology industry, not engineering its deterioration into the bureaucratic morass that is government's specialty. Unfortunately, there are some in the Clinton administration who do not share this view. They short-sightedly seek to impose the heavy hand of government on the IT industry to ensure that certain competitors, not consumers, are the ultimate beneficiaries of this economic revolution. Their current project is the break-up of the most dynamic and successful company of the last 25 years--perhaps in U.S. history-- the Microsoft Corporation. As I pointed out those few weeks ago, in the presence of a company exerting real monopoly power, competitors would be stifled, prices would rise, choices would be curtailed, consumers would be harmed. In fact, in the last twelve months the real world for consumers has improved by all of these measures. Competition in the technology industry is alive and well and nipping at the heels of Microsoft. Prices are down, choices are up, innovation is rampant--all great news for consumers. And, as these two luminaries of the current golden economic firmament told us this week, the free-market conditions that will allow this great news to continue must prevail: government must keep its hands off of this industry. I would ask that copies of both Chairman Greenspan's and Mr. Gates' testimony be printed in their entirety in the Congressional Record. I would urge my colleagues to read and study their remarks, and then to join me in pursuing policies that will ensure that the Gates and Greenspan view of a future IT industry be allowed to unfold, unimpeded by government's misdirected and deleterious hectoring. The material follows: Prepared Testimony from Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve--June 14, 1999 Something special has happened to the American economy in recent years. An economy that twenty years ago seemed to have seen its better days, is displaying a remarkable run of economic growth that appears to have its roots in ongoing advances in technology. I have hypothesized on a number of occasions that the synergies that have developed, especially among the microprocessor, the laser, fiber-optics, and satellite technologies, have dramatically raised the potential rates of return on all types of equipment that embody or utilize these newer technologies. But beyond that, innovations in information technology--so called IT--have begun to alter the manner in which we do business and create value, often in ways that were not readily foreseeable even five years ago. As this century comes to an end, the defining characteristic of the current wave of technology is the role of information. Prior to this IT revolution most of twentieth century business decisionmaking had been hampered by limited information. Owing to the paucity of timely knowledge of customers' needs and of the location of inventories and materials flows throughout complex production systems, businesses required substantial programmed redundancies to function effectively. Doubling up on materials and people was essential as backup to the inevitable misjudgments of the real-time state of play in a company. Decisions were made from information that was hours, days, or even weeks old. Accordingly, production planning required costly inventory safety stocks and backup teams of people to maintain quality control and to respond to the unanticipated and the misjudged. Large remnants of information void, of course, still persist, and forecasts of future events on which all business decisions ultimately depend are still unavoidably uncertain. But the recent years' remarkable surge in the availability of real-time information has enabled business management to remove large swaths of inventory safety stocks and worker redundancies, and has armed firms with detailed data to fine-tune product specifications to most individual customer needs. Moreover, information access in real-time--resulting, for example, from such processes as checkout counter bar code scanning and satellite location of trucks--has fostered marked reductions in delivery lead-times on all sorts of goods, from books to capital equipment. This, in turn, has reduced the relative size of the overall capital structure required to turn out our goods and services. Intermediate production and distribution processes, so essential when information and quality control were poor, are being bypassed and eventually eliminated. The increasing ubiquitousness of Internet web sites is promising to significantly alter the way large parts of our distribution system are managed. The process of innovation goes beyond the factory floor or distribution channels. Design times have fallen dramatically as computer modeling has eliminated the need, for example, of the large staff of architectural specification drafters previously required for building projects. Medical diagnoses are more thorough, accurate, and far faster, with access to heretofore unavailable information. Treatment is accordingly hastened, and hours of procedures eliminated. In addition, the dramatic advances in biotechnology are significantly increasing a broad range of productivity-expanding efforts in areas from agriculture to medicine. Economists endeavor to describe the influence of technological change on activity by matching economic output against measurable economic inputs: quality adjusted labor and all forms of capital. They attribute the fact that economic growth has persistently outpaced the contributions to growth from labor and capital inputs to such things as technological innovation and increased efficiencies of organizations that are made possible through newer technologies. For example, since 1995 output per labor workhour in the nonfarm business sector--our standard measure of productivity--has grown at an annual rate of about 2 percent. Approximately one-third of that expansion appears to be attributable to output growth in excess of the combined growth of inputs. Of course, it often takes time before a specific innovation manifests itself as an increase in measured productivity. Although some new technologies can be implemented quickly and have an immediate payoff, others may take years or even decades before achieving their full influence on productivity as new capital is put in place that can take advantage of these creations and their spillovers. Hence, the productivity growth seen in recent years likely represents the benefits of the ongoing diffusion and implementation of a succession of technological advances; likewise, the innovative breakthroughs of today will continue to bear fruit in the future. The evident acceleration of the process of ``creative destruction,'' which has accompanied these expanding innovations and which has been reflected in the shifting of capital from failing technologies into those technologies at the cutting edge, has been remarkable. Owing to advancing information capabilities and the resulting emergence of more accurate price signals and less costly price discovery, market participants have been able to detect and to respond to finely calibrated nuances in consumer demand. The process of capital reallocation has been assisted through a significant unbundling of risks made possible by the development of innovative financial products, not previously available. Every new innovation has suggested further possibilities to profitably meet increasingly sophisticated consumer demands. Many ventures fail. But the few that prosper enhance consumer choice. The newer technologies, as I indicated earlier, have facilitated a dramatic foreshortening of the lead-times on the delivery of capital equipment over the past decade. When lead times for capital equipment are long, firms must undertake capital spending that is adequate to deal with the plausible range of business needs likely to occur after these goods are delivered and installed. In essence, those capital investments must be sufficient to provide insurance against uncertain future demands. As lead times have declined, a consequence of newer technologies, firms' forecasts of future requirements have become somewhat less clouded, and the desired amount of lead-time insurance in the form of a reserve stock of capital has been reduced. In addition to shortening lead-times, technology has increased the flexibility of capital goods and production processes to meet changes in the demand for product characteristics and the composition of output. This flexibility allows firms to deal more effectively with evolving market conditions with less physical capital than had been necessary in the past. Taken together, reductions in the amount of spare capital and increases in capital flexibility result in a saving of resources that, in the aggregate, is reflected in higher levels of productivity. The newer technologies and foreshortened lead-times have, thus, apparently made capital investment distinctly more profitable, enabling firms to substitute capital for labor and other inputs far more productively than they could have a decade or two ago. Capital, as economists like to say, has deepened significantly since 1995. The surge in investment not only has restrained costs, it has also increased industrial capacity faster than the rise in factory output. The resulting slack in product markets has put greater competitive pressure on businesses to hold down prices. Technology is also damping upward price pressures through its effect on international trade, where technological developments and a move to a less constrained world trading order have progressively broken down barriers to cross-border trade. All else equal, the enhanced competition in tradeable goods enables excess capacity previously bottled up in one country to augment worldwide supply and exert restraint on prices in all countries' markets. Because neither business firms nor their competitors can currently count any longer on a general inflationary tendency to validate decisions to raise their own prices, each company feels compelled to concentrate on efforts to hold down costs. The availability of new technology to each company and its rivals affords both the opportunity and the competitive necessity of taking steps to boost productivity. This contrasts with our experiences through the 1970s and 1980s, when firms apparently found it easier and more profitable to seek relief from rising nominal labor costs through price increases than through cost-reducing capital investments. The rate of growth of productivity cannot increase indefinitely. While there appears to be considerable expectation in the business community, and possibly Wall Street, that the productivity acceleration has not yet peaked, experience advises caution. As I have noted in previous testimony, history is strewn with projections of technology that have fallen wide of the mark. With the innumerable potential permutations and combinations of various synergies, forecasting technology has been a daunting exercise. There is little reason to believe that we are going to be any better at this in the future than in the past. Hence, despite the remarkable progress witnessed to date, we have to be quite modest about our ability to project the future of technology and its implications for productivity growth and for the broader economy. A key question that we need to answer in order to appropriately evaluate the connection between technological innovations and productivity growth is why have not the same available technologies allowed productivity in Europe and Japan to catch up to U.S. levels. While productivity in some foreign industrial countries appears to have accelerated in recent years, a significant gap between U.S. productivity and that abroad persists. One hypothesis is that a necessary condition for information technology to increase output per hour is a willingness to discharge or retrain workers that the newer technologies have rendered redundant. Countries with less flexible labor markets than the United States enjoys may have been inhibited in this regard. Another hypothesis is that regulations, systems of corporate governance, trade restrictions, and government subsidies have prevented competition from being sufficiently keen to induce firms in Europe and Japan to take full advantage of the efficiencies offered by the latest advances in information technology and other innovations. Further investigation will be necessary to evaluate the importance of these possible influences. But at this stage, one lesson seems reasonably clear. As we contemplate the appropriate public policies for an economy experiencing rapid technology advancement, we should strive to maintain the flexibility of our labor and capital markets that has spurred the continuous replacement of capital facilities embodying older technologies with facilities reflecting the newest innovations. Further reducing regulatory impediments to competition, will, of course, add to this process. The newer technologies have widened the potential for economic well- being. Governments should seek to foster that potential.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Academic Achievement for All Act. As a parent and grandparent I know that there is no more important issue than our children's education. Education unlocks the door to a lifetime of learning; prepares us to participate in our democracy; helps our children lead productive, independent lives and ensures that our country is economically competitive. Education is a vital issue before the Senate as we consider the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--the heart of Washington D.C.'s role in K-12 education. Over the last several years I have talked with countless teachers, principals, parents, and school board members about our educational system. I consistently hear that Washington, D.C. interferes with local efforts to help students achieve high standards. I hear about bureaucratic hurdles, reams of paperwork and one-size-fits-all programs. Based on that input, Congressman Goodling and I have written a bill that will refocus federal education programs on children and learning instead of process and paperwork. It is based on a fundamental trust that parents, teachers, local educators and states will make the best decisions regarding our children's education, rather than bureaucrats 3,000 miles away in Washington, DC. Its only common sense. For too long Washington's programs have been driven by an obsession to comply with rules and regulations. In our state, 50 percent of all the paperwork an educator deals with is the result of federal programs. Yet the average school district receives only six percent of its budget from the federal government. On a nationwide basis, federal paperwork eats up 48 million people hours per year. That's 25,000 employees working full time on paper, not on helping our students learn. Is our educators' time spent filling out forms or teaching children how to read? Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett put it succinctly in a recent statement: ``. . . our students have fallen further and further behind students in other countries. American 12th graders now rank 19th out of 21 nation in mathematics achievement; 16th of 21 in science; 15th out of 16 in advanced math; and 16th out of 16 nations in advanced physics. And this competition does not include Singapore, Korea, Japan and Hong Kong--which is rather like finishing last in a professional hockey league that does not include Canadians.'' The good news is that we have before us an opportunity to restructure the way the federal government interacts with states and local communities in terms of education policy. We must not continue to support a system that has stifled creativity in states and local communities--the very place real education reform happens. While freedom and flexibility are important, our schools should also be accountable for results--not to Washington, DC but to the standards each state and community has been working on to ensure its students are prepared for the 21st Century. We can't forget that our schools are ultimately accountable to the voters in each community who elect the local school boards and the parents who send their children to our schools. My proposal, the Straight A's Act, will give parents, educators, school districts and states more decision-making authority over the way in which federal education funding is used. It means our children's teachers will spend less time filling out paperwork and more time in classrooms. And, equally important, it means that more federal education dollars will find their way into our children's schools, where they belong. Right now, as little as 65 cents of every dollar the nation's taxpayers invest in education makes it into the classroom. Straight A's relies on a simple formula: Freedom+Accountability=Results. States would have the option of submitting a proposal to the Secretary of Education that would set specific, measurable performance goals to be reached in five years. States would be allowed maximum flexibility with the use of most of their Federal K-12 formula program funds for state education priorities and programs in exchange for being held accountable for meeting the goals set in their proposal. This would allow States the freedom to address more effectively the needs of students in their state. Alternatively, states would be free to continue to administer Federal education programs the old way. Straight A's does not eliminate any program--it's the state's choice to chose its approach. What this means for states and school districts is that they can use federal funds for any initiative that improves performance of students in their state. Those states that choose to participate can focus more funds on disadvantaged students, increase efforts to improve teacher quality, reduce class size or even hook up all their classes to the Internet. The one string is that these efforts must increase the achievement of all students--including the lowest performing students-- over the course of five years. If states do not substantially meet those goals, they would lose their flexibility and revert to the categorical, regulated approach under current law. If states do well and significantly reduce achievement gaps between high and low performing students, they may be rewarded with additional funds. Finally, it should also be noted that participating states and school districts would not lose any Title I funding. If Title I, Part A is included by a state, each school district in that state would be assured of receiving at least as much money as they received in the fiscal year preceding the year of the agreements enactment. This proposal will allow educators to do what they do best--teach kids. We should focus on students learning and achieving, not process and paperwork. My colleagues should also know that I did not develop this concept in a vacuum. As I mentioned earlier over the course of the past few years I have heard from literally hundreds of parents and educators about the challenges they face trying to provide the best possible education for their children. In particular, during the last congressional recess period I traveled to several schools around Washington state and had a chance to talk to many educators about my legislation. They've since responded with enthusiastic support for my proposal--I'd like to share some of their comments with you now: We need more control at the local level not more rules and regulations from the federal government.--Dennis Birr, President of the Association of Washington School Principals. Senator Gorton's Straight A's proposal is well-conceived with great flexibility for states and districts. It would help to focus federal resources where they are most needed.-- Janet Barry, Issaquah Superintendent and 1996 National Superintendent of the Year. I believe that the choice is very clear. Would I trade the present government restrictions and stifling paperwork for flexibility and higher accountability? The answer is absolutely yes!--Dr. Richard Semler, Superintendent of the Richland School District. The Straight A's Act would release a tremendous amount of badly needed education dollars and give school districts the flexibility they desperately need.--State Senator Don Benton (R-17th) and State Representative Marc Boldt (R-17th). I believe so strongly in the fundamental principal that local people make the best decisions about our children's education that each week I've come to the Senate floor to recognize individuals, schools, and educational programs in Washington state that demonstrate innovation and excellence in education. My first award went to the Tukwila School District which had its ethnic diversity grow by more than 1,000 percent in the last seven years. I had the opportunity to visit this district earlier this year, and I found that 20% of the district's students are enrolled in bilingual education, and all told, they speak about 30 different languages. To meet the challenge of integrating this immigrant population into the school system and the community, the Tukwila School District, the City of Tukwila, and the local Rotary Club created ``New Friends & Families''--a program designed to engage these hard-to-reach immigrant and refugee students and their families to make them aware of community services and to encourage parental involvement in their children's education. It is programs like ``New Friends & Families'' that illustrate the local innovation and local partnerships working to ensure all of their students achieve. I also had the pleasure over this last break to stop by Chris Luther's 3rd grade class at Beachwood Elementary School. This class did not miss a spelling word on their weekly spelling tests for the entire school year. This is a classroom of average kids, all with different backgrounds and abilities. Yet, Mr. Luther has found a way to encourage and tutor these students so they are all accomplishing equally praiseworthy work. The key has not been some magical formula rather, the success of these students comes from a concerted effort by Mr. Luther to boost their self-esteem, to enhance their memory skills, and to impress upon every child in the classroom that learning is important. Those strategies combined with the individual effort of each of his students has clearly paid off. Those students may not remember how to spell each of the words they learned this year, but they will remember their third grade teacher for the rest of their lives. Then there's Karen Mikolasy, Washington state's teacher of the year, who has taught for 28 years at Shorecrest High School with passion for her students and for her work. She emphasizes consistency and standards. In Mrs. Mikolasy's class homework is handed in on time and papers are rewritten until each student earns at least a B. That consistency in expectations also carries over to consistent positive reinforcement to her students--she tells them daily that it is a privilege to be their teacher. She says that in 28 years, not one day has gone by which she hasn't wanted to be in the classroom with her students. She was also recently recognized as the Washington State Teacher of the Year. In the few minutes I met with her, I understood why she won this honor. Her passion and commitment to educating and inspiring young people was clear. I hope these examples clearly illustrate why it is important that we return to our states and local communities the right to set priorities that reflect the unique needs of their students and allow more districts to have the ability to innovate like the Tukwila School District, and more teachers to spend more time with their students and hopefully emulate the examples set by Chris Luther and Karen Mikolasy. In each of the last two years the Senate has voted to send more money to our classrooms, but the President has threatened a veto. I will try again this year. I'm going to keep fighting for a shift from programs focused on procedures and paperwork to a system that puts student learning and academic achievement first--a system that lets those closest to our children--their parents, teachers, and principals and school board members decide what's best for our children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Durbin.

Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I further ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate begin consideration of S. 1233, the agricultural appropriations bill.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, June 21. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period for morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Voinovich, 30 minutes; Senator Durbin, or his designee, 30 minutes; Senator Roberts, 15 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 105, which is at the desk.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, 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, for the information of all Senators, on Monday, the Senate will convene at 12 noon and be in a period for morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will immediately proceed to the agriculture appropriations bill, with amendments expected to be offered. Also, amendments to the State Department authorization bill could be debated on Monday in an attempt to complete action on that legislation. Therefore, Senators can expect multiple votes on Monday at 5:30 p.m. on amendments to the agriculture appropriations bill and/or the State Department authorization bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 125, submitted earlier today by Senators Lieberman, Gregg, and others.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, earlier this week the Senate passed a bill that tries to bring some reason to the legal chaos that could result from Y2K failures and Wednesday evening the Senate appointed conferees to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills. I rise today to commend the Senate for doing this, and to read from an excellent memorandum underscoring the need for a quick resolution and final passage of a conference report. A memorandum prepared by the Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the ``I triple E,'' provides the best analyses and explanations I have seen of the complexity of Y2K litigation; of why the argument we heard during floor debate that the bill is designed to protect ``bad actors'' and that it fails to provide sufficient incentives for remediation is generally hollow; and of why it is so important that we do what we can to minimize the economically paralyzing effects of a predictable and utterly overwhelming legal snarl. The memorandum, sent to various members of Congress, is particularly compelling because its authors do not represent businesses that may be sued, but are members of an international non-profit association of engineers and computer scientists. The memorandum is so good that rather than simply have it printed in the Record, I will read it: TAB Year 2000 Technical, Information Focus Group, Piscataway, NJ, June 9, 1999. To: Members, Senate Commerce, Science And Transportation Committee; Members, Special Senate Committee On The Year 2000 Technology Problem; Members, House of Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Technology; Members, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management Information, and Technology; Sponsors, House Bill ``Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act of 1999,'' H.R. 775. Re: Year 2000 Liability Legislation. From: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Technical Activities Board, Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group. Dear Honorable Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen: As leaders of the Y2K effort of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the oldest and largest international non-profit association of engineers and computer scientists in the world, we would like to offer some thoughts on the pending legislation involving Y2K liability obtained from our years of work and collective wisdom spent studying Y2K. The IEEE has drafted an Institute position on Y2K Legal Liability regarding United States federal law, to which our committee greatly contributed. We offer these additional thoughts in hopes that they may further assist your understanding as you attempt to reconcile two very valid but conflicting underlying public policy goals in structuring and passing the Year 2000 Liability Legislation currently under consideration. Minimize Damage to the Economy and Quality of Life: minimize the overall damage to the nation's economy and quality of life by reducing the need of organizations to redirect their limited resources away from the task of maintaining their operations in the face of Y2K in order to defend themselves from lawsuits arising from alleged Y2K failures. Maximize Incentive for Y2K Failure Prevention: maximize the incentive of every organization to prevent Y2K failures as well as preserve the legal rights and remedies available for those seeking legitimate redress for wrongs they may suffer resulting from Y2K failures. In addressing public policy issues we have no more expertise than the literate public. However, we do possess expertise in the technical issues underlying the situation that should be considered as you weigh the conflicting public policy goals in formulating appropriate Year 2000 Liability Legislation. In particular, for your consideration we offer the following points pertaining to the technical realities of