T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is correct. He has explained his amendment with great clarity. It may or may not be seriously contested. We simply are not going to know that until early next week, so I thank him for his graciousness in waiting for a final decision until then. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 1999.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday June 10, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``ESEA: Special Populations'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations be permitted to meet on Thursday, June 10, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing on the topic of ``Home Health Care: Will the New Payment System & Regulatory Overkill Hurt Our Seniors?''

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday June 10, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for a hearing re The Competitive Implications of the Proposed Goodrich/Coltec Merger, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 2:00 p.m., in SD226.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with consent across the aisle, I believe, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour equally divided on the Kerry amendment No. 610, followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment, with no amendments to the amendment being in order prior to the vote, but that the vote will take place at a time to be determined by the managers.

Mr. GORTON. I will withdraw the request for the moment.

Mr. GORTON. It provides for 1 hour equally divided, with no more amendments while that hour is going on, and that the time for the vote will be determined by the managers of the bill.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour equally divided on the Kerry amendment No. 610, followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the vote, with the vote to take place at a time to be determined by the managers.

Mr. GORTON. This letter was signed by companies or groups too numerous for me either to name or to count. They explicitly state support of the Year 2000 Coalition for S. 96 in the form in which it finds itself now, explicitly opposing the Kerry amendment to that bill. Personally, I think that letter deserves great weight and our most solemn consideration without regard to any of the details of the debate on the differences between S. 96 with its bipartisan amendment and the Kerry amendment. When one goes into the details of those differences, the justification for this letter becomes even more apparent. My long-time friend and distinguished rival in this matter, the Senator from South Carolina, and I have differed on a substantial number of legal concepts that go far beyond Y2K legislation. He knows, as does the distinguished occupant of the Chair, that my own personal preference--and I suspect the preference of the Year 2000 Coalition-- would be to abolish the concept of joint liability in its entirety. The concept of joint liability is one pursuant to which a person, a group, a defendant, only partially or even marginally responsible for a given legal wrong, nonetheless can be held responsible for all of the damages caused by all of the defendants against whom a judgment is entered. On its surface and beneath its surface, such a concept is extraordinarily difficult to justify. In the case of potential Y2K litigation, it is even more difficult to justify, as in any typical Y2K lawsuit there may well be dozens of defendants--the manufacturers of all of the elements of what can be an extremely complicated software and hardware production, its distributors, both wholesale and retail, and perhaps many others. The risks to companies, whether sophisticated or unsophisticated in the nuances of the law, the panic created in them, the disruption of their priorities, both in the development of new technology and dealing with potential Y2K litigation, is impossible to overestimate. At first, this bill, or any bill that has seriously been considered here on subjects like this, abolishes in its entirety the concept of joint liability. Even though I prefer the original S. 96 to this proposal, it is a matter that has been worked out very carefully by a group of Republicans and Democrats--one of the most important of whom is the Senator from Connecticut who is present on the floor--to be a result that has broad support not only in this Chamber but around the country as a whole. Just as the Senator from Connecticut and many of his colleagues have compromised on some elements they wish like to have in the bill, so have we on our side, and we have with respect to joint liability. There are some very real limits on it and S. 96, as it appears before the Senate now, and there are a few in the Kerry substitute, but they are largely illusionary. A second field in which there are differences in this bill has to do with punitive damages. How anyone even in this isolated Chamber could come up with a proposition that software companies, members of this Year 2000 Coalition, are so indifferent to the problems of Y2K that somehow or another they deserve to be punished--not in a criminal court but by the potential loss of unlimited punitive damages--is difficult for me to imagine. It is clear by the vehement opposition to limits on punitive damages that there are those in the legal profession who at least hope for the bonanza of huge punitive damage awards, however difficult it is to imagine the justification for such awards as we debate this matter. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they hope they can force settlements, even on the part of companies they believe have not been negligent at all, because of the threat, the mere possibility of a very large punitive damage award. I represent one of the handful of States in the United States of America that does not permit punitive damages in civil litigation, that believes that punishment should be a part of the criminal law and not the civil law. I have not noticed, in a long career, that justice is unavailable to plaintiffs in the courts of the State of Washington on that account. I believe we would have a more responsible legal system, a more fair and more just legal system, if the concept of punitive damages in civil litigation was abolished across the country. It is not going to be. It was not even in the product liability legislation of which I have been a sponsor in the past. It was not in the original form of this bill, and it is not in the form that appears before us now. But there are some distinct limitations on punitive damages for relatively small companies, companies that could obviously be bankrupted by punitive damage awards--a bankruptcy that, I submit, in almost every case would not benefit the economy or the people of the United States. Yet, for all practical purposes, even those minor limitations are removed from this bill in the Kerry amendment. Finally, the Kerry amendment allows for the single form of litigation that may most disturb the members of the Year 2000 Coalition, class actions on the part of consumers, actions in which almost invariably the plaintiffs are nominal plaintiffs, actions in which many of the plaintiffs often do not even know they are plaintiffs, actions that very frequently have been far more on behalf of the lawyers who bring them than on the nominal class of plaintiffs themselves. To allow such actions seems to me to be a serious mistake and seriously to undermine the entire goal of Y2K relief. In summary, I do not think S. 896, as modified, is a terribly strong bill. I think it provides a degree of appropriate relief to a fundamentally vital element of the American economy and the advancement of our own standard of living in a fashion which is important to that industry and in a fashion that is beneficial to that industry. But I do not think it goes far enough. Others think it goes too far. I do believe, however, we have now reached a conclusion that will be supported by a significant majority of the Members of the Senate, members of both parties. I can no longer say, with the changes that have been made in it, that the Kerry amendment is useless, that it provides no relief at all. It does include in it some constructive elements, some which may be appropriate for consideration during a conference subcommittee meeting between the House and the Senate as we put this bill in final form. But in comparison with the base bill before us, it does not provide appropriate relief. It does not meet the minimum needs of the year 2000 Coalition. It does not meet the minimum needs of a standard of reasonable justice with respect to a single problem that will go away shortly after the beginning of the new millennium in a piece of legislation that will not become a part of the permanent law of the United States, because it will not be needed. So, I return to the remarks with which I began. The members of this coalition, the signatories to this letter, have done an extraordinary service, not only to themselves, not only to the American people and the American economy, but to the entire world and to the task of building bridges among people in the entire world. They have asked for help for a single specific problem that faces them and that faces us and will for a few short months and for a relatively short period of time thereafter. They deserve that relief. They deserve it as promptly as we can possibly pass it. And they deserve it with our enthusiastic support.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as one of the original cosponsors of both S. 96 and the bipartisan amendment that now constitutes the base bill before the Senate, I am, of course, strongly in support of that proposal and opposed to the Kerry amendment, even including all of the changes, almost all of which are constructive, that have been added to it during the course of its development. But in reflecting on both my support of the base bill and my opposition to the Kerry amendment, I wish to reflect on the fact that most, though not all, of the major actors in this bill have been Members of the Senate for a decade or so. Each of them can remember that it is a decade or less ago that one of the constant refrains on the floor of the Senate--and for that matter, throughout our society-- was our deep concern about American competitiveness. Volumes of the Congressional Record are filled with speeches about the fact we were losing ground to many of our competitors, most particularly the Japanese, because of their work ethic, because of their educational system, or for a half dozen other reasons. Probably the last such speech was made on the floor of this Senate more than half a decade ago. It is obvious that the United States, whatever its problems then, has had a magnificent recovery and dominates the economic and technical world by as great a margin as it ever has had during the course of the 20th century. While all kinds of American geniuses are responsible for this change, I think it is safe to say that the extraordinary, imaginative, entrepreneurial work of the men and women whose companies make up the Year 2000 Coalition supporting this legislation have the greatest responsibility and deserve the greatest amount of credit for changes in the nature of our economy and of our society and the way in which we live, the way in which we communicate with one another and the way in which we preserve and enhance knowledge. These factors have changed as much in this last decade as in the previous century. It is, therefore, the very people and the very companies that have done more to enhance the quality of life in the United States and the quality of life around the world who have done more to break down barriers between people and regions and nations. It is these people who seek the modest relief proposed in this bill, these people who are so responsible for our economic success. I have been handed a letter to the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts from the Year 2000 Coalition. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman, Mr. Warner, for including an amendment that directs a demonstration project for TRICARE Designated Providers to enroll new military beneficiaries on a 12-month continuous basis. This is a compromise amendment sponsored by Senator Snowe, which I have agreed to cosponsor. I personally would have preferred a straight- forward amendment that would have permitted beneficiaries the same opportunities to enroll in the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan provided by Designated Providers as is currently available for TRICARE Prime. For the sake of providing fairness to the beneficiaries and affording more health care choices, beneficiaries should be able to enroll at a Designated Provider at anytime during the year. I note that eleven groups representing military retirees recently wrote the Chairman in support of this proposal for open continuous enrollment for the Designated Providers. My preferred amendment, however, was not acceptable to the Committee. However, I am pleased that a compromise advanced by my colleague from Maine was agreeable, which directs a two-year demonstration of continuous open enrollment for the Designated Providers. I urge the Department of Defense to faithfully carry out this demonstration by including as many of the TRICARE Designated Providers in the demonstration as possible. The agreed-to amendment does not restrict the size of the demonstration. Since the seven Designated Providers run the same Uniformed Services Family Health Program, I believe it makes sense to include all of them in the demonstration. At a minimum, I urge the Department to include the PacMed Clinics in my state in this demonstration. The PacMed Clinics pioneered managed health care for military beneficiaries and have provided quality care to military families for a generation. Beneficiaries should have the opportunity to enroll at PacMed during any time of the year, just like TRICARE Prime. Accordingly, the demonstration mandated by this amendment should include the PacMed clinics and as many of the other Designated Provider as possible.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge the passing of an eminent teacher, scientist and academic administrator in my state. On Tuesday, May 18, Jim Bethel, Dean Emeritus of the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources, died in a Seattle hospital. Dean Bethel was one of the Nation's most prominent and influential forestry leaders and was recognized both nationally and internationally. During his 17-year tenure as Dean from 1964 to 1981, he was a principal architect of creative educational innovations and related research programs that have endured in one way or another to this day. Furthermore, his extensive experience and leadership in international forestry affairs has contributed greatly to the College's involvement in international academic and research activities. As an administrator, Dean Bethel set an undeniably high standard for his successors, faculty and administrators to emulate. Dean Bethel was responsible for initiating the College's pulp and paper program and the Center for Quantitative Science. Under his leadership, the College was repeatedly ranked among the top five forestry institutions in the U.S. Incidentally, while Dean, Bethel never gave up teaching two undergraduate courses, conducting personal research and advising graduate students. Bethel received a BS degree from the University of Washington and advanced degrees at Duke University. In fact, he was one of the first individuals to be granted a Doctor of Forestry. Bethel held faculty appointments at Pennsylvania State University and Virginia Polytechnic University. During a 10-year stint at North Carolina State University, he was Professor and the Director of the Wood Products Laboratory and acting Dean of the Graduate School. He worked at the National Science Foundation for three years prior to becoming the Associate Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Washington. He also served as Professor and subsequently the Dean of the College of Forest Resources. Several organizations recognized Bethel's scientific contribution: he was elected fellow of the Society of American Foresters, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the International Academy of Wood Sciences. He served on various boards and was a consultant to the National Academy of Sciences. Bethel also served on the President's Council on Environmental Quality. He was one of the founders of the Forest Products Research Society. Bethel has significantly influenced the lives of many professional foresters. Perhaps his greatest and most enduring professional legacy are his graduate students who went on to responsible and successful positions, and the impressive list of professional journal articles and books. Dean Bethel will be missed by those concerned about the scientific stewardship of forest resources in my State and the world.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, are we in morning business, and are there time limits?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what a difference a year makes. One year ago last week, the United States Government filed a Sherman Antitrust lawsuit against the Microsoft Corporation. This anniversary is a good time to review that lawsuit and to see how radically the universe of competition has changed in just twelve months. I am not at all unbiased. I believe that the Government was dead wrong in bringing this lawsuit. I believe that the lawsuit is bad for consumers, bad for technological innovation, and bad for a marvelous company that is headquartered in my State. But even an independent analysis would conclude that the case that the Clinton administration brought twelve months ago bears little resemblance to the case it now argues. Since then the Government's case hasn't been tried in the courthouse as much as on the courthouse steps, bypassing the law and aimed directly at public opinion through a national media that delights in highlighting any Microsoft misstep even though it has no relation to any harm to consumers. The administration pursues this case for ideological reasons. This administration is filled with people who are offended by anyone or any company that is too successful. They believe that it is fundamentally unfair that Microsoft does so well. Much of the national media seems to share this view. The administration has, however, miscalculated the views of a majority of Americans. Despite the Government's attempts to turn the public against Microsoft, it continues to be one of the most respected companies in America, and a majority of Americans believe Microsoft is right and the Government is wrong in this current lawsuit. In a recent poll conducted by Citizens for a Sound Economy, 82% of those polled responded that Microsoft is good for American consumers. This survey also found that seven-out-of-ten American consumers feel that technology companies, not the Federal Government, should determine what features and applications are included in the software that consumers use with their computers. Most Americans understand the value that Microsoft has brought. Microsoft products make nearly every business in America more competitive. The technology revolution fueled by Microsoft has made Americans secure in their jobs and made more families secure in their future. Microsoft has also helped usher in the most important change occurring on earth: today the power of information has been taken from a few large centralized institutions and put directly into the hands of people in every town and village across our globe via the Internet. The explosive growth of the Internet will eventually have a fundamental impact on every aspect of American life. A recent Newsweek article describes what it calls the ``New Digital Galaxy'' which allows consumers to operate devices from coffee-makers to dishwashers via Internet access. This will introduce a vastly different landscape in high-technology than exists today. Users will not necessarily use stationary Personal Computers to access information, but instead rely on Web phones, palmtop computers and similar technology that is advancing at an exponential rate. The Internet has had the fastest adoption rate of any new medium in history. Over 50 million users were connected in the first five years. To reach the 50 million user milestone, it took 38 years for radio, 13 years for television, and 10 years for cable. On top of this initial growth, the number of users continues to increase by an astounding 37% per year. It is projected that 200 million people worldwide will be connected to the web in 1999, and half a billion by 2003. To handle the volume, the backbone of the Internet now doubles in capacity every 100 days. Not only is the number of users increasing exponentially, but the amount of information available to them is also growing at an unprecedented level. The International Data Corporation estimates the number of web pages on the World Wide Web at 829 million at the end of 1998, and projects that the number grow by 75 percent to 1.45 billion by the end of 1999. By 2002, according to IDC, there will be 7.7 billion web pages. What does this mean to the future of global commerce? Considering that 18 million consumers made purchases on the Internet in 1997, and that number is projected to increase to 128 million by 2002, the possibilities are limitless. In real dollars, this translates into $200 billion in Net-based commerce by 2000, and $1 trillion by 2003. We can't begin today fully to understand the scope of freedom for people that this information revolution will bring. And all the while Microsoft and its competitors continue to bring better products at lower prices to all consumers. While this case has been in the court, we have heard almost no discussion about whether the dramatic changes of the last year have rendered this case moot. I believe they do, and here's why. 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--all great news for consumers. Prices are down, choices are up, innovation is rampant. The U.S. software industry is growing at a rate more than double that of the rest of the economy. The number of U.S. software companies has grown from 24,000 in 1990 to an estimated 57,000 in 1999. The number of U.S. software industry employees has grown from 290,000 in 1990 to an estimated 860,000 in 1999, with an average rate of growth of 80,000 per year from 1996 to 1999. Do these growth figures sound like they come from an industry that is dominated by a Monopoly player? Mr. President, the bottom line is that the industry is thriving. It shows that we do not need the government picking winners and losers. While the nature of the government's case has been forced to change in the last year, the administration seems determined to punish this successful company and to use the power of the government to reward Microsoft's competitors. These are the very competitors whose alliances have radically changed the competitive landscape of the Information Technology industry in just the last few months. When the case began, AOL and Netscape were two large successful companies. Today they're gigantic, teamed with Sun and ready to compete in the next frontier of the Information Technology industry--the Internet. When the case began, MCI Communications and WorldCom were two separate companies, as were Excite and @Home. Yahoo hadn't yet bought GeoCities and Broadcast.com. When the case began AT&T was a long distance company. Today, AT&T could influence more than 60% of cable systems in the United States. Microsoft has continued to excel, in spite of simultaneously fighting off the government and its competitors. But, far from being stifled, Microsoft's competitors and potential competitors also have increased their market value by dizzying percentages over the last year: AOL--up 555 percent; Amazon--up 838 percent; Sun Microsystems--up 209 percent; IBM--up 91 percent; and Yahoo--up 455 percent. Microsoft is up 83 percent. To me that's good news, and I hope it happens again this year. But that success leads me to wonder: if these competitors are so injured by Microsoft, why is the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 20% and the more technologically driven NASDAQ up a more startling 40% since the trial began? A May 7 article in the Washington Post outlines the previously undisclosed lobbying activity on the part of a multi-billion dollar coalition of Microsoft competitors, consisting of Netscape and AOL, as well as ProComp, Sun and Oracle, who collectively have outspent the Redmond-based software firm by almost $4 million. The Post story made clear that Microsoft has been scrambling just to catch-up. Economist Milton Friedman recently warned about the possible impacts of the suit on the high-technology industry as a whole. He pointed out the obvious flaw in the competitors' strategy, which is involving government regulators. Mr. Friedman states, ``Silicon Valley is suicidal in calling government in to mediate in disputes among some of the big companies in the area and Microsoft . . . once you get the government involved, it's difficult to get it out.'' I couldn't agree more. Mr. President, with the Sherman antitrust action by the government against Microsoft entering its second year, the only question that remains is why this lawsuit continues. I urge my colleagues to join me in seeking an answer to that question.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, over the weekend Vice President Gore outlined his vision for American education if he becomes President. The speech was billed by the Washington Post as the Vice President's ``vision for American education in the 21st Century''. Unfortunately for our children, the Vice President's vision for American education in the 21st century looks a lot like the failed policies of the last 35 years. The VP's speech laid out seven new proposals for American education-- seven proposals that all say Al Gore knows more about educating children than do parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members all across America. Seven proposals to add to the hundreds upon hundreds of education programs run by the federal government, so many in fact that no one, not the Department of Education, the General Accounting Office or even the Vice President, is sure how many there are. Seven proposals that will add to a system of top down control of education that puts a higher priority on adults filling out forms correctly than on children passing a math or a spelling test. Today, President Clinton unveiled his proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Unfortunately, the President's proposal is filled with more of the ``D.C. knows best'' programs he has touted for the past 6\1/2\ years. For example, the President's proposal for reducing class size is filled with requirements for states and districts to comply with, but does not address the issue of children learning. For most of this half century Washington, D.C., has been dominated by people who believe that centralized decisions and centralized control exercised by Washington, D.C., is the best way to solve problems, including those in the classroom. This approach has not worked. As Washington, D.C., has taken power and authority from local school districts, our schools have not improved. But, old habits die hard. The belief in centralized power is still very much alive, and embodied by the President's and Vice President's proposals. I don't believe Al Gore or Bill Clinton know more about what America's schools and communities need than they do. In fact, I don't believe that I or any other member of Congress or the Administration knows more about educating children than do parents or local educators. Unfortunately, Al Gore and Bill Clinton have indicated that they will continue on the path they've trod throughout their administration--a path that begins and ends in Washington, D.C. In 1997 I first proposed an amendment to the fiscal year Education funding bill. It was stated clearly in that amendment that I believe that those closest to our children--their parents, teachers, superintendents and school board members--are best able to make decisions about their children's education. Last year, I refined that legislation to include a ``triple option'' that would allow a state to decide where the federal education dollars should go. Both proposals passed this body by slim margins and were immediately met with a veto threat by the Administration. This year, I have worked with a bipartisan coalition of members and groups to devise legislation that will allow states maximum flexibility in return for increased accountability for the academic achievement of their students. My bill, the Academic Achievement for All Act, or Straight A's, will be introduced after the Memorial Day recess. I am hopeful that this time my colleagues in the Senate will join me in giving back to states and local communities the ability to make critical decisions about the education of their children. This issue boils down to each Senator asking if he or she believes schools will be improved through more control from Washington, D.C., or by giving more control to parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members? I believe our best hope for improving the education of our children is to put the American people in charge of their local schools.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Today, I would like to recognize Melissa York, a teacher from Tyee High School in Seatac. She has won Washington State's 1999 James Madison Memorial Foundation Fellowship which will pay for her graduate school program. James Madison was perhaps the hardest working and most widely respected man of his day. Commonly hailed as the Father of our Constitution, Madison had more to do with its conception than any other man. He was the driving force in organizing the convention and in establishing the tone and ironing out each obstacle that threatened the success of the Constitution. Because of Madison's tremendous contributions to the creation of the Constitution, Congress decided to establish the Memorial Foundation Fellowship to recognize Americans who teach American history and the Constitution to our young people. Each day Melissa teaches eleventh and twelfth graders about the Constitution and how it is used in everyday life and how it is reflected in our society. The future of our country depends on today's students and on their knowledge and comprehension of our Constitution and government. She not only gives her students greater understanding of our country, but she also inspires her students to achieve more through her example. By continuing her own education, Melissa is showing her students that the educational process should never end. I applaud Melissa for her hard work and dedication to her profession and for her commitment to her students and to learning.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senate bill 254 does not, in my opinion, warrant passage. I will vote against the bill because it is fundamentally fraudulent. First, it wrongly assumes that Washington, DC has the answers to juvenile crime and the right to impose its will over that of state and local communities. Second, it is fraudulent because it promises billions of dollars for new programs that will not be implemented because the money is simply not available. To hold out the false hope that the federal government can, through the passage of yet another law, offer an easy solution detracts from the important, and admittedly difficult, work that must continue in our homes, schools and communities. As difficult as it may be for many of my colleagues to accept, the cure for the violence and disrespect for life that is prevalent in our society, particularly in our younger generations, will not be found in this body by passing another federal law. I wish it were that easy. The cure will be found after a great deal of soul-searching by our nation at all levels. Parents must re-engage in their children's lives. Schools must work harder to spot the warning signs displayed by our troubled youth and take action before tragedy occurs. And those who market gratuitous violence--whether it be through television, movies, video games or the Internet--must consider the responsibility they have to society, as well as to their bottom line. Most decisions should be made in our communities, not in the Congress. States should be allowed to experiment with a wide range of programs, not told what to do by Washington D.C. I recognize some positive elements in this bill. The relaxation, for example, of the strict sight and sound separation requirements between juvenile and adult prisoners is a common sense change consistent with the views expressed by law enforcement officials in my state. Although I support the Ashcroft Amendment that gives local educators the flexibility to treat equally all students who bring guns to schools, the law it amends is fundamentally flawed and requires more thorough debate. I intend to have this debate later this year. The positive elements in S. 254, however, are outweighed by the negative: the bill usurps state, local, and private sector authority, both in spirit and in practice. For example, although S. 254 makes federal juvenile adjudication and conviction records available to schools in certain circumstances, thus permitting school officials knowledge of the conceivable monstrous acts of a prospective student, it then prohibits all schools, once privy to that information, from using it in admissions decisions. The bill makes promises we cannot keep and creates expectations we cannot meet. S. 254 authorizes prodigious amounts of federal funds for numerous programs, and the promise of these monies has led to considerable fighting over their allocation, particularly over earmarking funds for crime prevention programs. While the debate between prevention and punishment is an important one, it is, unfortunately, also hollow in this case: it is extremely unlikely that many of the programs authorized in S. 254 will be funded at anywhere near the levels authorized, if at all. Much to my dismay and those of other appropriators, it is unclear whether we will be able this year to meet current commitments to juvenile justice and law enforcement. In the budget he sent to Congress, the President eliminated numerous federal grant programs and gutted others. The Byrne Grants that have been put to such good use in Washington state to, among other things establish multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, were reduced by more than 20% in the President's budget. Local law enforcement block grants, for which $523 million was appropriated in 1999, and which are used for a range of law enforcement needs, from putting more officers on the streets to improving law enforcement communications systems, were eliminated entirely. Grants to states for prison construction, a $720 million program in 1999, was reduced to $75 million in the President's FY2000 budget. Put another way: our first priority ought to be funding our current crime prevention programs, rather than adding a passel of new ones we frankly cannot afford. Regrettably, many of the philosophical and practical concerns I have with this legislation simply were not addressed during the many long days it has been on the floor because we have spent so much time debating gun amendments. I firmly believe in common sense gun safety procedures as long as they do not infringe on the Second Amendment freedoms of law abiding adults. Several times this week I voted for amendments that would help to promote gun safety or keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and just as often I voted against amendments that infringed on second amendment rights that would not effectively do this. Never, however, did I vote on an amendment that I thought would have prevented the recent tragedies in Georgia and Colorado. And so, with regret, I cannot join my colleagues in misleading the American people in promising that through this, or any other, bill, we will make their communities and schools safe again.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am authorized to yield myself 5 minutes off of the time of Senator Stevens. Eleven billion dollars in this bill are earmarked to pay for the costs of the war in the Balkans and its consequences, direct and indirect. That war was begun in folly and has been conducted since with an almost incredible degree of incompetence. I have opposed the war from the beginning and will not support it now. The conflict was begun because of Serbia's refusal to sign an agreement granting autonomy to the people of Kosovo and protecting its citizens. Other demands, including the free right of NATO troops to travel through any part of Yugoslavia, were impossible for any sovereign nation to agree to. Our goals were worthy. But they were not of sufficient importance to vital American interests to warrant the use of our armed forces in combat. This proposition is perhaps best illustrated by the President's refusal to use all of the means necessary to attain his goals, choosing to cause death and destruction to the Serbs, and suffering, dislocation, and death to the very people we purport to protect, than to risk American lives in order to succeed. This is no way to wage a war. But vital American interests have been seriously and adversely affected by the war itself. We have destabilized Macedonia and Montenegro, and perhaps other nations in the Balkans as well. We have damaged relations with Russia and may have pushed it along the road to reaction. We have put ourselves on the defensive with respect to China when we should have the high ground in many of our differences. We have fueled anti-American sentiment around the world. If we win, we get to occupy Kosovo for a generation and to spend billions rebuilding it; if we lose, we are humiliated and NATO is weakened. In addition, this war appropriation comes to the Senate in a form in which it cannot be amended. I, for one, am denied the opportunity to attempt to earmark a modest portion of this money to arm the Kosovo Albanian rebels. It is inconceivable that we should trigger this ethnic cleansing, refuse to intervene on the ground to defend the Kosovo Albanians, fail even to attack their persecutors effectively, and top it off by refusing to aid those who wish to fight for their own liberties. Finally, of course, this entire emergency appropriation comes straight out of our Social Security surplus. I am not sure that the American people are at all aware of this fact. I cannot believe that they would support it. At my behest, the conference committee added managers' language calling for the restoration of this borrowing to the Social Security Trust Fund out of future general fund surpluses. But the language is not mandatory, and may well be ignored. We should not use Social Security to pay for a war in the Balkans. For these reasons, and in spite of its many good and important provisions on other issues, I oppose this supplemental appropriations bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I submit the following letter to be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, June 19, 1999. Mr. Kerry Killinger, Honorary Chair, North West Industry Partnership, Seattle, WA. Dear Mr. Killinger: tonight, you are gathered to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of Samuel Stroum. Nothing could give me more pleasure than to congratulate my friend, Sam Stroum, the 1999 recipient of the Donnall Thomas Medal of Achievement award. Dr. Thomas was a man of great vision, integrity, determination, and he possessed a strong commitment to helping his fellow citizens. Because Sam personifies these same characteristics, it is only fitting that he should be the recipient of this award. For half a century, Sam has been an established leader in our state. Sam has continued to give back to his community in immeasurable and invaluable ways. He has set the tone, led by example, and has propelled his peers to do better. Tonight as Sam is being lauded for his many accomplishments and contributions, I suspect that there as many untold stories where Sam has quietly made a difference. In the past decade, our state has experienced tremendous developments in the high-tech industry. From the very beginning, Sam could see the future of that industry and knew how it would benefit Washington. He encouraged its development and became actively involved in expanding the software business in Washington, creating more jobs and spurring unprecedented economic growth. More importantly, Samuel understands that there is more to life than business. There is art, community cohesion, and the need and desire to continue one's education. Sam has rescued community centers from financial disaster, expanded art galleries, and raised funds for hundreds of organizations. Sam is an invaluable asset to our community for his vision, leadership, and compassion for those in need. I am convinced that Washington state is far better because of him. Sincerely, Slade Gorton, U.S. Senator.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on April 20, 1999 two Columbine High School students in Littleton, Colorado, swept into that school with sawed-off shotguns, one pistol, one semiautomatic rifle, and as many as 60 homemade pipe bombs. Before they turned their guns on themselves, they killed 12 fellow students and 1 teacher and wounded 21 others. In doing so, they violated 17 separate federal and Colorado state Statutes relating to guns and explosive devices, not to mention a host of criminal laws criminalizing their assaults and murders. In a justified aftermath of horror and revulsion, wide-ranging public opinions across the United States demands that the federal government do SOMETHING, anything, to make this violence go away. The most prominent call is for more gun laws, many of which raise serious constitutional questions under the 2nd Amendment. Other attack Hollywood and the Internet for the pervasive violence in movies, music and the Internet, all easily available to the most impressionable of our teenagers. Any controls of this nature clearly run afoul of the 1st Amendment. Others blame parents, the lax law enforcement and the schools themselves. Few, curiously enough, recognize the reality of an evil that lurks in the minds of at least a handful of human beings and is clearly beyond the ability of any law to control. It would be wonderful if we could just pass a law through Congress, another gun control measure or another limitation on free speech that could prevent another Littleton, Colorado, or Jonesboro, Arkansas. But who, in the calm aftermath of this tragedy, believes that two or three more gun laws, in addition to the dozen and a half violated by the two Colorado teenagers, would have made the slightest difference in Littleton? The perpetrators of this violence were far beyond caring about adhering to human laws. They were bent on killing. The arena in which to reach and stop this evil is not Congress. It is in those places where the human heart can be touched; the home, the community and the church, and in the humility to recognize that no human efforts will ever eliminate all evil from human hearts. My children were in high school 25 years ago and I am struck by the thought that this kind of extreme violence involving school kids did not happen in America then and in my own high school years more people may have owned guns than do so today. I can't help but ask: What has changed? Why does this happen now? The Senate has begun a debate of a Juvenile Justice bill that will serve as a vehicle for a number of amendments relating to guns and explosives. At least eight different such proposals were submitted to Congress by President Clinton in the wake of the Littleton tragedy. This is the same President whose budget, bloated in so many other respects, makes drastic cuts in the field of effective law enforcement assistance. This year, for example, over President Clinton's objection, Congress will continue to fund a Byrne Grant program--a program that encourages cooperative drug enforcement and treatment mechanisms across the country and in my State of Washington. Last year Washington State received $10 million in Byrne Grants, without which our law enforcement officials would find it next to impossible to combat the biggest drug problem in our state--meth labs. Despite this success, the President proposes drastic cuts in this successful program. Clinton's budget also zeroes out funding for a huge law enforcement program--the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant and the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants, which Washington state uses to help fund prison construction, was gutted in Clinton's budget--from $772.5 million in FY 1999 to $75 million in FY 2000. Far better to fund anti-crime programs that have proven to be successful than to ignore those successes and substitute new statutes on the backs of statutes that have been unsuccessful in attaining their own goals. Why not enforce the gun laws we already have than add new ones to those the Administration ignores? Let me make a point clearly here--I thrive on working as an elected official because I believe that sensible actions by government can have a positive impact on the lives of families and communities across America. One positive role for government is in promoting a safer society. As Washington State Attorney General and now as Senator, I have supported laws to make safer products for consumers including safe food, clothes, cars and highways. I have worked nearly every day in the last three years on the issue of school safety to change federal rules to give more flexibility to local school districts to expel violent students. Individuals in our society cannot assure a safe food supply or safe products or safe roads, so taking sensible steps to make lives safer is a proper function of government. Still, I am convince that more laws would not have prevented what happened in Littleton and, what is more important as we look forward--I believe that it is dangerous to promote legislation as a solution. What is wrong with the President's gun law proposal and any other legislation promoted under the banner of stopping violence? They are wrong because they are a mirage. We are repulsed by violence and the mirage of a federal government's answer to violence raises false hopes. The false hope that violence will be stopped by new federal laws is also wrong because it detracts attention from the need to fix what is wrong in individual families and communities the need to concentrate on those sick elements in our nation that promote violence and disrespect for life. This violence stemmed from an evil that found fertile ground in the hearts of two impressionable boys in Colorado and another federal law will not eradicate that evil. There are things that government can do to make our society safer, including making our schools safer, and we have already passed one amendment to just that end, but the scope of evil which showed its face in Littleton is beyond the reach of government action. Controlling violence of this scope will come when people care more for each other and I, for one, will not join in any chorus of politicians promising that government will make that happen. I know that there are people of goodwill who disagree with me. They want so desperately to do something about this horrible event. I understand that desire. If I agreed, I would have already introduced legislation. But I believe that actions closer to home are far more likely to be successful. I know that this is a radical concept, but most of what is good about America is not made so by federal legislation. People across our country are searching their hearts and their communities for answers. In hundreds of local papers you can see that nearly every school district in America has already called together teachers, parents and community members to see what can be done locally. Local people in their churches of all denominations are getting together to see how they can do more to reach kids in trouble. And every parent in America has considered carefully whether his or her children are at risk of committing violence. We should allow this process of national soul searching to continue. If out of this process positive actions for the federal government emerge we should respond, but we should not hold not immediate federal action as false hope in place of the real actions and changes that will take place in communities, homes and schools across America. It is difficult in this body to face the fact that we don't really need new laws as much as we need the enforcement of the laws we already have. Even more important than that, however, is a thorough examination of the culture of violence in our society and a broad base societal demand that those who profit from that violence, in the media and elsewhere, be brought to show more responsibility and more restraint. I am concerned that the underlying Juvenile Justice bill suffers from the same defects. While it includes a few good ideas, it is another example of Washington, DC knows best. It spends money we don't have and tells every state and local government that we here in Washington, DC, know more about juvenile justice than those who spend their lives on the subject do.