T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this week hospitals and communities across America are celebrating National Hospital Week. This week is set aside to celebrate the caring and commitment of our nation's hospitals and health systems and the workers, volunteers and other health professionals who are there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for their neighbors who need them. An example of this dedication is Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital in Yakima, Washington. I want to commend Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for receiving the American Hospital Association's 1999 NOVA award. These awards spotlight innovative community partnerships that respond to local needs. Yakima Valley Memorial was chosen as a NOVA award winner for creating the Children's Village for children with special health care needs. The entire building has the feel of an old western town. It features logs on the outside, stone floors, a covered wagon for a reception desk and an elevator disguised as a mineshaft stocked with treasure. More important than the architecture is the integrated services of fourteen area health, education and service providers that work together at the Children's Village. Children that used to travel two hours or more for care now have access to specialty care in their local community. Parents can schedule a single appointment for their child that combines several treatments and therapies. The village also offers specialty clinics for fetal alcohol syndrome, cardiology, neurology, and cleft lip and palate. I am proud to recognize Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for its achievements. It is an outstanding example of a hospital that makes a difference in its community.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr President, today's thrift industry is an important provider of mortgage loans and consumer financial services. The thrift industry is required to focus its resources on providing consumer and community-oriented credit. For example, current law requiries a unitary thrift to devote at least 65 percent of its assets to mortgage, consumer, and small business loans. In addition, the commercial lending authority of federal thrifts is strictly limited to 20 percent of assets of which half must be to small businesses. This ``specialization'' works. The last time Money magazine published an article identifying ``the best bank in America'' for quality and low cost pricing of its services, the recognized institution was a thrift-- USAA Federal Savings Bank. Similarly, the last time Consumer Reports surveyed ``the best deals in 25 cities'' for checking accounts, 77 percent of the leading institutions were thrifts. This large percentage is noteworthy becasue less than 18 percent of the banking institutions existing at the time were thrifts. Thrifts are a minority of the competitor but offer a majority of the best deals. The unitary thrift structure allows the capital from commercial companies to support the community lending activities of the thrift charter. More than 166 applications from nonbanking firms have been filed with the federal thrift regulator to charter new thrift institutions since January 1997. These new charters, if approved, will add competition in the marketplace which will benefit the consumer. The OTS has testified that commercial firms contributed more than $3 billion in capital to support thrift institutions in the 1980s. No safety and soundness issues have been presented by the unitary charter. In February 1999, the FDIC testified on the subject of financial modernization before the U.S. House Banking Committee. In its testimony, the FDIC argued that commercial companies have been a source of strength rather than weakness to the thrift industry and that limiting the non-financial activities of thrifts ``would place limits on a vehicle that has enhanced financial modernization without causing significant safety-and-soundness problems.'' Similarly, the OTS director has testified that there is no evidence that the concerns about the mixing of commercial banking and commerce apply to thrift holding companies with commercial affiliates: ``Congress made a deliberate distinction in the treatment of thrifts and their holding companies based on the fact that thrifts cannot engage in the traditional type of banking activity--unlimited commercial lending--that raises concerns with the mixing of banking and commerce.'' The combinations of thrift and commercial firms have compiled an exemplary safety and soundness record. During the height of the thrift crisis, the failure rate of commercially affiliated thrifts was approximately half that of other thrifts. Moreover, the federal thrift regulator has reported that only 0.3 percent of enforcement actions against thrifts and thrift holding companies from January 1, 1993, through June 30, 1997 were against holding companies engaged in non- banking activities. In short, the industry's experience with commercial affiliates has been the opposite of what the critics contend. Concerns about commercial banking and commerce are misplaced in the context of the thrift charter. Current federal law expressly prohibits a unitary thrift from extending credit to a commercial affiliate and prohibits a thrift from tying deposits and loan services to non-financial services. The statutorily mandated focus of the thrift charter on providing mortgage, consumer, and small business credit along with these other lending limitations distinguishes the thrift and commercial banking industries. Martin Mayer, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and foe of mixing banking and commerce, supports the commercial ownership of thrifts because of their unique lending focus on consumers and small businesses. Financial modernization should be about expanding chartering options and choices for consumers, not contracting these options. While I believe there is a very strong case for fully maintaining the unitary thrift charter as a viable chartering option going forward, this Congress should, at a minimum, not limit the authorities of existing companies in the absence of any compelling safety and soundness evidence about this charter. The grandfather provision in S. 900 accomplishes this minimum treatment for these existing companies that are focused on delivering consumer and small business credit in our communities. The Senate and House Banking Committees both have adopted substantially identical unitary thrift grandfather provisions, which already represents a delicate compromise taken by both committees on this issue. We should not reopen this issue. I urge you to oppose the Johnson amendment as a serious step backwards in our efforts to modernize our nation's financial services laws.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, financial modernization should be about expanding chartering options and choices for consumers, not about stripping away the fundamental characteristics of consumer-oriented institutions. It is a paradox that the banks that are here seeking more powers wish to restrict the powers of their competitors in the same bill and are using this amendment to do so. Proponents of this amendment contend that the unitary thrift charter is a ``loophole'' that allows for the mixing of banking and commerce. Those concerns are both misplaced and impossible under the very conditions of charter. Federal law now expressly prohibits a unitarian thrift from lending to a commercial affiliate. By law, a thrift must focus on providing mortgage, consumer, and small business credit, and its commercial lending is severely restricted. The thrift charter is unique. Martin Mayer, who is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and a foe of mixing banking and commerce, supports the commercial ownership of thrifts because of their unique lending focus on consumers and small businesses. In the more than 3 decades that unitary thrift charters have existed, there is a total absence of any evidence that unitary thrifts' commercial affiliations have either led to a concentration of economic power or posed a risk to the consumer or the taxpayer. To the contrary, the FDIC has testified that limits such as those proposed in this amendment would restrict ``a vehicle that has enhanced financial modernization without causing significant safety-and-soundness problems.'' The issue under debate is not the creation of a banking-commerce Frankenstein. It is, rather, about the proper treatment of longstanding institutions focused on serving local communities. Congress should not limit the authorities of existing consumer-oriented companies without a compelling reason. To do so would be anticompetitive and anticonsumer. I am adamantly opposed to any initiative that eviscerates the unitary thrift charter and urge Senators to oppose the Johnson amendment as a serious step backwards in our efforts to modernize our Nation's financial services laws. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I move to table the Johnson amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, ``Teacher''--Webster's defines a teacher as one who ``imparts knowledge of or skill in'' a particular subject matter. Teaching, of course, extends far beyond that clinical definition. Many teachers bring passion and dedication to their work that often reaches outside the classroom as teachers serve as mentors, coaches, advisors and friends to their students. Each of us can remember a teacher who inspired us, motivated us, even changed our lives. The students at Shorecrest High School in Washington state have just such a teacher. Karen Mikolasy has taught for 28 years 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 they earn at least a B. That consistency in expectations also carries over to consistent positive reinforcement to her studnets--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. I was honored to meet Mrs. Mikolasy a few weeks ago in my office while she was in DC to be 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. The words of her students however, are probably the best tribute. One student characterized Mrs. Mikolasy this way: ``. . . she teased, she nagged, fumed, roared, tested and laughed. She turned us into real readers. She led us through worlds both familiar and foreign. There are still rumors that hint at her unwavering stance in class, but one legend should not be overlooked for forgotten. Mrs. Mikolasy is and always will be a masterful teacher.'' Mrs. Mikolasy also tells a story about a package she received one day from a former student who is now a lawyer. The package, in which was a Mont Blanc pen, also included a note: ``Dear teacher, big case, won lots of bucks! Won case because of writing. You taught writing: you get pen. I did writing: I get money. Spend money. Money gone? Do more writing, get more money. Writing not work, maybe I come get another writing lesson.'' It is said that while most Americans spend their living building careers, teachers spend their careers building lives. That certainly seems to be the case with Karen Mikolasy. So today I recognize Karen Mikolasy with the Innovation in Education Award. This is an award I give out each week to recognize people who make a difference in our local communities. It is based on the common- sense idea, that it is parents and educators who look our children in the eyes every day who know best how to educate them. Karen Mikolasy is most deserving of this award. Last night another experience made clear to me the impact teachers can have on their students. I attended an awards dinner for the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' program. The program encourages junior high and high school students to study the constitution by developing competitive teams at each school. Each team has a teacher as a coach. Last night each teacher was recognized. There were no fewer than 1200 students giving their teachers standing ovations and cheering in appreciation of their efforts. I also like to recognize all of the teachers in Washington state, who demonstrate their passion for teaching and for kids every day in the classroom. Today and the balance of this week is set aside to honor and celebrate teachers. I know that all of my colleagues will join me in recognizing our wonderful teachers across the nation.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this week's Innovation in Education Award recipient is an award winning class from Tahoma High School in Maple Valley, Washington. Earlier this year 29 exceptional students from Tahoma High School in Washington state won Washington state's competition testing their knowledge of the Constitution. As a result of that victory, this past weekend they were in Washington, D.C. to participate in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. The ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program, administered by the Center for Civic Education, provides our elementary and secondary students a strong foundation in the history and philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution. That foundation ultimately promotes a sense of civic responsibility in these students and provides them with the means to act effectively within a democratic society. The final activity in this program, which took place April 30-May 3, is a simulated congressional hearing in which students ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. I am happy to announce that I attended last night's award ceremony which the Tahoma High team won a regional award. I am proud of the achievement of these students and am happy to recognize them. They are Adam Baldridge, Mary Basinger, Josh Bodily, Sydney Brumbach, Katie Carder, Erica Chavez, Elizabeth Dauenhauer, Steven Dekoker, Meaghan Denney, Nathan Dill, Marisa Dorazio, Jesse Duncan, Jayson Hart, Jon Hallstrom, Carolyn Hott, Daniel Linder, Casey Lineberger, Clark Lundberg, Karrie Pilgrim, Michael Pirog, David Rosales, Jason Shinn, Jeremy Sloan, Justin Sly, Donny Trieu, Orianna Tucker, Jessica Walker, Raymond Williams, and Elizabeth Zaleski. I also recognize Kathy Hand, the Washington state coordinator for the ``We the People . . .'' program, and Kristy Ulrich, the district coordinator. Finally, I applaud Mark Oglesby and his assistant Stephanie Galloway, the teachers who have led their Tahoma High School class to this national competition, and have taught the past four state championship classes from Washington state. That track record shows great leadership and dedication to the education of their students. I enjoyed meeting with the students this weekend and wish them the best for their future. They will certainly be well prepared for it.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I support the distinguished Senator from Texas, the chairman of the Banking Committee, in his advocacy of his own proposal and in his desire that we defeat the substitute which is before the Senate at the present time. He has stated in great detail his reason for his support and the majority support for his financial reorganization bill. I mention only three differences that seem to me to be very significant. One is the arcane but vitally important difference between a holding company structure and a structure of making subsidiaries. In this respect, it seems to me the holding company system has worked well for this country, literally for generations. The advice of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, overwhelmingly supports the proposition of the choice that has been made in this regard by the committee majority itself. Second, with respect to the Community Reinvestment Act, it also seems to me that the chairman's modest reforms are steps in the right direction. They do not destroy that system by any stretch of the imagination but, they do fire a warning shot across the bow of those who would use that bill for extortion purposes. Finally, and most important to me in my own State, is the way in which the bill, is against the proposed substitute, deals with unitary thrifts. A unitary thrift is authorized to affiliate with both financial and commercial companies. This authority is balanced both by lending restrictions and by safeguards prohibiting thrifts from extending credit to a commercial affiliate. This chartering structure has been available for more than 30 years. To the best of my knowledge, during that 30-year period of time, 30 years during which thrifts have been allowed to combine with commercial firms, there have been no major scandals, no serious corruption, no sapping of America's capitalism vigor. In other words, to limit the authority of thrifts while we are extending the authority of commercial banks in the bulk of this bill is to deal with an evil that simply does not exist. Financial modernization should be about expanding choices for consumers and chartering options, not constricting those options and stripping existing authorities from consumer-oriented institutions without sound policy justification. I do not believe we should limit the unitary thrift chartering option at all. Unitary thrifts have a longstanding record of serving their communities. There is a glaring absence of any evidence that their commercial affiliations have led to a concentration of economic powers or posed risks to consumers or taxpayers. This legislation includes a provision that grandfathers the commercial affiliation authorities of unitary thrifts chartered or applied for before February 28 of this year. Given the lack of any evidence that those affiliations are harmful, financial modernization should, at the minimum, not roll back the authority of existing unitary thrifts. Limiting the ability of commercial firms to charter thrifts in the future is debatable policy, but there is no question in my mind that the authorities of existing unitary thrifts should not be abolished. For these reasons, I oppose the Democratic substitute and intend to fight any later amendment which deals with this issue alone. With the expression of my support for the position taken by the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, should the Congress, in the words of the McCain resolution, authorize the President ``to use all necessary force'' to accomplish U.S. objectives in Yugoslavia? That is the question upon which we will be voting shortly. In order to answer that question, however, we must, it seems to me, first deal with two prerequisites and vital questions. First, what are our American objectives in Yugoslavia? And are they so vital to our national interest as to warrant a full-scale war? Second, do we have a sufficient degree of confidence in the quality of our Presidential leadership to give the President unlimited and unrequested authority to pursue those objectives? In connection with that first question, our American objectives, we are now engaged in an experiment, a venture, that is an entirely new function for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--not defensive in nature, but reaching outside of its own borders to attempt to settle one among many ethnic and religious conflicts around the world. In my view, at the time at which we began this adventure, it was clearly not a vital interest to the United States of America. In addition to the absence of any vital national interest was the appalling lack of contingency plans on the part of the administration, as explained to Members of the Senate of both parties in the days leading up to the beginning of the bombing--no contingency plans as to what took place if the first two stages of bombing in a week or 10 days or 2 weeks was unsuccessful; no recognition of the high possibility or probability of extensive Serb atrocities in Kosovo aimed at the very people our actions were designed to protect. In summary, Madam President, I believe that the administration's position at the beginning of this conflict ranked somewhere between frivolity and folly and, therefore, I was one of 41 Senators to vote against ratifying what we all knew the administration was going to do whatever the vote in the Senate. On the other hand, as critical as I am of both the inception of this conflict and of its conduct, it is very difficult, I think impossible, to avoid the conclusion that what was not a vital national interest in the first place now involves a far greater national interest resulting from a flawed concept and a worse execution. We now do implicate the very survival of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And our actions have precipitated a refugee crisis unmatched in Europe since the end of World War II. Well over a million Kosovars are homeless, many of them refugees outside of the boundaries of the Republic of Yugoslavia, all of them far worse off when they are not dead than they were before our intervention began. Having recognized this, however, what are the possible outcomes? All of them, it seems to me, are bad. The first is that we quit and come home. And some advocate that. I no longer honestly can do so as much as I opposed the beginning of this conflict. The other and perhaps best possibility is that our air attacks may still be successful, that Milosevic and the Serbs may still give up, in which case we get to occupy an absolutely devastated and destroyed Kosovo for perhaps a quarter of a century, and receive a bill to rebuild Kosovo, and maybe Serbia as well, some of which we may attempt with greater or lesser success to pass over on our allies, and will now have to support the independence of that country. Its residents can no longer live with Serbia at all. That independence and that occupation, in my view, are the only way we will persuade Kosovar Albanians to return to their homes. The next alternative, of course, is the Russian compromise --defeat, disguised as a form of compromise. The Kosovars under those circumstances, without an American occupation, with a Russian occupation, will almost certainly by the hundreds of thousands be rightly frightened to return to their homes. Such a compromise is likely to end up in a partition, in which Serbia ends up with far more of Kosovo than it deserves, given its actions. However, that is now a course of action advocated by the previous speaker and by many others--defeat disguised as compromise. Finally, we have the McCain resolution, a ground war led by this administration, which has already shown itself incompetent to run even an air war, and a 19-member steering committee--a prescription for total disaster. What about the second question, the inevitable question of the quality of our national leadership? By its own criteria, the administration has been a total failure. It has not protected the Kosovars; it has not prevented a spread of the war. Its leadership is all spin, no recognition of its own difficulties, no willingness to explain to the people of the United States what it is all about or where we are going. We can have no confidence in either the preparation of this administration or the conduct of its operations. We get to the ultimate question. We are asked by this resolution to grant unlimited authority to wage war in Yugoslavia to an administration unwilling to use that authority and incompetent to carry it out if it were willing. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Time magazine column by Charles Krauthammer last week stating that position more eloquently than I can.

Mr. GORTON. As a consequence, what might be an appropriate response to an administration that sought it, that expressed its goals coherently enough to define what winning was, and competent to reach its goals, is totally inappropriate to grant to this administration-- unasked, unwilling, and unable to carry on a war of this importance. The inevitable vote on this resolution is to vote to table.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this week's Innovation in Education Award recipient is a remarkable school, Liberty Elementary, in Marysville, Washington. With help from school staff and led by Principal Paula Jones, Liberty Elementary's students have made outstanding advances in their reading performance. Historically, this school has not shown great success in student standardized test results. To improve those results, the school's staff researched proven ``best practices'' for improving student reading. The staff eventually selected a program called ``Success For All'' that focuses on early intervention and personal attention to promote literacy. Liberty Elementary's parents and staff recognized that in order for this program to succeed, they needed to be closely involved. So the parents and staff established ``Family Fun Night'' each month to educate families on the importance of reading, the benefits of education reform, and how to feel more comfortable as active partners in their children's education. Liberty's staff attends these family activities without extra compensation. The staff has also teamed up with local businesses to help acknowledge outstanding participation and achievement by students and parents. Two years ago, Liberty teachers, parents, and students decided to refocus their efforts on reading. Now 80% of the students are reading at current grade level and above--a tremendous increase of 58%. Students at Liberty are now proud and successful readers thanks to the hard work of the Liberty staff and the support from their devoted parents and community. What is noteworthy about Liberty is that the students became better readers because the community became more involved with its children. This Innovation in Education award is another example of how local communities really do know best. Local educators and parents work with our children every day and know what needs improvement. They deserve our support and should have more decision-making authority over how federal education dollars are to be spent. Educators from Washington state and from across the country need and deserve more flexibility and more control over their classrooms. Liberty Elementary and schools like it are the reasons why I will fight to return that power to our local schools where it belongs.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a constant theme heard in the economic news of our country is the dramatic success and sustained growth of our nation's economy. My own state of Washington has been particularly fortunate in that regard, even give the much-talked about ``Asian flu.'' Not all of Washington's communities, however, have been so lucky. Among those is Aberdeen, in Grays Harbor County. Unemployment in Aberdeen is double the state average; over 17 percent of the county depends on public assistance as a primary source of income; and 27 percent of the adult population has not completed high school. To combat these issues, the Aberdeen School District and Grays Harbor Community College came together in 1993 to create the World Class Scholars program which I am pleased to present with one of my Innovation in Education Awards. Recognizing that students were struggling to finish their education and would therefore be unqualified for many of the well paying technology-based jobs in Washington state, local educators created a new path to reach these workers of tomorrow--the World Class Scholars Program. The school district and community college agreed that students in the scholars program would automatically be accepted into the local community college, receive scholarship assistance and college credit for college-level work completed in high school. In return, students must follow through on a pledge made in the 7th grade to graduate with a ``B'' average. Students in the program also agree to demonstrate leadership and other interpersonal skills, volunteer at school or in the community, and become technologically proficient. This is exactly the kind of jump-start this community needed to encourage students to complete their education and to ensure that recent graduates have the tools necessary to compete for today's high-paying jobs. Each year, the number of students and volunteers involved in the World Class Scholars program continues to grow. But, perhaps of great mention, the number of other school districts participating throughout the county in collaboration with Grays Harbor Community College has also grown. In two years, the first class of high school students will graduate and the community's pledge to provide them with continued education will be honored. Clearly, Aberdeen and surrounding school districts have needs that are different, perhaps unique, from other localities throughout Washington state. They have met this problem head on and are well on the way to making their community a better place to live. The response of the Grays Harbor community perfectly demonstrates that local educators really do know best. In presenting my Innovation in Education Awards, I fall back on this common-sense idea, that it is parents and educators the who look our children in the eye every day that know best how to educate them. For too long, the federal government has been telling local schools that Washington, DC bureaucrats know best. Educators across Washington state and throughout the country, like those involved in the World Class Scholars program, deserve more decision-making authority they deserve and I pledge to work hard to return that power to them.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Transportation Worker Tax Fairness Act. This legislation will ensure that transportation workers who toil away on our nation's waterways receive the same tax treatment afforded their peers who work on the nation's highways, railroads, or navigate the skies. Truck drivers, railroad personnel, and airline personnel are currently covered by the Interstate Commerce Act, which exempts their income from double taxation. Water carriers, who work on tugboats or ships, were not included in the original legislation. This treatment is patently unfair. The Transportation Worker Tax Fairness Act will rectify this situation by extending the same tax treatment to personnel who work on the navigable waters of more than one state. Mr. President, this legislation will have no impact on the federal treasury. This measure simply allows those who work our navigable waterways protection from double taxation. This matter came to my attention through a series of constituent letters from Columbia River tug boat operators who are currently facing taxation from Oregon as well as Washington state. I am committed to pursuing this avenue of relief for my constituents, as well as hard working tug boat operators across the nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Transportation Worker Tax Fairness Act. This legislation will ensure that transportation workers who toil away on our nation's waterways receive the same tax treatment afforded their peers who work on the nation's highways, railroads, or navigate the skies. Truck drivers, railroad personnel, and airline personnel are currently covered by the Interstate Commerce Act, which exempts their income from double taxation. Water carriers, who work on tugboats or ships, were not included in the original legislation. This treatment is patently unfair. The Transportation Worker Tax Fairness Act will rectify this situation by extending the same tax treatment to personnel who work on the navigable waters of more than one state. Mr. President, this legislation will have no impact on the federal treasury. This measure simply allows those who work our navigable waterways protection from double taxation. This matter came to my attention through a series of constituent letters from Columbia River tug boat operators who are currently facing taxation from Oregon as well as Washington state. I am committed to pursuing this avenue of relief for my constituents, as well as hard working tug boat operators across the nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Is time controlled?

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I support legislation designed to avert and control what could be a litigation bonanza stemming from the Y2K problem. We can't be sure what computer-based system, if any, may go awry at midnight, December 31, 1999, but we should not sit by idly and wait to find out. The Y2K Act attempts proactively to provide incentives for everyone, potential plaintiffs and defendants alike, to cure Y2K compliance problems before they occur and to impose reasonable limits on liability and rules for the prosecution of lawsuits arising from Y2K failures. On today's editorial page, the New York Times criticizes Senator McCain's Y2K legislation and opines that: Congress can also clarify the liability of companies once it becomes clear how widespread the problem really is. But before the new year, the government should not use the millennium bug to overturn longstanding liability practices. I strongly disagree. We know that our current liability system, longstanding as it may be, is flawed in that it increasingly lends itself to lawsuits of limited merit, but huge downside risks, excessive delays, and creative and often unfair theories of liability. Just as it is irresponsible for people not to take remedial action to avoid the Y2K problem, it would be irresponsible for Congress not to fix our litigation system with respect to its handling of this specific issue, to deal with the flood of potential cases and the enormous, possibly destructive, burden that litigation can impose on potential defendants. Of particular concern to me are the smaller high-technology companies that have been thriving in Washington State and across the Nation. I have met with and heard from numerous representatives from these companies. To them, the threat of abusive litigation is not speculative or illusory; it is real and potentially fatal. Senator McCain's substitute to S. 96, of which I am a cosponsor, is an improvement in some respects to the bill that we passed out of the Commerce Committee, not in the least because this substitute enjoys bipartisan support. Notably, the substitute modifies the provisions in S. 96 on punitive damages and joint liability. While S. 96 established strict caps on punitive damages, the substitute permits these caps to be pierced if the plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with specific intent to injure the plaintiff. The absolute prohibition on joint liability originally contained in S. 96 has also been modified. The substitute roughly tracks the exceptions to joint liability limits contained in the 1995 securities litigation reform legislation. Rather than to prohibit joint liability in all cases, the substitute permits joint liability, subject to State limits, in situations in which plaintiffs' assets are limited and damages exceed 10 percent of those assets; in situations in which damages cannot be recovered against another defendant; and against defendants who acted with specific intent to injure the plaintiff or who knowingly committed fraud. Madam President, these changes have been made by Senator McCain in a genuine effort to see to it that the broad appeal of this bill becomes even broader. In addition to modifying the limitations on punitive damages and joint liability, the substitute, among other changes, strikes the provision in S. 96 that created the defense for those using reasonable efforts to prevent Y2K problems; modifies the circumstances under which the terms of a written contract will be enforced by recognizing State statutes that limit enforcement of certain terms, and expands the exceptions to the economic loss rule. Madam President, these are not simple legal concepts. While I think S. 96 has benefitted from more deliberative review by interested parties representing potential plaintiffs and defendants alike, I am still not convinced that the substitute has achieved the precisely correct balance of promoting remedial action, effectively curtailing abusive lawsuits, and not simply changing the way in which plaintiffs plead their cases, and ensuring that plaintiffs have adequate recourse for damages. I nevertheless wholeheartedly support Y2K liability legislation because I believe it is our responsibility to prevent foreseeable litigation that could clog our State and Federal courts and divert enormous resources away from production and toward litigation. The Senate should pass Y2K liability legislation and should do so as soon as possible. I expect that the bill can be further refined and improved during floor debate and again in conference. I want to add to my formal written remarks my admiration for the tremendous amount of effort that the chairman of the Commerce Committee has put into attempting to see to it that we here end up with a bill that becomes law, even though it requires a number of compromises, rather than simply to become another item of debate and division. Tort reform, product liability legislation, and medical malpractice legislation are all important national issues, but they are all extremely divisive. In this case, for this particular form of litigation, which has no precedent in the United States, reform is genuinely needed. The Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, has brought us a long way along the right road, and I have every confidence that we will finish with success.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, dam removal as a serious option for salmon recovery on the Snake River died last week. It was killed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the arm of the Clinton administration assigned to save those endangered salmon. Why and how? Three runs of salmon on the upper Snake River were listed as endangered in 1991 and 1992. On April 14, NMFS announced its determination that only 19 percent of salmon smolts barged around the dams, die. In fact, we now know that downriver survival rates are at least as high as they were in the 1960's before the Snake River dams were built! As a result, NMFS now believes that the chance of recovery for the endangered runs is only 64 percent if all four Snake River dams are removed, as against 53 percent by continuing to transport smolts around the dams. The difference is barely statistically significant. We can assume that NMFS science is the best available. That science is a vital component of public policy, but only one component of good public policy and not absolutely determinative to the exclusion of all other concerns. So against the modest 11-percent improvement in survival chances for these populations of salmon from dam removal, we must weigh the immense costs of removal. Earlier this month at a Senate Energy Committee field hearing, a representative from Bonneville Power testified that BPA would lose approximately $263 million in power revenues in each average water year in perpetuity under medium future economic conditions. BPA also estimates that removal of the four lower Snake River dams is likely to increase its power rates by as much as 30 percent. The cost of removal itself, the destruction of navigation, the loss of irrigated farms and the human and community devastation add untold billions to that figure. That cost is vastly out of proportion to the salmon recovery goal, much less to the extremely modest improvement even in the prospects for recovery. So dam removal as a rational option is dead. We in the Pacific Northwest, specifically residents in eastern, rural Washington, have been waging this war with the environmental community. It gives me great pleasure today to present my assessment of the recently released National Marine Fisheries Service report on Snake River dams and salmon recovery options. I cannot support the effort to dismantle the world's most productive hydroelectric system when the costs are so great in relation to the benefit to a few selected salmon runs. Under the current management of the Columbia/Snake River system, Northwest ratepayers have contributed $366 million per year on average since 1995 to salmon recovery. The plan requires flow augmentation, dam spill, surface bypass, juvenile and adult fish passage improvements, water supply studies, PIT tag monitoring, and additional salmon barges. Although many, myself included, have been highly critical of Federal salmon recovery efforts, the results are beginning to show signs of progress. Based on new technology for salmon monitoring using Pit-Tags, NMFS estimates a significant increase in downriver survival for juvenile salmon. It estimates salmon are now surviving at a rate of 50 to 68 percent for juvenile salmon that migrate through eight Snake and Columbia River dams. Since about 60 percent of juvenile salmon are barged at a survival rate of 98 percent, the combined salmon survival rate to Portland, past eight dams, exceeds 80 percent. Why are some in such a rush to consider dam removal when faced with these statistics? According to NMFS, these statistics may be further enhanced during the next three to four years of monitoring the adult fish returning to the river. However, the single-interest advocacy groups claim we can't wait any longer--they say we must remove the dams now. Let me reemphasize one glaring fact. The overall survival rate past the four lower Snake dams is at least as high today as it was in the 1960's before the dams were built, according to NMFS' own biologists. Much of this recent improvement in survival rates can be attributed to technical and operational improvements at the dams. There is much more that can be done to improve survival rates past the four lower Snake dams. Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers has been waiting to see if these dams are going to be removed before spending any more money on further improvements that could provide immediate benefits. Although the passage survival is much higher now, adult salmon returns continue at a distressed level. A likely theory is that declines are due to the rise in ocean temperatures. During the Easter recess, my Interior appropriations subcommittee held a field hearing on Northwest salmon recovery in Seattle. One of NMFS' own fisheries biologists expressed optimism that the likelihood of decreasing ocean temperatures off the coast in the Pacific Northwest as indicative of an improving climate for salmon in the Northwest. We are likely to obtain valuable new information about adult salmon returns and likely will witness a dramatic change in the ocean environment. Even under current circumstances, the difference between removing dams, to save fish or barging them around dams is too close to call. And when all the costs of dam removal are factored into this equation, it is hard to imagine why anyone would want to take this dubious course of action. In the meantime, the debate over dam removal has led to unfortunate consequences. More realistic and cost effective salmon recovery measures with a proven track record have been delayed. I am committed to securing the funds necessary not only for dam improvements but also for local salmon enhancement groups and other conservation organizations to continue their efforts to restore salmon habitat throughout the state. Salmon recovery will take place when local people who care passionately about local watersheds have the freedom and the resources to take the steps needed on a stream-by-stream and river-by- river basis. At my recent field hearing, I was most impressed with the way people in my state are coming together in unprecedented ways. Rather than focusing on past differences, farmers, loggers, fishermen, conservationists, locally elected officials, and countless others representing a vast array of interests and perspectives are working together to develop habitat restoration and watershed improvement plans throughout the state that will not only provide immediate benefits to our salmon resource but will do so in ways that will take into consideration the economic and social needs of our communities. A good example of how collaborative efforts can achieve positive results for the salmon resource recently took place in the Hanford Reach area of the Columbia River. Ten years ago, the fall chinook stock in the Hanford Reach was in bad shape. Now it is the most abundant of the wild Columbia River stocks. This is due largely to the efforts of the Grant County Public Utility District which led the effort to reach an agreement that protects the fish by regulating river flows from the time the adults spawn to the time the juveniles emerge from the gravel. Last year, biologists discovered juvenile chinook were stranded after emerging from the gravel. Grant County PUD again led discussions involving all review mid-Columbia hydroelectric projects, together with federal, state, and tribal fishery agencies to develop a program to reduce the number of young fish stranded because of river flow fluctuations. Implementing this agreement requires a substantial loss in valuable power generation, but represents an unprecedented example of how hydroelectric projects can work proactively and cooperatively with fishery management agencies to protect salmon. This model effort deserves our encouragement and support. Clearly, the approach being taken by communities throughout my state is far preferable to the divisive one being advocated by those who want to rip out dams in the Northwest. Rather than continuing down this misguided and confrontational course which will cost more and provide no assurances of enhanced recovery, I today call on dam removal advocates to abandon their cause, and to recognize the real implications of the NMFS report. If they are truly interested in restoring salmon, they will work with me and others in the mainstream who want to do something now positively to recover our salmon resource. But Mr. President, we must keep in mind one important fact. Environmental bureaucrats in the Clinton-Gore administration have made it their standard operating procedure not to listen to what I, much less the region, thinks about dam removal. In fact, the Administration must have an unwritten rule somewhere not to pay attention to local people in the communities that would be destroyed by such action. It's alarming that while the region is increasingly united in its effort to preserve dams and the Northwest way of life, from the local level to the statehouse to our congressional delegation--the administration and the environmental community refuses to concede.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, under the order of last night, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin debate on the conference report to accompany the education flexibility bill. By previous order, there are 3 hours of debate on the conference report, and a vote can be expected at the conclusion or yielding back of that time. On Tuesday, a cloture motion was filed on the lockbox amendment to S. 557. Therefore, Senators should expect that cloture vote on Thursday. As a reminder, pursuant to rule XXII, second-degree amendments must be filed 1 hour prior to a vote on cloture. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I seek recognition in my own right. I believe the remarks I am about to make are more proper from my own desk than from the majority leader's.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Congress is about to be asked to appropriate $10 billion, and perhaps more, in emergency funds to finance a war in the Balkans and to help the refugees that war has created. We will be asked to do so after a brief debate and with no opportunity to impose conditions or to add reservations. That is the wrong way to deal with so grave an issue. On March 23, the Senate authorized air attacks on Yugoslavia in the hope that they would motivate the Government of Yugoslavia to grant autonomy to the Kosovars, a status far less than the independence they seek, enforced by the presence of American and other NATO troops for an undefined period of time, and thus to prevent a refugee crisis. We have been spectacularly unsuccessful at attaining either goal. I voted against the March resolution. I did so because I believe that the United States should engage in armed conflict only when its vital interests are at stake, and that the then Serb repression of the Kosovar Albanians did not involve any of our vital national interests. My vote was also motivated by the belief that the limited bombing proposed would be unlikely to help us reach the dubious goal of occupying Kosovo. When we do engage our Armed Forces in conflict, we should do so decisively and with overwhelming force aimed at the cause of the conflict--in this case, the Milosevic government in Belgrade. This conflict, to the contrary, was begun in too limited a fashion to be likely to bring the Serbs to heel, with no contingency plans should the early bombing not work, and with no anticipation of the brutal Serb reaction in driving hundreds of thousands of Kosovars out of home and country. It is that failure that brings us to our present state. The President will not acknowledge our failure to reach his goals, will not speak seriously to the American people about both ends and means, and will not ask Congress to authorize him to act decisively and to support him in doing so. Instead, we are engaged in a conflict in which the primary goal seems to be to avoid American casualties, the secondary goal to avoid Serbian casualties. So the only real casualties are among the Kosovar Albanians, the people the conflict was designed to protect. The President will not, and should not, send our troops into Kosovo and won't arm the Kosovo rebels so they can defend themselves. We bomb buildings that we are certain are empty but not television towers or airports. We bomb oil storage depots but allow oil tankers to unload replacement oil within sight of our fleet. At this point, of course, a conflict over an issue that was not vital to our national security in the beginning has now escalated to one that is, both with respect to the refugees and to the survival of NATO itself, all due to the frivolous and half-hearted nature of our military operations. In the abstract, this fact lays weight to the arguments of Senators Lugar and McCain, among others, to lift the artificial and self-defeating renunciation of ground operations. But their arguments flounder disastrously with the first whiff of reality. This is a war run by committee. A dozen politicians from almost as many countries must sign off on targets even with respect to the air war. The United States has not even sought NATO consent to arm the Kosovars and to blockade Yugoslavia. Does any Senator believe for a moment that this administration will wage or is capable of waging a real war with victory as its goal? No. We have only four realistic alternatives, all unpalatable. First, there is the remote hope that Milosevic will surrender and agree to our demands. Under those circumstances, we would get to occupy Kosovo for perhaps 25 years. Second, we may quit and go home, leaving chaos in our wake. Third, the most likely outcome now is a settlement brokered by the Russians in which the 90 percent of Albanian Kosovars get the poorest half of a devastated province and the 10 percent Serb Kosovars get the best half. We will then be asked to rebuild Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, and probably Serbia as well. President Clinton will proclaim this a victory. The fourth and last alternative is a gradual escalation of the air war, followed by gradual escalation on the ground, without any prospect of real victory but at a very real cost in American lives and the expenditure of billions of American dollars. Each of these alternatives, Mr. President, is a terrible disservice to the brave American men and women who are loyally fighting this war and who deserve better from our leaders. Each is a tragedy for the hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians rooted out of destroyed homes, turned into impoverished refugees or killed outright. It is those prospects that the Senate should be debating, using such time as is proportionate to the seriousness of the issues. But we are now faced with the prospect of a $12 billion add-on to a $2 billion supplemental appropriations bill, with little opportunity for debate and no opportunity to amend or condition that appropriation. What should have been an occasion for a serious debate will become instead a venture in avoiding the responsibility to ask and to answer hard questions. That is a game the Senate should not play. At the very least, we should allow those who propose intervention on the ground an opportunity to make their case, and those of us who wish to arm the rebels a chance to make ours. An appropriation covering the cost of this conflict until October without seriously debated conditions is a blank check to the President to conduct the conflict as he pleases. It is all the authorization for war on the ground he is ever likely to seek. It is a total abdication of our responsibilities. I cannot support such an action. I will do all I can to defeat it. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note with great pleasure the prayer this morning was given by Father Mackay, the rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in Kirkland, WA. That is the church I most frequently attend when I am in my home State, and I attend it because of his great qualities as a pastor and a leader of his congregation. The magnificent spiritual guidance he gives both individually and collectively to that congregation makes it one of the most satisfying and religiously exciting churches that it has ever been my privilege to attend during a relatively long life. He is here, however, not by my invitation but at the invitation of my friend and colleague from Montana, Senator Burns. Father Mackay hails from Montana. His brother, I believe, is State director for Senator Burns, and it was his imagination and thoughtfulness that invited Don here today. I thank him. I thank our regular Chaplain, Lloyd Ogilvie, and I thank Father Mackay for a wonderful and inspiring prayer.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, during this past recess, I had the pleasure of presenting Innovation in Education Awards to two excellent recipients; the first of which I noted in a previous floor speech. The second Innovation in Education Award went to Peggy O'Neill- Skinner, a truly remarkable science teacher at the Bush School in Seattle. Peggy has been a science teacher for 28 years and is doing outstanding work in helping her students learn the importance of biology and technology in today's world. Her years of devotion in teaching AP Biology, general biology, and numerous elective science courses have shown great dividends. In fact, at a larger education event at which this award was presented, my staff was approached by a number of attendees who had one universally similar point to share: ``my child went to Bush and Peggy is a truly remarkable teacher. She is the kind of teacher that can change a student's life and is a perfect fit for this award.'' Such praise needs no elaboration. Last December, Peggy was given the prestigious Siemens Award for Advance Placement, one of only 20 award winners across the country. The Siemens Award recognizes excellence AP courses for math and science. By virtue of being selected with such a small number of her peers to receive such recognition, Peggy's own accomplishments speak to her supererogatory nature. Her devotion to her students and to pursuing her own continued education has paid great dividends with her students. Indeed, she spends her own summers teaching and learning at the University of Washington as well as the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. It is this kind of effort--to be the best possible educator one can be--that makes the education of all our children better. I am pleased to have been able to give Peggy an Innovation in Education Award in recognition of her hard work, her dedication, and her devotion to making the lives of her students better. While Peggy teaches in a private school, she clearly demonstrates the common sense that permeates local educators in all of our constituencies. They can do amazing things if we make sure they have the resources to do so without the red tape that would otherwise stifle the learning of our children. For too long the federal government has been in the business of placing burdensome regulations on our local schools. We have in Peggy O'Neill-Skinner an example of what educators can do without those restraints and we owe it to our children and grandchildren to let educators like Peggy reach their potential. That is why I will continue to fight hard on behalf of legislation that provides relief from red tape and brings more money into local classrooms where the people with real common sense to educate our children work everyday.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as my colleagues may remember, each week I give an Innovation in Education Award to recognize outstanding educators and education programs in Washington State. The premise is very simple, that local people in our communities, not bureaucrats here in Washington, DC, know best how to educate our children. As nominations for these awards have poured into my office, I received one noting the work of the program I will recognize today: the Tri-City Crystal Apple Awards. The Crystal Apple Awards is sponsored by local service groups, businesses, and individuals. The community comes together to recognize educators who have a positive impact on the lives and futures of their students. Each educator nominated for this award has demonstrated that he or she has a special focus on students, has enthusiasm and versatility in meeting individual needs, creativity in their use of curriculum and resources, give special attention to creating a constructive learning environment, have the ability to develop parent support and respect, and have the ability to inspire students so the student may achieve their maximum potential in life. These are truly outstanding characteristics for any educator to have. I commend the Crystal Apple Award program for recognizing the excellence that occurs in their midst. Too often today, educators of great merit go without recognition. Indeed, currently there is a heated debate occurring in Washington State regarding teacher pay and methods to improve compensation for these deserving educators. The Crystal Apple Awards are doing the right thing in teaming up with the community to recognize the people that are making the difference in their local schools. My only regret is that I am not able to be in Richland for the awards presentation. I hope that the attendees of the Crystal Apple Awards ceremony will have a pleasant event. I hope too that my colleagues will recognize the excellence in education found in communities across our country. This issue energizes me in a special way. I am glad to stand up for what the educators in my State have wanted for a long time: the freedom to innovate. That is why I will work hard this year to allow local communities to decide how to best spend their Federal education dollars; giving people like the recipients of the Crystal Apple Awards the flexibility to teach our kids the way they--and only they--know best.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, during this past recess, I had the pleasure of presenting my Innovation in Education Awards to two excellent recipients, one of which I would like to recognize now. One award was given to the ``Steps Ahead'' program from ``Community for Youth.'' Community for Youth is a local non-profit organization in Seattle whose Steps Ahead program provides adult mentors to youth at risk of academic or social failure. This program has been in existence for eight years and has demonstrated remarkable progress in transforming the lives of students who might otherwise fall through the cracks of our education system. Steps Ahead's curriculum focuses on five key factors for student behavior: (1) Building a positive self-image, (2) Expressing themselves assertively rather than passively or aggressively, (3) Accepting responsibility for their behavior rather than making excuses, (4) Setting and keeping realistic goals in life and (5) Making conscious decisions to solve problems rather than reactively letting the world pass them by. These may seem like exceedingly basic principles but, this focus has reaped great rewards with the students it has reached. The students involved in this program have, for whatever reason been labeled as ``at-risk.'' Fortunately, through the simple concept of restoring self-respect, accountability, and confidence, the Steps Ahead program has achieved outstanding results. Steps Ahead participants have fewer dropouts and fewer expulsions from school than their peers. The Steps Ahead students also have ten percent better classroom attendance, twenty-five percent fewer grades, and fifteen percent fewer dropouts, expulsions and long term suspensions--all this is the heart of metropolitan Seattle where the escourge of dropouts rates, poor attendance, and violent behavioral problems have traditionally been some of the worst in Washington state. Community for Youth's efforts thought the Steps Ahead program is just one piece of the puzzle of trying to improve the lives and education of troubled youth. More importantly, perhaps, Steps Ahead has accomplished these feats by teaming up with local business to provide funding and mentors and by teaming up with the Seattle School District to target school populations most in need of mentoring. This type of common-sense and community-oriented approach to solving a difficult education problem demonstrates the exact reason why I began this Innovation in Education Award program. I think any of my colleagues would be hard pressed to prove the kind of program I am talking about here today could come from the innovation of a bureaucrat here in Washington, DC. Rather, it is the hard work of the people that look into the eyes of our children every day, the parents, the teachers, the school administrators, and the volunteers like those at Steps Ahead, who make a difference in the lives of our children. I am pleased to have been able to recognize Steps Ahead and Community For Youth with an Innovation in Education Award. They represent the ideals in education that deserve our support.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as the majority has as I may utilize. Mr. President, here in the Congress of the United States, this April 15 can be a day for modest congratulations for us. We will have passed a budget resolution on the day mandated by the Budget Act for only the second time in more than 2 decades. Moreover, we will be adopting a budget resolution that balances the budget not only for the 1 year in which it is firmly binding, fiscal year 2000, but we hope for at least a decade to come. We will be adopting a budget resolution that does more to secure the future of our Social Security safety net than has any budget resolution since the Budget Act itself was passed, first, by assuring that the entire Social Security surplus is used to pay down the debt and not to be spent on a wide range of other matters, as was recommended by the President's budget itself and, second, by calling for a lockbox to see to it that the condition of preventing the Social Security surplus being used for any other purpose is permanent and not temporary only. Second, this budget resolution offers real tax relief to the American people. In that connection, it is especially appropriate that we will be adopting this budget resolution on time. Today, of course, is tax day. April 15 is the day that the complexity and incomprehensibility of our mammoth Federal Tax Code hits home to almost every American. Today, my constituents in Washington State and, of course, citizens all across the United States rush to the post office, as I did myself this morning, to get their income tax postmarked on time. I think it is appropriate to address my own hopes and the intentions of this budget resolution that this Congress will act on tax relief and perhaps begin to look forward to an even more fundamental tax reform. Families whom I represent in the Northwest deserve a rebate from the Federal budget surplus in the form of tax relief, allowing them to decide how best to use their hard-earned dollars. I also believe that it is time to scrap the current Federal income tax code as being far too complicated, too burdensome, and too unfair. Let me discuss for a few moments the reasons for providing tax relief to American taxpayers. I would like to share with the Senate a few telling facts about the nature of that tax burden today. A recent Congressional Research Service study found that an average American family will pay $5,370 more in taxes over the course of the next 10 years than the Federal Government needs to operate under the budget resolution that we adopted just a year ago and this even after assuring that all our obligations to Social Security and Medicare have been met. Next, the Independent Tax Foundation found that this year Americans on average will work 129 days to pay off their total tax bill imposed at Federal, State, and local levels, while my Washington State taxpayers will have to work even longer, 132 days on average. Third, American workers now pay more in Federal, State, and local taxes than for food, clothing, and shelter combined. And fourth, the Federal Government collects more in taxes than ever before, currently nearly 21 percent of America's gross domestic product, the highest percentage since World War II. These are simply facts, not arguments. Reasonable people can agree that Americans are having to turn over too much of their hard-earned dollars in taxes. Tax relief is not a question of need, it is a question of justice. Is it right and just for citizens from Wenatchee to Woodinville to Walla Walla to work more than a third of the year just to pay their taxes? I think not. Unfortunately, President Clinton and his Vice President Gore proposed in their budget to increase--that is right, a net increase in taxes of $96 billion over the next 10 years. You might wonder why a President and Vice President want to raise taxes when we already have the highest burden since World War II. Why do they want to raise taxes when the Federal budget is operating in a surplus? It should be no surprise considering that ever since they were sworn into office in 1993, they have not proposed a net tax cut. In spite of the fact that President Clinton and Vice President Gore campaigned in 1992 on the promise of a middle-class tax cut, they ignored that promise and promptly increased taxes by as much as any administration in the history of the United States. Why? It is very simple. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton proposed 77 new Federal programs. Why does this administration believe that the Government needs to spend more money on so many new programs? Because the President and the Vice President do not trust the American people to spend their own money wisely. They believe that they can spend it better. I disagree. To the taxpayers in towns across my State and across the United States, I say that the Republicans who are adopting this budget do so because they trust you and your family and your neighbors better to spend your own money on your own needs and priorities than bureaucrats in Washington, DC, will ever be able to do. This is one reason that I so strongly favor this budget. This budget sets aside every penny of the Federal budget surplus generated from Social Security into a lockbox for the purpose of strengthening that Social Security system for the future, but it provides that we will return any additional surpluses in the form of tax reductions, up to $142 billion over the next 5 years and $778 billion over ten years, to the people who have paid those taxes. What form of tax relief are we talking about? I must confess that I do not know. Congress will debate that later this year. Four major proposals, however, are: eliminating the marriage tax penalty, ending or reducing the death tax, reducing capital gains taxes, and an across- the-board cut in income tax rates. While I certainly am not able to predict what the final tax relief bill will look like, I hope that it will include some elements of all four of these proposals. But the important point is that this budget resolution allows that debate to take place, allows the Congress to permit the American people to spend their own money, return it to them in the form of tax relief, as against the proposal of the President and the Vice President to increase taxes so that they can determine where that money is spent. I must also say, incidentally, at least that I am every bit as committed to replacing our current Federal income tax code as I am to reducing that tax burden. It is time to scrap it. It is too complicated, too burdensome, too unfair. We need to focus our attention in Congress on developing an alternative. That alternative needs to be fair, simple, uniform and consistent. It is that support on my part that has led me to cosponsor the Tax Code Termination Act. The bill would sunset the current income tax code, except for those funding mechanisms for Social Security and Medicare, by December 31 of the year 2002. It would require a simple majority vote by Congress to reinstate the current code if agreement on a replacement code cannot be reached. But the real points are two: It makes absolutely certain the need to scrap the current Tax Code, and it will act as a catalyst to jump-start debate on a new one. Mr. President, Americans deserve a Tax Code they can understand and predict. Today, about the only thing Americans can predict about the Tax Code is that they will send a big check off to Uncle Sam by April 15, and about the only thing they understand is that the IRS will find them if they do not. This should change, and it is why I am working to help pass a tax relief bill and why I will be working in favor of a new Federal Tax Code that is fair, simple, uniform, and consistent. But a true debate on tax relief, a chance to say exactly what it is we want, depends on a budget resolution which calls for or requires it. This budget resolution does so, Mr. President. This budget resolution is on time. This budget resolution says to the American people: We will secure Social Security for you; we will balance the budget so the economy can keep growing; but the money that is not needed to meet the requirements of the agreements that we made a year ago or 2 years ago is going to be returned to you in the form of tax relief. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize a school in Oak Harbor, Washington for their wonderful success in becoming a `school of choice.' Oak Harbor Elementary is another shining example for why I began my ``Innovation in Education Award'' program-- to highlight to my colleagues in the good things that are happening in education at the local level. When Oak Harbor Elementary underwent a massive remodel of its north annex, originally built in 1934, it had the opportunity to add 200 more students to its student body. Rather than change attendance boundary areas, the school board and superintendent saw it as an opportunity to make it a magnet school to draw students from the most crowded schools in the district. Over the course of a year, Principal Glenda Merwine met with parents and staff to determine what the ideal elementary school could look like. After many meetings, surveys, and discussions, the school chose to make a series of reforms including: requiring uniforms for all students in grades K-5; including curriculum in every classroom about various positive character traits like honesty, generosity and integrity; requiring parent compacts for participation in their children's education; and eventually implementing strong fine arts programs. With this innovative new structure, Oak Harbor Elementary attracted over 200 student transfers from other schools including private schools and home-schooled children in the area. The Oak Harbor ``school of choice'' is now in its second semester under the new plan. Staff and parents are highly enthusiastic over the improved discipline, motivation and achievements of the entire student body. Ms. Merwine said she has seen a dramatic change in the students' attitudes. The student body at Oak Harbor Elementary has increased by 230, yet Ms. Merwine said suspensions and disciplinary incidents decreased dramatically. She gave one example of how the uniforms have brought down artificial barriers between students. Last year, a kindergartener frequently asked Ms. Merwine or a teacher to play with her, claiming the other children wouldn't. Ms. Merwine eventually observed another student telling the girl she wouldn't play with her because she wasn't wearing the ``right brand of jeans.'' This year, on the first day of school, Ms. Merwine said she saw the same two girls--now in 1st grade and wearing nearly identical uniforms--happily playing in the school yard. I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance educators like Glenda Merwine, and the exciting things happening in our local schools when they are given the freedom to innovate. I for one, want to do all I can to increase their flexibility and resources so local educators-- our parents, teachers, principals, school board members and superintendents--can continue to make the best decisions about the education of our children.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on the Tuesday before the recess, I voted against authorizing the air war in Yugoslavia. I did so because it seemed to me that the goal was a goal not worthy enough, not grave enough to begin what amounts to a war, even though under the President's leadership it has only been half a war. Our goals were to be permitted to send young American men and women into the midst of a 600-year-old civil strife in order to enforce an agreement that neither side wished. I also voted against that proposition, because it did not seem to me that the means were sufficient to gain even this questionable end. I voted against it, because it did not seem to me that the administration began to foresee the terrible consequences that would ensue if, and as President Milosevic has, accelerated his expulsion of Kosovars from their own homeland, or the refugee problem with which we would be faced. In other words, there were no contingency plans. At this point, almost 3 weeks later, all of those negative consequences have transpired. We are in the midst of an air war. The air war has not been successful. It is being fought apparently by a President who believes that one can have a war not only without casualties on our side but with few, if any, casualties on the other side. You should not begin a war for reasons that do not justify the use of force, and only the gravest national security reasons do so. And, if you get in one, you should not go into it halfheartedly or without a desire actually to win. Mr. President, what are the potential outcomes? If we are overwhelmingly successful, we may get sometime in the next week, or the next month, or the next year, exactly the privileges that we sought in the first place--the right to send our soldiers into a now devastated countryside in order to require people to live together who do not wish to live together, and perhaps to enforce an autonomy, which I have already said both sides oppose, or, alternatively, maybe we can get the Russians or someone else to help us reach a negotiated solution in which the Kosovars will be worse off than they were before, and in which the barbarism of Mr. Milosevic will at least have been partially rewarded. Or we may end up sending our own troops into that devilishly difficult part of the Balkans, whether from the south, or the west and the north--and we do not yet know--with an escalation of what will still be a halfhearted war with secondary goals, goals that will not include the removal of the present government in Belgrade and the establishment of a real peace. Or, I suppose it is possible--just remotely possible--that the President and NATO may decide that we want a full-scale war against Serbia until that regime is, in fact, destroyed. None of these is an appetizing outcome, by any stretch of the imagination. We are left with these alternatives only, I think, because this administration did not seriously consider what it was doing before it began doing it, or seriously consider both the cost and expense in men, material, money, and prestige of the United States for such a dubious goal. I wish that I had a firm, accurate, and a favorable outcome to look forward to. I wish I could come up with the appropriate means to reach such a goal. However, it seems to me that if we have learned anything in the last several years from other parts of the world, and in the last several weeks from this part of the world, it is that the armed services of the United States should only be used for a vitally important interest of the United States. If they are then to be used, they should be used with a clear and worthy goal, and with a degree of ruthlessness that assures we attain that goal. At this point we have done nothing but worsen our relationships with the Russians and with the neighbors of Kosovo itself at great expense to ourselves and at a horrendous expense to the victims in Kosovo who have been killed, driven from their homes, or driven out of their homeland entirely, without any significant prospect of returning at any time soon. We do need a serious national debate on the subject and we need a President of the United States who far more clearly articulates our goals and how we are to attain those goals. We have not had that kind of presentation. For that reason, support for the United States efforts is extremely shallow and is almost certain to disappear once the casualty lists begin to be published in this country. It is time for candor. It is time for clarity. It is time for a clear statement of our goals. In fact, we are well past time for both of those and we have not received them. I think we are faced with an extremely serious challenge with no clear way to that proper and appropriate goal.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.