T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on Monday, my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, came to the floor to respond to a statement that I gave a week or so earlier on the Justice Department's misguided antitrust case against Microsoft. Mr. President, this has become something of a habit for the Senator from Utah and myself. We have debated that lawsuit since well before it was commenced, more than a year ago. I am happy to state that I want to start these brief remarks with two points on which I find myself in complete agreement with Senator Hatch. First, during a speech on Monday, he joined with me in asking that the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Gore, state his position on whether or not this form of antitrust action is appropriate. I centered my own speech on the frequent visits the Vice President has made to the State of Washington and his refusal to take any such position. The Senator from Utah said: Government should not exert unwarranted control over the Internet, even if Vice President Gore thinks that he created it. I am delighted that the Senator from Utah has joined me in that sentiment. Now there are at least two of us who believe that the Vice President of the United States should make his views known on the subject. Secondly, the Senator from Utah, in dealing with the request by the Department of Justice that it receive a substantial additional appropriation for fiscal year 2000 for antitrust enforcement, stated that he is concerned about the value thresholds in what is called the Hart-Scott-Rodino legislation relating to mergers and feels that the minimum size of those mergers should be moved upward to reflect inflation in the couple of decades since that bill was passed, therefore, questions at least some portion of the request for additional appropriations on the part of the Antitrust Division. As I have said before, I believe that it deserves no increase at all, that the philosophy that it is following harasses the business community unduly, and inhibits the continuation of the economic success stories all across our American economy but particularly in computer software. Having said that, the Senator from Utah and I continue to disagree, though I wish to emphasize that my primary disagreement is with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice of the United States and this particular lawsuit. The disagreement really fundamentally comes down to one point: Antitrust law enforcement should be followed for the benefit of consumers. The Government of the United States has no business financing what is essentially a private antitrust case. If there are competitors of Microsoft who think they have been unsuccessful and wish to finance their own antitrust lawsuits, they are entitled to do so. The taxpayers of the United States, on the other hand, should not be required to pay their money for what is a private dispute, primarily between Netscape and Microsoft. That remains essentially the gravamen of the antitrust action that the Justice Department in 19 States is prosecuting at the present time. There is only the slightest lip service given in the course of that lawsuit or by the senior Senator from Utah to consumer benefit. This is not surprising, Mr. President, because there is no discernible consumer benefit in the demands of this lawsuit. Consumers have been benefited by the highly competitive nature of the software market. They are benefited by having the kind of platform that Microsoft provides for thousands of different applications and uses on the part of hundreds of different companies all through the United States. This is not a consumer protection lawsuit. I may say, not entirely in passing, that I know a consumer protection lawsuit when I see one. I was attorney general of the State of Washington for 12 years. I prosecuted a wide range of antitrust and consumer protection lawsuits. But every one of those antitrust cases was based on the proposition that consumers were being disadvantaged by some form of price fixing or other violation of the law. I did not regard it as my business to represent essentially one business unhappy and harmed by competition for a more effective competitor. The basis of my objection to this lawsuit is that it is not designed for consumer protection. It is designed to benefit competitors. Some of the proposals that have appeared in the newspapers for remedies in case of success, including taking away the intellectual properties of the Microsoft Corporation, perhaps even breaking it up, requiring advance permission on the part of lawyers in the Justice Department for improvements in Windows or in any other product of the Microsoft Corporation, are clearly anticonsumer in nature. The lawsuit is no better now than the day on which it was brought. It is not designed to benefit consumers. It ought to be dropped. I am delighted that at least on two peripheral areas of sometime controversy, the Senator from Utah and I now find ourselves in agreement. Regrettably, we still find ourselves disagreeing on the fundamental basis of the lawsuit. I am sorry he is on the apparent side of the Vice President of the United States and the clear side of the Department of Justice of the United States. I expect this debate to continue, but I expect it to continue to be on the same basis. Do we have a software system, a computer system in the United States which is the wonder of the world that has caused more profound and more progressive changes in our society than that caused in a comparable period of time by any other industry, or somehow or another do we have an industry that needs Government regulation? I think that question answers itself, Mr. President, and I intend to continue to speak out on the subject.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, one of the ways in which the Congress of the United States has been the bane of every Governor and State legislator in the United States of America is its constant willingness to impose unfunded mandates on States and on local communities. We constantly pass laws that tell States and local communities what they are to do, but we rarely pass appropriations sufficient to cover the costs of carrying out those duties. Just last week we debated the overwhelming unfunded mandate that is included in our rules relating to the education of special needs students, and, in fact, we moved, at least slightly, in the direction of funding some portion of those unfunded mandates. Here, on the other hand, we have the exact mirror image of an unfunded mandate originally imposed by the Congress of the United States. Here we are asked, in this amendment, to decide that billions of dollars recovered by almost every State in the Union in tobacco litigation against tobacco companies will be appropriated, effectively, by the Federal Government, unless the States agree on the way in which we think that money ought to be spent. Mr. President, 50 percent of all recoveries that the States have made, pursuant to this amendment, must be spent in accordance with this amendment, and detailed regulations are promulgated by the Federal Government for every State in the country. Every Governor will have to make a new application every year for 25 years and meet these requirements or will, in effect, lose an amount of money equal to 50 percent to 100 percent of the money that State has already recovered in an action in which the United States of America was not a party at all. That is fundamentally unfair. It makes an assumption, an unwarranted assumption, that these were Medicaid claims that were presented by the States of the United States. My attorney general, the attorney general of the State of Washington, Christine Gregoire, one of the three or four leaders of this effort, brought and prosecuted a case through much of the trial period, before it was ultimately settled, without the slightest mention of Medicaid. There were all kinds of fraud and contract and tort claims connected with this litigation, quite independent of Medicaid claims on the part of the various States of the United States of America. Last year, this body spent weeks debating whether or not we should control the settlements that the States were making. We ultimately abandoned that effort and left it entirely to the States. As a consequence, we have absolutely no right, at this point, to tell the States how they are to spend their money. Many are already engaged in extensive and sometimes successful antismoking efforts. Many have priorities that are different than the priorities here in the U.S. Senate. But if Members of the U.S. Senate want to control the spending in their own States, money that their own States have recovered, they should run for the State legislature, not for the Senate of the United States. The position taken by the Senator from Texas and her companion, the Senator from Florida, a position that was accepted by the Senate Appropriations Committee, is the right and just position. This money was recovered by the States, this money belongs to the States, and the spending of this money should be determined by each of the 50 States of the United States of America. It is no more difficult than that. It is as simple as that. We have already imposed too many unfunded mandates on the States by our substantive legislation here. Let's not do essentially the same thing by telling States that money they have already recovered has to be spent on our priorities, rather than their own. Support the position of the Senator from Texas and Florida. Reject this amendment.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, March 15. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period for morning business until 3:00 p.m., with the following limitations: Senator Hatch, 30 minutes; Senator Collins, 15 minutes; Senator Inhofe, 30 minutes; Senator Hollings, 20 minutes; Senator Durbin, or his designee, 30 minutes; Senator Bunning, 10 minutes.

Mr. GORTON. I further ask consent that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 257, the missile defense bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, together with the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building, on ``Bankruptcy Reform.''

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Strategic Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 10 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on ballistic missile defense programs and management, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2000 and the future years defense program.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Thursday, March 11, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406), on S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 11, 1999 beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 11, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to consider the President's proposed budget for FY2000 for the U.S. Forest Service.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

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 ``Key Patients' Protections: Lessons from the Field'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 10 a.m.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities be authorized to meet at 3 p.m. on Thursday, March 11, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony on Department of Defense policies and programs to combat terrorism.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet on Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. on S. 383--Airline Passenger Fairness Act.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem be permitted to meet on Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 11, 1999, at 2 p.m. in open session, to receive testimony on the defense health program in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2000 and the future years defense program.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, over the past few years, Vice President Al Gore has made a series of trips to my home State of Washington. His goals on these trips are simple: to raise money for his political campaigns; to recruit supporters for his Presidential endeavors; and to distract Washington State voters from the administration's true agenda for the Pacific Northwest. The Vice President's visits to Washington State are nothing new, but recently the administration, of which he is a vital leader, has chosen to adopt policies that pose a threat to the continued vitality of our economy. Those policies are aimed at the destruction of two of Washington State's economic crown jewels: our hydropower system and Microsoft. During the past year, I have welcomed the Vice President to Washington State by repeatedly asking him two questions: The first, Will you commit to the preservation of each of the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers unless Congress or the people of the Northwest agree to the removal of each or all of them? The second question: Mr. Vice President, if you are elected President, will you end the Justice Department's suit against Microsoft? At first, these questions were answered with silence. Now the Vice President answers them with personal attacks. Whether it is silence or personal attacks, the Vice President makes clear that he does not intend to answer these two questions so fundamental to every family and community in the Northwest. These questions deserve and should receive straight answers from the Vice President, and I will continue to ask them until the Vice President does so. His silence, of course, is eloquent. Vice President Gore's administration is responsible for the Microsoft lawsuit and for a flatout refusal to subject dam removal either to congressional authority or to the consent of the people of the Northwest. What is most illuminating is that the Vice President's silence and personal attacks in response to these questions about dams and Microsoft run counter to positions taken by top Democratic officeholders in Washington State. When it comes to protecting dams on the Columbia River, our Democratic Governor and Democratic U.S. Senator, two of the most powerful Democrats in Washington State, have already publicly opposed efforts by national environmental organizations to take out dams. But the Vice President is silent. Last week I suggested that he had a political motive. That is my opinion, but, frankly, it doesn't matter why he pursues policies to dismantle our hydro system without being willing to say so openly. What matters is whether he will make his position clear. So who loses out on the equation? The people of Washington State, of course. And then there is Microsoft. The good news is that most Democrats in Washington State have come forward to defend Microsoft's freedom to innovate, but the Vice President won't stand with his fellow Democrats in Washington State in support of the company. When he answers this one, he is either silent or he attacks and then attempts to evade the question. Here is a recent example of the Vice President's verbal dance when it comes to the issue of protecting Microsoft: Last week, I admonished the administration for its assault on that company. In responding to my statement, the Vice President's spokeswoman said that I am ``suffering from a Y2K bug'' and have forgotten all the wonderful things Al Gore has done for Washington State. Specifically, the spokeswoman cited hundreds of thousands of new jobs, higher home ownership rates and lower welfare rolls, as if he were responsible for them. There was no answer to the central question--will you work to end the suit against Microsoft? There was another troubling side to this statement. The Vice President, of course, was attempting to take credit for the booming economy in the State that I represent. He should understand that that success comes from the hundreds of thousands of hard-working Washingtonians, plus Microsoft and the amazing group of entrepreneurs who have developed new and better systems, plus our natural resources, not the least of which is our low-cost electricity, or all of the smaller high-tech companies that have sprung up overnight. This success does not come from the Vice President. As to the specifics of the Justice Department's case against Microsoft, the so-called high-tech Vice President says he will not comment on or involve himself in the Justice Department's case against the company. Can we believe that as the administration's point man on high-tech issues, he has no opinion whatsoever on the highest profile high-tech issue before his administration--the future of Microsoft? I do not believe it, nor does anyone else. To claim that he is not involved in an action spearheaded by his own administration is unbelievable. When the Vice President continually refuses to answer the question of whether or not he supports this attack, he has not been straight with the people of the State of Washington. There is a simple answer to the Microsoft question. The answer is for the Vice President to tell us that if he is elected President, he will stop the Justice Department's pursuit of Microsoft. We Washingtonians are 3,000 miles away from the center of Al Gore's universe, but we know only too well that the actions of this administration can have a long and detrimental impact on our economy, our way of life and on our future. We deserve more from the Vice President than silence, distraction and personal attacks. We will remember his silence on what are perhaps the most important Federal public policy questions to face our State in years. We will remember his evasive comments. We will remember his refusal to denounce or even comment on the antitrust case against Microsoft and his unwillingness to make clear his position on protecting Columbia and Snake River dams. I challenge the Vice President again today to tell us plainly whether he supports this administration's assault on two of Washington State's economic crown jewels. Do you, Mr. Vice President, support the Justice Department's antitrust action against Microsoft or not? And do you, Mr. Vice President, support the efforts by national environmental groups to destroy dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers or not? We in the Northwest await the Vice President's answers, and you can be sure that so long as silence and evasiveness carry the day, I will continue to ask these questions.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the outstanding achievements of a local educator, Phyllis Marckworth, from Port Townsend in Washington State. Phyllis has been brought to my attention for her devoted efforts in singlehandedly taking charge of efforts to create an integrated system of technology throughout the Port Townsend School District. Indeed, Superintendent Gene Medina credits Phyllis' enthusiastic efforts for literally transforming the fundamental nature of student learning in the district. It is individuals like Ms. Marckworth that should remind all of us here in the U.S. Senate of the indispensable role that the innovation of local educators play in our children's education. Phyllis is the kind of rare and special educator which schools across this country cherish. She serves as a teacher, a technology administrator, and a staff developer. Thus, her contributions to the better education of students of Port Townsend are noteworthy for several reasons: first, her incredible zeal in tirelessly laboring on behalf of the students she serves. In 1993, she was coordinating plans to purchase computers and telephones for the Port Townsend District. Rather than follow the tradition path of initial hardware investment to supply individual classrooms, Phyllis embarked on a bolder and eventually more rewarding task of assembling an entire telecommunications network for all the students in the district to utilize and learn from. That network has since become the backbone of the improved communication and learning in Port Townsend that all schools hope technology will bring to our classrooms. Secondly, her visionary innovation in implementing an integrated system of technology within the Port Townsend school district has resulted not just in a ``technology curriculum'' but technology that is fully integrated within the entire district's curriculum. This integration has resulted in better education for students who now understand and utilize technology as a part of every aspect of their lives and learning, not just a computer that is used for typing term papers or biology lab reports. Finally, this integration which Phyllis sparked has also corresponded with a direct focus on developing the ability of staff throughout the Port Townsend district to make technology a part of their classrooms. Hence, teachers can make technology a part of the whole education process rather than simply a small piece student learning. Too often technology is brought in to the classrooms of today without the training necessary for our teachers to best use that technology to train our students for tomorrow. Phyllis Marckworth has met that challenge head on and has made her district and its students better because of the creative and dedicated way in which she has done so. It is individuals like Phyllis Marchworth that make education across this country and in our local schools great, not more rules and regulations from Washington, DC. As we in the Senate work on important education legislation, I hope my colleagues will remember the innovative work of educators like Phyllis Marchworth who show how local communities create education success stories when we give them the flexibility they need and deserve.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene at 12 noon on Monday, March 15, and begin a period for morning business until 3:00 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the missile defense bill. The leader has announced that there will be no rollcall votes on Monday, but he hopes that Members will be available on Monday in order to offer and debate amendments to the missile defense legislation. Any votes ordered with respect to any offered amendments will be ordered to occur on Tuesday, and all Members will be notified of that voting schedule when it is available.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe it appropriate to step back one or two steps from the debate over educational flexibility legislation and the 100,000 teachers proposal which is in front of us and look at the general philosophy of Federal education and the profound differences between the two sides. Perhaps the best place in which to determine the attitude of the Clinton administration and its supporters here in Congress with respect to the Federal role in education is the budget of the United States submitted by the President approximately 1 month ago. For a number of years, there has been one relatively modest program of unrestricted aid to school districts across the United States of America. It is called title VI, for innovative program strategies, the least rule-infested, the least bureaucracy-influenced of all of the forms of Federal aid to education. For the present year, 1999, it amounts to $375 million, a very modest amount of Federal aid to education. In the budget of the President of the United States for the year 2000, it has zero dollars. It is simply wiped out. In its place are nine new specific Federal programs, many of which have been discussed by Democratic Members of this Senate, totaling almost $250 million, every one of which is aimed at a precise goal, every one of which says we in Washington, DC, know which school districts across the United States know better than do the parents, teachers, and school board members in those individual communities, and we are going to give you money with strings and rules attached. Now, there is another Federal program which gives money to certain school districts that they can use for any educational purpose. It is called impact aid, and it goes to school districts which encompass Federal military reservations or other large Federal presences or in which there are many students who come from such grounds where property taxes are not collected as the basic support for public schools. The money that comes to those school districts can be spent in the way those school districts deem most effective for the education of their kids. Impact aid in this budget from the President is cut by $128 million-- just slightly less than the $200 million earmarked almost solely for new teachers that is the subject of the debate right here right now. In other words, let's stop allowing these school districts to determine their own educational priorities and we will tell them what their priorities are here. Interestingly enough, the total of each of these disfavored programs is almost identical to the amount of money in the new, more categorical aid programs that the President has come up with. Dwarfing that, Mr. President, is the lack of support for special education for IDEA. The President disguises that lack of support by roughly the same number of dollars nominally for the year 2000 as he has for the year 1999. But almost $2 billion of that is the funding that will not go to the schools until October 1 of the year 2000. In other words, it won't be charged against any deficit in the general fund in the year 2000 itself, it will be forwarded to the year 2001. It will be a bill for the people of the United States to pay, a hidden bill. Now, that is balanced off by several billion worth of school construction bonds, the full cost of which to the Federal Government is only $150 million in the year 2000 but will be billions by the time we are all finished. Finally, there are a number of present programs--all categorical programs--in the budget which are increased about $750 million, but the pattern is overwhelming. This administration will cut or eliminate those programs in which the school districts have plenary authority to make choices in which teachers, parents, principals, and school board members set educational priorities. In every case--including the teachers amendments we are talking about here--the judgment by this administration and by those who support it is a very simple one: Local school boards, even State authorities, don't know how to spend their education money and we have to tell them how to do it. So this particular debate over one or two of these particular new programs--always aimed at valid goals, of course --really is a disguise for the statement that more and more control should be transferred from local school boards, from local entities, and even from the States, to the Department of Education and Washington, DC, and to all of the great educational experts here in the U.S. Senate who know how to run all 17,000 school districts in the United States as a whole. The Senator from Vermont has a perfect alternative, it seems to me, to this proposition. That is, at the very least, let school districts determine whether they want to spend the money on this narrow teachers program or whether they want to cover the obligations we have already undertaken in the Disability Education Program, the special needs students, where just 2 years ago we passed, and the President signed, a bill stating that we would support 40 percent of the cost of that special education. We are at about 9 percent right now. And when you take out the phony $1.9 billion, which won't even be charged against the 2000 budget, it will drop to about 6 percent. Why? In order to come up with all of these fine-sounding new programs in which the Federal Government tells each school district exactly how it should operate. The choice, Mr. President, is a dramatic choice. The choice is whether or not we will follow the course of this administration and reduce substantially the amount of money we allow school districts to determine the goals for themselves, or tell them more and more what they should do for themselves. Mr. President, that simply is not the right direction in which to go, and the increasing categorization of schools should be reversed. We should at least give the flexibility the Senator from Vermont has asked for in the spending of new money--money above and beyond the amount of money that we are devoting to education at the present time. I commend his arguments to my colleagues and hope we will act accordingly.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Grams, introduced S. Con. Res. 16 last week. I am a cosponsor of that legislation expressing the Sense that the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) guaranty fee should not be increased. Ginnie Mae was established to help provide affordable homeownership opportunities for all Americans by facilitating the sale of securities backed by mortgages insured or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of Veteran's Affairs, and the Rural Housing Service. The Ginnie Mae guaranty assures investors in the securities that they will receive all payments due in a timely manner. Ginnie Mae assesses a fee on lenders who issue such securities and notes for this guaranty. Currently, lenders are charged six basis points per loan. The Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities program has been a universal success. Almost 19 million homes have been financed through Ginnie Mae securities. Ginnie Mae creates a way for Americans who are unable to find other financing options to partake in the dream of homeownership. More than 95 percent of all FHA and VA mortgages are securitized through Ginnie Mae. It is no secret that first-time homebuyers comprise more than two-thirds of FHA home purchase loans and that about 34 percent of FHA borrowers are minorities. In its most basic form, Ginnie Mae creates homeownership opportunities for those borrowers who are typically unserved or underserved by the conventional mortgage markets. During the last Congress, there were several attempts to increase the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee. Fortunately, most of these attempts failed. However, an increase of three basis points was adopted during deliberations on the Higher Education Reauthorization Act effective in 2004. All of the attempts sought to use the revenue gained by the increase to pay for spending elsewhere. This pattern must be stopped. Not only should Congress refuse to raise the guaranty fee under any circumstances, but it should also seek to have this arbitrary increase repealed prior to effect. I believe that any increase in the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee is an unnecessary tax on homeownership that would cost homebuyers hundreds of dollars in additional expense at closing and prevent thousands of families from achieving the dream of homeownership. It would defeat the very mission of Ginnie Mae. In addition, an increase in the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee has absolutely no financial basis. Recently, the independent auditor, KPMG, confirmed that Ginnie Mae is financially sound. In fact, Ginnie Mae had a record profit of $601 million in 1997. In that year alone, Ginnie Mae collected a total of $326 million in guaranty fees. It paid out only $11 million in unreimbursed claims. It is apparent that Ginnie Mae does not need the financial boost from the increase fee. Even in this era of low interest rates, the dream of homeownership is elusive for many American families. Extensive efforts should be made to eliminate the barriers to affordable housing. Any increase in the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee creates a substantial impediment to homeownership. Such a result is unacceptable. I ask Senators to please join me in opposing this unjustified tax on homeownership.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Bernice Shivley in my home state of Washington for her efforts to promote literacy in her community. As I have traveled around Washington state, I hear again and again about the great strides ``First Book'' has made in improving children's literacy and in particular, I hear remarkable praise for Bernice Shivley, the First Book Coordinator in Pend Oreille County. First Book is a national non-profit organization with a single mission: To give disadvantaged children the opportunity to read and own their first new book. At the national level, First Book has developed a sustained network of strategic partnerships with groups and companies like the American Library Association and Barnes & Noble, Inc. The key to First Book's success, however, is the inspiration and commitment of local communities. In each locality, First Book establishes an advisory board comprised of volunteer leaders including librarians, teachers, retailers, and public officials. These boards work with existing local literacy programs to increase the availability of tutors, book grants, and to promote special events--all in the name of improved literacy. Most importantly, perhaps, First Book reaches out to the children who are most difficult to reach: the children in soap kitchens and in homeless shelters, in church basements and in youth centers. In Pend Oreille County, which is in the northeast corner of Washington state, Bernice Shivley has made the success of First Book her passion. The regional coordinator for First Book tells me that ``Bernice is a model for what First Book is all about.'' She has graciously volunteered her time and has spent countless hours creating an advisory board, securing donations from area business, and identifying local literacy programs to support. For these reasons, I am awarding Bernice the second of my weekly ``Innovation in Education Awards.'' It is the actions of people like Bernice around the country that should remind us here in Washington, DC that those closest to our children are best equipped to make important decisions regarding their education. I commend Bernice for her outstanding work on behalf of the children and citizens of Pend Oreille County.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this month is the 10th anniversary of the infamous Exxon Valdez oilspill. On March 24, 1989, one of Exxon's largest tankers, under the command of a captain who had been drinking and had abandoned the bridge, struck Bligh Reef and spilled 11 million gallons of North Slope crude oil into the pristine waters of Prince William Sound. The Exxon Valdez oilspill remains the largest man-made environmental disaster in American history. The oil spread almost 600 miles, harming wildlife, closing fisheries, and damaging the subsistence way of life of Alaska Natives living in the region. To its credit, Exxon spent as much as $2-3 billion trying to rectify the effects of the spill, but much damage remains. The spill brought home to all of us in the Pacific Northwest a deeper appreciation for the importance of preventing oilspills. Clean water, a vibrant fishery, and abundant wildlife are all parts of our Northwest way of life, and they are all at risk to oilspills. In Commerce Committee hearings shortly after the spill, I told the Exxon CEO that a Japanese CEO would have been expected to resign after such a calamity. I said this not to be unkind, but because of my strongly-held view that oilspills caused by a company's reckless conduct cannot be tolerated. It is now 10 years later, and Exxon is ready to move on. It has announced its intention to merge with Mobil, creating the largest corporation in the world, with annual revenues of over $180 billion. The federal government is in the process of reviewing this proposed merger. I object to the merger of Exxon and Mobil unless Exxon first resolves some important unfinished business resulting from the 1989 spill. That unfinished business is the litigation brought by the tens of thousands of fishermen, small business owners, and Alaska Natives who were harmed by the spill. About 6,500 of these people live in Washington State. They, too, would like to move on with their lives, but they can't. They have been waiting ten years since the spill, and almost five years since a federal jury determined that Exxon should pay them over $5 billion. They will be waiting a lot longer if Exxon has its way. Every year of delay is worth about $400 million to Exxon, the difference between the 6 percent interest rate on the $5 billion judgment and Exxon's own rate of return of about 14 percent on the same $5 billion. If this case drags on long enough, Exxon will be able to pay most of the jury verdict out of money that it made solely because of the delay in paying the judgment. Exxon has appealed the jury verdict, raising a number of issues. This is to be expected in a case involving this much money. But while this case crawls through our court system, the victims are left waiting for closure to a horrible event that changed their lives forever, and they are waiting for a sense that justice has been done. We need to find a way to meet these perfectly understandable human needs. Exxon has the power and resources to make that happen. We need to send the strongest possible message to Exxon and other oil companies: you use our waterways to transport your product, and you know the consequences if your product spills, so it is your duty to take every precaution. If you act recklessly, you will pay dearly. That message is fading after 10 years, and will be largely lost after a merger of these proportions. Now, before the merger, we have an opportunity to make an indelible impression on what would be the largest corporation on Earth--that an oilspill like this must never happen again.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation amending the 1933 Export Apple and Pear Act to provide for the expansion of pear exports. Currently, all apple and pear exporters must follow the guidelines set forth in the Act when negotiating overseas sales of these commodities. According to the Act, only high grade apples and pears are to be sold in foreign markets. Should an exporter decide to broker a deal with another country involving lower grade apple and pears, the U.S. Department of Agriculture must provide a waiver to farmers allowing them to do so. While growers have prospered under the 1933 Export Apple and Pear Act, more and more countries have requested to purchase lower grade pears. The purpose of this legislation is to eliminate pears from the Export Apple and Pear Act allowing growers and exporters the ability to expand the market for low grade pears without having to approach USDA in each instance for a waiver. There is no doubt that the Pacific Northwest fruit industry is facing a difficult year financially. I believe this bill provides one additional mechanism necessary for an economically strapped industry to access additional markets while still promoting a quality U.S. product.