T. Gorton

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.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 280, the education flexibility partnership bill. Under a previous order, Senator Bingaman will be immediately recognized to offer an amendment regarding dropouts. Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout today's session, and also Friday until 12 noon. The leader would once again like to remind all Members that a rollcall vote is expected to occur this coming Monday at approximately 5 p.m. All Senators will be notified of the exact voting schedule as it becomes available. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last week the Government's misguided and collusive antitrust suit against the Microsoft Corporation recessed for a much-needed break. It only could be improved by making the recess permanent. I urge my colleagues to make use of the trial's recess to learn about this case, and this industry. Nothing less is at stake here than the freedom to innovate, the key to America's economic success. We ignore this prosecution at our peril, because the United States Government is trying to kill the goose that lays golden eggs in the home states of every one of my esteemed colleagues. It is not simply a Washington- state company that needs shoring up; it is the industry leader that has fueled our recent unprecedented economic miracle, created hundreds of thousands of new jobs to fill those being lost in other sectors of the economy, established America as the global leader in high technology and redefined almost every aspect of our lives--and yet is under siege by a hopelessly time-locked Department of Justice, whose theory of antitrust was shaped in the 60s, when big business was bad, big government good, and facts never got in the way of a nice regulatory scheme. Microsoft is not the only target of this Administration. Intel too is under attack by a gaggle of anti-free market attorneys at the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC says Intel uses its market power to stifle competition in the lucrative chip market. Given recent reports that in January, more computers were sold with chips made by one of Intel's largest competitors, AMD, than with Intel chips, the FTC's case seems far behind the times. But Robert Pitofsky and his cohorts press on regardless of real and dynamic markets. Holman Jenkins summed up the absurdity of the Administration's actions eloquently in an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday: If Joel Klein, Robert Pitofsky and all their little acolytes could catch just one mugger, they would have done something of more value for the country. For that matter, we'd owe the mugger a debt of gratitude for distracting these errant knights from their destructive mission. Of course, I know the pressures of time and schedules on my colleagues, so, of all the millions of words that have been written about the Microsoft trial since its beginning last October, I want them to note just one story, written February 18 on C-Net news.com about Microsoft's recent roller coaster ride on Wall Street. The lead paragraph won't take much more than 10 seconds of my colleagues' valuable time, but it tells everything anyone needs to know about this case: ``Microsoft shares fell as much as 3.8% today,'' the C-net story began, ``on investor concern about threats to the company's dominance from the Linux operating system and the landmark antitrust trial.'' George Orwell couldn't have put it better: With competitors baying at its heels, Microsoft has been forced to divert enormous resources to defend itself against the government's contention that it has no competitors. Actually, George Orwell himself would have rejected the travesty of what is basically a private suit brought by the government on behalf of competing multi-billion-dollar companies against their chief competitor--especially when the government is heavily vested politically in those companies' success. Whether Orwell would have believed it or not, my colleagues need to believe it, because it's happening, and their constituents don't like it. A poll taken by Citizens for a Sound Economy in January found that 81% of Americans--not just Washingtonians, but 81% of all Americans-- say that Microsoft is good for consumers. A Hart/Teeter poll also from January found that 73% of Americans echo that belief and fully two- thirds say the federal government should stay out of the dispute and let the marketplace and consumers decide the fate of competitors in the personal computer industry. A majority know enough about what's already happening in the industry to understand that the whole expensive circus is moot anyway: 51% of Americans think that the federal government should just drop the case in the wake of AOL-Netscape merger. Our constituents are paying attention to this issue because they are consumers and are perfectly aware of how much Microsoft has improved their lives. They also see family, friends and neighbors working for companies that depend on Microsoft for their existence. There are tens of thousands of companies, large and small, that partner with Microsoft, and they are located in every state in the Nation. I'm sure my colleagues know something about them, but I'm not convinced that they are aware of their huge numbers. That's why I asked Microsoft for a state-by-state breakdown of their ``partners,'' companies that work directly with or through Microsoft or its products. Microsoft provided me with the data, which I want to share with my colleagues. Here, I say to the Presiding Officer the Senator from Kansas with 1,171 resale partners and 63 technology partners: Microsoft's partners fall into many categories: software retail stores; small Original Equipment Manufacturers that build and sell PC systems with Microsoft software preinstalled; Corporate Account Resellers who resell Microsoft software to large corporations; providers who sell packaged Microsoft software with value-added consulting services; PC manufacturers; and Microsoft Certified Solution Providers. I direct my colleagues' attention to this map that shows the number of these partners in each of their own states. First, the national numbers: Microsoft has 7,279 technology partners and 112,819 resale partners. These figures represent companies, not employees. Senator Murray and I are already well aware of Washington's 2,637 resale partners and 254 technology partners. Our state's economy is absolutely booming--and it's due not only to the presence of Microsoft itself, but to the thousands of other companies that Microsoft supports. Companies like Technology Express of Bothell and Techpower Solutions Incorporated of Redmond. But I wonder if my other colleagues have stopped to consider what Justice's assault on Microsoft might do to their own state's economies and jobs--and how their constituents might feel about that impact. Let's look at Utah as an example. Utah is home to 64 technology partners and 1,153 resale partners of Microsoft--home to real people working in real jobs for real companies. Companies like PC Innovation Incorporated in Salt Lake City and Vitrex Corporation of Ogden. Despite these facts, the senior Senator from Utah, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has chosen to take the side of the Justice Department and to support the Administration's efforts to squelch the freedom of companies in his own state to innovate. My colleagues should talk with consumers about their views of technology, because as my fellow Senators begin to understand how the technology business works, they will discover consumers not only have not been harmed by Microsoft, but have benefited: Innovation is booming, choices are growing, and prices are falling for all software. Microsoft is leading an industry that the old school Department of Justice just doesn't understand. There are none of the traditional barriers to entry in the high tech industry that have historically motivated antitrust enforcement. This market moves at the speed of ideas--and a good idea can cause a company to lose 90 percent of market share overnight--precisely what happened to once-dominant products such as WordStar and Word Perfect; precisely what could happen to Microsoft. This Justice Department, led by Joel Klein, is brazen about its desire to intervene in markets, even when it knows little about the markets it meddles with. ``Surgical intervention'' is the spin that Klein and his department has coined to describe its interventionist approach. To recap the recent history of this misguided lawsuit, the original charge--that Microsoft illegally tied Internet browsing to its operating system--was rejected before the trial even began by a 3- member Court of Appeals ruling that recognized that putting Internet Explorer technologies into Windows '95 was a beneficial integration, not a monopolistic tie-in. The Court even admonished Klein and cohorts not to try tinkering with software design and warned them to be wary of intruding into marketplace innovation and product design. A mere week before the Court of Appeals ruling came out, the Department of Justice filed its current lawsuit against Windows 98--a product even more integrated than Windows 95. For this trial, Klein and company simply changed tactics. Instead of arguing the case on its legal merits, the Justice Department has engaged in an all-out public relations battle. The new PR strategy has been orchestrated under Joel Klein's watch and has been the primary strategy in the courtroom as well. The government's lead lawyer, Mr. Boies has a few aggressive e-mail messages that showed Microsoft to be exactly the fiercely competitive entity that has engendered its impressive market performance, but nothing more sinister. Mr. Boies uses these same pieces of e-mail over and over again in highly theatrical ways to try and embarrass and intimidate Microsoft's witnesses. At breaks in the trial every day, the Government turns the courthouse steps into ground zero for its spin game knowing full well its legal strategy had failed before it ever left the gate. Despite their shaky legal case, the press has recently reported that Justice Department officials and the Attorneys General from 19 states suing Microsoft are already discussing post trial ``remedies.'' Before any decision has been made in the case, Antitrust Division officials are contemplating punishments. Before they have proven any consumer harm, they are devising consumer remedies. Before they have made closing arguments, they have coined a cute catch phrase for their planned breakup of the company. They call the tiny remnants of the future broken Microsoft they already have the hubris to predict ``Baby Bills.'' Whatever happened to letting justice take its course? Are we to assume that the outcome of the trial is a foregone conclusion? Why are we wasting taxpayer money on attorneys fees when all that is really going on is a show trial? On the other hand, Microsoft has put on a very strong record in this case in areas relevant to the law and the claims brought by the government: trying law, foreclosure of product through exclusionary contracts and the fundamental element of consumer harm. The facts so far in the record show Microsoft to be on firm legal ground in all these areas. The Appeals Court verified there was no illegal tying. James Barksdale, Netscape's CEO, admitted that Microsoft did not foreclose his company from the market. And the government's final witness, economist Franklin Fisher, testified that, on balance, Microsoft has not harmed consumers. As Attorney General for Washington State, I argued 14 cases before the United States Supreme Court. My focus as Attorney General was consumer protection. I want to assure my colleagues today that, had this case been presented to me as an Attorney General, I wouldn't have given it a second glance because there is no evidence whatsoever that Microsoft has harmed consumers. But Joel Klein doesn't care about protecting consumers. He cares about protecting companies that cannot compete on their own. In a recent speech, he stated that it was the job of antitrust to ``reallocate resources between the producer and the consumer.'' Really? To reallocate resources? That's what antitrust is for? Well, I agree with Mr. Klein's assessment on one count: this trial was designed precisely to reallocate resources--from Microsoft to Microsoft's competitors. And why would the Department want to do that? Perhaps because the resources the Administration really wants to reallocate are California's electoral votes into Al Gore's column come the year 2000. Just this past Tuesday the San Francisco Chronicle said that Mr. Gore ``unabashedly acknowledged that he has lavished attention on California, which carries a rich cache of votes--and campaign donors. According to his staff, the Vice President has visited the State 53 times since taking office five years ago.'' In a separate story, the Chronicle quotes the Vice President as saying, ``California is the biggest, most important State. . . . It deserves the most attention, and I'm going to make sure it gets it.'' So, needing California in 2000, lusting for a return to the regulatory excess needed to feed the insatiable maw of big government, and wanting to throw trial lawyers some fresh meat, but lacking anything closely resembling a credible legal case, what have Klein and Co. done? They've demonized the most innovative, extraordinary world- changing engine for progress that this world may ever have seen. As my colleagues think about the implications of our failure to protest this demonization, let's just take a closer look at the ``demon'' itself and see what innovations the forces of government regulatory mediocrity are about to foreclose. Microsoft's economic contributions already are common knowledge, and I've just provided the State-by-State breakdown, but here's a refresher: In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998, Microsoft's net revenues were $14.48 billion--56 percent of which came from international trade. In my home State of Washington, by the end of 1998 Microsoft employed almost 16,000 workers. Nationwide the figure was almost 20,000--and that's without factoring in the number of jobs represented by the 120,000 plus companies on the Partners' map I've just shown my colleagues. Microsoft generates jobs worldwide as well, with subsidiaries in nearly 60 countries, from Austria to Vietnam, Costa Rica to the Czech and Slovak Republics, Saudi Arabia to South Africa. National productivity and workplace efficiency? The value provided is very nearly beyond our ability to calculate. Ironically, Windows, the product portrayed by Klein and cohorts as anti-consumer, was purposely designed by Microsoft to support and encourage the greatest number of innovations possible by independent software programmers, who need a uniform, broad-based platform on which to write code that will be economically viable in smaller niche markets. The result has been an enormous proliferation of software designed to fill every imaginable consumer need. How about other, less obvious innovations this company is responsible for? Let's start with products that just make life better for ordinary people, like WebTV, which lets people use their television sets to connect to the Internet. That's innovation for the better. And there's also Windows' accessibility features--magnifiers, high-contrast schemes, special keys and sound enhancements among many--that make computers easy to use for many people with disabilities--opening doors that previously were locked tight. Education? Microsoft donates millions of dollars in cash and software to schools and libraries every year. Microsoft was recently voted the 3rd most admired company in Fortune's annual poll. That's some demon the Justice Department has targeted. It had better hurry and shut Microsoft down completely or the next thing you know Microsoft will help lower the cost of computing even more or spawn even greater technological and cultural innovations that will make our lives easier and better, and then where would we be? Mr. President, irony aside, there is no aspect of this case that does not offend me. As a lawyer, I have nothing but contempt for the flaccid PR case hoisted feebly in Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's court by the govenment's inquisitors. As a former Attorney General who left a solid legacy of consumer protection, I am appalled at the Orwellian double-speak government lawyers spew forth as they pretend to act on behalf of consumers while simultaneously seeking to dictate what they may consume. As a free-market advocate of decades-long standing, I am chagrined at the ``Damn-the-consequences-full-speed-backward!'' attitude of those who would regulate just for regulation and bureaucracy's sake. As a Senator, I am nonplused at the Administration's gall in asking for a 16 percent increase to beef up its attack-dog department so that it may continue mauling the greatest engine for revenue generation we've seen in many a year. As a Washingtonian, I am incensed at the blatant attempt of Al Gore's wannabe administration to court my state's electoral votes even as his current Administration's Justice Department orchestrates the destruction of Washington's superb economic engine in favor of Silicon Valley's greater financial and electoral prize. Yes, this case offends me in every sense of the word, as it should offend every one of my colleagues. I call on each of them today to recognize what is at risk here, to rise above partisan posturing, to recognize the outrageous nature of the Justice Department's power grab, and to join me in stopping it. Because that is precisely what I intend to do: I will seek to stop the Justice Department's grab for more funding through the Appropriations Committee when there are basic law enforcement needs going unfunded. I intend to conduct Congressional oversight authority of the Department's out-of-control antitrust division in every committee in which it is appropriate, and I will seek out every other legitimate vehicle to provide Congressional control of this out-of- control, time-warped throwback to the 60s. I call on my colleagues to join me today in demanding accountability from a Justice Department that asserts consumer harm in the presence of consumer bounty; that has sought to destroy competition in the name of competition; and that now seeks to increase its own battle force with taxpayer dollars for a undertaking that taxpayers do not want undertaken. This is a Justice Department out of control, and not only with respect to Microsoft. They are also going after Visa and MasterCard. Their Equally hidebound colleagues at the FTC are suing chip manufacturer, Intel, and investigating router manufacturer, Cisco. Most of absurd of all the Department of Justice of the United States of America has accused the country's leading manufacturer of false teeth (Dentsply) of illegally maintaining a monopoly. No wonder Justice is asking for more money and more lawyers; it needs to find more teeth to feed its rapidly burgeoning lawsuit appetite. Mr. President, the Department of Justice seeks to fix what is not broken, to intervene where innovation has been the unchallenged king, and to shunt off to a dead-end track the principal engine of America's technological leadership in the world. The Department of Justice, and not Microsoft, must be stopped. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today, I will introduce legislation that will build on current scientific advances in understanding autism and will promote additional research in this promising field. I introduced a very similar bill last year and am greatly encouraged by the progress in this field. In the last 12 months, we've seen an increase in the number of researchers interested in this field, additional funding for autism research and greater public awareness about this disability. It is my hope that we can continue this momentum and pass meaningful legislation this year. Many think autism is rare. In fact, it is the third most prevalent childhood disability, affecting an estimated four hundred thousand Americans and their families. It is also a condition that doctors and scientists believe can be cured. It is not something that we simply must accept. When people think of autism they might remember the character played by Dustin Hoffman in the movie ``Rainman.'' Yet autism has many faces; it affects people from every background, social and ethnic category. Children with autism may be profoundly retarded and may never learn to speak, while other may be extremely hyperactive and bright. Some may have extraordinary talents, such as an exceptional memory or skill in mathematics. However, all share the common traits of difficulty with communication and social interaction. And for reasons we do not yet understand, eighty percent of those with autism are males. But autism is not about statistics or medical definitions--it is about children and families. The Kruegers, from Washington state, have an all too typical story. Their little girl Chanel developed like any other child--she happily played with her parents, took her first steps, learned some of her first words and then she started to regress. In four short months, by the time she was two, Chanel had become almost completely enveloped in her own private world. Chanel's mother told me ``it was like somebody came in the middle of the night and took my child.'' Like many children with autism, the Krueger's daughter no longer responded when her parents called her name; words she once spoke clearly became garbled; and socializing became more and more difficult. Fortunately, due to her parents' dedication and intervention Chanel Krueger at age 5, is doing remarkably well. But, many autistic children completely lose the ability to interact with the outside world. The hours these kids should be spending in little league or playing with their friends are often spent staring out the window, transfixed by the dust floating in the sunlight or the pattern of leaves on the ground. Even today, with advances in therapy and early intervention, few of these children will go to college, hold a regular job, live independently or marry. More than half never learn how to speak. The facts about autism can be sobering--but there is hope. Early intervention and treatment has helped many children. Science has also made great strides in understanding this disorder. We now know that autism is a biological condition, it is not an emotional problem and it is not caused by faulty parenting. Scientists believe that autism is one of the most heritable developmental disorders and is the most likely to benefit from the latest advances in genetics and neurology. Once the genetic link is discovered, the opportunities for understanding, treating, and eventually curing autism are endless. The promise of research is exactly why I am introducing this legislation. This bill will increase the federal commitment to autism research. Its cornerstone is authorization for five Centers of Excellence where basic researchers, clinicians and scientists can come together to increase our understanding of this devastating disorder. Because so little is known about the prevalence of autism, I have added a provision that establishes at the Centers for Disease Control at least three centers of expertise on autism in an effort to identify the causes of autism. The epidemiology research will help us confirm or dismiss whether a genetic disposition to autism may be triggered by environmental factors. If so, identifying those factors may help us in taking steps to prevent autism from developing. A library of genetic information will be a valuable tool for researchers trying to identify the genetic basis for autism. The bill includes a provision to fund a gene and brain tissue bank developed from families affected with autism to be available for research purposes. While we are hoping to advance our understanding and treatment of autism through research, it is also important that pediatricians and other health professionals have the most current information so that children and their families can receive help as early as possible. The bill includes authorization for an Autism Wareness Program to educate doctors and other health professionals about autism. Finally, it is vital that we encourage collaboration among the scientists conducting this important work throughout the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill establishes an Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee to bring together the scientists at the various Institutes at the NIH, at the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies conducting autism research. While the focus of this bill is on autism, advances in this area are also likely to shed light on related problems such as attention deficit disorder, obsessive compulsive disorders, and various seizure disorders and learning disabilities. Research is the key to unlocking the door and freeing those with autism from the isolation and loneliness of their private world. This bill is intended to give the NIH and the CDC the resources to take advantage of the tremendous opportunity before us to find more effective treatments and ultimately a cure for autism. The promise is real. Fulfillment of that promise only requires our commitment. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this important investment in the future of our children and our Nation.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Y2K problem should not be underestimated. Before the session began, Senator McCain and I committed to working on legislation that will allow entities to focus their efforts on remediation and prevent unproductive litigation. We have solicited and obtained input from sources representing both potential plaintiffs and potential defendants in Y2K actions. We want to continue listening and working on this issue, but do not have much time--the countdown had begun. The draft measure that we are putting on the record today reflects principally the measure proposed by a large coalition of business groups including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, and many others. The draft will, I hope, invite more feedback, and focus the efforts of all interested parties. I invite our colleagues and all interested parties to continue to provide us with comments and suggestions so that we can improve the measure before it is marked up by the Commerce Committee on March 3.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate voted on an amendment to S. 4 offered by my colleague Senator Crapo from Idaho. I voted ``present.'' The amendment would eliminate a federal law that reduces the military retirement pay of those retirees who continue their public service by working for the federal government as civilians. As a Senator who would personally benefit from the amendment's passage, I am subject to a clear conflict of interest and thus cannot properly vote. As many of my colleagues know, I am retired Air Force Reserve officer. As such, my retirement pay from the Air Force would increase significantly if the Crapo amendment were signed into law. With that in mind, I voted present.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I recognize the Tukwila School District from my home state of Washington and the district's ``New Friends & Families'' program. The Tukwila School District has seen its ethnic diversity grow by more than 1,000 percent in the last seven years. Out of the district's 2,500 pupils, 50% are students of color, 20% are enrolled in bilingual education, and all told, they speak about 30 different languages. To meet the challenge of integrating this immigrant population into the school system and the community, the Tukwila School District, the City of Tukwila, and the local Rotary Club created ``New Friends & Families.'' It is a one-night, once a year program designed to engage these hard-to-reach immigrant and refugee students and their families to make them aware of community services and to encourage parental involvement in their children's education. Clearly, when more than 20% of Tukwila's students are unfamiliar with their new surroundings, they face a serious impediment to quality learning. The ``New Friends & Families'' program has met this challenge head on with local creativity, local initiative, and local resources. This shows that local communities know best how to deal with unique local problems. By teaming up with local government and local businesses, the school district has found innovative ways to turn its challenges into successful education. It is programs like ``New Friends & Families'' that illustrate that local innovation works in our schools. The answer to improving our local schools is not more intrusion and red tape from Washington, DC bureaucracies but rather, more freedom and more flexibility for local educators to use federal resources to meet the unique needs of each community in teaching our kids. During last week's recess, I visited Foster High School in the Tukwila District and presented my first ``Innovation in Education Award'' to Superintendent Michael Silver in recognition of the creative work he and his district have accomplished through ``New Friends & Families.'' To recognize the importance of local communities in educating our children, I will be presenting this ``Innovation in Education Award'' once a week to recognize individuals, schools, and educational programs in Washington state that demonstrate the importance of local control in education. I will also take to the floor of the Senate every week to share with my colleagues these examples of locally driven successes in education in an effort to remind all of us working here in Washington, DC that local communities really do know best. For the past 35 years, Washington, DC's response to crises in public education has been to create one new program after another-- systematically increasing the federal role in classrooms across the country. While the federal government has a role in targeting resources to needy populations and in holding schools accountable for results, it should not tie the hands of districts like Tukwila. That only serves to stifle the local innovation that is fundamental to educational success. I have long been an advocate of local control in education and I plan to introduce legislation this spring that will transfer more control from federal agencies back to local educators where it belongs. (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 445 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will restore payment equity to Pacific Northwest producers of club wheat. Last year, during the middle of the 1998 harvest season, the U.S. Department of Agriculture made a rule change regarding the Loan Deficiency Payment (LDP) club wheat, a member of the soft white wheat subclass. While I applaud USDA for its efforts in providing equal payments for club wheat and soft white wheat, by making the policy change in the middle of the production year, many club wheat producers had already contracted with the lower payment. In order to address the inequity between the 1998 club wheat LDP contracts, my colleagues and I requested that USDA make the policy retroactive. USDA claimed it does not have the authority to grant retroactivity, and as a result, I have introduced this legislation to provide the agency retroactive authority. At a time when commodity prices are at an all time low, it is my hope that the LDP inequity for club wheat will be resolved by passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the statement that I am placing in the record is the statement I would have given had I been permitted to speak longer and in open session. During our closed deliberations, I gave a similar, but abridged statement. For almost two years, the President of the United States was engaged in what he has come to describe as an ``inappropriate intimate'' relationship with a young woman who came to his attention as a White House intern. He then lied about their relationship, publicly, privately, formally, informally, to the press, to the country, and under oath, for a period of about a year. This course of conduct requires us to face four distinct questions. First, we must determine if the material facts alleged in the Articles of Impeachment have been established to our satisfaction. Second, do the established facts constitute either obstruction of justice or perjury, or both? Third, are obstruction of justice and perjury high Crimes and Misdemeanors under the Constitution? And, fourth, even if the acts of the president are high Crimes and Misdemeanors, are they of sufficient gravity to warrant his conviction if it allows of no alternative other than his removal from office? The first article of impeachment alleges that the President committed perjury while testifying before the Starr grand jury. Although the House Managers assert that his testimony is replete with false statements, it is clear, at the least, that his representations about the nature and details of his relationship with Miss Lewinsky are literally beyond belief. From November 1995, until March 1997, the President engaged in repeated sexual activities with Monica Lewinsky, who was first a volunteer at and then an employee of the White House and eventually the Pentagon. Though he denies directly few of her descriptions of those activities, he testified under oath that he did not have ``sexual relations'' with her. His accommodation of this paradox is based on the incredible claim that he did not touch Miss Lewinsky with any intent to arouse or gratify anyone sexually, even though she performed oral sex on him. It seems to me strange that any rational person would conclude that the President's description of his relationship with Miss Lewinsky did not constitute perjury. In addition, while we are not required to reach our decision on these charges beyond a reasonable doubt, I have no reasonable doubt that the President committed perjury on a second such charge when he told the grand jury that the purpose of the five statements he made to Mrs. Currie after his Jones deposition was to refresh his own memory. The President knew that each statement was a lie. His goal was to get Mrs. Currie to concur in those lies. The other allegations of perjury are either unproven--particularly those requiring a strict incorporation of the president's Jones deposition testimony into his grand jury testimony--or are more properly considered solely--with those already discussed--as elements of the obstruction of justice charges in Article II. To determine that the president perjured himself at least twice, however, is not to decide the ultimate question of guilt on Article I. That I will discuss later. All the material allegations of Article II seem to me to be well founded. Four of them, however, those regarding the president's encouraging Miss Lewinsky to file a false affidavit and then to give false testimony, those regarding the president's failure to correct his attorney's false statements to the Jones court, and those bearing upon the disposal of his gifts to her are not, in my mind, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I do not believe this standard to be required in impeachment trials, but because I believe that the other three factual allegations of Article II do meet that standard, I adopt it for the purposes of this discussion. (1) From the time she was transferred to the Pentagon in April, 1996, Miss Lewinsky had pestered the president about returning to work at the White House, and, other than some vague referrals, until October 1, 1997, the President had done nothing to make this happen and little to help her find another job. On the first of October, 1997, the president was served with interrogatories in the Jones case asking about his sexual relationships with women other than his wife, and during the rest of October the President and his agents stepped up their efforts to find Miss Lewinsky a job. Three weeks later, on October 21, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, called Miss Lewinsky personally to schedule an interview in her apartment complex, though apparently he interviewed no one else. Shortly after this unusual interview, the Ambassador created a new position in New York and offered it to Miss Lewinsky. What is perhaps most striking about the U.N. job is not even how promptly it materialized, nor that the United States Ambassador was so personally involved in hiring a young woman with precious little job experience, but that Ambassador Richardson held the specially crafted sinecure open for two months while the former intern kept him waiting on her decision. When Miss Lewinsky decided that she preferred the private sector, the president enlisted the help one of his closest personal friends, one of the most influential men in the United States, Vernon Jordan. Miss Lewinsky met with Mr. Jordan in early November. Mr. Jordan, who was acting at the President's behest, apparently did not fully appreciate how important it was for him to cater to Miss Lewinsky, and took no action for a month. The President and Mr. Jordan realized, however, on December 5, 1997, the importance of satisfying Miss Lewinsky 's fancy when her name appeared on the Jones witness list. Before that date, the President needed Miss Lewinsky only to commit a lie of omission--simply to refrain from making their relationship public. Her appearance on the witness list now meant that she would have to lie under oath. Fully appreciative of the higher stakes, the President redoubled his efforts and those of his agents to find Miss Lewinsky a job and keep her in his camp. In the weeks after Miss Lewinsky's name appeared on the witness list, Mr. Jordan kept the President apprised of his efforts to find work for her in the private sector. He called his contacts at American Express, Young & Rubicam, and MacAndrews & Forbes (Revlon's parent corporation). When Miss Lewinsky was subpoenaed on December 19, 1997, to be deposed in the Jones case, Mr. Jordan oversaw the preparation of the affidavit that the President had suggested she file in lieu of testifying. On January 7, 1997, Miss Lewinsky signed the affidavit, which she later admitted was false, denying that she had a ``sexual relationship'' with the President. On January 8, she interviewed with MacAndrew & Forbes. When she told Mr. Jordan that she had done poorly, he called the Chairman of the Board, Ronald Perelman, to recommend Miss Lewinsky, whom he commended as ``this bright young girl, who I think is terrific.'' As a result of this conversation, Miss Lewinsky was called back for another interview with MacAndrews the following day and given an informal offer. On January 9, she reported this to Mr. Jordan, who called Mrs. Currie with the message, ``mission accomplished'' and then called the President himself to share his success. The President's lawyers arranged for Miss Lewinsky's affidavit to be filed on January 14, 1998. After this date, although Miss Lewinsky did not end up with a job in the private sector, neither the President nor Mr. Jordan, who so resolutely pursued their earlier mission, lifted a finger to help the ``bright * * * terrific'' young woman. Why? Because shortly thereafter the fiction of the president's platonic relationship with Lewinsky had exploded. Monica Lewinsky was the same Monica Lewinsky, but she now could no longer protect the President. It is impossible to reconcile the President's course of conduct with any purpose other than to preclude Miss Lewinsky's truthful testimony in the Jones case, or, indeed, to prevent her testifying at all. The case for obstruction of justice is clear. Obstruction was the President's only motive. (2) Next we have the Currie conversation--a set of statements by the President in the nominal form of questions, addressed by the President to Mrs. Currie on the Sunday evening following his Jones deposition when she was called to the White House at an extraordinary time and for apparently a single purpose. We are all familiar now with the questions he posed: ``I was never really alone with Monica, right?'' ``You were always there when Monica was there, right?'' ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' ``You could see and hear everything, right?'' ``She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that.'' Those five statements have a single common thread: the President knew each and every one of them to have been totally false. Had Mrs. Currie been willing to confirm the President's suggestions, she would have been a devastatingly effective witness for him. There is no reasonable explanation of this incident other than it is the President's clear attempt to obstruct justice, both in the Jones case and in the subsequent grand jury investigation. (3) The false self-serving statements by the President to senior members of his staff, to his cabinet, and to the American people just after his affair became public present a somewhat different face. It is reasonably clear that, at the time at which they were made, the President's goal, at least in part, was to save face with his staff and put a less humiliating spin on the Lewinsky matter. At the same time, coupled with his public statements, the President's assertions to his staff were designed to influence their testimony at some future time and place and to enlist them in disguising his conduct. In fact, they did obstruct the grand jury investigation. The President's manipulation of friendly witnesses to testify falsely, if unknowingly, extended for months until the DNA evidence shattered both his public and private positions. The President's attempt to derail the Independent Counsel's inquiry-- an inquiry the very purpose of which was to discover whether the President gave false testimony and tampered with witnesses--by lying to his colleagues, his cabinet, his confidantes, the media, the American people, and ultimately, the grand jury, is--beyond a reasonable doubt-- a wide-ranging and highly public obstruction of justice, deeply damaging to the judicial fabric of the United States. One final note: to the extent that there are unresolved questions of fact, almost every one of them could be resolved by truthful and complete testimony by the President himself. That is a course of action he spectacularly avoided both in his Jones deposition and before the Starr grand jury. Now, he refuses to answer interrogatories from Senator Lott and refuses to appear at this trial to testify on his own behalf. Under the circumstances, is it not appropriate to infer that to tell the truth would be to confirm all of the questionable charges against him? I have not done so for the purposes of this argument, and have considered only those charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the president's silence allows the inference that every one of the factual charges by the House managers is true. With sufficient material facts alleged in the two Articles of Impeachment either essentially uncontested or established by overwhelming evidence, and with those facts clearly constituting both perjury and obstruction, we arrive at the third question before the Senate. Are perjury and obstruction of justice high Crimes and Misdemeanors under the impeachment clause of the Constitution? This is the easiest of the four questions to answer. Perjury and crimes less serious than obstruction of justice have always and properly been considered high Crimes and Misdemeanors. In 1986 Judge Claiborne was convicted by the Senate and removed from office for filing a false income tax return under penalties of perjury. By a vote of 90 to 7, the Senate rejected his argument that he should not be convicted because filing a false return was irrelevant to his performance as a judge. In 1989, Judge Nixon was convicted by the Senate and removed from office for perjury: in fact, for lying under oath to a grand jury. And in that same year, Judge Hastings was convicted of lying under oath and removed by the Senate even though he had already been acquitted in a criminal trial. (It is generally recognized that an act need not be criminal in order to be impeachable.) As these examples illustrate, perjury is and historically has been a sufficient cause for conviction and removal. Although no person has been convicted and removed for obstruction of justice, the nature and gravity of this crime, punished more harshly under our laws than bribery, clearly is also a sufficient cause for conviction and removal. Most of the Senate's precedents, of course, are based on the impeachment trials of judges. President Clinton argues that those precedents should not apply; that presidents, who hold the highest office in the land, should benefit from a lower standard for removal than the judges they appoint and the military officers they command. This President would have presidents remain in office for acts that have resulted in the dismissal of military officers under his command, in the removal of judges, and for acts that would have resulted in the removal of Senators like Bob Packwood, who, like the President, are popularly elected for a fixed term. As House Manager Canady has pointed out, the 1974 report by the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry concluded that the constitutional provision stating that judges would hold office during ``good Behaviour,'' does not limit the relevance of judges' impeachments with respect to standards for presidential impeachments. The President's argument that he should be held to a lower standard than judges, military officers and Senators has no basis in the Constitution, in precedent, in equity, or in common sense. The fourth and ultimate question, nevertheless, is considerably more difficult to answer. For me, the proof of material facts supporting some of the allegations is overwhelming, the proposition that the established facts of the President's conduct constitute perjury and obstruction of justice almost impossible to deny, and the conclusion that perjury and obstruction of justice are high Crimes and Misdemeanors a given. But the inevitable result of a guilty verdict in this trial is the President's removal from office, and I believe that reasonable minds can differ on whether or not that consequence is appropriate. So does at least one of the House Managers. In answering the question of whether removal is too drastic a remedy for these alleged acts of perjury and obstruction of justice, Lindsey Graham, one of the most thoughtful Managers, stated that great minds may not necessarily agree on the question of whether, for the good of the nation, one should or should not remove this President for these high crimes. Removal, he said, is the equivalent of the political death penalty, and the death penalty is not imposed for every felony. Considerations such as repentance and the impact of removal on society should also be considered. (Mr. Graham's view was not , incidentally, that reasonable minds could differ on any of the first three questions that I have outlined, but only on the ultimate question of removal.) While removal upon conviction has not always been considered inevitable, I agree that Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution requires a mandatory sentence of removal upon conviction of high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Nevertheless, a number of thoughtful commentators, and at least a few members of this Senate, have already decided that removal is too drastic a sanction. These commentators and members--who are convinced, perhaps, that the President committed perjury and obstruction of justice, which, as classes of crime, are high Crimes and Misdemeanors--may nevertheless vote not to convict because they believe that removal from office is unwarranted for this perjury and this obstruction of justice. I share that conclusion with respect to Article I, but not Article II. On Article I I have decided, with some regret, that the instances of perjury I believe were established beyond a reasonable doubt are offenses insufficient for removing the President from office--based on the gravity of the offenses as against the drastic nature of removal. Equally important is the fact that these instances of perjury are also elements of the obstruction of justice charges in Article II. One conviction for the same acts of perjury is enough. Nevertheless, I am convinced that one other reflection must precede a decision based on the belief that removal is disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses established here, and that is: what are the consequences of a not guilty finding by the Senate? The consequences are, of course, no sanction whatsoever. It is precisely because the absence of any sanction is so objectionable to those who choke over removal that there has been such a spirited search for a third way. But, fellow Senators, there is no third way. There is no third way. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall extend no further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States * * *.'' The drafters did not intend to allow Congress to choose among a range of punishments analogous to those available to the judiciary, and for this reason they specified that the impeached party was to remain subject to judicial process and specifically limited to two--removal and disqualification--the sanctions that Congress could apply. We must, I believe, by reason of this harsh choice consciously forced on us at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, weigh seriously the effect on the Republic of either of our two possible courses of action. Will the Republic be strengthened, or will it be weakened, by determining that a president shall remain in its most exalted office after perjuring himself and obstructing the pursuit of justice both of a private citizen and of a federal grand jury, in a case occasioned by the president's sexual activities? Will the Republic be strengthened or weakened by removing the President from office by an impeachment conviction for this perjury and this obstruction? Early in our history an incident involving one of the authors of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, shows clearly the bright line between, on the one hand, a private sexual scandal, and on the other, a public obligation--a line the president has intentionally crossed. In No. 65 of the Federalist Papers, Mr. Hamilton described impeachable offenses as ``those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' The president's defenders place great reliance on this explanation. Within four years of the composition of this essay, Mr. Hamilton had an opportunity to reflect on his own words. In the summer of 1791, Hamilton, then the Secretary of the Treasury, had an adulterous affair with a Maria Reynolds. Her husband discovered the affair and demanded a job in the Treasury Department. Though Secretary Hamilton turned him down, he did pay blackmail from his personal funds. A year later, three Congressmen, all politically opposed to Hamilton, learned of the payments, suspected that they might involve Treasury funds, and confronted Hamilton. Despite the tremendous political advantage the story, which eventually leaked, offered them, he immediately and without hesitation told them the truth and nothing but the truth. The author of Federalist No. 65 knew very well the distinction between a private scandal and the profound embarrassment arising out of its publication--and the violation of a public duty in an attempt to avoid that embarrassment. He chose not to use his Treasury position in a way that would justify an impeachment. The personal cost was immense and he assumed it without blinking. President Clinton could hardly have chosen a more different course of action. He chose to violate both his oath of office and his oath as a witness, using his office, his staff and his position to try to avoid personal embarrassment. In any event even the personal consequences for him have been far worse than those visited upon Alexander Hamilton. But it is our duty to determine whether he merits a drastic public sanction--or none at all. Some will say that the President can be charged with crimes related to this affair after his term of office is over. First, such charges lie outside our jurisdiction or duty. Second, such charges seem to me to be unlikely if we acquit the President, or in any event. But third, and most important, let us assume that President Clinton is charged, convicted, and sentenced in 2001. What a devastating judgment on the Senate of the United States that would be! We ourselves would be convicted, by history and forever, of having permitted a felon who abused his office in committing his felonies to remain in office as President of the United States for two long years. I simply cannot imagine any Senator willing to carry that burden of conscience. No, we must choose between the sanction of removal and no sanction at all. We know how Alexander Hamilton would vote today on our question. We know how James Madison, one of Hamilton's interrogators and the careful author of the impeachment provision, would have voted. And merely to call up the name of George Washington is to answer the question of how he would vote. The Republic will not be weakened if we convict. The policies of the presidency will not change. The Administration will not change. But if we acquit; if we say that some perjuries, some obstructions of justice, some clear and conscious violations of a formal oath are free from our sanction, the Republic and its institutions will be weakened. One exception or excuse will lead to another, the right of the most powerful of our leaders to act outside the law--or in violation of the law--will be established. Our republican institutions will be seriously undermined. They have been undermined already, and the damage accrues to all equally--Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives. If there is one thing this President can be relied on to do, it is to put his interests before those of his office and of the Republic. President Clinton has debased the presidency now and, if he is allowed to remain in office, the low level to which he has brought the presidency will continue, and that is not tolerable. I cannot will to my children and grandchildren the proposition that a president stands above the law and can systematically obstruct justice simply because both his polls and the Dow Jones index are high. Our duty in this case is as unpleasant as it was unsought. But our duty is clear. It was imposed on us, by history, without equivocation, 212 years ago. It requires us to convict the President of Article II of these Articles of Impeachment. And that is how I vote, with clear conscience and saddened heart.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will restore payment equity to Pacific Northwest producers of club wheat. Last year, during the middle of the 1998 harvest season, the U.S. Department of Agriculture made a rule change regarding the Loan Deficiency Payment (LDP) club wheat, a member of the soft white wheat subclass. While I applaud USDA for its efforts in providing equal payments for club wheat and soft white wheat, by making the policy change in the middle of the production year, many club wheat producers had already contracted with the lower payment. In order to address the inequity between the 1998 club wheat LDP contracts, my colleagues and I requested that USDA make the policy retroactive. USDA claimed it does not have the authority to grant retroactivity, and as a result, I have introduced this legislation to provide the agency retroactive authority. At a time when commodity prices are at an all time low, it is my hope that the LDP inequity for club wheat will be resolved by passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate Nathan Schacht of Walla Walla, Washington, who was awarded the rank of Eagle Scout rank, the Boy Scout of America's highest honor, on January 19, 1999. Nathan is the son of Don and Margaret Schacht and a sophomore at DeSales Catholic High School. He began scouting five years ago with the Eastgate Lions Troop 305 and moved onto the Cub Scout program with Pack 309. Nathan and I share a common love for the outdoors. During his tenure with the Boy Scouts he logged over 70 miles of hiking and 70 miles of canoeing; earned the 50 Miler Afloat award; camped 63 nights and earned 31 merit badges. He recently completed his term as Senior Patrol Leader for Troop 305. He has been a member of the Order of the Arrow since 1996 and was awarded his Eagle Cap Credentials in 1997. His Eagle project involved building a recycling center for Assumption Elementary School. He spent over 115 hours planning and carrying out this project which included contacting donors for the materials and working with the volunteers in all phases of the project. He secured over $700 in donated materials and 261 hours of volunteer time. Nathan also participates in other activities in his school and community. He participates in the football, basketball, and golf programs at DeSales High School, as well as band, drama and National Honor Society. He has served as a page in the Washington State House of Representatives and as an altar server for the past seven years at Assumption Catholic Church. I am confident that Nathan will continue to be a positive role model among his peers, a leader in his community and a friend to those in need. I extend my sincerest congratulations and best wishes to him. His achievement of Eagle Scout and significant contributions to the Walla Walla community are truly outstanding.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last Saturday, together with my colleagues Senators Kerry, Jeffords, Hollings, Thurmond, Harkin, Murray, Smith of Oregon, Johnson, and Wyden. I introduced ``The Bond Fairness and Protection Act of 1999.'' This is a bi-partisan compromise approach to legislation addressing the tax consequences of electricity restructuring on tax-exempt bonds that are issued by municipally-owned or state-owned utilities (often referred to as ``publicly-owned'' utilities) for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. As my colleagues may recall, last Congress I introduced a substantially similar bill, S. 2182, with eleven cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the 105th Congress did not have an opportunity to address this or other proposals on electricity restructuring. This year we have worked to simplify and refine last year's legislation in response to thoughtful comments we received last year, and in an effort to facilitate timely consideration of the legislation in this Congress. Despite the lack of Federal legislation in this policy area, 18 states have already gone forward and begun to allow retail market choice for electricity consumers at the state and local level. The era of retail competition has already started both for publicly-owned and investor-owned utilities operating in these states. Until recently, publicly-owned utilities have been able to operate under a strict regime of Federal tax rules governing their ability to issue tax-exempt bonds. These rules were enacted in an era when decision makers did not contemplate retail or wholesale electricity competition. These so-called ``private use'' rules limit the amount of electricity that publicly-owned utilities may sell to private entities through facilities that are financed with tax-exempt bonds. For years, the private use rules were cumbersome but manageable. As states move to restructure the electricity industry however, the private use rules were threatening many public power communities with significant financial penalties as they adjust to the changing marketplace. In effect, the rules are forcing publicly-owned utilities to face the prospects of violating the private use rules, or walling off their customers from competition. In either case, this will raise rates for consumers--the precise opposite of what restructuring is intended to achieve. The consumer can only lose when the marketplace operates in this inefficient manner. The legislation that I am introducing today would protect all consumers by grandfathering outstanding tax-exempt bonds, but only if the issuing municipality or state utility elects to terminate permanently its ability to issue tax-exempt debt to build new generating facilities. Such an election would not affect transmission and distributions facilities, which generally would still be regulated under most restructuring proposals or frameworks. Publicly-owned utilities that do not make this irrevocable election would continue to operate under a clarified version of exiting law, thus remaining subject to the private use rules. This legislation attempts to balance and be fair to the interests of all stakeholders in electricity restructuring while keeping the interest of the consumer paramount. It strikes a compromise between publicly-owned utilities and investor-owned utilities by providing an option for publicly-owned utilities to address the problem of how to comply with private use restriction in a restructured marketplace, an option that involves significant trade-offs for the publicly-owned utilities that seek to utilize it. For investor-owned utilities, requiring publicly-owned utilities to forego the ability to issue tax- exempt debt for new generation facilities should mitigate any potential or perceived competitive advantage in the new competitive world. At the same time, it honors promises made to bondholders under contract and existing tax law, thereby avoiding the inequitable consequence of applying old rules to the newly-emerging competitive world of electricity. In addition, for those concerned about the environment, it provides incentives to deliver electricity efficiently through open access and retail competition. Most importantly, for consumers the legislation allows competition to thrive while providing additional local options. Mr. President, we plan to work with all interested parties, and most importantly American consumers, to ensure that we develop the fairest and most reasonable solution to this complex problem. We want electricity restructuring to be a good deal for everyone involved, especially the American consumer who deserves the lower electric bills that a competitive marketplace should provide. I believe this legislation addresses all of these concerns and promotes fair competition in the electricity industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill, and an explanatory memorandum be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the federal government has done quite enough to impede states efforts to recover damages from and change the practices of tobacco manufacturers. Though they asked, the state Attorneys General received no help from the federal government in their litigation. When, despite this, the states in mid-1997 proposed to settle their claims for almost $400 billion and asked the Administration and Congress to codify the agreement, the federal government instead blew it up by spending the states' money, and then some, on this Administration's pet social projects. It was only through the ingenuity, hard work, and unwavering perseverance of people like Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregoire that states were able to take the tobacco manufacturers back to the table in late 1998 and obtain a settlement agreement for $206 billion. Though it did none of the work, the Administration now wants to share in the reward. Using an old provision in the Social Security Act, a provision that I understand was intended to permit federal Medicaid recoupment in cases of fraud or over billing, the federal government is now claiming over 50% of the states' settlement money. To exact what it claims is its share, the Administration intends to withhold Medicaid payments, payments that go to the neediest residents of Washington and other states. This is no idle threat: three days ago, the President sent us a budget in which he spent $16 billion of the states' settlement money in the next five years. The President did indicate, however, that he would relinquish this claim to the money for one year if states agree to spend the money as he and other Washington, D.C. bureaucrats see fit. This is just wrong. The bill that we are introducing today rights this wrong. It allows states to keep the monies they fought for. No strings attached. The federal government has not earned this money, and does not know better than states how it should be spent. I urge my colleagues to join me and my friends from Texas and Florida in seeing that this bill is passed this session.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President. In 1997, Congress and the President agreed to provide $48 billion over the next 10 years as an incentive to states to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children. To receive this money, states must expand eligibility levels to children living in families with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level. Washington State has a strong record of ensuring that its low-income kids have access to health care. Five years ago, my state decided to do what Congress and the President have just last year required other states to do. In 1994, Washington expanded its child Medicaid eligibility level to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) all the way through to the age of 18. During the negotiations of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA), Congress and the Administration recognized that certain states were already undertaking Medicaid expansions up to or above 200 percent of FPL, and that they would be allowed to use the new SCHIP funds. Unfortunately, this provision was limited to those states that enacted expansions on or after March 31, 1997 and disallowed Washington from accessing the $230 million in SCHIP funds it had been allocated through 2002. As a result, Washington State cannot use its SCHIP allotment to cover the 90,000 children currently eligible, but not covered for health care at or below 200 percent of poverty. Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many states have begun accessing their SCHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below Washington's current or past eligibility levels. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Murray, corrects this technicality and is a top priority for the Washington State delegation in the 106th Congress. Congresswoman Dunn has introduced a companion measure in the House of Representatives that is cosponsored by the entire Washington delegation. This bipartisan, bicameral initiative represents a thoughtful, carefully-crafted response to the unintended consequences of SCHIP and brings much needed assistance to children currently at risk. Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA, this initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our state to find those 90,000 uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they receive the health coverage for which they are eligible. This bill does not take money from other states nor does it provide additional federal subsidies for children the state is now covering, it simply allows Washington to continue to do the good work they have already started by focusing on new, uninsured children at low income levels first.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President. In 1997, Congress and the President agreed to provide $48 billion over the next 10 years as an incentive to states to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children. To receive this money, states must expand eligibility levels to children living in families with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level. Washington State has a strong record of ensuring that its low-income kids have access to health care. Five years ago, my state decided to do what Congress and the President have just last year required other states to do. In 1994, Washington expanded its child Medicaid eligibility level to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) all the way through to the age of 18. During the negotiations of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA), Congress and the Administration recognized that certain states were already undertaking Medicaid expansions up to or above 200 percent of FPL, and that they would be allowed to use the new SCHIP funds. Unfortunately, this provision was limited to those states that enacted expansions on or after March 31, 1997 and disallowed Washington from accessing the $230 million in SCHIP funds it had been allocated through 2002. As a result, Washington State cannot use its SCHIP allotment to cover the 90,000 children currently eligible, but not covered for health care at or below 200 percent of poverty. Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many states have begun accessing their SCHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below Washington's current or past eligibility levels. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Murray, corrects this technicality and is a top priority for the Washington State delegation in the 106th Congress. Congresswoman Dunn has introduced a companion measure in the House of Representatives that is cosponsored by the entire Washington delegation. This bipartisan, bicameral initiative represents a thoughtful, carefully-crafted response to the unintended consequences of SCHIP and brings much needed assistance to children currently at risk. Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA, this initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our state to find those 90,000 uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they receive the health coverage for which they are eligible. This bill does not take money from other states nor does it provide additional federal subsidies for children the state is now covering, it simply allows Washington to continue to do the good work they have already started by focusing on new, uninsured children at low income levels first.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that my testimony of January 26, 1999, in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, regarding education reform be printed in the Record. The testimony follows: Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify here today. You have a significant task ahead--the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Today I will share what I believe is the proper role for the federal government in education policy. When the original ESEA legislation passed in 1965, it included just over 30 pages. Today it is more than 300 pages long. The federal government has, with the best of intentions, vastly increased its role in the education of our children. What do we have to show for it? Virtually nothing. The results of the Third International Math and Science Study were reported last year. Our high school's graduating seniors did not fare well. 12th grade students from the United States earned scores below the international average in both science and mathematics. In fact, the United States was outscored by 18 other countries in mathematics, coming in just ahead of Cyprus and South Africa. Verbal and combined SAT scores are lower today than they were in 1970. For the last 35 years, Washington D.C.'s response to crises in public education has been to create one program after another--systematically increasing the federal role in classrooms across the country. While the exact number of federal education programs is subject to dispute, a report released last year by the House Education and the Workforce Committee found more than 700 such programs. A review of the ``Digest of Education Statistics'', compiled by the Department of Education, shows that the federal government funds a multitude of federal education programs spread across 39 departments and agencies. Although the Digest shows that funding for these programs totaled $73.1 billion in 1997, it does not provide a list of the programs included. When asked, the Department was unable to provide a list. One year ago, Dr. Carlotta Joyner of the General Accounting Office testified before the Senate Budget Committee Education Task Force. She informed us about 127 At-Risk and Delinquent Youth programs administered by 15 departments and agencies; more than 90 Early Childhood programs administered by 11 departments and agencies; and 86 Teacher Training programs administered by 9 departments and agencies. The failure of these programs has not gone unnoticed. The federal government's largest education program, Title I, was developed as a part of the original ESEA in 1965 to narrow the achievement gap between rich and poor students. Chester Finn, in a recent article for the Weekly Standard, notes that despite pouring $118 billion into Title I over the past three decades, it has been unable to cause any significant improvement in the achievement of these needy children. Furthermore it is difficult to establish, as Dr. Finn also notes in his article, that the Safe and Drug Free Schools program has made schools either safe or drug free; that the Eisenhower professional development program has produced quality math and science teachers; or that Goals 2000 has moved us any closer to the national education goals set a decade earlier. Such clear and compelling statistics demonstrate that, despite our best intentions, the federal government has failed to create a coherent set of programs that address the varied needs of children around the country. I submit to you that we have failed because we do not and can not possibly know and understand all the challenges faced by school children today. Who does know best? It's simple. Our children's parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members know much better than we what our school children need in their own communities. Even within my own State, the needs of children in Woodinville, Wenatchee and Walla Walla differ greatly. Those working closely with our children should be allowed to make more of the vital decisions regarding their education. This is not to say that the federal government should not continue to target resources to needy populations. We can and should hold States and local communities accountable for results. But we must not begin from a point that immediately ties their hands and strangles innovation. It is time for the federal government to try something new. I'm sure many of you have heard the success stories I have about innovative education practices taking place in the Chicago Public Schools. Paul Vallas, the CEO of the Chicago school system, recently addressed an audience here in Washington, D.C. to discuss the reforms he's instituted that have done so much to turn his school system around. When asked by former Secretary of Education William Bennett what the most important power was that he'd been given, Mr. Vallas replied, ``The flexibility to allocate our resources as we see fit.'' In 1995, the Illinois legislature gave that flexibility to Mr. Vallas and the Chicago system by combining all state education programs into two grants--one for special education and one for everything else. The legislature allowed Mr. Vallas and the Chicago School Board to decide how to allocate their resources. A request for similar authority has been made recently by the Seattle School district, in this case to the federal government. Seattle has asked the Department of Education to waive several Title I rules and regulations so it can reform its schools' funding system. It wants to provide a system of open enrollment, in which students can enroll in public schools of their choice. Schools in the district would then be ranked by concentration of poverty. Those with more than a 50% concentration of poverty would receive Title I funds, and could use those funds on a school-wide basis. Although the funds would be used to address the needs of all children in a school receiving the funds, particular attention would be given to those who require additional support in achieving state learning standards. It is unclear, however, that the U.S. Department of Education will allow the waiver necessary to implement this innovative reform. The point is, Seattle shouldn't have to ask. I have introduced legislation twice in the past two years that would allow such innovative reforms to take place. Although my amendment passed the Senate on each occasion, it was removed in conference committee discussions under the threat of a veto by President Clinton. I want to let this Committee know that I intend to introduce legislation again that will accomplish my goals of giving states and local communities the ability to implement reforms that they believe will benefit their students and provide them with a quality education. It is, I believe, somewhat more flexible than the similar and meritorious bills introduced by Senators Bond and Hutchinson. To ensure that a quality education is available I believe we need to trust the wisdom of those who spend each day with our children--their parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the federal government has done quite enough to impede states efforts to recover damages from and change the practices of tobacco manufacturers. Though they asked, the state Attorneys General received no help from the federal government in their litigation. When, despite this, the states in mid-1997 proposed to settle their claims for almost $400 billion and asked the Administration and Congress to codify the agreement, the federal government instead blew it up by spending the states' money, and then some, on this Administration's pet social projects. It was only through the ingenuity, hard work, and unwavering perseverance of people like Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregoire that states were able to take the tobacco manufacturers back to the table in late 1998 and obtain a settlement agreement for $206 billion. Though it did none of the work, the Administration now wants to share in the reward. Using an old provision in the Social Security Act, a provision that I understand was intended to permit federal Medicaid recoupment in cases of fraud or over billing, the federal government is now claiming over 50% of the states' settlement money. To exact what it claims is its share, the Administration intends to withhold Medicaid payments, payments that go to the neediest residents of Washington and other states. This is no idle threat: three days ago, the President sent us a budget in which he spent $16 billion of the states' settlement money in the next five years. The President did indicate, however, that he would relinquish this claim to the money for one year if states agree to spend the money as he and other Washington, D.C. bureaucrats see fit. This is just wrong. The bill that we are introducing today rights this wrong. It allows states to keep the monies they fought for. No strings attached. The federal government has not earned this money, and does not know better than states how it should be spent. I urge my colleagues to join me and my friends from Texas and Florida in seeing that this bill is passed this session.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Air Transportation Improvement Act. This bill would provide a two-year authorization for the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). As Senator McCain has noted, this bill is almost exactly the same as S. 2279, which the Senate passed last September by a vote of 92 to one. The only differences are technical in nature. I would like to commend Senator McCain for moving quickly to deal with FAA reauthorization in a timely manner. If no action is taken, the AIP will expire on March 31, 1999, and airports will not receive much needed federal grants that would allow them to continue to operate both safely and efficiently. The Air Transportation Improvement Act would establish contract authority for the program. Without this authority in place, the FAA cannot distribute airport grants, regardless of whether an AIP appropriation is in place. A lapse in the AIP is unacceptable, and I will work tirelessly to ensure that this does not occur. Mr. President, this bill reaffirms our commitment that the United States should continue to have the safest and most efficient air transportation system in the world. Although the role of Congress is vital, the FAA has the immediate responsibility for managing the national air transportation system. In very broad terms, the FAA is directly responsible for ensuring the safety, security, and efficiency of civil aviation, and for overseeing the development of a national airports system. One critical activity being performed by the FAA is modernization of the air traffic control (ATC) system. This process has been ongoing for 15 years, and will continue for many years into the future. During my tenure as Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I have learned that the modernization program is at a critical juncture. We can no longer allow the program to continue the ``stops and starts'' of the past. Improvements must get on track, or the growing demand for air services combined with outdated equipment will soon bring gridlock and serious concerns about safety. I am encouraged that the FAA is working with industry to put the ATC modernization program on track and develop a plan to deliver equipment, on time and on budget, that will ensure increased safety and efficiency for all Americans. This bill will help ensure that these very important efforts continue. The FAA must spare no effort over the next few years to modernize the ATC system, as airlines will also be spending a great deal of money to purchase and install the components needed in their aircraft to use these new systems. All of this needs to be done right, and done now, to ensure continued safety and efficiency in the aviation industry. Another matter requiring immediate attention is the FAA's progress in dealing with the Year 2000 problem. This issue has far reaching safety and economic implications, and has already been the subject of many hearings in Congress. It is imperative that the FAA makes the most out of limited time and resources, and Congress must ensure that this is a top priority. The public is aware of the Year 2000 problem and must be reassured beyond any doubt that it will be possible to fly and, most importantly, to fly in complete safety, on January 1, 2000. As I already mentioned, this bill contains numerous provisions designed to improve competition and service in the airline industry. The inclusion of these measures in the bill does not in any way mean that airline deregulation has been unsuccessful. The overall benefits of airline deregulation are clear: fares are down significantly and service options have increased. Many of the benefits of deregulation can be attributed to the entry of new airlines into the marketplace. The low fare carriers have increased competition, and have enabled more people to fly than ever before. Air traffic has grown as a result, and all predictions are that it will continue to grow steadily over the next several years. In spite of the success of deregulation, many believe that competition can be improved. The competition provisions in the Air Transportation Improvement Act would ease some of the federally-imposed barriers that remain in the deregulated environment. These barriers include the slot controls at four major airports and the perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport. Although this legislation is a positive step forward for our national aviation system, one of my main priorities, which is not included in the Air Transportation Improvement Act, will be to push for an increase in the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) cap. We must address the widening infrastructure gap that threatens to hamstring our national aviation system. The independent National Civil Aviation Review Commission and the GAO also estimate that there is a backlog in airport improvements of approximately $3 billion per year. To ensure that our infrastructure deficit can be met, we must look for innovative solutions such as a PFC increase which allow local control and responsibly for improving our national aviation system. I look forward to working with Senators McCain, Hollings, and Rockefeller to ensure that our common goals of providing a safe and secure aviation system for both commercial airlines and the general aviation community as well as providing adequate resources for the FAA to carry out this task are met.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the omnibus appropriations bill this morning, but I did so with some reluctance. While I am marginally pleased with this bill's contribution to education and defense, my primary concern is the $20.9 billion in emergency spending included in this bill that further jeopardizes the Social Security trust fund. In July, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the Federal Government will run a $63 billion surplus in 1998 if the Social Security trust fund is included in the budget calculations. We still run a $41 billion deficit, however, if the surplus in the Social Security trust fund is excluded. The Federal Government will not run a surplus without the inclusion of the Social Security trust fund until 2002, when CBO expects a $1 billion surplus. By 2008, the surplus will rise to $64 billion, without counting the Social Security trust fund. However, the omnibus appropriations package includes $20.9 billion in emergency spending--spending outside of the caps established in last year's balanced budget agreement, spending that is not paid for with offsets in other government programs. So how are we paying for $20.9 billion in emergency spending? We're using money from the surplus--a surplus that doesn't exist yet unless we include the Social Security trust fund in our calculations. I am dismayed by this outcome, especially when I recall the way we started this year. The President urged Congress to ``Save Social Security First'' during his State of the Union Address in January. In late April, the President again stated, ``I will resist any proposals that would squander the budget surplus, whether on new spending programs or new tax cuts until Social Security is strengthened for the long-term.'' Apparently, the President is ignoring his own advice. During negotiations over the appropriations package, the President pushed for $20 billion in so-called emergency spending. He did not propose to offset this spending with cuts in other Government programs. In fact, by categorizing his spending requests as ``emergencies,'' he plans to spend a large part of the surplus he himself designated for saving Social Security in January. Frankly, I question the legitimacy of the ``emergencies'' identified by the President--the year 2000 computer problem, military responsibilities in Bosnia, and the decennial census. These so-called emergencies have been on the radar screen for years. Unfortunately, the President failed to place a priority on these challenges when he gave Congress his budget in February. Now we have several ``emergencies'' for which the President is willing to dip into the surplus he deemed sacred in January--a surplus that does not exist unless we tap into the Social Security trust fund. Unfortunately, Congress capitulated to the President's inconsistent demands and policies. Today we approved a spending package that dips into the surplus that should be used to reform Social Security--a surplus that only exists with the current, but temporary, surplus in the Social Security trust fund. Social Security reform is expected to top next year's congressional agenda. Unfortunately, this spending package starts us off on the wrong foot. The President is willing to stick to his commitment to ``Save Social Security First'' when he wants to deny taxpayers tax relief. However, the surplus appears to be fair game when we are unwilling to make the tough choices needed to fund reprogramming government computers for the Year 2000, our continued military presence in Bosnia, or a responsibility as old as the Constitution--the decennial census. Finally, I would like to stress my sincere hope that Congress and the President will engage in a constructive and honest debate over how to reform the Social Security system next year. We can't politicize this issue--our children and grandchildren depend on an honest and bipartisan reform of a system that will not meet its obligations for the next generation of retirees. After declaring Social Security a priority during the State of the Union Address, the White House fell silent--invoking the famous pledge only when politically expedient. After President Clinton's speech, a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have made tough choices and released Social Security reform packages. The White House must engage in this process. We do need to save Social Security first. While I admit that I do not approve of the manner in which the emergency spending was added to this bill, I am pleased that it provides a much needed additional $7.5 billion for the Department of Defense to ensure the readiness of our nation's armed forces, to tackle the Y2K problem and sets aside funding for a ballistic missile defense. After 14 straight years of declining defense spending, the readiness of U.S. Armed Forces is clearly at risk. By 2003, active duty military personnel strength will decline almost in half from 2.2 million to 1.36 million, the number of active Army divisions will drop from 18 to 10, the number of Navy ships will drop from 569 to 346, and the number of Air Force fighter wings will be decreased from 25 to 13. At the same time, we are spending more of our defense resources on peacekeeping missions and our military personnel are spending more and more time on overseas deployments and less time training. If this trend continues it is unlikely the U.S. armed forces will not be the preeminent military force they were during the gulf war. Unless we take action now to modernize our weapons systems, aircraft, and ships, other nations may catch up to the U.S. technologically, placing our military personnel at greater risk and eroding the tactical advantages they enjoy on the battlefield today. We must work to ensure that our fighter planes, tanks, submarines, and missiles are the best in the world. This bill provides $1.1 billion to fund urgent readiness shortfalls in the services, such as flying hours, spare parts, depot maintenance, personnel recruiting and retention initiatives. One billion is also set aside for a strategic anti-ballistic missile defense system. I'm pleased that appropriators recognized this priority as rogue states aggressively pursue the acquisition of nuclear and chemical weapons technology. It is disappointing that the efforts of my colleague Senator Cochran to pass legislation to establish a National Missile Defense system has failed two times this year by a margin of only one vote. Not surprisingly, education was another issue the White House demagogued in this process for political purposes. This is a debate I personally welcome. This year's spending negotiations drew a bright line between the President and Republicans. The amount of money was never an issue. In fact, our budget agreement matched dollar-for-dollar the President's request for education spending. The debate was not about money--but about who gets to spend it. Some Republican priorities were clearly represented in the omnibus package. This bill includees a $32.7 billion investment in our children's education; $91 million more than the President requested for disadvantaged students and $500 million more than the President thought we should spend on special education. And this bill includes $1.2 billion for school districts to hire new teachers. This last program, providing new teachers for our nation's schools provided a real opportunity to debate the fundamentally different approach Republicans and Democrats have toward our nation's schools. Who do you trust with our children's education? Bureaucrats in Washington DC? Or those who know our children by name--their parents, teachers, and locally elected school board members. Through this process it was clear that the President simply wanted to repeat the pattern of more top down control from Washington DC, new rules and regulations, more bureaucrats and more paperwork meaning that less money reaches our nation's classrooms. According to the House Education at the Crossroads report, we already have some 760 Federal education programs, requiring over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork per year. Both the House and Senate recognize that we simply cannot continue to add to that burden. Earlier this year both bodies approved measures which would radically change the way education funs are spent. The House approved the Dollars to the Classroom Act on September 18, 1998 and the Senate approved my block grant approach earlier this year on the Coverdell education savings account bill. Both proposals support the same philosophical approach, education decisions should be made by those closest to our children-- their parents, teachers and locally elected school board members--not Washington, DC bureaucrats. This new initiative to hire teachers represents a first step toward trusting local decisions regarding our children's education. Republicans were responsible for making sure that 100% of this new money would be spent by our local school districts not by Federal or State bureaucrats. Schools will be able to hire teachers for any grade, no matter where the need is and schools may hire special education teachers; neither would have been possible under the President's prescriptive proposal. Importantly, few rules and regulations will accompany this new money. The President wanted to add this money to a program that already has 171 pages of ``non-regulatory guidance'' from the Federal Government. With the Federal Government providing only 6 percent of the funding for our local schools, and 50 percent of the regulation and paperwork--it was important that we not add to that burden. Republicans insisted that this new money be funneled through an existing block grant program. In a 1997 State of Education speech, Secretary Riley said, ``* * * we should not cloud our children's future with silly arguments about Federal Government intrusion.'' But that is exactly what this debate was and is about--and it couldn't be more important. It will again be the focus of debate next year as Congress works to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I will continue to work in the 106th Congress to save Social Security and to restore authority over our children's education to those who are closest to our children--their parents, teachers, principals, and locally elected school board members.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a small but important element of the Omnibus appropriations measure is the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act Amendments of 1998, and more specifically, a provision within this Act that recognizes that Washington state's claim to the name ``Olympic'' is both first in time, and first in right over the claim of the United States Olympic Committee. Vital geographic features that dominate and define the State of Washington, Mount Olympus in the Olympic Mountain range, within the Olympic National Forest on the massive Olympic Peninsula, were named long before Congress chartered the USOC and permitted it to use the word ``Olympic'' to raise money to support the Olympic games and encourage the USOC's activities. In an opinion interpreting the current statute, the United States Supreme Court noted that it was fair for Congress to allow the USOC to receive the benefit of its efforts to promote and distinguish the word ``Olympic.'' In the same vein, however, where the use of the word ``Olympic'' has geographical significance that pre-dates and is independent of the USOC, it is only fair that the USOC not be able to interfere with this use. Although there are relatively few instances in which the USOC, crying ``mine, mine, mine,'' has gone after any of the thousands of businesses in Washington state that use the word ``Olympic,'' the attitude that the USOC has displayed in these few instances demands correction. I would like to thank State Representative Jim Buck for bringing them to my attention. I am as much a sports enthusiast as the next person, and it has never been my intent to undermine the USOC's ability to raise money through licensing. The USOC remains a creature of Congress, however, and it is incumbent on us to prescribe reasonable limits--to remind the Committee that its privilege to the use of the word ``Olympic'' is not absolute, and is secondary, for example, to the rights of geographic reference on the part of Washington state businesses. The provision that I have included in the Amateur Sports Act serves as a statutory admonition that the USOC must share the word ``Olympic''. The need for a reasonable restriction on the USOC, which I believe this bill contains, is widely recognized in Washington state. On September 25, The News Tribune wrote that we have ``produced a reasonable and narrow compromise that will protect Washington businesses and protect the USOC's legitimate concerns.'' The Seattle Times concurred when it urged the Olympic Committee members to ``get over their Olympic-sized egos and support this modest and sensible tweaking of the law.'' Having just chastised the USOC for its past abuses, let me say that I am heartened by the assurances and commitments the Committee made during discussion of my amendment, assurances that the past abuses were anomalous and inconsistent with USOC policy, and commitments that the USOC will not abuse its privileges with respect to the use of the word ``Olympic.'' I trust the Committee will live up to its promise to rein in its organizing committees and other affiliated entities' overzealous pursuit of businesses using the name ``Olympic,'' even when there is no likelihood that such use will be confused with the Olympic games or activities of the USOC. The language in the omnibus bill is narrower than what I had included in the bill that passed the Commerce Committee. The ``safe harbor'' created for Washington as a subterfuge to obtain immunity from USOC action, then quickly extend their business, goods, or services to other locations, such as Salt Lake City, the site of the next Winter Olympics, with the intent of capitalizing on the games. To allay the USOC's concerns, the final language creates a clear safe harbor for businesses using the word ``Olympic'' when they operate and conduct most of their sales and marketing west of the Cascades. This safe harbor will remove the threat that hangs over the thousands of businesses in Western Washington--the threat that the USOC will deprive them of the ability to continue to use the word ``Olympic.'' Henceforth, Olympic Cleaners in Kirkland, Olympic Auto Sales in Kent, Olympic Golf Repair in Port Angeles, Olympic Ambulance in Sequim, as well as thousands of other businesses in Washington, can rest assured that a creature of the Federal government, the USOC, won't come knocking to collect, not only their taxes, but their name. Finally, I point out that the language is silent about what happens if the business using the word ``Olympic'' substantially extends its operations, sales, and marketing beyond Western Washington. It certainly is not the intent of Congress to place Washington businesses using the word ``Olympic,'' in a geographical cage that constrains their growth so long as the operations of these Washington businesses do not wrongfully capitalize on the work of the USOC by confusing people into making an association with the Olympic games, and not the Olympic Mountain range, Olympic Peninsula, or other geographic features. No court should infer that, in creating the safe harbor for businesses in Western Washington, Congress intended in any way to affect the current law with respect to businesses operating outside of this area. We did not. The North Pacific Pollock Fishery

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, after threatening to filibuster an appropriations measure over provisions relating to S. 1221, the American Fisheries Act, I now want to emphasize my support of the substitute version of the American Fisheries Act that has been included in this mammoth bill. It has been an unexpected privilege and a pleasure to work with, as opposed to against, the Senior Senator from Alaska and his staff on legislation affecting the allocation and management of pollock in the North Pacific. Together, we have crafted a substitute measure designed to achieve the goals of his original legislation, which aimed to Americanize and decapitalize the North Pacific pollock fishery. Not only is this substitute, in my view, fundamentally more fair than the original S. 1221, it is considerably better in that it allows for new methods of managing the largest fishery in the United States, methods that promise to end the race for fish and to ensure that the decapitalization is permanent. Americanization, decapitalization, and rationalization. These were the three things most participants in the pollock fishery said that they wanted from legislation when I convened an industry meeting in Seattle during the August recess. To these goals, I added my own: no summary elimination of foreign-controlled vessels without compensation, and the protection of independent pollock harvesters and processors. Due largely to the perseverance of Senator Stevens, the consensus that eluded the pollock industry in August was reached a month later. The basic elements of the September accord called for increasing the U.S. ownership and control requirements for all fishing vessels; arranging for the buy out by the onshore sector of a significant portion of the pollock catch and of nine Norwegian-controlled vessels; limiting the amount of fish that any one company can harvest and process; and laying the groundwork for a new management scheme to eliminate the race for fish by limiting participants in the pollock fishery and permitting these participants to decide in advance how to divide the resource. Translating the agreement-in-concept into legislation in the few weeks that remained in this Congress was a tremendous challenge. A myriad of questions arose, and we attempted to answer them as best we could with input from the participants in the pollock and other fisheries, state officials, North Pacific Fishery Management Council members, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, Community Development Quota representatives, and others. As we progressed through various drafts of the legislation, we tried to anticipate and address issues like how to require and enforce greater U.S. ownership and control of fishing vessels without disrupting existing and future financing arrangements; the effects of the transfer of fish from the offshore sector on the product mix; ensuring that catcher vessels have sufficient input into the formation and conduct of fishery cooperatives; preventing the vessels being removed from the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone from contributing to overcapacity in other fisheries; and many, many others. One of the most difficult issues is how to protect participants in other fisheries from possible adverse effects of ending the race for pollock. Crabbers and other groundfish fishers are concerned that pollock fishers who participate in cooperatives will spend more time and effort in other, already overcapitalized, fisheries. After considering various legislative proposals to limit effort in other fisheries, I believe we made the right choice to leave this task to the regional councils. Because the measures to end the race for fish in the onshore and mothership sectors will not go into effect until 2000, we delegated to the North Pacific and the Pacific Fishery Management Councils the responsibility of ensuring that the new cooperative management regime provided for in this legislation does not decapitalize and rationalize the pollock fishery at the cost of further overcapitalizing other fisheries. For the offshore sector, which we anticipate will form cooperatives and stop racing for fish in 1999, before the regional management councils have an opportunity to impose restrictions on these vessels, we prescribed limits on participation in other fisheries. One of the questions for which we could not get a definitive answer is whether we have appropriated enough money to cover the cost of the loan that will be used for the vessel buy out. A critical element of this bill is the purchase of nine pollock catcher processor vessels and their pollock fishing history. In exchange for being allocated significantly more fish, and permanently eliminating these nine vessels from all U.S. fisheries, the onshore pollock sector has agreed to pay $75 million to the vessel owners. This $75 million will be advanced as a loan by the federal government, and repaid to the federal government by the onshore sector over a long period of time. This $75 million payment from the onshore sector to the offshore sector is supplemented in this bill by a $20 million federal appropriation, so that the total payment to the offshore catcher processors is $95 million. Of this amount, $90 million is to be paid to the owners of the nine catcher processors being excluded. The additional $5 million is to be paid to the catcher processors whose allocation is reduced even though their vessels are not removed. Because the nine vessels are to be excluded and the allocation to catcher processors to be reduced on January 1, 1999, we have provided that the buy out payments to the owners and the catcher processors be made before the end of 1998. To do this, we have appropriated the $20 million federal share of the buy out, and an additional $750,000 for the cost of the direct loan of $75 million. The $750,000 is one percent of the loan amount, and is the amount that both NMFS and the Office of Management and Budget believe is enough to cover the cost of the $75 million loan. Because this type loan is unprecedented, however, OMB has been unable to say with absolute certainty that $750,000 is the correct amount. If OMB determines that $750,000 is insufficient to cover the cost of the $75 million loan, we expect OMB and NMFS to inform us of this immediately, and to immediately secure sufficient funds to cover the cost of a direct loan of $75 million so that $90 million can be paid to the owners of the nine excluded vessels before the end of this year. These funds can be secured by reprogramming part of the $6 million provided to NMFS to carry out the provisions of this Act. Another question that has arisen recently involves the interpertation of the section that allows offshore catcher vessels to catch 8.5 percent of the pollock allocation reserved for these catcher boats and specified catcher processors. We included this section to ensure that the catcher boats delivering to catcher processors were not squeezed out of the sector. We anticipated that the fish caught by these catcher vessels would be delivered for processing only to the twenty catcher processors named in the bill as eligible to participate in the offshore pollock fishery and eligible to participate in a cooperative, and we did not intend for these catcher vessels to be able to increase the pollock processing capacity by delivering their catch to catcher processors other than the 20 listed vessels. But just as we did not have a definitive answer to the question of the cost of the loan guarantee, we did not have answers to many of the questions that arose from this proposal that so dramatically changes the operation of the largest fishery in the United States: we will rely heavily on the expertise of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and of NMFS, to flesh out many of the details of this truly revolutionary legislation. Even without all of the answers, however, I believe that we made the right decision to seize a unique opportunity to Americanize, decapitalize, and rationalize this fishery, and, at long last, bring peace to an industry whose internecine battles over the years have led to the inefficient operation of the pollock fishery and caused a rift between Washington and Alaska. The Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I agree.

Mr. GORTON. Let me just add, both as a member of the Appropriations Committee and as a Senator from the State of Washington, that I agree that no money should be spent on implementing any such system at the land borders or seaports until we are assured that no adverse consequences will result. I am convinced that the consequences would be disastrous. I would also like to ask the distinguished Majority Leader for his support.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I can do no better than to echo the eloquent remarks of my friend and colleague from New Hampshire. The debate over education today is not a debate over its importance. It is not a debate over the relative commitment of Republicans and Democrats to increase the educational opportunities for our children. The debate, as we have it today, is over who determines how and where that money should be spent--bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or the parents, teachers, principals, and elected school board members in thousands of school districts across the United States. That debate is a vitally important one. In his 1997 state of education speech, Secretary Riley said, ``We should not cloud our children's future with silly arguments about Federal Government intrusion.'' But that is exactly what this debate is about. It isn't silly, and it couldn't possibly be more important. Secretary Riley may feel it very natural that he and the President and his bureaucrats in the Department of Education here in Washington, DC, should set those priorities for all of the thousands of school districts across the country. We do not. We believe in the wisdom of school board members and in the dedication of principals and teachers and parents to the quality of their children's education. I want to emphasize once again, the President in his budget this year asked for $31.4 billion for education. The budget passed by the Senate of the United States has $31.4 billion for education. Later, the President came back and asked for an additional $1.1 billion. Republicans have agreed that that $1.1 billion is appropriate. But in negotiations, of which I have been a part, the President has narrow prescriptions for the use of that $1.1 billion. In fact, when I looked at the statutory language that the President's people asked for, the first two lines were about the appropriation of $1.1 billion. All of the rest of the language was designed to restrict the discretion of State and local education agencies in connection with the spending of that $1.1 billion, narrowly focused on teachers, focused even more on teachers in the first three grades; subject to the rules and regulations of the Federal Department of Education at every possible turn, the distribution formula and the set of rules already adopted for the spending of money from the pot into which this $1.1 billion is to go, according to the President. The formal rules take up just 15 pages of regulations--perhaps 15 pages too many. But the nonregulatory guidance for those regulations is another 171 pages. And, of course, there would have to be additional regulations on top of those, and additional guidance on top of those, for this program as the President has recommended it. In its publication called ``Education At The Crossroads,'' the Education Committee of the House of Representatives reports that there are now 760 Federal education programs, requiring something over 48,600,000 hours of paperwork per year--48,600,000 hours of paperwork. We simply need not add to that burden. Mr. President, 90 percent of those hours now paid for out of the education budgets of our school districts and of our States, 90 percent of those hours could be far more profitably spent on additional instruction for our students or the money spent on improving the physical quality of our schools or the equipment that our schools and our teachers use to train our children. But those moneys are now spent meeting the regulations of the Federal Government accompanying the modest amount of money--some 7 percent to 8 percent--the modest amount of money that the Federal Government supplies as against the States and local taxpayers for the maintenance and the instruction in our public school program. We, on the other hand, without a debate with the President over the amount of money to be spent on education, prefer that it be distributed through an existing Federal program, the one existing Federal program that carries very few regulations with it, directly to the school districts of the United States, to be spent in the way that each of those school districts feels most appropriate. More teachers? Yes, where those school districts feel that is their No. 1 priority. Focused on special education where, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, we have imposed innumerable burdens and regulations on our school districts but supply less than 10 percent of the money to meet those regulations? On other matters that may be more significant to particular school districts across the country? Yes. In discussion of this issue in the course of the last 24 hours with a distinguished Democratic Member of the House of Representatives on the committee there dealing with education, we were told that even in that Representative's own district, the school boards could not be trusted. This Representative was eloquent on the tumbled-down nature of many of the schools in his city, eloquent on the lack of adequate teaching in that school district, but he was totally unwilling to let the people who elected both him and the school board members in his city--he was unwilling to allow those elected school board members to decide how this new money should be used. He was convinced, for some reason or another, that they would ignore the condition of their schools and the quality of their teachers and find something else to spend the money on. Between that idea and ours, there is a great gulf fixed. We feel that if the school boards are allowed to determine how this money should be spent, it will, in the vast majority of all cases, be spent more wisely than it could possibly be spent under a set of one-size-fits-all regulations from Washington, DC, and we feel that there will be more money in the schools because less of it will be used for this 48-plus million hours of filling out paperwork. Those are the two principal reasons for our perspective on this issue--a trust in the dedication of the parents and teachers and principals and superintendents and school board members to the education of the children committed to their care, and to the belief that the less the paperwork, the fewer the regulations, the more dollars that can get actually into the classroom. That may be the last major issue separating us from the President in coming up with an overall omnibus budget and allowing this Congress to finish its work. But it is an issue of profound importance to every American--our students and our parents and all other Americans who wish to bequeath to their children and their grandchildren an even stronger America than the one they inherited from their parents. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.