T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 265, submitted earlier today by Senator Warner.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1759, and further, that the Senate now proceed to its consideration.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I further ask that the consent agreement with respect to the conference report to accompany the Texas Compact be postponed and at the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 1, the Senate proceed to the vote with respect to the Military Construction Appropriations bill.

Mr. GORTON. I further ask that the consent agreement with respect to the conference report to accompany the Texas Compact commence on Tuesday September 1, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote with respect to the conference report to accompany the Military Construction Appropriations bill, the Senate proceed to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. The U.S. economy is the world's greatest free market. Lately, it seems my friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would like to use the one to squash the other. As my colleagues and most Americans know, Senator Hatch has joined forces with the success-busters of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to carve out a special place in the market for companies that cannot compete on their own merits. All of this is being done at the expense of one of America's most successful and innovative companies--Microsoft. Last week, the Judiciary Committee, for the third time this year, served as a forum for frustrated business executives who have been outsmarted and out-innovated by Microsoft. I have continually voiced my objections at the Senate Judiciary's Committee's insistence on inserting itself into battles that should be fought in the free market, not in the Halls of the U.S. Senate or in the Justice Department. I have asserted my opinion that U.S. antitrust laws were written with the intent of protecting consumers, not inferior companies. And I have stood up against those who would like to see the federal government, not the free market, decide which companies are successful in this country and which are not. But Senator Hatch has offered his committee as a haven for the unwashed masses of corporate America, sheltering the weak and wary from the harsh brutality of the free market. This debate has been just that, Mr. President, a debate between two Senators with very different opinions on a matter of importance to both Senators and to the nation as a whole. Earlier this week, however, I learned of something that troubles me deeply, both as a Senator and as an American. In the July 29, issue of Investor's Business Daily Senator Hatch was interviewed about his views on Microsoft. As my colleagues will recall, one of the witnesses at last week's hearing was Rob Glaser, CEO of a company in my home state called RealNetworks, a Microsoft competitor. Allegations arose at the hearing, supported by an affidavit from a senior Microsoft executive, that Mr. Glaser had attempted to use his testimony as a negotiating tool in his ongoing battle with Microsoft. According to the affidavit, Mr. Glaser, the night before he was to testify before the Judiciary Committee, called a senior Microsoft executive and offered to ``negotiate all night if that's what it takes'' to come to terms with Microsoft. The affidavit states that ``Mr. Glaser said that if the negotiations he proposed . . . resulted in an agreement between the two companies, he would not testify the next day. These allegations are disturbing to me, and I had hoped, to Senator Hatch as well. But Senator Hatch, in his interview with Investor's Business Daily seems to support Mr. Glaser's attempt to use the Judiciary Committee as a tool in his negotiations with Microsoft. When asked about the allegations, Senator Hatch said, ``Glaser said he did not (use the testimony as a negotiating weapon), but what if he did? He's a guy trying to save his business. . .'' The distinguished Senator from Utah goes on to say of witnesses that testify before his committee, ``if they gain something by coming, all the better as far as I'm concerned, as long as they tell the truth.'' It may be incidental to this attitude, Mr. President, but important in the public's mind that it turns out that Microsoft Media Player 5.2 did not disable RealNetworks' new G-2 player--in fact, the culprit was a bug in the player itself--not only in Microsoft's tests, but in those of a number of independent experts as well. So far, Senator Hatch has ignored this unpleasant news. Our founding fathers must be turning over in their graves, Mr. President. The United States Senate was never intended to be, and should never be, used as negotiating tool for companies trying to compete in the free market. In fact, the United States Senate was designed, among other things, to protect that very free market. That should continue to be our goal.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 388, S. 1325.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the first vote following the recess will be at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 1. Following that vote, the Senate will begin the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Therefore, votes can be expected to occur throughout the day on Tuesday. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have heard a large number of words and speeches on this floor, of course, in the last 2 or 3 months on the plight of the American farmer. Many called for a return to the policies of yesteryear. I am here this morning in contrast to talk about 10 impediments or evidences of indifference on the part of this administration to the farmers and the agricultural communities of the State of Washington, the Pacific Northwest, and all of America which can be solved simply by the administration's willingness to care about those Americans who produce our food and fibers. So in the classic way that we give lists of 10, I will start, Mr. President, with number 10, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Program. A bloated attempt begun 4 years ago, to have lasted 1 year would cost $5 million, which is now approaching $40 million in 4 years, and has antagonized all of the private interests in the Interior Columbia Basin, all of the Members of Congress who represent any part of that basin, but the continuance of which is demanded by the President as the price of signing an appropriations bill for the Department of Interior. I held a field hearing on this subject in Spokane, WA, with unanimous or near unanimous opposition to the program as it is being conducted at the present time. Both the bill that I am in charge of managing and the bill that has already passed the House of Representatives dramatically changes and minimizes that program. At the behest of this administration, however, a Seattle Congressman put up an amendment to restore the program to its present pristine size. Every Member of the House of Representatives representing any part of the Columbia Basin voted against that amendment, and yet the administration continues to demand it, with all of the interference of private agriculture that it entails. No. 9, the Department of Agriculture budget--welfare over farmers. Two-thirds of the Department of Agriculture's budget is earmarked for food and for welfare programs. The essential research conservation and on-the-ground farmer programs get lost in the shuffle. Only when there is a crisis does the Secretary of Agriculture pay any attention to them. For 3 consecutive years, the administration's request for farmer programs have decreased while the amount requested for food and nutrition programs has increased. No one disputes the importance of those food and nutrition programs, but we cannot very well feed America without providing the funding and infrastructure necessary to enhance the production of the most healthy, abundant, safe and inexpensive crops in the world. No. 8, Columbia-Snake River dams. The President's Council on Environmental Policy of the Department of the Interior had made it quite clear that major dam removal is very high on their agenda of courses of action for the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The Columbia Basin in eastern Washington, in eastern Oregon, and in Idaho, was literally a dust bowl until the introduction of irrigation. Without it, those States would not lead the country in apples, hops, asparagus, and potato production. The Columbia Basin is a cornucopia for the Nation's food supply. Dam drawdown or removal would shut down agriculture in the region. In addition, of course, those rivers provide the avenues of transportation to get those agricultural products to market, a transportation system that would be destroyed by dam removal. No. 7, China trade policy--Washington wheat farmers seem not worth helping by this administration. For more than 20 years, China has refused to import Pacific Northwest wheat because of unfounded, nonscientific phytosanitary reasons. They call it ``TCK smut.'' TCK smut has never been detected in Washington wheat. It does exist, however, in the fields of our wheat-growing counterparts--Canada, France and Germany; but China imports from all three. The administration seeks a new set of trade relations with China. The President went to China. The President, in order to keep peace with China, did not so much as mention these trade barriers, ignoring the plight of our wheat farmers in the Pacific Northwest. His first priority should be to get that barrier lifted. No. 6, repeated efforts to eliminate agricultural research. For the past 2 years, the administration has recommended zeroing out all of the national regionally based agriculture research programs. These programs conduct research necessary to all food-producing regions of the country. The administration's insistence on nationalizing these programs is ludicrous. Obviously, cotton research cannot and should not be conducted in eastern Washington; and red delicious apple research is not conducted in Mississippi. These regional programs have bolstered our already strained land grant education university programs. They are absolutely essential, and yet the administration would wipe them out. No. 5, no movement on fast-track trade negotiating authority. Fast track is essential to establishing trade relations with Chile. Currently, the United States exports face an 11-percent tariff in that country, giving our competitors an 11-percent advantage. Yet, because of objections from members of his own party, the President has abandoned the cause of fast-track trade authority. No. 4, the agricultural labor shortage--not our problem. The administration does not seem to believe that there is an agriculture labor shortage and is opposed to the Guest Worker Program to address this issue that has already passed the Senate of the United States. In the face of that fact, the General Accounting Office estimates that over one-third of our Nation's migrant workforce is illegal. By doing nothing, the Clinton administration is making lawbreakers out of law- abiding agriculture employers and proposes to do nothing about it. No. 3, sanctions against Pakistan. Sanctions are killing our agriculture industries. With more than 40 percent of the world's population under U.S. sanctions, the American farmer is locked out of many markets. The President instantly imposed sanctions on Pakistan as a result of its nuclear tests, and only as a result of action by Congress have those sanctions or the effect of those sanctions been at least partially removed with respect to Pakistan. No. 2, the Endangered Species Act and private property rights. The Endangered Species Act impacts eastern Washington farmers and many others more than any other environmental regulation, and yet the administration, rather than assist in reasonable amendments to the Endangered Species Act, insists on ever more rigid enforcement and ever more interference with the ability of our farmers to grow the food and fiber that the Nation needs. No. 1, Al Gore. President Clinton has officially tagged the Vice President as the administration's environmental leader. He is the promulgator of most of the policies that I have already discussed and has constructed environmental roadblocks and headaches for farmers from Washington State all across the United States to Florida. No one knows the land better than America's hard-working farm families. The District of Columbia, the administration, and Al Gore should not be dictating to America's farmers how to till, harvest, irrigate, employ, and manage their farms. Al Gore and his administration need to focus on foreign trade and agricultural research, not on locking up private property and overregulating the family farm. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska for the use of this time, and I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Texas, who is here with an important amendment, in granting me this time.

Mr. GORTON. Ten minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on July 23, the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management held a hearing on legislation I have introduced to complete an important land exchange in my state. The bill, S. 2136, would authorize and direct the Forest Service to conclude an exchange with Plum Creek Timber Company which has been under formal discussion for several years. The exchange is in an area of Washington surrounding the Interstate 90 corridor through the central Cascades. This area is characterized by a ``checkerboard'' ownership pattern of intermingled ownership between Plum Creek and the Forest Service. These lands are among the most studied not only in my state but the Nation. The problems of checkerboard ownership are well recognized and understood in the west and northwest. This exchange, trading 60,000 of Plum Creek land for 40,000 acres of Forest Service land, would help resolve many management issues for both owners. It would make management more efficient, especially on an ecosystem basis. I introduced my bill to provide impetus to complete this exchange by year's end because of the need for a speedy resolution. If the exchange is not completed by the end of this year, Plum Creek will have no choice but to resume logging their land in 1999. The company has deferred harvests on 90 percent of the exchange lands for the past 2 years and they have firmly stated they cannot continue to do so. There is broad public support for the exchange and for completing it in a timely fashion. Our governor, Gary Locke, and the Lands Commissioner, Jennifer Belcher, have endorsed the exchange--urging it's completion by the end of 1998. The State Legislature unanimously approved a resolution in support of the I-90 exchange. Major newspapers in Seattle and other cities have recognized the need to finish this exchange. Many environmental groups support a land exchange. Mr. President, our subcommittee hearing pointed out the difficult problems we face in Washington when we try to resolve issues. There always seems to be a controversy, no matter how worthy the purpose. My legislation and the I-90 exchange are no different. Representatives from the environmental community, Plum Creek and the Forest Service testified on July 23. While mainstream environmental groups heartily support an exchange, they would prefer to see changes in the lands package identified in a draft Environmental Impact Statement released earlier this spring. Environmental groups are concerned about legislation circumventing appeals and litigation. The Forest Service wants to complete the exchange, but opposes legislation. I am disappointed that the Administration, having worked on this proposal for so long, would oppose a bill designed to enact a land exchange it has negotiated. Each party has spent over $1 million getting to this point. Must we spend more, only to run the risk of seeing the entire exchange fall apart as a result of the heavy weight of appeals and litigation? The I-90 exchange has been proposed in various shapes and sizes for more than a decade. Since it was first considered, the Northern Spotted Owl has been listed under the Endangered Species Act and the President has put his Northwest Forest Plan in effect. Plum Creek has even completed a massive Habitat Conservation Plan on 170,000 acres of its lands--including those in this exchange. This Plan, now two years old, was negotiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With this background and the resulting studies, I am confident we can complete an exchange on these lands that represents a consensus. Mr. President, I recognize and support the idea of getting it right. We have been at this exchange too long not to do just that. When I introduced S. 2136, I indicated it was simply a place holder. The final Environmental Impact Statement will be completed later this summer. It has been my intention to amend the legislation to incorporate necessary changes based on the final EIS. After hearing the testimony of all parties, I have urged them to work together to identify a lands package that can be incorporated in the final EIS. Further I am asking the Forest Service to move up the deadline for completing a final EIS to September 10 and forwarding it to the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands Management. Such a document--presented to Congress in a timely manner-- will leave all options open this year. I continue to believe legislating this exchange is the right thing to do. Mr. President, there are many who question why Congress should legislate this or any land exchange. This is common practice. Congress has not shied away from passing land trades in the past and we should not in this instance when a consensus may be eminent. In an editorial on the exchange The Seattle Times stated, ``The perfect as enemy of the good is a common phrase these days, but it remains appropriate to this situation. A transfer of 100,000 acres with a net gain of 20,000 to the public has a long-term ring to it that future generations may see as prescient. Those are powerful reasons to walk toward this agreement with eyes open, but keep walking.''

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, our self-proclaimed ``Education President'' has just seen fit to veto the most significant bipartisan education legislation passed by the 105th Congress--the Education Savings and School Excellence Act. As many Americans know, this legsilation's main feature is to allow families to establish education savings accounts in which parents can invest $2,000 a year and allow that money to grow tax free. Parents can use the money to pay for school expenses including tutoring, computers, school fees and private school tuition. Why has the President seen fit to veto this legislation? Well, he has received a great deal of pressure from those who believe that we should not increase the control parents have over the education of their children. In addition to providing tax-free education savings accounts for families, this legislation includes provisions that would: authorize a literacy program to improve the reading skills of America's youth; allow Federal funding for education reform projects that provide same gender schools and classrooms; allow States to make awards to public schools that demonstrate a high level of academic achievement; and allow states to test teachers and provide merit pay programs. With the recent news that 60 percent of prospective teachers in Massachuesetts taking a basic certification test were unable to pass, it is unfortunate that the President's veto will not allow States like Massachusetts to help current and prospective teachers reach their full potential, as well as reward those who perform in a superior manner. I signed a letter to the President along with 42 other senators asking that he sign the education savings account legislation and pointing out this very feature. Unfortunately, our plea fell on deaf ears. Mr. President, I have worked diligently to fashion, over the past year a return to our parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members control over the education of their children. The Federal Government has too much influence and misuses too many resources that would be better spent in classrooms across America. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee Education Task Force, I found that no one in the Federal Government even knows exactly how many education programs are overseen by the Federal Government. Although the Department of Education annually publishes a ``Digest of Education Statistics,'' the most recent version of which is over 500 pages in length, there is no mention of how many education programs are administered by Federal agencies. I have, however, heard testimony from the General Accounting Office about the duplication of Federal education programs. In January of this year Dr. Carlotta Joyner of the GAO appeared before the Senate Budget Committee Education Task Force and presented us with a graphic that highlights the web of Federal education programs in only three areas of education: at-risk and delinquent youth, early childhood programs, and teacher training programs. Dr. Joyner explained to us that 15 Federal departments and agencies administer 127 at-risk and delinquent youth programs, 11 Federal departments and agencies administer more than 90 early childhood programs, and 9 Federal departments and agencies administer 86 teacher training programs. It is no wonder that more and more, States and local school districts are suffocated by a tidal wave of papers, forms and programs, each of which no doubt began with good intentions. The net result of this tidal wave, however, is precisely what makes it difficult to set priorities in each of the states and school districts across the country to determine that which will best serve their students. As I have stated previously, the only reason I can discern that the President would veto this legislation is that he believes that schools will be improved through more control from Washington, D.C. Unlike the President, however, I believe our best hope for improving the education of our children is to put the American people in charge of their local schools. I also believe it is appropriate at this time to give my colleagues in the Senate some good news on the education front. Last Friday, the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations adopted a report entitled ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted in Education Today'' by a vote of 5-2. This report is a result of two-and-a-half years of work by that subcommittee and the dedication of it's chairman, Congressman Hoekstra. The report is more than 70 pages long and I will not touch on all the issues it discusses, but I do want to point out some of the conclusions the subcommittee reached. The report's conclusion states in part: . . . the central theme of what we learned is that the federal government cannot consistently and effectively replicate success stories throughout the nation in the form of federal programs. Instead, federal education dollars should support effective State and local initiatives, ensuring that neither impedes local innovation and control, nor diverts dollars from the classroom through burdensome regulations and overhead. The report goes on to give specific steps for Congress to take to improve education in America. The report advocates increasing the ability of States and local communities to waive federal education regulations, reducing the tax burden on families, passing tax-free education savings account legislation, improving federal support for charter schools, and otherwise encouraging more parental choice in education. I have long been an advocate of many of the suggestions outlined in this report. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will take the time to review the report Congressman Hoekstra's subcommittee has prepared and consider where they stand on these issues. It is long past time for both parties in Congress to stop simply giving lip service to the idea of local control of education, and to put our money where our mouths are. Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that although I have introduced and passed twice in the last year an amendment that would allow States and local school districts increased control over the education of their children. Because of the insistence of Democrats in the Senate, the President, and even some Members of my own party this legislation has not yet survived a conference committee. Although I have not yet been successful in passing this legislation into law to give States and local communities the relief they deserve and need to improve education in America, I will again in the near future propose legislation that moves us toward this goal. Whether through block grants or some other means, I am committed to the belief that real education reform will not take place through ''. . . guidance from above . . .'', but from parents and educators in communities across this land as they are empowered to direct the education of their children. Mr. President, I note also present on the floor is Senator Frist, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee task force on education, whose work is of equal importance to that of Congressman Hoekstra's and whose report I also commend to the Members of this body. He is our great expert on health care, but he is also a major leader in education reform in the U.S. Senate, and we all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, these agricultural workers are already here. The Senator from California spoke of 2 million illegal workers already here. But we would think from the remarks of the opponents of this amendment that somehow or another we were spoiling a very good system that gave high wages, a wonderful set of attractions, and only needed to be strengthened. We aren't, Mr. President. We have a situation that makes a violator of the law out of almost every agricultural employer in the United States of America who needs labor on a seasonal basis. What we propose to do is to say that many of these workers, whatever their conditions, are infinitely superior to the country from which they came, which is the reason they are willing to pay good money to be smuggled across our borders, several of whom die in the desert in the attempt to hide during the time that they are here, not to claim any of the rights they might otherwise have. Our proposal would make many of them legally here, with very real rights, with the ability to go home legally and to come back again legally, rather than to have to stay because of the difficulty of crossing the border. Mr. President, tens of thousands of words have been uttered on the floor of this Senate in the last 3 weeks about the plight of our farmers, with collapsed Asian markets and lower prices. Here, for once, we have an opportunity to do something tangible for our farm community, to give them the labor that they cannot get in any legal fashion from citizens, or others, to allow them to be law- abiding, as they wish to do; and instead we have an argument that we better keep the present system; we better keep a system in which there are millions of illegal farm workers here because we don't care to try something that allows this labor to be provided legally. That is the difference. Do we want the labor that is there now, and will be there tomorrow, to be legal labor? Or do we think the present situation with all these illegals is perfectly fine? Yes or no; up or down. Let's allow these people to be here legally, to help us to improve their own lives legally.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Justice Department is out of control, Mr. President. Evidence appears to be mounting that officials at the Department's Antitrust Division have been traveling around the world urging foreign governments to join them in their witch hunt against Microsoft. As far as this Senator is concerned, such action should be prohibited. It seems the Administration is reaching out a helping hand to U.S. competitors overseas. While foreign governments work hard to protect their most important industries, our Justice Department is assisting those foreign governments in their efforts to keep one of America's most vibrant, innovative, and successful companies out of their markets. In a letter sent last week to Attorney General Janet Reno, my colleagues Senators Sessions, Abraham, and Kyl raised some provocative questions about the activities of Justice Department officials overseas. They have learned that Joel Klein and his staff at the Department's Antitrust Division are busily recruiting their foreign counterparts in their war against Microsoft. First and foremost, Mr. President, I'd like to know what Justice Department officials, whose work focuses exclusively on issues here at home, are doing traveling overseas at the taxpayers' expense. According to the letter, in the last six months, Joel Klein has traveled to Japan, Russell Pittman, Chief of the Competition Policy Section of the Antitrust Division has visited Brazil, Dan Rubinfeld, chief economist for the Antitrust Division has gone to Israel, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Douglas Melamed spent a week in Paris in June. At a time when Joel Klein has been complaining that his division does not have enough money or people to do its job effectively, he and his staff are traveling around the world on the Justice Department's dime. And they are using those foreign visits as a bully pulpit to tout the merits of their case against Microsoft and encouraging foreign governments to join in the attack. This kind of activity is reprehensible. It is even more egregious when one notes that it is being financed by the American people--many of whom may wind up losing their jobs and their livelihood if Joel Klein is successful. Here is the evidence my colleagues have compiled to date: Joel Klein visited Japan to meet with the Japanese Fair Trade Commission last December. A month later, the Trade Commission raided Microsoft's Tokyo offices, confiscating thousands of company documents. When Russell Pittman went to Brazil in May, he spoke publicly to senior Brazilian government officials responsible for antitrust enforcement in that country, outlining the Justice Department's case against Microsoft in detail. Nine days later, The Brazilian government announced its intention to begin legal proceedings against the company. A quote from Mr. Pittman at this event is particularly troubling, and, I might add, somewhat ironic. He accused Microsoft of behaving ``like an arrogant monopolist, even acting arrogantly in its relations with the antitrust authorities, it will receive from these agencies what it deserves.'' Who is calling whom arrogant? A government bureaucrat on a taxpayer funded jaunt to Brazil? If the situation were not so serious, I would find this quote to be quite amusing, Mr. President. In Israel in May, Dan Rubinfeld gave a public speech on the Department's case against Microsoft to an audience that included Israeli officials responsible for antitrust enforcement. He later met privately along with his sidekicks from the Federal Trade Commission with a group of Israeli government officials to outline the DOJ's complaint against Microsoft. Not surprisingly, the Israeli government is now in discussions with Microsoft concerning its business practices in that country. And finally, on June 8th, Douglas Melamed briefed the OECD's Competition Law and Policy Committee in Paris on the strengths of the Department's case against Microsoft. The OECD Committee includes officials from Europe, Japan, Canada, and Brazil. I applaud Senators Sessions, Abraham, and Kyl for bringing this issue to light, Mr. President. It is just one in a series of steps by the Administration to tie the hands of successful U.S. companies. Thousands of jobs in my home state of Washington are being put on the line by a contemptuous group of bureaucrats over at the Justice Department. That is why I have decided to offer an amendment today to prohibit the Justice Department from soliciting or encouraging foreign governments to engage in antitrust against U.S. companies defending themselves against antitrust suits filed by the U.S. government here at home. My amendment is narrow in scope. It was carefully drafted to ensure that it is not overreaching. It will simply ensure that Joel Klein and his staff at the Antitrust Division do not travel abroad at the expense of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of encouraging foreign governments to attack successful U.S. businesses. I assure my colleagues that I am very disappointed that this amendment is necessary at all. That U.S. government officials in this Administration are engaged in practices that serve no other purpose than to harm U.S. companies, their employees, their families of their employees, and the small businesses whose livelihoods depend on the success of those companies is truly disheartening. I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning the actions of Antitrust Division officials and to pass this important amendment today. Attorney General Reno and Assistant Attorney General Klein need to know that their actions will not go unnoticed and that they cannot continue down their current path of denouncing U.S. businesses overseas.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to your attention a project that is of utmost importance to Southwest Washington state, the Chehalis I-5 Flood Control Project. You were gracious enough to include $250,000 for this project in the manager's amendment in full committee, and I would like to thank you for your attention to this matter. Unfortunately, this project, which will ultimately cost taxpayers $18 million less than the initial option proposed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, will require $2.5 million in FY 1999 to wade through the myriad of permits that must be completed before this project can move forward. I would like to work with you in conference to ensure that this project has the Federal support to become a reality.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Transportation Appropriations measure crafted by Senator Shelby. This bill takes a significant step forward in addressing the transportation needs of the nation, and more specifically of Washington state. As the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, I am especially pleased with the generous increase in funding for the Airport Improvement Program. The Airport Improvement Program provides valuable grants to fund the capital needs of the nation's commercial airports and general aviation facilities. It allows the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator to fund planning, design, and construction of airport projects directly affecting aircraft operations, including runways, aprons, and taxiways, with the purpose of maintaining a safe and efficient nationwide system of public use airports. Adequate funding for AIP is integral to addressing the infrastructure needs of our national aviation system. The GAO estimates that the gap between available funds and projected maintenance and construction costs for airports is almost $3 billion. The $2.1 billion included in this measure for AIP is a significant step toward bridging this gap. As the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, I will continue to look for the best possible way to assist the Appropriations Committee in meeting the infrastructure needs of our aviation system. Chairman Shelby also included several aviation related items that will have a positive impact on Washington state's airports. Inclusion of $6 million for the Contract Tower Cost-Sharing Pilot Program is certainly a positive development for my state. This new program, which I am also working on in the context of the FAA reauthorization measure, will allow local airports that fall below the eligibility criteria for the existing program to cost-share with the FAA. The $6 million included by Chairman Shelby will cover cost-sharing arrangements for approximately 30 contract towers across the country. Olympia and Felts Field are the two affected airports in Washington state that will be able to maintain their contract towers and, therefore, not diminish the current level of safety. I am pleased that the Chairman included $3 million for the Tactical (Transponder) Landing System. This system was recently certified by the FAA and could provide immense benefit to airports that are surrounded by geographical barriers such as mountainous terrain or approaches over water that render the current Instrument Landing System useless. With the installation of a TLS, Boeing field, whose current approach patterns cause significant noise problems for local residents, will be able to structure much more agreeable landing patterns. Moscow/Pullman airport, which is also named in the bill, should be an excellent test of the effectiveness of a TLS in mountainous terrain. I would also like to commend Chairman Shelby for giving priority consideration to Felts Field, Pangborn Field, Paine Field, and Spokane International airports, which all face unique problems that I look forward to working with the FAA to resolve in a safe and timely manner. This bill is not only positive for aviation. The Chairman has realized that innovative thinking and problem solving in the transportation field deserves priority consideration. This is demonstrated in the Transportation Planning, Research, and Development account, where the Chairman included two projects in Washington state that will serve as models for communities across the nation. The first is a freight mobility study instigated by the Kent, Washington Chamber of Commerce that will bring together representatives from federal, state, and local governments, as well as the shipping, trucking, and rail industries, along with organized labor, to brainstorm on ways we can make the existing system work better, realizing that we have finite resources with which to improve our aging infrastructure. The other Washington state project included in the Transportation Planning, Research and Development account is the Chehalis Basin/I-5 Flooding project. Currently, flooding in the Interstate 5 corridor near Centralia/Chehalis in Washington state seriously compromises freight mobility, with damage and impact estimates of $50-80 million per day. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently planning to solve the problem by elevating the freeway for almost three miles. This would be a typical transportation project, but it would also exacerbate the flooding problem in the Chehalis River Basin and have extensive environmental impacts. The plan is estimated to cost $98 million, with funding anticipated from the federal roads allocation to the states. As an alternative, Lewis County is leading a consortium of three counties (with Grays Harbor and Thurston), two cities (Centralia and Chehalis) and the Chebalis Tribe to eliminate the I-5 flooding problem by solving the flooding problem in the upper Chehalis River Basin. Work on this project is well-advanced, and cost estimates range between $60-80 million. I look forward to working with the Chairman to ensure a significant federal contribution to assist in the costly permitting process that will make this common sense alternative solution a reality. The Chairman was also very generous in his support for the Regional Transit Authority, which was recently renamed Sound Move. On November 5, 1996, the voters of the Puget Sound region approved this $3.91 billion transportation proposal. Sound Move will increase the capacity of the region's transportation system through a fix of light rail, commuter rail, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) expressways, regional express bus routes and ``community connections'' (such as park-and-ride lots and transit centers). Once completed, transit customers will be able to travel throughout a densely populated tri-county region in the state--Pierce, King and Snohomish counties--by local bus, regional bus, light rail and commuter rail, using a single ticket. By passing the Sound Move ballot measure, voters in the Puget Sound region agreed to provide the local funding portion of the plan through a .4 percent increase in the local sales tax and a .3 percent increase in the motor vehicle excise tax. These tax revenues will provide a stable, dependable, dedicated source of local revenue for building, maintaining and operating the system. Coupled with revenue collected from bonds and fareboxes, this funding will provide a 62 percent local match for the light rail and commuter rail portions of the project and over 80 percent of the total $3.91 billion project. Despite the voters' clear willingness to pay for an improved transportation system, the Regional Transit Authority needs federal financial assistance to successfully implement the light rail and commuter rail portions of this plan. The rail segment of the Sound Move proposal includes: a 25-mile light rail line with 26 stations between Seattle's University District and the City of SeaTac via downtown Seattle and the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport; a 1.6-mile light rail line between downtown Tacoma and the Tacoma Dome train station; and an 81-mile commuter line using existing freight track between Everett and Lakewood with at least 14 stations. Mr. President, Sound Move is one of the most cost-effective projects in the nation, with one of the strongest local commitments. In fact, Sound Move ranked Medium/High in all categories in the recently released Department of Transportation FY `99 Report on Funding Levels and Allocation of Funds for Transit Major Capital Investments. These rankings demonstrate the overall strength of the project, which boasts ridership and cost effectiveness estimates that unquestionably rank it among the top new starts in the country. The voters around Puget Sound are eager to join the federal government in making this project a reality and it is my hope that the $60 million included in this measure for the rail component of Sound Move will be supplemented by the full $18 million which was included in the House bill for buses. Mr. President, once again, I would like to thank the chairman for crafting a fair measure that adequately funds our national priorities while realizing and addressing the unique transportation problems facing Washington state.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold yet another hearing designed solely to lob one more grenade at Microsoft. It is entitled ``Competition and Innovation in the Digital Age: Beyond the Browser Wars.'' Just as I have said of the Justice Department's case against Microsoft, the Judiciary Committee's efforts to paint Microsoft in a negative light seems to be merely an attempt to give software companies that cannot compete against Microsoft on their own merits an opportunity to catch up. It is this practice, the practice of using the United States Senate and the Department of Justice as a means to help less successful companies compete against Microsoft, that is unfair-- not Microsoft's business practices. As all of my colleagues will remember, the Committee held a similar hearing only a few months ago. At that hearing in March, Microsoft's CEO, Bill Gates, patiently answered questions from committee members and witnesses representing his competitors for four hours. The questioning focused primarily on whether Microsoft has the right to integrate new and innovative products into its Windows operating system--specifically, Microsoft's Internet Explorer. This is precisely that issue that a gaggle of lawyers over at the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and a dozen state attorneys general are currently litigating. The DOJ and state attorneys general allege that Microsoft, in including its browser software in Windows 98, is in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. Only a few weeks after this case was filed, Microsoft won a major court victory in a related battle. On June 23, a three judge United States Circuit Court of Appeals panel overturned the preliminary injunction issued against Microsoft last December by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. In my opinion, this ruling is so significant as to make the Department of Justice's current case against Microsoft even more questionable than it was at the time of filing. The question before the panel was whether Microsoft violated antitrust law and a 1995 consent decree by integrating its web browser into Windows 95. The panel ruled that Microsoft's actions did not violate the consent decree and that Microsoft should indeed be allowed to integrate new and improved features into Windows. Such integration, the judges ruled, benefits consumers. The judges went on to warn that the government is ill-suited to make technological determinations and that the dangers of doing so far outweigh the potential benefits that ``antitrust scholars have long recognized the undesirability of having courts oversee product design, and any dampening of technological innovation would be at cross-purpose with antitrust law.'' The Judiciary Committee's hearing will apparently focus on issues other than the integration of browser software into Windows 98. The witnesses will instead give testimony, among other subjects, alleging that Microsoft competes unfairly in the server operating system market--a market in which Microsoft is one of many competitors and in which no one company is dominant. No monopoly here--what's the beef? The network server market includes competitors such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Novell, Microsoft and several others. Many of these companies have chosen strategic business models in which they sell their customers not only the software that runs network servers, but sometimes the servers themselves, the applications that run on the servers, and even the workstations that sit on employees' desks. In such models, every piece of hardware and software is designed to work together, and as long as customers use only that one company's products, everything works fine. Sales volumes in the network server market are fairly low but profit margins are high. Once a customer decides to buy a one-company network, he tends to stick with that system because the cost of switching to something else is quite high. Thus, this business model is a good one that can make, and has made, some companies very successful. Microsoft has chosen a different business model for the network server market. It's model is not unfair, illegal, or anti-competitive. It is merely a different way of doing business. Microsoft doesn't make hardware or enterprise applications that run on servers. It does not make the workstation computers that sit on employees' desks. Microsoft makes network operating system called Windows NT. For a customer to use Windows NT on its server, it does not need to buy anything else from Microsoft. NT is designed to work with any manufacturer's hardware and support any company's software. It is a high volume, low profit margin model. It is certainly not difficult to understand why companies like Novell, Sun, and IBM might be concerned about competition in the server market. After all, they have been in this market for a long time and have done very well in it. Because the margins on their sales are high, lost sales are more damaging to them than they are to their competitors whose margins on each sale are much lower. But if Sun, IBM, and Novell continue to respond to the needs of their customers, they will continue to do well in the server market. Just as the appeals panel ruled last month on the browser issue, the decision on whether the business model chosen by Sun, IBM, and Novell or that chosen by Microsoft is a decision best made by the free market and the free market alone. The Department of Justice and the Senate Judiciary Committee have no legitimate role to play in this determination. Let me make it clear, Mr. President, that throughout this attack, Microsoft has gone out of its way to cooperate both with the Committee and with the Justice Department. Even while its reputation is being tarnished by these two organizations, Microsoft has provided them both with everything it has been asked to provide and more. So, I admonish my friend and colleague Senator Hatch to reciprocate. Given the list of witnesses scheduled to testify, however, I am afraid that the deck is already stacked against Microsoft. That is precisely why I advised Bill Gates to decline an invitation from the Committee to appear at the hearing. Once is enough, Mr. President. The Committee can drag Mr. Gates and his company through the mud if it so choose, but Mr. Gates does not have to be there to validate a travesty.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a recent GAO report concluded that approximately one-third of the U.S. agricultural labor force in the United States is illegal. Many estimate that the percentage is in fact much higher. For too long, Congress has failed to respond to the lack of legal agricultural workers, and simply left on the books, and largely unused, a guestworker program that is too administratively complex and expensive to be workable. With recent crackdowns by INS, our farmers and growers face a labor shortage crisis. Congress must act, and it must act now. I rise today, and join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in introducing the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1998, a bill to address this problem. This legislation is long past due and urgently needed. As the Senator from Florida described earlier today, the bill is a win-win-win proposition. It is a win for farmers and growers because it provides them a method of obtaining a legal, reliable workforce. It is a win for workers both domestic and foreign. For domestic workers, the bill, through a work registry, gives them first preference on jobs, benefits above those they are currently receiving, and continued employment by ensuring that American farms remain economically viable and that production is not lost to other countries. For foreign workers, the bill provides the dignity, freedom from fear, and mobility that attends a legal status, as well as significant worker protection and benefits. Finally, the bill is a win for consumers because it ensures them a ready, affordable supply of American agricultural products. I applaud this carefully considered, balanced legislation and will work actively for its quick enactment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I must comment on Senator Grassley's sense-of-the-Senate. While I unequivocally support many of the provisions within the amendment, I must voice my concern over the provision regarding extending most-favored-nation trading status to China. For more than 20 years, the Pacific Northwest has been unable to break China's ban on our wheat. In addition, China has consistently barred imports of our apples and other high quality commodities. With these obvious barriers to American agriculture, I question the wisdom of extending MFN to China when it refuses to open its agricultural markets to our produce. I have serious reservations regarding extending MFN status for China, but because of the dire situation facing the family farm in America, I will support Senator Grassley's sense-of-the-Senate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Justice Department is out of control. Evidence is mounting that officials at the Department's Antitrust Division has been traveling around the world urging foreign governments to join them in their witch hunt against Microsoft. The Administration is offering a helping hand to U.S. competitors overseas. While foreign governments work hard to protect their most important industries, our Justice Department is assisting those foreign governments in their efforts to keep one of America's most vibrant, innovative, and successful companies out of their markets. In a letter sent yesterday to Attorney General Janet Reno, my colleagues Senators Sessions, Abraham, and Kyl raised provocative questions about the activities of Justice Department officials overseas. They have learned that Joel Klein and his staff at the Department's Antitrust Division are busily recruiting their foreign counterparts to join in their war against Microsoft. First and foremost, Mr. President, I would like to know what Justice Department officials, whose work focuses exclusively on issues here at home, are doing traveling overseas at taxpayer's expense. According to the letter, in the last 6 months, Joel Klein has traveled to Japan, Russell Pittman, chief of the Competition Policy Section of the Antitrust Division has visited Brazil, Dan Rubinfeld, chief economist for the Antitrust Division has gone to Israel, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Douglas Melamed spent a week in Paris in June. At a time when Joel Klein has been complaining that his division does not have enough money or people to do its job effectively, he and his staff are traveling around the world on the Justice Department's dime. And they are using those foreign visits as a bully pulpit to tout the merits of their case against Microsoft and to encourage foreign governments to join in the attack. This activity is reprehensible. It is even more egregious when one notes that it is being financed by the American people--many of whom may wind up losing their jobs and their livelihoods if Joel Klein is successful. We need some answers, Mr. President. Does the Attorney General consider such activities on the part of the Antitrust Division legitimate? Is Joel Klein working on behalf of U.S. taxpayers or against them? How much is the antitrust division spending to send its employees around the world? Which foreign competitors have benefited? Here is the evidence my colleagues have compiled to date: Joel Klein visited Japan to meet with the Japanese Fair Trade Commission last December. A month later, the Trade Commission raided Microsoft's Tokyo offices, confiscating thousands of company documents. When Russell Pittman went to Brazil in May, he spoke publicly to senior Brazilian government officials responsible for antitrust enforcement in that country, outlining the Justice Department's case against Microsoft in detail. Nine days later, the Brazilian government announced its intention to begin legal proceedings against the company. A quote from Mr. Pittman at this event is particularly troubling, and, I might add, somewhat ironic. He accused Microsoft of behaving ``like an arrogant monopolist, even acting arrogantly in its relations with the antitrust authorities. It will receive from these agencies what it deserves.'' Who is calling whom arrogant? A Government bureaucrat on a taxpayer-funded jaunt to Brazil? If the situation were not so serious, I would find this quote to be quite ironic, Mr. President. In Israel in May, Dan Rubinfeld gave a public speech on the department's case against Microsoft to an audience that included Israeli public officials responsible for antitrust enforcement. He later met privately, along with his sidekicks from the Federal Trade Commission, with a group of Israeli Government officials to outline the Department of Justice's complaint against Microsoft. Not surprisingly, the Israeli Government is now in discussions with Microsoft concerning its business practices in that country. And finally, on June 8, Douglas Melamed briefed the OECD's Competition Law and Policy Committee in Paris on the strengths of the department's case against Microsoft. The OECD Committee includes officials from Europe, Japan, Canada, and Brazil. I applaud Senators Sessions, Abraham, and Kyl for bringing this issue to light, Mr. President. It is just one in a series of steps by the administration to tie the hands of successful U.S. companies. The American people deserve to know how and why the administration is using their money and why thousands of jobs in my home State of Washington and across the United States are being put on the line by a contemptuous group of bureaucrats over at the Justice Department. I demand that Attorney General Reno do right and answer the questions raised by my colleagues promptly and completely. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for funding the National Park System's annual budget and as a long time resident of Washington State--home to some of the true crown jewels of the system, I have long held both a personal and professional interest in ensuring that our parks are adequately funded and well maintained. Unfortunately in recent years due to declining budgets, more units added to the system, and substantial increases in visitation, our park system faces some serious challenges. All told, the total unfunded backlog in maintenance, resource stabilization, infrastructure repair and employee housing alone is a staggering $8.7 billion. While I have done everything I can to ensure that the National Park Service receives annual increases at a time when overall funding for the Department of Interior continues to decline, the fact is new, innovative ideas are imperative to overcome this desperate situation. For this reason, I have promoted such ideas in my Interior Appropriations bill. One idea that was incorporated into our bill during the 104th Congress was the establishment of the recreation fee demonstration program. Under this three-year pilot program, individual units of the National Park and National Forest systems that charge an additional entry fee get to keep 80% of the receipts collected from that fee within the park or forest unit to help address the backlog of operational and maintenance needs. The user fee program is designed to give each unit more authority over the resources needed to maintain facilities, to repair roads and other areas in need of up keep. While nobody likes higher fees, I have long believed that the public is willing to pay more to visit these national treasures if it could be assured that such increases went to addressing critical needs at the parks they visited. The recreation fee demonstration program is a small, but positive step forward in this direction. More recently, I have gotten behind the ideas and efforts of Senator Craig Thomas, Chairman of the authorizing subcommittee on national parks. Senator Thomas recently developed a comprehensive and forward thinking proposal to reinvigorate the park system. In addition to making my Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent and extending it to all units of the National Park System, Senator Thomas' proposal which passed the Senate last month contains a number of reforms which would improve overall services at our parks and hopefully generate more revenue. I am pleased to have supported Senator Thomas in this effort both as a fellow member of the Senate Energy Committee and on the Senate floor. In addition to my colleagues and my own ideas, I am also relying on the suggestions of the recreation community in my state of Washington which is home to the Olympic, Mount Ranier, and North Cascades National Parks. Recently, I was approached by Mr. John Taylor, a constituent of mine from the Seattle area, who came up with a thoughtful--albeit narrower proposal--which only furthers the interests of the system. This idea would create a National Park Service magazine similar to that established by the National Smithsonian Institution through its publication of the Smithsonian Magazine. A National Park magazine would be created for people who visit or have a particular interest in our parks, their programs, and purpose. The plan is to create a high quality commercial consumer publication that will have broad appeal and park specific sections that will provide useful information and serve as a guide for the park where a specific edition is distributed. Revenue generated from the sale of advertising in the magazine as well as from the sale of the publication itself would go directly to the Park in which the magazines are sold. Proponents of such a project inform me that such a magazine would generate $45 million for the National Park Service over the first 5 years of publication and $10-$12 million each year thereafter. Unfortunately, current Park Service regulations severely restrict the sale of publications which contain advertising in units of the national park. Existing regulations are unnecessary in this case because a magazine for the national parks would no more commercialize the parks than the Smithsonian Magazine commercializes the Smithsonian Institution. Ads in a Park publication are very different than corporate signs and corporate sponsorships in the parks. Magazines are invisible except to those who purchase them. They don't enter the landscape in any way. They don't alter infrastructure. They don't use facilities. They don't express or imply any kind of ownership or funding of any part of the Parks by sponsoring companies. Nor do they imply an endorsement of the product by the National Park Service. Moreover, individual parks have for years distributed information, maps and so on which contain ads from local community sponsors to cover their cost. A National Park Service magazine is merely an expansion of this idea. Because of current NPS administrative roadblocks, I am introducing legislation which would correct this problem and allow the Park Service to begin consideration of magazine proposals. The entire cost of the project will be covered by the advertising and sales revenue the publication will generate through the large anticipated readership. The Park Service not only gains a vehicle for educating and informing the public about Parks--something that has been sorely needed for years--it does so at no cost. In fact under this proposal, it could do so while generating revenue for the Parks. While the revenue generated from this proposal is a mere pittance compared to the multibillion backlog our parks currently face, the continued development and implementation of ideas such as this are critical to the long term restoration of our parks. I believe every Senator has an obligation to listen to good ideas at the grass roots level that help solve this growing problem. With budgets continuing to decline and demands only increasing for recreational outlets. Congress must continue to rely on the interested public for creative solutions that will generate more revenue for this important purpose.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for funding the National Park System's annual budget and as a long time resident of Washington State--home to some of the true crown jewels of the system, I have long held both a personal and professional interest in ensuring that our parks are adequately funded and well maintained. Unfortunately in recent years due to declining budgets, more units added to the system, and substantial increases in visitation, our park system faces some serious challenges. All told, the total unfunded backlog in maintenance, resource stabilization, infrastructure repair and employee housing alone is a staggering $8.7 billion. While I have done everything I can to ensure that the National Park Service receives annual increases at a time when overall funding for the Department of Interior continues to decline, the fact is new, innovative ideas are imperative to overcome this desperate situation. For this reason, I have promoted such ideas in my Interior Appropriations bill. One idea that was incorporated into our bill during the 104th Congress was the establishment of the recreation fee demonstration program. Under this three-year pilot program, individual units of the National Park and National Forest systems that charge an additional entry fee get to keep 80% of the receipts collected from that fee within the park or forest unit to help address the backlog of operational and maintenance needs. The user fee program is designed to give each unit more authority over the resources needed to maintain facilities, to repair roads and other areas in need of up keep. While nobody likes higher fees, I have long believed that the public is willing to pay more to visit these national treasures if it could be assured that such increases went to addressing critical needs at the parks they visited. The recreation fee demonstration program is a small, but positive step forward in this direction. More recently, I have gotten behind the ideas and efforts of Senator Craig Thomas, Chairman of the authorizing subcommittee on national parks. Senator Thomas recently developed a comprehensive and forward thinking proposal to reinvigorate the park system. In addition to making my Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent and extending it to all units of the National Park System, Senator Thomas' proposal which passed the Senate last month contains a number of reforms which would improve overall services at our parks and hopefully generate more revenue. I am pleased to have supported Senator Thomas in this effort both as a fellow member of the Senate Energy Committee and on the Senate floor. In addition to my colleagues and my own ideas, I am also relying on the suggestions of the recreation community in my state of Washington which is home to the Olympic, Mount Ranier, and North Cascades National Parks. Recently, I was approached by Mr. John Taylor, a constituent of mine from the Seattle area, who came up with a thoughtful--albeit narrower proposal--which only furthers the interests of the system. This idea would create a National Park Service magazine similar to that established by the National Smithsonian Institution through its publication of the Smithsonian Magazine. A National Park magazine would be created for people who visit or have a particular interest in our parks, their programs, and purpose. The plan is to create a high quality commercial consumer publication that will have broad appeal and park specific sections that will provide useful information and serve as a guide for the park where a specific edition is distributed. Revenue generated from the sale of advertising in the magazine as well as from the sale of the publication itself would go directly to the Park in which the magazines are sold. Proponents of such a project inform me that such a magazine would generate $45 million for the National Park Service over the first 5 years of publication and $10-$12 million each year thereafter. Unfortunately, current Park Service regulations severely restrict the sale of publications which contain advertising in units of the national park. Existing regulations are unnecessary in this case because a magazine for the national parks would no more commercialize the parks than the Smithsonian Magazine commercializes the Smithsonian Institution. Ads in a Park publication are very different than corporate signs and corporate sponsorships in the parks. Magazines are invisible except to those who purchase them. They don't enter the landscape in any way. They don't alter infrastructure. They don't use facilities. They don't express or imply any kind of ownership or funding of any part of the Parks by sponsoring companies. Nor do they imply an endorsement of the product by the National Park Service. Moreover, individual parks have for years distributed information, maps and so on which contain ads from local community sponsors to cover their cost. A National Park Service magazine is merely an expansion of this idea. Because of current NPS administrative roadblocks, I am introducing legislation which would correct this problem and allow the Park Service to begin consideration of magazine proposals. The entire cost of the project will be covered by the advertising and sales revenue the publication will generate through the large anticipated readership. The Park Service not only gains a vehicle for educating and informing the public about Parks--something that has been sorely needed for years--it does so at no cost. In fact under this proposal, it could do so while generating revenue for the Parks. While the revenue generated from this proposal is a mere pittance compared to the multibillion backlog our parks currently face, the continued development and implementation of ideas such as this are critical to the long term restoration of our parks. I believe every Senator has an obligation to listen to good ideas at the grass roots level that help solve this growing problem. With budgets continuing to decline and demands only increasing for recreational outlets. Congress must continue to rely on the interested public for creative solutions that will generate more revenue for this important purpose.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the time has come to pay the piper, and we don't much like the price. For years we have been able to sing the siren song of sanctions on the cheap. Whenever we are concerned about human rights--sanctions. If we are concerned about nuclear proliferation--sanctions. But I think almost always the magic of those sanctions has been that they don't go into effect when we make the speeches on that subject on the floor; they may happen sometime later. And now they have happened. All of us in this body and our predecessors are guilty of this song. But now we learn what it really does. At a time in which farm prices, especially in our wheat country and the Pacific Northwest, are already declining precipitously because of the financial crisis in east Asia, we add to our own pain by creating a situation that will almost certainly cause us to lose hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of sales in Pakistan to other countries that don't share our enthusiasm for sanctions, unless we act in a period of time of less than 1 week. Yes, this is an urgently needed bill, urgently needed for the farm sector of our community, urgently needed for our own ability to operate in a highly competitive world of agriculture. For that purpose, the work of the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Delaware and everyone else who has been a part of this is vitally important. But the Senator from Ohio just said, gosh, this is unbalanced, it does something for Pakistan and it doesn't do anything for India. It did something for India this morning, Mr. President. This morning it did when it also allowed waivers with respect to the Export-Import Bank, where last year we sold almost $400 million worth of aircraft from my State, with future similar sales greatly threatened by sanctions which now remain because the Senators from California and from Ohio wouldn't permit this bill to come up at all unless that was taken out. Of course we are going to support the bill in its present form, and of course we will support a task force, and what my seatmate here, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, has been working on for months, to bring a more rational system of sanctions together. But we are finding that the sanctions cost us more than they cost the Nations against whom they are imposed, because you can buy wheat in parts of the world other than the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, you can buy jet airliners from other sources than Seattle, WA. In fact, when you impose sanctions on one thing on a country, you give that country an immense incentive to buy other things from other countries, as well as a form of resentment. In this case, when the India nuclear tests were largely caused by our policies with respect to China, and of course the Pakistani test by what happened in India, the sanctions are particularly bizarre. The sanctions that we are in part removing today should be removed. But they are an illustration of an even bigger fact--that we should have done what this bill did this morning and does not do now; we should be doing even more. So in that respect, the promise in this bill is dual: First, an opportunity, if we do get it all the way through and to the President, that we will save a vitally important part of our wheat sales; and, second, the illustration that we are only at the beginning of deciding that maybe that song wasn't worth the price that we are now paying the piper for. And that may be every bit as important a part as the specific sections we are passing this afternoon, as important as they are.