T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to proceed for 15 minutes in morning business and that, if the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, is on the floor when I complete my remarks, he be recognized.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, while the Senate is conducting its morning business, a conference is being held in Georgetown by the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) on an issue that has gotten a great deal of attention over the past few weeks. From the conference title-- Competition, Convergence and the Microsoft Monopoly--one might be deceived into believing these are frightening times for American consumers. Any fears about the success of Microsoft isn't coming from those who buy Microsoft products, but from frustrated competitors. While I don't dismiss the concerns expressed by anti-Microsoft factions, their arguments certainly lack force when consumers appear to be so completely uninterested in this tale. In fact, that's the untold story in the drama of the past several months--what does the consumer think of all this? How are American consumers being impacted? These questions are appropriate when you consider that the anti-trust laws of this country came into being to encourage competition and to protect consumers, not to settle bickering among business competitors. Unfortunately, a lot of words have been printed and broadcast on this subject, but we've hardly heard a peep from the people who matter most--the consumers. This concerns me precisely because it appears that so many people participating in this dispute have already decided who gets to wear the black hat, and who the white. At this morning's event my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, who chairs the very committee that exercises jurisdiction over the antitrust laws, spoke to the PFF conference about the Microsoft dispute. Normally, I don't keep track of where my colleagues make speeches and what they speak about, but because Senator Hatch has been quoted in the news media as taking a very hard anti-Microsoft line, I feel compelled to share some of his statements with my colleagues and rebut some of the criticism that he, and other Microsoft critics, have tossed out in the past several weeks about one of America's most visible, and successful, companies. On Jan. 25th, Senator Hatch spoke at length to the San Jose Mercury News about Microsoft and his competitors, and I was surprised by the tone of his remarks. The newspaper quotes Senator Hatch as saying, ``if Microsoft has engaged in driving out competition, and I think it has-- most everybody who's looked at it carefully believes it has--and takes control of (Internet standards), they're going to exercise a tremendous amount of control over Internet content and commerce.'' Senator Hatch goes on to say, ``if they're using anticompetitive practices to achieve that, it's wrong--and we have to do something about it.'' In light of Senator Hatch's comments, I am concerned about how Microsoft is treated on Capitol Hill. Fortunately, Senator Hatch has promised that the Judiciary Committee has no intention of interfering with [the Microsoft litigation] and as our examination goes forward, we will work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that it continues to be fair and balanced. (Feb. 3 letter to Gorton/Murray) I appreciate this statement, but I must admit it concerns me when he speaks at a conference that refers to Microsoft as a ``monopoly.'' Having said that, I would like to begin my comments on the Microsoft investigation by making a couple of points: First, the question of whether the company has violated antitrust laws is something of an abstract question that has been posed, not by American consumers, but by Microsoft's competitors. I believe that to be the key of this entire discussion, and why I feel so strongly that Microsoft is being treated unfairly. This isn't an effort led by those who purchase software products . . . if it were, you can be sure that my attitude would be much different . . . this fight was started by those who must compete with Microsoft, which, in my opinion, makes it very hard for those individuals and companies to make an argument that is not completely driven by their self-interest. Let's remember why we have anti-trust laws in this country--these laws weren't written to preserve unsuccessful competitors; they were written to encourage competition, and thereby protect consumers. And to date, I haven't seen one bit of evidence to support the theory that consumers are being hurt by Microsoft's success, or the success of any other company in the software industry. Second, as a former state attorney general, I support government enforcement of antitrust laws, but I cannot support the DOJ's attempts to restrict Microsoft's ability to produce and market the full-featured products its customers demand. Product design decisions should be made by software developers responding to consumer demand in the marketplace, not by governmental agencies. And so on behalf of the American consumer, indeed the American economy, I'd like to review a few facts that we simply should not overlook today. From 1990 to 1996, the number of software companies in the United States grew 81 percent, from 24,000 to 44,000 companies. During the same period, employment in the American software industry grew 70 percent, to more than 600,000 jobs today. The industry generated direct wages of more than $36 billion in 1996, and another $83 billion in related sectors of the economy. It generated $7.2 billion in taxes paid to federal and state governments, and another $7.9 billion through the ``ripple'' effect. Venture capital investment in new technology companies is at an all time high--$2.4 billion invested last year alone. Prices for personal computer hardware and software are constantly falling. Where a single Microsoft application such as Microsoft Word cost $399 in 1990, today consumers can acquire all of Microsoft Office (which includes word processing, spreadsheet, presentations, scheduling and other functionality) for just $499 at retail. If Microsoft's competitors are right, how could all of that success taken place? Wouldn't logic tell us that if a ``Microsoft Monopoly'' actually existed, prices would be higher, job growth would be lower, and venture capital investment would be next to nothing? Yet, the facts show the opposite course. Also, I think it's important to remind ourselves that all of these accomplishments took place without government regulation or interference. Let's review that again: Competition in the American software industry is not only healthy but vigorous. America leads the world. Innovation is at an all-time high. Employment is flourishing. Prices continue to fall for consumers and businesses alike. Productivity is skyrocketing. And barriers to entry for any company or individual that wants to compete in this industry are low. The principal assets required to create software are human intelligence, creativity and a willingness to assume entrepreneurial risk. All of the hallmarks of a thriving, healthy industry are in place in America's software industry. Let's return now to this question--what is the basic goal of antitrust law in America? I believe that the basic goal of our anti-trust laws is to promote competition, thereby insuring that consumers benefit from the widespread availability of goods and services at fair prices. Often competition is vigorous, but the fact that certain companies perform better than others is no reason to doubt that consumers benefit greatly from their success. As many courts have recognized, all companies should strive to do as much business as they can, even if that means taking business away from rivals, because it is that quest that causes the creation of new and better products offered to consumers at attractive prices. So, why are a handful of Microsoft's competitors so successful at scaring up government investigations, public policy debates and media scrutiny? One might argue that all of these incredible statistics that I've just reviewed are somehow skewed because Microsoft is really the only beneficiary. In other words, all of the benefits accrue to Microsoft. Well, that's just wrong. Once again, the facts tell another story: The top 20 companies in the industry account for only 42% of the total revenues from packaged software sales--demonstrating that the software industry is highly competitive and decentralized. Microsoft represents less than 4% of total worldwide software industry revenues. In 1996, total software industry revenues were $250 billion; Microsoft's portion was less than $10 billion. How can there be a ``Microsoft Monopoly'' if Microsoft accounts for less than 4% of industry revenues? If such a monopoly existed, shouldn't that percentage be more like 60%, 70%, 80% or higher? But what about Microsoft's dominance in the PC software space? Well, a few more facts: In online services, Microsoft represents only 9.8 percent of the online services sector. America Online has 75 percent. Database software: Microsoft represents only 6 percent of the database software sector, compared to Oracle's 30 percent share. E-mail software: Microsoft represents only 14 percent of e-mail software revenues, compared to 43 percent for IBM/Lotus. Server operating systems: Microsoft represents only 27 percent of server software revenues, compared to 41 percent for Novell. Again, where is the monopoly? Percentages of 9.8, 6, 14 and 27 hardly sound like monolopies to me. So we're still left to ponder, why the fuss over Microsoft, given all of this good news? This is the question so many in the media are striving to answer. The New Republic recently attributed it to techno- angst--society's anxiety about the Information Age and its desire to focus that angst on someone or some company. I think a more plausible answer is a coordinated PR and lobbying campaign by a handful of Microsoft's competitors. Two weeks ago, the author and management guru James Moore wrote in The New York Times: The courtroom drama played out in Washington in recent weeks concealed what was happening backstage: a small number of companies that compete with Microsoft have managed to make the Federal Government an unwitting tool of their narrow competitive objectives. These sorts of unholy alliances almost always lead to bad policy. If users are better served, if the cost of software is reduced and if new layers of information-industry innovation are built, a strong argument can be made that the public good is being achieved without Government intervention. The public good is being achieved without Government intervention. This cannot be overemphasized. The Progress and Freedom Foundation has played an important role in developing intelligent public policy with an eye toward limiting the role of government in markets. In 1995, PFF published a major study on the need to replace the FCC and substantially deregulate the telecommunications marketplace. Today, PFF is conducting a major project designed to limit government interference in the market for digital broadband networks. I applaud PFF's efforts on behalf of the free market in those industries, and am somewhat mystified by the organization's apparent inconsistency with regard to Microsoft and the software industry. Based on the organization's past, I simply want to encourage the Progress and Freedom Foundation to remain steadfast in its belief in the American marketplace. Now, I'd like to turn for a moment to addressing some of what I will call the myths out there about Microsoft. I think it's important that we deal with some of the less scholarly thinking and ideas up front. Myth #1: Microsoft is somehow going to control access and commerce on the Internet. I was amused to see a press release earlier this week from the New York Attorney General's Office making this claim. It's almost as though the PR campaign being championed by several Microsoft competitors who have decided these buzzwords have the most media appeal. Anyone who goes out onto the Internet to find the world of knowledge and information available there knows that no one will ever control access and commerce on the Internet. Such a thought is as laughable as suggesting one company will control all commerce and information in the world. The Internet is a vast information source that will continue to grow and expand. No company will ever represent more than a tiny fraction of all the commerce and all the content available on the Internet. Myth #2: Some companies are afraid to come forward with complaints about Microsoft because they are afraid that Microsoft will use its dominance in the marketplace to punish them. My colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, has made this charge himself in interviews with the news media. This is a serious accusation but one that is also baseless. Microsoft has gone so far as to give the Justice Department a letter that it can present to anyone and everyone doing business with the company encouraging them to cooperate with the DOJ on its investigation. Microsoft has been extremely cooperative for years with the DOJ. And it would be out of character for Microsoft--a company that values its partners--to make this an issue with them. Myth #3: Microsoft's license agreements with Internet Service Providers unfairly force ISPs to promote only Internet Explorer, and prohibit ISPs from even mentioning the existence of Netscape Navigator. Like PC manufacturers, ISPs know and understand their customers. They provide their customers with choice--whether it's Internet Explorer, Navigator or some other product. Microsoft has no exclusive arrangements with ISPs. This is a non-issue. Myth #4: Microsoft is entering into proprietary agreements with Content Providers to create popular websites that can only be viewed using Microsoft's browser. Let me be absolutely clear. A consumer can use any browser he or she wants to view any material on the Internet. A content provider may choose to take advantage of technology available in either Internet Explorer or Navigator to make their content even more compelling. Content providers like Warner Brothers want to reach the most customers. They aren't looking for exclusionary technology. They are looking for the best technology to serve their customers. Right now Warner Brothers believes that Microsoft has the best technology. There are other content providers that believe Netscape has the best technology. That's what competition is all about. This is similar to saying that manufacturers of VHS videocassette players entered into proprietary deals with Hollywood studios to force their movies on VHS tapes rather than Beta tapes. Just as VHS and Beta were competing standards, so too are Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator. May the best technology win. Myth #5: The Justice Department is working to restore choice for consumers. This is disingenuous at best. Consumers have always had choice. Netscape and thousands of other software programs run wonderfully on Microsoft Windows. In fact, the great untold story is how Microsoft spends more than $65 million and 1,000 Microsoft employees to work with its competitors to build great software applications that run on Windows. It's important to understand these myths. Sound public policy must be based in fact, not competitive rhetoric. These are exciting times for American consumers and for American business. Microsoft's business model, which is focused on rapid product development, broad distribution at low prices and close collaboration with hardware and software vendors, is helping to drive demand through the high technology sector. We are seeing upgrades to telecommunications networks--telephone, cable, satellite and wireless-- the introduction of new types of devices such as hand held computers and automobile PCS--and the creation of innovative new software to make these networks and devices improve the lives of all consumers. New technologies and new ideas are being introduced at a dizzying pace--led largely by innovative and highly competitive American companies. I've spoken today about the American consumer and the American software industry. I'd like to conclude by talking a little about Microsoft. You can hardly talk about innovation and competition without focusing on Microsoft. It's founder, Bill Gates, is one of the true visionaries of the Information Age and his company has produced technology that will forever change the way we work, play and think. I have enjoyed watching this phenomenal man and his company for many years. And over those years, I have seen Microsoft remain committed to four very important business principles that have guided the company since its founding: 1. Microsoft builds software that improves the quality of people's lives. Bill Gates' vision of Information at Your Fingertips brings businesses closer to their customers, voters closer to their elected officials, doctors closer to their patients and teachers closer to their students. 2. Microsoft listens closely to its customers and focuses on how it can do a better job. If you want to know the true secret to Microsoft's success, look at its intense focus on incorporating customer feedback into its products. 3. Microsoft believes that innovation is at the heart of its future. Microsoft will spend more than $2 billion this year on research and development. More than 16 percent of its revenues are dedicated to R&D. Its competitors, Sun and Oracle will spend about 8 percent of revenues on R&D. 4. Microsoft partners with many companies, large and small, who share these principles. Microsoft's thousands of partners are in every state in America--independent software vendors who build great software products for the Windows operating system, PC manufacturers, solution providers who support and implement Microsoft technology solutions and many other partners. In conclusion, I believe that a review of the facts shows that the American software industry is healthy, vigorous, innovative and continually improving the lives of American consumers. Microsoft is one of many aggressive and innovative companies in this industry. Its leadership is an asset for the nation. Its leadership is also not guaranteed. In any dynamic, innovative industry such as software, your position in the market is only as strong as your last product release. The competitive threats to Microsoft are real. As PFF, the participants at its conference, and many of my colleagues know all too well, it is the marketplace, not government regulation that will ensure continued innovation and consumer benefits.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want particularly to thank my friend from Nevada for agreeing to let me proceed.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

Mr. GORTON. I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I announce that this morning the Senate will be in a period for the transaction of morning business until 11 a.m. At 11 a.m. the majority leader hopes that the Senate will be able to begin consideration of S. 1601, the cloning bill. We hope that the Senate will be able to make good progress on this legislation throughout today's session of the Senate. As a reminder to all Members, the Senate will not be in session on Friday. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I speak here in the U.S. Senate this evening. I share a story of a wonderful and talented young woman, Miss Jenny Lynn Stiles Hudson, whose life was lost tragically in an automobile accident a week ago today, on January 28. Jenny was only 21 years old at the time of her death and had just begun a career as my deputy director for eastern Washington. While Jenny was with the Gorton organization only for a few short weeks, she had already demonstrated the talents to be a valuable member of my organization. But Jenny Hudson will not be remembered for being a Gorton staffer. Rather, she will be remembered as an amazing and dynamic young woman who accomplished so much in her 21 years and who touched the lives of all around her. Jenny grew up in Lyman and Hamilton, in rural Skagit County, north of Seattle. She was a joy and a delight to her family and a participant in almost all of the school and community activities offered to her in that rural setting. Jenny graduated from Washington State University only in December of last year. At the university she was active in the Block and Bridle Club, the Livestock Judging Team, the Washington Cattlemen's Association, all while raising and showing Limousin beef cattle throughout the State of Washington. Jenny enjoyed swimming and singing. At the same time, she maintained a strong belief in God, working as the youth director of her local church. Jenny Hudson will be missed by all who knew her. In her short 21 years, Jenny inspired those around her with her vibrant outlook on life, her ambition and her many accomplishments. An early death reminds us of the sanctity and the fragility of life. Let the lesson of Jenny Hudson's remarkable life be no less deep. My thoughts and prayers go out to Jenny's parents, to her husband of just 6 months, Tipton, and to her countless friends and relatives as they deal with this difficult time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting S. 1297, Senator Coverdell's bill to rename Washington National Airport in honor of former President Ronald Reagan. As we seek to pay tribute to him, it is important for us to reflect upon President Reagan's place in history. Few modern leaders have had such an enduring impact on our lives. President Reagan was elected at a critical time in the history of our nation and our world. In the early 1980s, the country was struggling with an economy plagued with high inflation and unemployment. In the wake of Watergate, the Vietnam War, and the oil crisis, society at large was told by President Carter we were subject to a ``national malaise,'' not without reason. In addition, our armed forces were underfunded and low in morale. The Cold War still dominated our view of the world. Into this unsettled environment, Ronald Reagan was elected president. His determined leadership, strength of conviction, positive attitude, and faith in his fellow Americans helped change the nation and the world profoundly during his two terms. President Reagan's commitment to national security and the men and women of the armed forces gave our military renewed respect and self-confidence. The nation then took a strong stand against the Soviet Union and helped peaceably to bring about the end of the Cold War and the demise of communism. President Reagan's view of the role of government still defines the debates we hold in this chamber on a daily basis. He firmly believed that Americans were far better than the government at running their own lives. He also was committed to the free enterprise system and the dynamic spirit of the entrepreneur. Today there are few legislators or other policymakers who cling to the idea that bigger government and more federal spending is good for our economy or the freedom of our citizens. Mr. President, one of the more important and lasting contributions of our 40th president was the way in which he was able to restore the confidence and optimism of the United States. President Reagan transformed the so-called ``malaise'' of the late 1970s into a positive attitude that helped give the country faith in its institutions and its future. That is why he justly remains an immensely popular figure in our history. The foregoing account of President Reagan's achievements is only the beginning of a long list of accomplishments that highlight his time as leader of the free world. One more effort he undertook, however, is worthy of note in this debate. As others have mentioned, it was the Reagan Administration that was able to remove the federal bureaucracy from direct control over National and Dulles Airports. By releasing these airports to local control, they were able to go to the private sector for funding and begin needed improvements. The idea of devolving federal control to the States and localities was at the very core of the president's political philosophy. For these and many other reasons, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Coverdell's proposal to rename Washington National Airport as ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' Visitors who fly to our nation's capital will always be reminded of the lasting and important contributions made to our country and the world by President Ronald Reagan. I thank the leadership for trying to let us address this bill in time for President Reagan's 87th birthday on February 6, 1998.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I would like to call attention to Wilfred Woods, who has recently announced he will step down as the publisher of the Wenatchee World newspaper after 47 years. Wilfred is the son of Rufus Woods, who purchased the Wenatchee Daily World in 1907, and was one of the earliest promoters of the Grand Coulee Dam project. Beginning in 1918, Rufus used the pages of the newspaper to promote the concept of using the Columbia River for hydroelectric power as well as for irrigation of the fertile but arid Columbia Basin. Half a million acres are irrigated by the Columbia Basin project. This valuable irrigation project allowed the central Washington desert to bloom and is responsible for producing the valley known as the Apple Capital of the World. Wilfred Woods and his late father, Rufus, have played significant roles in the development of central Washington during their 90 years of service. Wilfred succeeded his father as editor and publisher in 1950 and has been an active advocate for resource and economic development in central Washington. He served as a State parks commissioner, a trustee for Central Washington University, and in various capacities in countless civic organizations. Wilfred's son, Rufus, will now become the editor and publisher of the Wenatchee World and carry on the great traditions of his father and grandfather. Wilfred has been a great personal friend of mine for more than 30 years, dating back to the time I first ran for Washington State attorney general. I have always valued his wisdom, foresight, and the manner in which he and his father guided the Wenatchee World to become one of the State's finest daily newspapers. Wilfred and his father were truly part of a legendary experience that has forever changed the political and economic landscape of north-central Washington. While the Woods family will be remembered most for their influence over the management of the Columbia River system, I will remember Wilfred as a true friend. During my years of touring Washington State for various political engagements and meetings, I always looked forward to my stop in Wilfred's newsroom and valued our countless conversations, whether we were in agreement or not. I will miss our exchange of ideas and his insights into the central Washington community. I wish him continued success in future endeavors.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and Senator Ford in urging that we immediately adopt H.R. 2476, the Foreign Air Carrier Family Support Act. I also recognize Representative Underwood's efforts to facilitate this legislation following the recent crash of Korean Air Flight 801 in Guam, which killed more than 200 people. As Senator McCain stated, last year the Congress approved almost identical legislation that required domestic air carriers to establish a disaster support plan for the families of aviation accident victims. The legislation we are now considering would extend this requirement to foreign air carriers if they have an accident on American soil. I would note that the Family Assistance Task Force strongly supports this legislation. The task force, which Congress established to find new ways to assist family members and others devastated by an airline crash, recently voted unanimously to endorse this act. The task force also asked that Congress pass this legislation as expeditiously as possible. It is unfortunate that airline accidents often provide the impetus to make improvements. The Flight 801 tragedy clearly showed the need to improve planning to assist family members when a foreign airline crashes on American soil. Despite the best efforts of the National Transportation Safety Board and others, the family members of Flight 801 accident victims would have been better served if a plan had been in place. As we all know, the news of an air disaster spreads quickly. The media is often reporting about a crash as soon as, if not before, the rescue teams reach the scene. This legislation provides a framework to ensure that family members receive proper assistance. Among other things, foreign airlines would be required to have a plan to publicize a toll-free number, have staff available to take calls, have an up-to- date list of passengers, and have a process to notify families--in person if possible--before any public notification that a family member was onboard a crashed aircraft. These are basic services that anyone should receive. Hopefully, it will never be necessary for any foreign airline to use the plans required under this act. In the event of an accident, however, family members of victims are due the consideration and compassion that this legislation provides. Again, I want to thank Senator McCain for moving this legislation quickly, and I would urge that we now adopt the Foreign Air Carrier Family Support Act.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, late last week the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, and I introduced broad-based electricity restructuring legislation. Each of us spoke to that legislation at that time. We expressed the belief that this first bipartisan approach to a major national issue facing the country would trigger even more serious consideration than has been given during this first session of this Congress to that subject, and expressed the hope, which I repeat here, that it is an issue that will seriously be considered by both Houses of Congress during the course of the next year. One major portion of that bill, S. 1401, is a title dealing with the Pacific Northwest fish and the management of the Columbia River system. I greatly appreciated Senator Bumpers' willingness to put his name on those regional provisions, as he did in my case, I believe, with respect to the provisions dealing with the Tennessee Valley Authority. This morning I wish to speak briefly on the fish and wildlife issues that are a part of S. 1401. The bill does not address, Mr. President, except in the most general way, the critical need for an improved ``river governance'' process, especially with respect to issues relating to fish and wildlife. This omission should not be misinterpreted. Legislation may well be needed in this area to assure that the multiple purposes of the Federal power system are protected together with the public benefits that they bring. I hope that over the next several months the region can reach a consensus on these issues, including who pays the costs associated with needed actions. Bonneville ratepayers currently fund this effort through their power rates at a cost of $435 million a year on average, and their ability to make additional contributions to this effort and still meet other statutory obligations is increasingly constrained by an increasingly competitive, deregulated wholesale electric energy market. In forging a financing package, it will be important to look to all who benefit from this important natural resource to assume their fair share of financial responsibility, and to act consistently with sound business principles by holding administrative costs to as low a level as possible. Money alone, however, is not the answer. Today, the salmon recovery effort is failing. It is failing because of a flawed process for decisionmaking. This process has conflicting goals. It disperses decisionmaking authority among many Federal and State agencies and tribes and has little accountability for cost effective results. To make real progress, we need a regional plan; a plan in which all governmental interests--States, tribes, and the Federal Government--are partners, together with economic and environmental interests, for success. And success will mean the achievement of clearly defined goals measured by unambiguous results; results that rely on the best science of how to improve the survival of downstream smolts and that assure adequate escapement of returning adults to the spawning beds. All northwesterners care about our salmon resources. We argue sometimes about the best way to reach our shared goals but it is vital to remember that we share the goal of preserving and protecting our anadromous and resident fish and wildlife while also providing a reasonable and continuing harvest for Columbia River tribes, commercial fishermen, and sports anglers. I will continue to listen to the stakeholders interested in a comprehensive approach. I am aware that the region's Governors and their transition board may look to a group of ``three sovereigns''-- Federal, State, and tribal--to construct such a framework, together with other economic and environmental stakeholders. This and other creative thinking on how to maintain both the economic and public benefits of the Bonneville system will be critical to Congress as we move forward with this legislative package. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues in the House of Representatives for their recent passage of H.R. 1534, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act. This long overdue legislation will provide a much needed boost to the thousands of homeowners, small landowners, farmers, and others who for years have had their constitutional rights compromised. For too long, these landowners have seen their constitutionally guaranteed property rights eroded by expanding Government regulations. I believe the taking or restriction of the use of private property without due process and just compensation is directly contrary to our Constitution. This predicament that too many private property owners find themselves in today was not always the case. So strong was the belief in private property ownership that our Nation's Founding Fathers guaranteed it in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment to the Constitution states: ``No person shall be * * * deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' For centuries, this constitutional directive was so respected that the needs of public concerns were adequately addressed without sacrificing private property rights. However, in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's our Nation's local, State, and Federal governments began to pass increasingly burdensome regulations governing air, water, land, and other natural resources, most of which had strong policy justification. The net, cumulative result, however, was a serious diminution of private property rights. Unfortunately, fighting the Government over a taking in court is not only extremely expensive, it is time consuming and usually futile against the deep pockets of the Government, which has nothing to lose by drawing the battle out for years and years and wearing down opponents. More than 80 percent of the time when property owners try to access Federal courts, they are thrown out on procedural grounds, before the merits are even considered. Of the 20 percent who are successful in having their cases heard in Federal court, it takes an average of nearly 10 years of litigation and negotiation to get through the process. Governmental bodies at the State and local level often have legitimate reasons for restricting the use of private property for local zoning, environmental protection, and other purposes. Most State and local governments use their power responsibly, respecting the rights of private property owners when making land use decisions. Nevertheless, when a governmental body at any level infringes on an individual's constitutionally guaranteed rights, that person should at least have his day in court. H.R. 1534 allows property owners whose rights have been violated the same access to Federal courts that other claimants have. For example, Federal environmental laws are readily enforced in Federal courts. First amendment claims against local governments also have no trouble getting heard in Federal court. Only private property rights are routinely dismissed or delayed. When landowners cannot afford to go to court to protect their legal and civil rights, the Government can use pressure to effectively take the land from the landowner. As chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I cannot help but be reminded of one of the most contentious issues that faced our subcommittee this year--the Headwaters Forest land acquisition. For years, the Government tried to use a variety of forestry and other environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, to force the landowner off a portion of its land. The landowner filed a takings suit and now the Government has finally come to the bargaining table offering to pay for the property. As a result at the request of the Clinton administration, our Interior appropriations bill appropriates $250 million for the Headwaters acquisition. I cannot help but think that this landowner would never have received compensation if it had not had the substantial financial resources necessary to fight a long and contentious legal battle. H.R. 1534 takes several steps to allow smaller, less wealthy landowners the same access to the Federal courts. Unlike other bills dealing with property rights, H.R. 1534 does not affect any environmental law, impact the budget, or define for the courts when a taking has occurred. Instead, the bill simply attempts to clear the many procedural hurdles that currently prevent most property owners from having their case heard in court in a fair and expeditious manner. H.R. 1534 gives a property owner access to Federal court without having to spend years in an endless cycle of administrative appeals with Government agencies. The bill still requires the owner to attempt at least two appeals before going to court--but provides a clear end to the process. H.R. 1534 simply gives property owners the same access to Federal court that other claimants have. Opponents of this legislation argue that this bill undermines the authority of State and local governments in zoning disputes. If this were the case, I would not be supporting H.R. 1534. I strongly believe that land use decisions should be made at the local level to the greatest extent possible. I believe in most cases it is in the best interests of landowners to have their cases decided at the local level. Rather than giving property owners another avenue or authority to sue cities and localities in Federal court, the House passed bill simply allows the decision to be made on the facts of the case without spending 10 years litigating on procedural questions. Under H.R. 1534, local officials will still be in control of local zoning decisions. The Federal courts have consistently upheld local authority to make these decisions. The only role the Federal courts are given under this bill is the one they already have: to interpret the Constitution and determine whether individuals rights have been violated. Passage of H.R. 1534 will be a small but significant step in the battle to restore private property rights. The issues of compensation and adequate notification of landowners when takings occur also need to be addressed by this body. Nevertheless, passage of H.R. 1534 is a positive step. As a cosponsor of companion legislation S. 1204 introduced by Senator Coverdell, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation soon and hope the President will sign this moderate bill when it comes to his desk.

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, I want to thank my colleagues for working with me over the past few weeks, and in particular the past few days, to enact legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D) account for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Ford joined me in introducing this important legislation. The Commerce Committee recently took up the House bill and reported it out with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Science Committee have already met to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. I am pleased to report that the floor amendment to H.R. 1271 reflects the agreement that the conferees have reached on a final package. The House should be able to accept and approve H.R. 1271, as amended, before this session ends. The FAA R,E&D account finances projects to improve the safety, security, capacity and efficiency of the U.S. aviation system. These significant research and development efforts include the development of new fire-resistant insulation materials for use on aircraft, the development of procedures for enhancing terminal area capacity and safety, the improvement of aircraft collision avoidance technology, and a host of other noteworthy projects. This bill also fosters the strong public-private partnership that has been established in the aviation research and development area. The FAA, for instance, is working with Boeing to develop a world-class airport pavement testing facility. Boeing is providing one-third of the costs of this project, which total $21 million. This project will help ensure that the U.S. keeps pace with the rest of the world in developing the infrastructure to accommodate the new super jumbo aircraft. Again, I commend my colleagues' commitment, and their assistance with this effort.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, despite the efforts in conference of Senator Gregg and his staff, the Conference report provides no funding for a Puget Sound crab license buyback. I deplore this omission, which reportedly resulted from the House conferees' resistance to providing Federal funding for buyouts in State fisheries. Mr. President, even if Federal funding of buyouts in State fisheries was not specifically authorized, as it is, in section 312 of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, I firmly believe that the Federal Government has a particular responsibility to the nontribal commercial Dungeness crabbers in Puget Sound who have lost 50 percent of their stock as a result of a Federal court interpretation of a Federal treaty. This is not an instance in which the hardship the buyout would have alleviated resulted from past actions or inactions on the part of commercial fishers. Overfishing and poor management are not to blame. Rather, this hardship was judicially imposed. In 1995, a Federal district court determined that Indian tribes were entitled by Federal treaty to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable shellfish. The small, 250 vessel non-tribal commercial Puget Sound crab fishery that had existed for generations, was suddenly overwhelmed. I understand that because of the Federal court order, there are now about 450 additional tribal crab fishers. Mr. President, the majority of the nontribal commercial crabbers in Puget Sound are self-employed. The vessels they own may account for a large portion of their assets. As the Governor of Washington State, Gary Locke, has stated, ``The federal court action leaves them in a difficult financial position with vessels, equipment and related debt tied to an occupation that is no longer viable at its current licensed capacity.'' Again, I deeply regret the House conferees' failure to assume Federal responsibility for the consequence of a Federal action.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise for two brief colloquies with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I first want to bring to the distinguished chairman's attention some confusion regarding the committee's intent for approximately $6 million of the Army Corps of Engineers' budget. This money was intended to fund a very important project in Washington State. Unfortunately, we have been informed by the local Corps of Engineers office that without more specific direction from Congress, the agency cannot spend these funds. The Senate accepted the House position on this project, which was to provide $6 million for the Corps of Engineers to extend the south jetty at the Grays Harbor project to provide a permanent solution to the ongoing erosion problem. Would the chairman agree that my description of where these funds will be spent is consistent with the Conference Committee's intention?

Mr. GORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My second colloquy pertains to an additional $2 million from the Corps budget that should be allocated to dredge, monitor, and maintain the channel to determine the potential for cost effective maintenance near the Willapa River. Regrettably, the direction that our committee gave the Corps did not adequately distinguish between two phases of the Willapa Project. The first phase, which called for beach nourishment to protect the highway from wave erosion has been completed. The second phase, calling for channel dredging, monitoring and maintenance, has yet to be started. It was the original intention of the project proponents that the $2 million allocated for this project be directed to its second phase. The local office of the Corps of Engineers has indicated that it can spend the funds appropriately, provided it be given the necessary direction by Congress. Mr. chairman, given this misunderstanding, do you have any objection to the Corps using these funds for this purpose?

Mr. GORTON. Thank you very much for the clarification, Mr. chairman. I greatly appreciate the Chairman's efforts on these two projects which address important economic, environmental, and public safety needs in southwest Washington. I also want to commend the chairman of the Energy and Water subcommittee, Senator Domenici, whose efforts were crucial to securing the necessary funds.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield me 5 or 6 minutes?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am going to vote enthusiastically for this bill, the result of countless hundreds of hours of work on the part of the chairman and the ranking minority member, other members, and their staffs. It does make many, many decisions that are important for the future of our country. I am, however, deeply disappointed that one element in the bill that passed the Senate of the United States is not included in this bill, an element that was vitally important and provided a vitally necessary reform for our schools. For decades now, Washington, DC, has assumed increasing control over our local schools. Washington, DC has not, however, put its money where its mouth is. With Congress appropriating about 7 percent of the money spent on education, we have allowed our bureaucrats to impose half or more than half of the rules and regulations that so often frustrate innovation and success in our schools. During the past few years, on the other hand, I have listened to countless parents, teachers and principals who almost universally agree that it is time for Congress and the President to restore the authority that our teachers, parents, and local school boards once had to make decisions for our schools. In September, I proposed a sweeping reform to improve education for kids in schools everywhere in America. That reform would have given Federal education dollars directly to local school districts so that parents, teachers and principals would have the money and authority to make the best decisions for their children. They would have been empowered to determine their children's needs and to use their Federal dollars in a manner that is best for kids: For new schools, for lower class sizes by hiring more teachers, to purchase computers, or whatever else citizens in communities all across the United States decided that their schools needed. And they could have done it all without Washington, DC, having told them how to do it. That sweeping reform is based on the simple philosophy that Washington, DC, does not know best. I believe that all of the laws passed by Congress and all of the regulations adopted by the Federal Department of Education have failed to reach their goals. I believe teachers in the classroom, principals in our buildings, and local school boards and parents, will make better educational decisions and do more to improve their own schools than will Congress or the Federal Department of Education. For most of this century, Washington, DC, has been dominated by people who believe that centralized decisions and centralized control exercised by Washington, DC, is the best way to solve problems, including those in the classrooms. Unfortunately, the approach has not worked. As Washington, DC, has taken power and authority from local school districts, our schools have not improved. Sadly, old habits die hard. That belief in centralized power is still very much alive. When I proposed my amendment, every single Democrat in the Senate opposed it and the President vociferously criticized the approach of returning money and authority directly to our school districts. I suspect that, had a vote been taken in the House, the result would have been almost the same. Recently, I attended a Senate Budget Committee education task force hearing, at which Carlotta Joyner from the General Accounting Office testified that in 1997, $73 billion was distributed through literally hundreds of programs and more than 30 Federal agencies to support education in this country. For a great number of those programs, there is no record of whether they have succeeded or failed, and in some cases no way of measuring that progress or lack of progress. The Department of Education did not even account for half of that total dollar figure. This complex web of education programs only serves to frustrate the efforts of those who know best how to educate children in this country--parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members. Over the coming months, I know that many of my colleagues will give speeches in their home States and will almost certainly be required to cover education. I remind my colleagues that when they speak eloquently about local control of schools, they have all had an opportunity in this body to vote for or against that proposition. The conference committee on this bill voted against it. Finally, I want to let all of my colleagues know that the fight for restoring the traditional role that parents, teachers and principals play in education is not over. I intend to keep forcing tough votes on my colleagues, tough votes that I believe will eventually lead to letting our school districts do what is best for our children--without being told by Washington, DC, how to do it.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas has eloquently and adequately described the bill which we are introducing jointly today. He is a leader in this field, and introduced the bill on this subject early this year. He and I, and the occupant of the Chair, have had the opportunity to go through seven workshops on electric power marketing restructuring. During the course of this time, the Senator from Arkansas and I found that we thought very similarly in this field, and we are here together on the floor today to introduce a bill that modifies somewhat, but not in its general philosophy, the proposal that he introduced almost a year ago. The goal that we set in this bill is to provide for competition for choice, and ultimately for lower prices for electric power consumers from the largest industry to the individual homeowner all across the 50 States of the United States. We set a deadline for that competition to exist on the 1st of January of the year 2002. We encourage States, several of which have already acted, to provide for their own free and open competition by allowing States that have met the general requirements of this bill before 2002 to do it in their own way--in the way in which their legislatures have decided or may have decided. We cover, as the Senator from Arkansas pointed out, the legitimate stranded costs of utilities that have been required to build facilities, some of which may not be completely competitive in an entirely free and open market. We set up a system of independent system operators so that the entire transmission system of the United States will be free and open on equal terms to all potential competitors. We encourage the increased use of renewable energy sources by requiring certain minimums increasing in three steps throughout the course of the next 15 years or so but providing credit for those who already have renewable resources--hydropower, solar power, and the other forms of renewable resources which exist at the present time and may exist in the future, and allow the sale of credit from those who already meet or exceed the renewable requirements of the bill--credits that they can sell to others. Senator Bumpers has been a true leader in this field, and I am honored and delighted to now join with him in what I believe is the first bipartisan approach to this subject, a bipartisan approach which is going to be absolutely essential to any success. At the same time that he has been working with his constituents across the country, I have been listening to my own, and my privately owned and public utility districts, those that produce electricity and those that do not, and the wide range of other existing utilities or potential competitors in the Northwest. I represent a State that already has very low power charges. We want to be a part of this process, not so that we can slow down the benefits to others--the entire American economy must and will benefit from this bill--but so that my constituents and consumers will benefit as well from the advent of competition. I am convinced that the outline of this bill does just exactly that. We must deal with the peculiar challenges of the largest power marketing authority, the Bonneville Power Administration. We do so in a way that reflects the regional review sponsored by the four Governors of the four Pacific Northwest States during the course of last year. We also call in general terms for a more effective and broad-based management of the Columbia River State System, reflecting all of the multitude of uses of water in that system, and calling for a far more effective use of the billions of dollars that we are spending on salmon recovery. So I believe for my own region that we can provide lower power costs, greater competition, better salmon recovery, and a more rational management of the Columbia-Snake River System. I believe for the people of the United States as a whole that we can provide for lower power costs, a greater use of renewable energy, more competition, and a better America. For those reasons, I am delighted to have been a part at this point of a joint operation with my friend from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas has eloquently and adequately described the bill which we are introducing jointly today. He is a leader in this field, and introduced the bill on this subject early this year. He and I, and the occupant of the Chair, have had the opportunity to go through seven workshops on electric power marketing restructuring. During the course of this time, the Senator from Arkansas and I found that we thought very similarly in this field, and we are here together on the floor today to introduce a bill that modifies somewhat, but not in its general philosophy, the proposal that he introduced almost a year ago. The goal that we set in this bill is to provide for competition for choice, and ultimately for lower prices for electric power consumers from the largest industry to the individual homeowner all across the 50 States of the United States. We set a deadline for that competition to exist on the 1st of January of the year 2002. We encourage States, several of which have already acted, to provide for their own free and open competition by allowing States that have met the general requirements of this bill before 2002 to do it in their own way--in the way in which their legislatures have decided or may have decided. We cover, as the Senator from Arkansas pointed out, the legitimate stranded costs of utilities that have been required to build facilities, some of which may not be completely competitive in an entirely free and open market. We set up a system of independent system operators so that the entire transmission system of the United States will be free and open on equal terms to all potential competitors. We encourage the increased use of renewable energy sources by requiring certain minimums increasing in three steps throughout the course of the next 15 years or so but providing credit for those who already have renewable resources--hydropower, solar power, and the other forms of renewable resources which exist at the present time and may exist in the future, and allow the sale of credit from those who already meet or exceed the renewable requirements of the bill--credits that they can sell to others. Senator Bumpers has been a true leader in this field, and I am honored and delighted to now join with him in what I believe is the first bipartisan approach to this subject, a bipartisan approach which is going to be absolutely essential to any success. At the same time that he has been working with his constituents across the country, I have been listening to my own, and my privately owned and public utility districts, those that produce electricity and those that do not, and the wide range of other existing utilities or potential competitors in the Northwest. I represent a State that already has very low power charges. We want to be a part of this process, not so that we can slow down the benefits to others--the entire American economy must and will benefit from this bill--but so that my constituents and consumers will benefit as well from the advent of competition. I am convinced that the outline of this bill does just exactly that. We must deal with the peculiar challenges of the largest power marketing authority, the Bonneville Power Administration. We do so in a way that reflects the regional review sponsored by the four Governors of the four Pacific Northwest States during the course of last year. We also call in general terms for a more effective and broad-based management of the Columbia River State System, reflecting all of the multitude of uses of water in that system, and calling for a far more effective use of the billions of dollars that we are spending on salmon recovery. So I believe for my own region that we can provide lower power costs, greater competition, better salmon recovery, and a more rational management of the Columbia-Snake River System. I believe for the people of the United States as a whole that we can provide for lower power costs, a greater use of renewable energy, more competition, and a better America. For those reasons, I am delighted to have been a part at this point of a joint operation with my friend from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, more than almost any other debate in this Senate this year, this one seems to me to pit hope versus fear, to pit the lessons of history against the blindness to those lessons. One Senator, who will remain nameless, this morning made the statement that free-trade arrangements arising out of fast-track proposals like this would harm not only the people of the United States, but the people of the other nations entering into such a free-trade proposition. Mr. President, that exhibits a blindness to what history has shown us for more than half a century. Without exception, each liberalization of trade policies on the part of the United States that had been met by a liberalization on the part of our trading partners has benefited the people of both countries. We are in an extended and significant period of economic gains today, as we speak here, in the aftermath of a series of policies carried out by administrations, both Republican and Democratic, to free trade across the entire world. The North American Free-Trade Agreement and the most recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade all reflect the increasing dependence of all of the nations of the world on trade and the fact that all can prosper from a greater degree of free trade. Now, Mr. President, I think it's possible to find examples in history, perhaps to find a few examples of the present day, of nations that have tried to create a sense of self-sufficiency with little, if any, foreign trade of any commodity whatsoever. When one searches out such examples, however, Mr. President, one finds, in every case, that those countries are poverty-stricken and show no particular movement out of that poverty-stricken nature. It is only when these nations free their economy and tend to free their trade policies that they begin to prosper. It's also possible, I suppose, to imagine a United States which, in every single commodity consumed in the country, was a more efficient producer than any of its trading partners and, therefore, would have no need for imports at all. But, of course, that doesn't happen in the real world. One's very success would create fields in which we continue that domination and other fields in which countries begin to catch up with us. Trade is a two-way street. Trade is a benefit not just to those who work in the trade field, but to consumers who are permitted a greater choice of higher quality goods at lower prices than would be the case if trade were restricted. That, of course, does inevitably result in losers in our economy because, as we export more, as we produce more for export, we also, as a prosperous American society, have more money to spend and often choose to purchase imported goods in some areas. There are many occasions on which it can be argued that there isn't a huge increase in employment resulting in freer and greater trade. But it is extremely difficult to argue the proposition that export-oriented industries, generally speaking, in the fields in which American production is most efficient and effective, whether industrial or agricultural, pays its employees far more than do those unskilled trades that are affected by foreign competition, and which jobs are more likely to be lost because someone else can do a better job than we do. So even if total employment is a zero-sum game, which it is not, the wages and salaries of those involved in trade-oriented occupations will be much higher than those occupied in fields that are artificially protected from foreign competition. Now, does that mean, Mr. President, that under any and all circumstances we should be indifferent to the antitrade activities of some of our trading partners? Certainly not. As this body knows, I have been highly critical of some of the trade policies of this administration with respect to China, with respect to Japan, and sometimes with respect to the European Community, when those policies have imposed artificial restrictions on American producers. I wish that this administration took a much stronger stance last week with respect to Chinese restrictions on our goods, given the huge nature of our bilateral trade deficit. But the fact that we can criticize the administration for not having more eloquently and more decisively supported American interests is not an argument against granting our administration the opportunity to negotiate free-trade agreements. It is, if anything, an argument for it because, without exception, Mr. President, the nations, particularly in Latin America, with whom we are likely to negotiate free-trade agreements, have greater tariffs and greater restrictions against our goods than we do against theirs at the present time. So it is clear that a reciprocal lowering of those barriers at both ends will benefit a wide range of exporting industries in the United States. Now, should we provide the President, at the same time, with more tools to defend American interests? We certainly should. For example, I support the efforts of my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Daschle, in proposing to amend this legislation with the text of S. 219, the Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 1997. That bill would set up a system for agricultural trade identical to that used to identify violations of intellectual property rights, the special 301 procedure. The bill would require the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, annually, to designate as priority countries those trading partners having the most egregious trade barriers to American agricultural products. The USTR would then have the power to investigate those countries to determine whether countervailing measures are merited. My State, Mr. President, is a great producer of agricultural products for export, just as it is of intellectual properties and of aircraft. We believe in the prosperity that comes from free trade. We want that free trade to be truly free in both directions, and no power that we could grant the President is more likely to lead to that free trade in both directions than the fast-track legislation that is before us now. That legislation, Mr. President, should be passed.