[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4522-S4523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    SENATOR SANTORUM'S 40TH BIRTHDAY

  Mr. SPECTER. This Sunday, May 10, 1998, the U.S. Senate will lose its 
last 30-something Member--that is someone who is in the thirties--
because our colleague, Senator Rick Santorum will turn 40.
  Already, in a few short years, Senator Santorum has distinguished 
himself by building a solid record of legislative achievement in both 
the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate.
  As Senator Santorum passes this personal milestone, I would like to 
make a comment or two about him. He was born on May 10, 1958, in 
Winchester, VA, the son of an Italian immigrant. In 1965, the family 
moved to Butler, PA.
  He had a distinguished career at Penn State, worked for Senator John 
Heinz, then moved on to the University of Pittsburgh where he earned 
his M.B.A., and then to the Dickinson School of Law where he earned a 
J.D.
  He served six years as a top aide in the Pennsylvania State Senate, 
and then worked four years as an associate at the Pittsburgh law firm 
of Kirkpatrick and Lockhart.
  In 1990, Senator Santorum took on a campaign for the Congress and 
defeated a seventh-term incumbent at the age of 32. Then in the House 
his legislation was very noteworthy on fiscal responsibility, health 
care, creative medical savings accounts, which was incorporated as a 
pilot project in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act of 1996. He has distinguished himself in the U.S. Senate with 
important legislation on welfare reform, managing debate on legislation 
based largely on a bill which he had introduced in the House of 
Representatives.
  I have worked very closely with Senator Santorum on a personal basis. 
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote that when Senator Santorum won 
election in November of 1994 he ``cautiously" invited me to accompany 
him on a victory swing the next day in Scranton and Philadelphia.
  The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported accurately, ``If you want me to 
go, Rick, I'll be there.'' And then the Post-Gazette noted, ``It was 
just another display of what has become one of the more unusual U.S. 
Senate alliances and odd pairing of politicians from opposite poles in 
the Republican Party . . .''
  Senator Santorum and I have more in common than one might imagine.
  We are both children of immigrants. We both appreciated the value of 
education, and have been able to participate in the American dream 
because of our education. We agree on many, many items. We both support 
welfare reform, the balanced budget, the line-item veto, and the death 
penalty. On the issue of pro-choice and pro-life, Senator Santorum and 
I try to find ways to bring people together.
  It is a pleasure for me to salute Senator Santorum on one of the last 
remaining days of his 39 years. He will not be able to say, like Jack 
Benny, very much longer that he is 39.
  One of the items, in closing, that I would like to note is that the 
sky is the limit for Senator Santorum, and if he decides to stay in the 
U.S. Senate, he could be elected in the year 2000, the year 2006, the 
year 2012, the year 2018, the year 2024, the year 2030, the year 2036, 
the year 2042, and the year 2048 and at that point would be just as old 
as our distinguished President pro tempore, Senator Strom Thurmond, is 
today.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.


                microsoft and the department of justice

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am compelled to address the Senate this 
evening because one of our country's most dynamic, innovative, and 
successful companies, Microsoft, has been the subject of an unfair and 
prejudicial target by anonymous sources in the Department of Justice.
  I am concerned that every time I pick up a newspaper I am informed of 
new information about the ongoing, supposedly confidential proceedings 
involving Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I ask only for 
fairness and that whatever verdict is derived, is argued through proper 
judicial channels and not played out through our nation's media.
  Some of you in this Chamber may say that Microsoft can speak for 
itself, that is has a voice loud enough to be heard. To that, I answer 
that no single voice is ever enough to speak over the Department of 
Justice and those anonymous few employees who are seemingly abusing its 
formidable power. When the integrity of such a profound legal 
proceeding is in jeopardy, however, no one should remain silent.
  In the Antitrust Division's extended, intense scrutiny of Microsoft, 
the company has faithfully worked to comply with each of the Division's 
request. Microsoft has fully cooperated with the seemingly endless 
requests for documents and depositions of top executives. Microsoft has 
operated under the assumption that if it works with the Justice 
Department in a fair manner and complies with its requests, then the 
Justice Department will proceed with its investigation fairly. But, I 
question whether the Justice Department is indeed playing fair.
  Over the past several months, the Antitrust Division appears to have 
repeatedly and continually disclosed to the media information uncovered 
during its investigation, and floated anonymous opinions regarding the 
likelihood of a new government antitrust case against the company.
  To me, putting America's technological leader on trial in the press--
before the prosecutor even decides if a trial in our court system 
should proceed--is wholly unfair.
  The Justice Department's own ethics manual says that, I quote: ``It 
is the policy of the DOJ and the Antitrust Division that public out-of-
court statements regarding investigations, indictment, ongoing 
litigation, and other activities should be minimal, consistent with the 
Department's responsibility to keep the public informed. Because 
charges that result in an indictment or a civil action should be argued 
and proved in court, and not in a newspaper or broadcast, public 
comment on such charges should be limited out of fairness to the rights 
of individuals and corporations and to minimize the possibility of 
prejudicial pre-trial publicity.''
  Based on their comments to the media, however, attorneys at the 
Justice Department apparently disagree with their own ethics manual. 
For example in a February 9, 1998 New York Times article entitled 
``Microsoft Case May Be Prelude to Wider Antitrust Battle'' a ``senior 
Justice Department official'' who ``spoke on condition that he not be 
identified'' said, ``licensing arrangements and the pricing of deals 
that Microsoft strikes . . . for placement on the front screen of its 
Windows operating system or its Internet Explorer browser'' are an 
``area of antitrust concern'' for the Antitrust Division.

[[Page S4523]]

  The Wall Street Journal has apparently been given similar exclusive 
insight into a possible case. On April 6, 1998, the Wall Street Journal 
published an article entitled ``U.S. Closes in on Microsoft; Officials 
Think Evidence Supports a Broad Charge on Extending Monopoly.'' In it, 
the author quotes ``people close to the probe'' who stated that 
``investigators believe they have enough evidence to bring a new 
antitrust case against Microsoft.'' Those sources are so familiar with 
the investigation that they told the reporter that an antitrust 
complaint would ``repeat an existing charge that Microsoft violated a 
1995 antitrust settlement . . . extending to Windows 98 last fall's 
charge that Microsoft uses Windows as a weapon against business 
rivals.''
  I regret to say this, and sincerely hope I turn out to be wrong, but 
I expect that the Justice Department will deny that one of its own 
lawyers is the source ``close to the probe.'' I say ``expect'' because 
Attorney General Reno does not appear to be looking into this matter, 
nor has she informed me that the matter has been resolved. In fact, the 
Practicing Law Institute has advertised that a senior Justice 
Department counsel would speak about ``[the Antitrust Division position 
. . . on the ongoing Microsoft matter'' at an upcoming Intellectual 
Property Antitrust conference currently scheduled for July 22-23, 1998.
  Mr. President, how does this public speaking engagement by a DOJ 
attorney square with the Department of Justice's own ethics manual, 
which states, and I quote again, ``public out-of-court statements 
regarding investigations, indictments, ongoing litigation, and other 
activities should be minimal?'' How does it square with the ethics 
policy that says, ``public comment on . . . charges should be limited 
out of fairness to the rights of individuals and corporations and to 
minimize the possibility of prejudicial pre-trial publicity.'' I 
sincerely hope that DOJ staff has been advised against this by Attorney 
General Reno, but I cannot be sure.
  Just yesterday, I learned that on May 8th, Business Week plans to 
publish on its website an article with the quote, ``sources familiar 
with the Justice Department case have laid out a detailed plan of 
attack against [Microsoft].'' Who would be able to lay out such a 
detailed plan about the Department's expected action in the case other 
than the DOJ itself?
  It is of utmost importance that the Justice Department end this media 
trial of Microsoft, and restore a thorough and fair process. Today, I 
have again asked the Attorney General to explain her failure to resolve 
this matter.
  Microsoft's innovations benefit thousands of companies, employees, 
shareholders and millions of consumers. With so much innovation and 
economic growth, and with so many jobs lying in the balance, the least 
the Department of Justice can do if it proceeds with its investigation 
is to do so in a fair, professional and ethical manner.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________