T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this bill includes a $143 million increase for the Indian Health Service, an amount much larger than the entire appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts. Due to the work of Senator Domenici, there is a $30 million-a-year entitlement for the very subject of diabetes control for Indians that is already a part of the funding of Indian programs in the United States. The National Endowment for the Arts, which has abided by all of the restrictions put on it over the last several years by this body, has not had an increase since 1992. This is a fair and modest increase for the National Endowment for the Arts. It ought to be rewarded for following the commands of Congress, itself. The money is not needed for the purposes of the amendment because that function is already very generously supported both in this bill and through an entitlement.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining first-degree amendments in order to the Interior bill other than the managers' package of amendments be the following and subject to relevant second-degree amendments: Boxer on pesticides; Bryan on timber sales; Nickles on monuments language; Torricelli on UPAR; Torricelli on highlands; Reed of Rhode Island on weatherization; Bingaman on forest health; Bingaman on Ramah Navajo; Feingold on Park Service; And Domenici on Rio Grande water. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, July 17, the Senate resume the Interior bill at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the minority leader, and the amendments listed above be offered and debated during Monday's session, other than the Feingold amendment which will be debated on Tuesday with 15 minutes under the control of Senator Feingold and 15 minutes under the control of Senator Bingaman regarding the Navajo amendment; further, with consent granted, to lay aside each amendment where deemed necessary by the two leaders. I also ask unanimous consent that all amendments and debate be concluded during Monday's session and the votes occur at 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation, with the bill being advanced to third reading and passage to occur after disposition of these amendments, all without any intervening action or debate. Further, I ask unanimous consent that additional relevant second degrees be in order if necessary to the first degree after disposition of any offered second-degree amendment on Tuesday. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, which will be the entire Interior Subcommittee.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am very concerned about a provision contained in H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, regarding the conveyance authority for utility systems at U.S. military installations. The House proposes to change existing law in a manner that jeopardizes the ability of a municipal utility in Washington, Tacoma Power, to participate in the competitive selection process and acquire Fort Lewis' electric utility system. Fort Lewis is Washington's major Army base. I oppose changes to DOD's current conveyance authority, when that change impedes competition. The Department of Defense is privatizing utility systems at military bases throughout the county. Military bases are considered Federal enclaves, and therefore are subject to Federal, rather than State, law. The language contained in H.R. 4205 dramatically weakens existing Federal law by subjecting military bases to State laws, regulations, rulings and orders in the competitive bid process of their utility systems. This would have a negative impact on DOD utility privatization efforts in my state of Washington. The reason for this is that utility service territories in Washington are established by service area agreements--contracts--rather than by State decree. Eliminating the Federal law that applies on military bases would create a host of legal questions, the effect of which is to foster litigation and undercut the DOD privatization process in Washington. Because I am not a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and would therefore not be privy to Conference Committee negotiations, I respectfully request your assistance in assuring that whatever utility language is included in the FY01 Defense Authorization bill properly takes into account the unique circumstances of Washington.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator in advance for your commitment to this effort. I look forward the working with you in the coming weeks to see that this issue is resolved in a favorable manner.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is not often that over 8,000 kids from all over the world are brought together to celebrate their creativity and problem solving skills, but thanks to a program called Destination ImagiNation, it became a reality in May of this year when Destination ImagiNation held their Global Finals at Iowa State University. A five-student team from Pioneer Middle School in Wenatchee, Washington were able to participate in the D2K finals and were a great success when they finished fourth in the ``Instant PUDDING Improv'' category. Destination ImagiNation is a non-profit corporation that offers young people a chance to participate in a global, youth-centered, creative problem solving program. The Destination ImagiNation program has two components: ``Instant Challenges'' that teach students to take what life is handing them moment to moment and requires them to solve a challenge on the spot; ``Team Challenges'' use art, technology, performance, and real world relevance as they tackle one of the six challenges, that can take from several weeks to several months to develop. The team from Pioneer Middle School included Carly Faulkner, Kari Opp, Whitney Faulkner, Jessica Pinkston and Aaron Galbraith. Utilizing their critical thinking and problem-solving skills, these amazing individuals were able to perform an improvisational story with only a half and hour to prepare. Not only were there time limits, but they were given predetermined props and a list of 12 people, places, and times that had to be incorporated into their performance. Can you imagine having to correlate Ghandi, the Egyptian Pyramids, Tinkerbell, and someone winning a million dollars in the Lotto into a coherent and entertaining piece? Successfully, the 8th graders were able to accomplish just that. Surely, this takes a tremendous deal of teamwork and quick thinking! Their coach, Shelly Skaar, who is a librarian for the East Wenatchee School District, has been with the team twice at the D2K competition. ``The impact on the kids has built their teamwork, problem solving abilities, and even incorporates acting into how they compete,'' says Shelly. Clearly, this is a confidence building tool that allows children to capitalize on their creativity and be proud of their ideas. I applaud the positive nature of Destination ImagiNation, and am glad that so many children across the nation and around the globe are taking part in such an original competition.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. The bill totals $15.474 billion in discretionary budget authority, an amount that is more than $600 million over the current year level but almost $1 billion lower than the administration's budget request. The bill is right at its 302(b) allocation, and as such any amendments must be fully offset. Drafting this bill is always a great challenge, in large part because it funds programs and activities that have a direct and tangible impact on the constituents that we represent. This is particularly true for those of my colleagues from western States that contain large amounts of Federal and tribal lands. But aside from the usual challenges posed by the Interior bill, this year's version has been especially difficult given the lofty expectations raised by the administration's rather extravagant budget. The administration's request amounts to an increase of 11 percent overall--a hefty increase in light of our ongoing efforts to maintain some degree of control over Federal spending. The bill before the Senate contains a more reasonable increase of about 5 percent--an amount that I think is appropriate as we attempt to fashion an overall budget that protects Social Security and Medicare, reduces the national debt, and provides for sensible tax relief. Despite the more modest funding levels contained in this bill, I can assure my colleagues that the bill is a responsible product that is responsive to the most pressing needs of the land management agencies; the agencies that provide health, education and other services to Indian people; the several cultural institutions under the subcommittee's jurisdiction; and a number of Department of Energy programs that are particularly relevant today in light of the recent rise in gasoline prices. In drafting this bill in consultation with the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Byrd, I have followed a number of basic principles. First, the bill provides nearly 100 percent of the money required to fund increases in fixed costs such as pay and benefits. These are cost increases over which the subcommittee has little or no control. Failure to provide these funds simply means agencies must reduce services or program delivery from current year levels. For the Interior bill as a whole, these fixed cost increases total more than $300 million in FY 2001. Providing this amount simply to maintain current levels of service takes a large bit out of the overall increase in the subcommittee's allocation. Second, I have placed a high priority in those agencies and functions for which the Federal Government has sole or primary responsibility. Providing for the core operating needs of the land management agencies continues to be a central priority in this bill. We have also tried to provide adequate sums for the operation and maintenance of the Smithsonian, the National Gallery, and the Kennedy Center--institutions that are our direct responsibility. Finally, we have done our very best to provide for the core needs of the Indian peoples for whom we have trust responsibility--partiuclarly in the area of health services and education. The third major principle that has guided me in developing this bill really flows from the second. For years, I have listened to Senator Domenici, Senator Dorgan, Senator Campbell, and others talk in hearings, markups, and casual conservation about the need for major investment in the construction and repair of Indian schools. I have been shown pictures of Indian schools in other States to which none of us would want to send our own children, and am aware of schools in my own State that are in desperate need of repair or replacement. Much like Department of Defense schools, these Indian schools are the direct responsibility of the Federal Government. In many cases, however, they look very little like Department of Defense schools, and are not in a condition that we would allow to occur within the DOD school system. As chairman of the Interior subcommittee, it has been frustrating to not be able to respond to such a pressing need in anything more than an incremental manner. But given the difficult spending constraints under which the committee has been operating for a number of years, it has been impossible to make significant progress on this issue without it being identified as a priority in administration budget requests. This year, however, the administration has responded to the pleas of my colleagues--a development that apparently was spurred by the President's recent visit to Indian country. The FY 2001 budget request includes dramatic increases for both new school construction and repair and rehabilitation of existing schools. While the bill before you does not provide 100 percent of the request, it does provide an increase of $143 million for BIA school construction and repair. This amount is enough to complete the next six schools on the construction priority list, as well as provide an $84 million increase for the repair and rehabilitation account. Maintaining these funding levels will be one of my highest priorities in conference with the House. Adhering to these fundamental principles while remaining within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation did not leave a great deal of room for other program increases. As a result, there is perhaps less in this bill for land acquisition, grant programs, and specific member projects than some would like. I think, however, that the bill reflects the right set of priorities. I have attempted to allocate available resources to the most compelling needs identified in agency budget requests, as well as to the particular priorities identified to me in the more than 2,000 individual requests I have received from Members of this body. I regret not being able to do more of the things that my colleagues have asked me to do, but want to assure Members on both sides of the aisle that I have made every effort to treat these requests in a fair and even-handed manner. While I do not wish to belabor the details, I do want to take a moment to point out a few highlights of the bill for the benefit of my colleagues who have not had a chance to review it closely. For the land management agencies, the bill provides significant increases for core operational needs. The bill provides an increase of $80 million for operation of the National Park System, including more than $25 million for increases in the base operating budgets of more than 80 parks and related sites, including the U.S. Park Police. These increases build on similar increases that have been provided for the past several years. The bill also provides an increase of $11 million for the National Park Service to continue efforts to research and document fundamental scientific information on the biological, geological, and hydrological resources present in our park system. For the Bureau of Land Management, the bill fully funds the request for noxious weed control, fully funds the budget request for annual and deferred maintenance, and provides an increase of $7.2 million for recreation programs. The bill also provides a $10 million increase for Payments In Lieu of Taxes, continuing the committee's steady effort to raise PILT funding toward the authorized level. For the Forest Service, the bill provides increases of $10.5 million for recreation programs, and provides level funding for the timber program to prevent further erosion of timber offer levels. The bill also fully funds firefighting preparedness, provides all the funds requested to address survey and manage issues under the Northwest Forest Plan, and provides increases over the President's budget request for both road and trail maintenance. For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the bill provides increases of $17 million for refuge operations and maintenance to continue efforts to bolster the Service's basic operational capabilities. The bill also includes increases of $15 million for endangered species accounts, and $5 million for law enforcement programs that have been flat-funded for a number of years. With respect to the cultural agencies funded in this bill, I am pleased to note that funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is increased by $7 million, and funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities is increased by $5 million. While these increases are fairly modest, they are indicative of the widespread support that these two agencies have within the Senate. The increases also reflect the degree to which the Endowments have responded to congressional concerns about the types of activities being funded, and the way in which project funding decisions are made. While last year we were not able to maintain the higher Senate funding levels in conference with the House, I fully intend to maintain the increases provided for the Endowments in the final FY 2001 bill. I will put the leadership of the other body on notice now that the Senate has no intention of receding on this matter. This bill also provides funding for a portion of the Department of Energy, including programs that support research on energy conservation and fossil energy development. This research is critical to reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, and to reducing harmful emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources. The bill provides targeted increases for the most effective of these programs. Of particular not is the $11 million increase over the request level for oil technology research and development. This program, which is designed to enhance oil production from domestic sources and to develop cleaner petroleum-based fuels, was inexplicably slated for a large reduction the administration's budget request. In light of the recent and alarming rise in the price of gasoline, such a reduction seems highly imprudent at this time. The bill also provides increases for research on cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles, including additional funding for the Partnership for a Next Generation of Vehicles. This program was eliminated by the other body during floor debate--something which also seems imprudent in light of our growing dependence on foreign oil, and the potentially disastrous impact that rising oil prices could have on our economy. Among the many Indian programs funded in this bill, I have already discussed the high priority that has been placed on education programs. The bill provides increases for other Indian programs, however, including an increase of $143 million for Indian Health Services. This amount includes a $41 million program increase for additional clinical services, a $20 million increase for contract health services, and a $25 million increase for facilities construction and improvement. The bill continues the committee's efforts to help the Department of the Interior reform its abysmal trust management system. As many of my colleagues are aware, the Department is making a concerted effort to deal with a trust management mess that has been building for decades, if not the entire 20th century. This bill provides the full administration request for the Office of Special Trustee, which is charged with overseeing the trust reform initiative. The bill also provides an increase of $12.5 million for trust reform activities within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. On a more parochial level, I would like also to talk about what this bill means for the people of Washington State. The land management agencies funded through the Interior Appropriations bill have a dramatic impact on the ecological and economic health of the Pacific Northwest. With more than 25 percent of the land in Washington State owned by the Federal Government, I have taken a special interest in assuring that we have the resources and policies that promote recreational and economic opportunities, and environmental preservation. In preparing the FY 2001 Interior appropriations bill, I focused on three key issues for Washington State: restoring the health of our salmon runs, providing recreational opportunities, and promoting a clean Washington State. The salmon crisis has reached new heights in the past 6 months. While greeted by the good news that some returning Columbia River runs are at their highest levels in more than a decade, the cause of decline and the goals for recovery remain a mystery. The clash between local governments and the Federal agencies responsible for addressing the listing of these species has grown increasingly tense. Fortunately, most can agree that homegrown efforts to recover salmon will be the foundation for addressing the species' future. In this year's Interior bill, I have continued and increased the Federal Government's investment in funding volunteer salmon recovery groups that have the best track record for identifying and restoring crucial stream and river habitat for salmon. Increasingly, the role of fish hatcheries in the larger effort to restore naturally spawning runs of salmon has come under scrutiny. A group of key scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have joined forces to develop standards for the more than 100 hatcheries located in the State. I have secured funding to continue this effort to redesign hatchery practices and retrofit the facilities to ultimately enhance salmon runs rather than detract from the larger recovery goals. The Northwest continues to be a hot spot for recreation. Whether you are a day hiker from downtown Seattle or a back country horseman from Okanogan, all of us have a desire to preserve and enhance the recreation opportunities on our public lands. This year, I have focused my attention on improving camping and hiking opportunities in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley and preserving the history of Ebey's Landing on Whidbey Island. Finally, the health and beauty of our public lands are assets we cannot ignore. The diversity of wildlife that resides in our forests, refuges and parks must be preserved in the future. I have dedicated funding to acquiring key tracts of land that will provide connective habitat in the Cascade Range. Our children deserve a clean Washington State, and the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill makes a strong investment in the public lands we depend on for ecological and economic stability. In the interests of expediting debate on this bill, I will not spend more of the Senate's time describing its many noteworthy features. I do, however, wish to make one final observation regarding the bill as a whole. The bill will soon be open to amendment. Any Senator may offer an amendment to move funding from one program to another. Some of these proposals I may support, as I do not claim to know all there is to know about programs funded in this bill. Many such amendments I will oppose, however, because I think the bill before you represents an appropriate balance among competing priorities. But whatever the case, the point is that the process of amendment is available to us--to all Senators. The administration's budget request includes a proposal that would greatly diminish the right of Senators to offer amendments to change spending priorities in this bill. The ``Lands Legacy'' initiative would fence off a significant number of the programs in this bill and provide a set amount of funding for those programs. An amendment to move funding from this Lands Legacy pot to other programs would not be possible. For instance, one could not propose to shift funds from Urban and Community Forestry to Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, or from the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund to the National Park Service operations account. Regardless of what individual Senators might think about such amendments, to prohibit the simple offering of the amendment is absurd. That is why the committee has rejected the administration proposal entirely. And that is why this Senator is vehemently opposing efforts being made elsewhere in Congress to take land acquisition and a handful of favored grant programs off budget, thereby preventing the Appropriations Committee and the Senate as a whole from weighing the merits of those programs against the other critical--but sometimes less visible or popular--activities funded in this bill. On one further matter, I know several of my colleagues have inquired about emergency items that were included in the supplemental portion of the Agriculture appropriations bill, but which were not included in the supplemental title of the military construction bill that was sent to the President prior to the recess. This category includes funding for hurricane damage to National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service facilities, and funding championed by Senator Grams that would address a major timber blowdown in Minnesota and Wisconsin. While I can not now say exactly how we will address these issues, I want to assure my colleagues that this senator is committed to seeing that these previously identified emergency needs are addressed. Before I turn to Senator Byrd for his opening remarks, I want to state for the record how much I continue to enjoy working with him in putting this bill together year after year. He is a forceful and eloquent advocate for the interests of the State of West Virginia, as well as for the interests of Members on his side of the aisle and I may say, my side of the aisle. He is always cognizant, however, of the need to put forward a well balanced bill that adequately addresses the pressing national priorities that come under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. It is a great pleasure to work with him and his able staff. I also want to thank my own staff for the many hours they have put into this bill. It is often a grueling process, and I know I speak for all Senators in expressing appreciation for the work that has been done to get us this far. With that, I will only add the comment that I hope we will be able to deal with this bill relatively promptly and deal with it within the parameters set by the bill itself. I think it is not nearly as controversial a proposal as sometimes has been the case in the past. The House has, of course, already passed its Interior appropriations bill, and I have every hope we can finish our task relatively promptly and send not only an acceptable but an absolutely first-rate bill to the President of the United States.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, once again, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Byrd, not only for his kind words but substantively for the fact that I believe we have brought to the floor a bill that can command wide respect and that is not likely to be faced with profound amendments that change the direction or the philosophy of the bill itself. We have put together a list of rumored amendments as well as some en bloc amendments that we can accept in closing. It is relatively modest in length. It will be good if some of them can be brought today, of course, in the course of the next less than 2 hours. But I do hope that by tomorrow we will be in a position to get a unanimous consent agreement for a finite number of amendments and can develop a way in which to deal with them very promptly. The majority leader has told us how much he has to accomplish for the week. It will be a wonderful tribute to us, and a great help to us, if we are able to be in conference on this committee well before the week is over.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the emergency, the task, the unprecedented nature of the storm damage that is described by the Senator from Minnesota is absolutely correct. There is not a single thing he has said that meets with any resistance or disagreement on the part of this Senator. I wish that money had been included in the bill that is now law. As I believe the Senator knows, it remains in the Agriculture appropriations bill. I guess, procedurally at least, the principal challenge or principal question is which one of these two bills is going to get to the President and actually be signed first because I know the Senator from Minnesota wishes to have this money in hand. I make this suggestion to the Senator from Minnesota. If he would get together in just the next few hours or over the evening with the junior Senator from Minnesota and present us with a joint project, I will discuss the matter with Senator Byrd and with the leadership and tell the Senator that I think he is absolutely right; I want to get this job done as quickly as I possibly can. I will be delighted--and I am sure Senator Byrd will be delighted as well--to see to it that we do this in a way in which it becomes law and the money becomes available as quickly as possible.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from New Mexico on his presentation and I ask if he will return to the two charts. I appreciate the kind words of the Senator from New Mexico on this general field. My own view is we do need to do what we can to produce more petroleum products from sources that are within the control of the United States. I am convinced we also, in meeting this challenge, need to move aggressively toward the development and increased use of alternative fuels for our automobiles. Even if we are relatively successful in both of those courses of action, the challenge of an increased dependence and increased use of fossil fuels in transportation, or of even alternative fuels, is simply going to continue to grow. The Senator from New Mexico, in stressing the importance of a greater degree of efficiency in the use of energy for transportation purposes, is directly on point. As he stated, this appropriations bill includes a modest increase in its appropriation for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, a program I have supported ever since I took the chairmanship of this subcommittee. I think it is very important to the country as a whole. I think it is a constructive partnership between government and the private sector. I am delighted to have a Member speak on this specific element of the bill that I had to pass over rather quickly. The top line on the chart indicates the nature of the problem. The Senator from New Mexico also mentioned my effort in a different appropriations bill, once again, to go back to mandated, better fuel efficiency standards on the part of automobiles and small trucks. That is at least a first cousin, if not closer, to the proposition to which the Senator from New Mexico is speaking. If we are to be successful, if we are to turn that rapidly rising line in the chart and even flatten it out, it seems to me we have to engage in all of these. The subject about which he spoke is particularly important. I can assure the Senator from New Mexico that in a conference committee with the House on this subject, I will hold out as eloquently as I possibly can for the full Senate appropriation.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, in less than 10 minutes, under the previous order, the Senate will move on to another subject. We have completed opening statements on the Interior appropriations bill. The two Senators from Minnesota have offered an amendment, and we have had notice of several others. This is simply to announce to my colleagues that sometime tomorrow--I hope relatively early tomorrow--we trust we will be in a position to make a unanimous consent request stating that there is a deadline for the filing of amendments. I do believe we will be able to begin to discuss actual amendments fairly promptly tomorrow morning, but as the majority leader said, in the evenings from now on, we will move to the Defense authorization bill. So Members who wish their amendments to be considered should notify both managers as promptly as possible, should file those amendments as promptly as possible, and should begin to arrange with the managers for times relatively convenient to all concerned to bring them up. The majority leader would like to finish this bill tomorrow. I must say that I join him fervently in that wish, a wish that is not, however, a prediction. Nonetheless, a great deal remains to be done this week. The more promptly Members can come to the floor with their amendments and see whether or not we can deal with them informally or whether they will require a vote the better off all Members of the Senate will be. It is doubtful we will get anything more accomplished between now and 3:30, however. So at this point I will suggest the absence of a quorum and will ask that it be called off at 3:30 so we can move to the next matter of business. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in February of 1999, I awarded my first Innovation in Education Award to the Tukwila School District for their ``Friends and Family Program.'' Now, over a year later, I am standing on the Senate floor again to recognize an innovative program in this same district, the Youth Investment Program at Cascade View Elementary. As both these awards indicate, great things are coming out of the Tukwila School District and this innovative summer school program is no exception. Teachers and educators at Cascade View Elementary realized that many of their students were in need of additional help to be ready for their upcoming school year. Cascade Valley wanted to take advantage of the summer months to target students who need extra help in reading, math, and writing skills. Thus, the Youth Investment Program was created. Last week, I visited with teachers and students from this program and witnessed first-hand the tremendous impact that it has on its students. In classes where approximately 22-percent of the students speak English as a second language and skill levels range across the board, these teachers have produced spectacular results in their students' academic achievements and social development. Michael Silver, Superintendent of the Tukwila District, says ``There is a high percentage of kids from different ethnic groups who are at different skill levels. Our program has been able to streamline their learning to catch them up for their new grade level.'' The Youth Investment Program is also preparing students to succeed in the 21st century by incorporating computer training into many of the traditional academic subjects. The computer skills of each child are monitored throughout program. Teachers have also used computers to teach non-traditional courses such as drama and music which has enabled students and teachers to bring new meaning to the classroom. I am positive that these students will return to school in the fall not only equipped with renewed confidence but also with the skills and knowledge demanded by the new technology age. After spending a time with the students and teachers involved in the Youth Investment Program, it was not hard for me to see why the efforts of the Tukwila School District continue to stand out among local education in Washington State. Mr. President, the Youth Investment Program demonstrates once again that our local educators know how to meet the needs of their students. I applaud the work of the staff and teachers at Cascade View and I am pleased to present my 44th Innovation in Education Award to the Youth Investment Program.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sheila Sweeney and Scott Dalzell, detailees to the Appropriations Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of debate on the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I urge the Senate to unanimously adopt S. 2071, my bill also known as ``the Electric Reliability 2000 Act.'' The bill consists of a striking amendment adopted in the Energy Committee and sponsored by Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, and myself. It includes the original legislation and compromise language that addresses the concerns of the States on this issue. We should be pro-active in addressing electricity reliability, and S. 2071 is the correct approach at this time. The language has been endorsed by all of the major groups associated with the electricity industry, including investor-owned utilities, public power, rural cooperatives, states groups, reliability groups, power producers, and consumer organizations. Not only does this bill provide a long-term solution to electricity reliability by creating a national reliability organization--modeled loosely on the Securities and Exchange Commission--it will give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission immediate authority to prevent blackouts this summer. Enacting S. 2071 is critical for all electricity consumers in the United States. This Nation's interstate electric transmission system is an extremely complex network that connects with Canada and Mexico. It developed over decades with various voluntary agreements that allow areas to work together depending on changing power needs that vary from minute to minute. Yet a fundamental change has made this voluntary system unworkable. The system of buying and selling wholesale power is now many times more complex than it was just a decade ago. With a stronger economy, electricity usage and its importance to the economy has increased. Due to the uncertain nature of evolving retail and wholesale electricity markets, many utilities have cut investment that traditionally enhanced the reliability of the nation's grid. The fact is that the voluntary agreements just do not work any longer because there is no enforcement. With the beginning of competition, we need a referee on the bulk-power system. A multitude of studies and incidents over the past several years show that the Nation's reliability is at its lowest point in decades. Certain entities can ``game'' the transmission system--with potential of causing brownouts and blackouts within a region--and suffer no consequences for such actions. With continued extreme heat predicted for this summer, the problem will continue. Blackouts hit the San Francisco area and Detroit in the past month, and even the Northwest is facing shortages this summer. As I said in February when I introduced this bill, reliability is more than creating legally-enforceable rules on the electricity transmission grid. It also includes cost-effective conservation and demand-side management. Reliability will be enhanced with open-access transmission policies and with more generation distributed throughout the grid, whether it is small fuel cells or larger plants with clean technology. Sending the right signals to the investment community will be aided by passage of a truly comprehensive bill next year that allows all regions of the country--including the Northwest--the ability to benefit from a truly open and competitive marketplace. All of these factors, along with S. 2071, contribute to electricity reliability. The Electric Reliability 2000 Act is not a total solution to the electricity reliability problem in this nation, but it is a solid start. Enacting this legislation will have immediate benefits for American consumers and the economy of the United States.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I oppose the billions of dollars of emergency Fiscal Year 2000 supplemental funding included in the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction bill to continue our involvement in Kosovo, and to dramatically escalate our military's involvement in Colombia. While I support the Military Construction provisions in the bill, particularly the worthy Washington state projects specified in the bill, I cannot vote for passage of this measure. I did not support the President's decision to intervene in the 600- year-old civil war in the Republic of Yugoslavia, and do not support the spending of another $2 billion on this open-ended commitment of our nation's armed forces and taxpayer dollars. Last week, I actively opposed the President's effort to entangle us in yet another civil war, this time in Colombia. I unsuccessfully sought to reduce the proposed $934 million in funding to $200 million, which would amount to a four-fold increase in spending on our fight against drug-trafficking between Colombia and the United States. This supplemental spending bill now includes even more for Colombia, a total of $1.3 billion. I am afraid this is a mere down payment on the billions more we will be asked to spend in coming years. I refuse to support this launching of yet another never-ending commitment-- especially one that the President can neither justify nor guarantee will have even the slightest positive impact on drug trafficking. The billions included in this bill for Kosovo and Colombia are not only an irresponsible waste of taxpayer funds, they are a dangerous gamble that we will exit involvement in these civil wars with less damage to our fighting men and women, and national dignity than we have in the past. eb-52 option

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, in introducing legislation today that seeks to permanently authorize the recreation fee program for the federal land management agencies. Congress authorized the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in the FY 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act, and has extended the program through the Interior Appropriations bill several times since 1996. In the Pacific Northwest, the fees collected by the National Park Service and Forest Service have been a tremendous additional resource to provide improved campgrounds, trails, and other visitor facilities. As chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Committee, I have consistently provided increases for operations, maintenance, and repair of park, forest, and refuge facilities. Regardless, this country's love affair with recreation and the great outdoors has begun to take its toll on the public lands we enjoy so much. Since I took over the chairmanship of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I also have been faced with an unending list of federal land acquisition proposals. The demand to increase the federal government's land base cannot be considered in a vacuum, especially when we're faced with at least a $12 billion maintenance backlog on the lands we already own. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office recommended last year that the federal government place a ten-year moratorium on land acquisitions in an effort to address the backlog in maintenance projects. I don't support taking such an extreme step. Rather, I believe we can have a reasonable level of land acquisitions, but we also need to commit to finding the additional resources to maintain what we already have. I am committed to providing access to our public lands, but this can only happen if we have enough funding to maintain the land and facilities treasured by Americans and visitors from all over the world. Over the past five years of the fee demonstration project, the federal agencies have tested various types of fees and collection methods in preparation for the possibility of some day establishing a long-term, consistent, and fair fee program. In general terms, the project has been a great success, providing the federal land management agencies nearly $200 million last year in additional revenue for maintenance and repair projects, and resources for improved visitor services. In 1999, at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest in my state, the program allowed this Forest to clear 739.6 miles of trail, hire 22 trail maintenance workers, develop leveraged partnerships with non-profit groups to accomplish maintenance work with volunteers, and maintain 67 trailhead toilets and 136 trailheads. All of this vital work was accomplished by charging $3 for day passes or $25 for an annual pass. Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported the Interior Appropriations bill, which extends the Recreation Demonstration Fee Program through the end of fiscal year 2002. Despite my resistance to using the Interior bill to continue this program, I felt it was vital to provide the agencies certainty for another year. In fact, recent improvements to the Forest Service fee program in the Northwest, including the new Northwest Forest Pass, would have been jeopardized without the extension. With that said, I believe the Senate, through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, deserves the opportunity to fully consider legislation to permanently authorize the recreation fee program. The success stories are abundant, but by no means am I blind to the problems we've seen over the past five years. Most importantly, the public deserves the opportunity to participate, both through hearings and contact with their elected representatives, to provide us the input we need to authorize a permanent program. That's why I have chosen to join Senator Graham today in introducing a bill to begin the debate over how and whether Congress should permanently authorize the recreation fee program. The bill we've crafted provides the framework for a permanent program that will build upon the successes and correct the problems we've seen so far. I want to stress that this bill will serve as the starting point for what I hope to be a full and deliberative discourse on recreation fees. I intend to work with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold a series of hearings, including field hearings, so representatives of recreation groups, gateway communities, and other interested parties can air their concerns and suggestions. My staff and I have spent a considerable amount of time meeting and talking with recreation groups based in Washington state. I am certain there will be many ways we can improve the legislation introduced today to address their concerns through the committee process, and I am excited to continue that dialogue. It goes without saying that no one really wants to pay a fee to recreate on public lands. The key to making a permanent program a success in the future will depend on keeping the fees reasonable and the results tangible. The most important component of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project is the requirement that 80 percent of the fees remain at the site the fees are collected. The legislation introduced today maintains that requirement. In addition, Congress and the Administration must make a firm commitment to uphold its responsibility to continue to increase appropriations in the future to reduce the maintenance backlog. It's a two-way street, and we must all do our part. Further, I fully expect to address other issues raised by my friends in the recreation community. Although the situation has improved recently, the multiple fee structures tested by the Forest Service created a confusing and frustrating situation for hikers and rock climbers. In particular, rock climbers have been hit with multiple fees for just one visit to the forest. Many recreationists are calling for multi-agency passes. I find this idea intriguing and would urge further discussion through the committee process. I must note, however, that multi-agency fees may distract from the expectation that fees remain at the facilities and sites where they are collected. Further, some outdoor enthusiasts are concerned the fee program could inspire over- building on our public lands to justify collection of the fees. I, too, am concerned with preserving the integrity of our public lands and avoiding the impulse to provide unnecessary facilities. This legislation directs the agencies to place a priority on deferred maintenance projects. But again, these are topics that deserve thoughtful discussion, and I look forward to addressing them in the near future. Finally, many active recreationists have made a strong case for developing a recognition program that rewards volunteers for dedicating their time to improving our public lands. Many forests and parks have well-developed volunteer programs, while others do not. I am dedicated to working with recreation groups to provide the agencies appropriate guidelines in the bill to develop a consistent program that provides volunteers reduced or free access to our public lands. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for being a leader in the protection of the nation's public lands. I look forward to working with him, and the members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to authorize a permanent program that provides necessary resources to maintain and improve these national treasures for generations to come.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the debate on the Wellstone amendment on the subject of suicide, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the previously debated amendments, with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation. Those votes are as follows: Dodd amendment No. 3672 on community learning centers; Kerry of Massachusetts amendment No. 3659 on technology literacy; Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 3638 on the GEAR UP program; and Kennedy amendment No. 3678 on workforce investment.

Mr. GORTON. Those votes, Mr. President, will start at about 3:30 p.m., for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the time being we lay aside the current amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we start from the proposition that this bill, for various education and health care and job training efforts, is dramatically larger than the bill that was passed in this body last year, to everyone's satisfaction, increasing at a rate far more rapid than the pace of inflation or population growth in the United States. Obscured in the debate so far is the fact that there is some $5.4 billion in job training programs in this bill, at a time of record low unemployment. This represents an increase of more than $16 million over the bill that is currently in effect for the present year. The greater increases in the bill, of course, were for education and for biomedical research, both of which exceed the amounts requested by President Clinton. Even so, the bill provides funding for two new programs requested by the Clinton administration: Worker training and responsible reintegration of youthful offenders, each at $30 and $20 million respectively, a 22-percent increase for dislocated workers in the course of the last 4 years, and a 25-percent increase in the same period of time for the Job Corps. The private sector, of course, now looking more than ever for qualified employees, has dramatically increased its own hiring and training programs. Of course, in comparison with the House bill, this rejects the $400 million cut in the House bill in that field. As for summer training, the argument of the Senator from Illinois was a peculiar one. The current law for summer jobs, a law passed last fall, of course, well after last summer was over, has $1 billion in it for just exactly that purpose: $1 billion for summer jobs for youth. We have another in a series of amendments that illustrates the proposition that no matter how generous this body is, even I may say in many cases no matter how generous the administration is, some Members will come to the floor and demand more, whatever its impact on the budget. To quote the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board implicitly as being in favor of programs such as this is to fly in the face of logic. It is the clear position, often quoted by Members on the other side, that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board believes that the single most important means to the goal of a stronger economy we can follow is not to increase Federal spending and, in fact, to decrease it. He has consistently, over the years, held to the position that for the economy as a whole, for future job growth, the best thing we can do is be modest in our spending, not to increase it, I suspect, as much as it is increased in this bill. In any event, as has been the case with previous amendments of this nature, it will simply add millions, in some cases billions, of dollars to the bill. It is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. At the appropriate time, that budget point of order will be presented.

Mr. GORTON. I yield back the remainder of my time. I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, as amended, that the effect of adopting the amendment provides budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2001 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget and, therefore, is not in order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the rejection of the last motion to waive, I think, was a wise action on the part of the Senate. I am here primarily to congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania for the way in which he has dealt with the challenge of education in this bill. More than $40 billion for education is a very substantial increase over the current year. That is more than a $1 billion increase in special education programs, at least moving us one step further toward the promise of 40- percent funding of the cost of special education to the school districts of the United States. In my view, the centerpiece of this bill is in its expression of trust and confidence in our local school authorities, our parents, our teachers, our principals, our superintendents, our elected school board members, a trust and confidence expressed in a more than $3 billion appropriation for title VI, the innovative education program strategies. The last amendment would have taken roughly half of that amount of money and mandated that it go solely for additional teachers in the first three grades. Title VI, as it appears in this bill, says in effect our school districts--the men and women who know our children's names--are better suited to make the decisions in 17,000 separate school districts about what can most improve the quality of education for their children. As such, we are far better off passing the bill as the Senator from Pennsylvania has written it than we would be in including more mandates in this bill. There are at least two outside experts who agree with that proposition. One comes in an interesting paper by Andy Rotherham at the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council. He now, incidentally, works for President Clinton. He wrote a little bit more than a year ago: President Clinton's $1.2 billion class-size reduction initiative, passed in 1998, illustrates Washington's obsession with means at the expense of results and also the triumph of symbolism over sound policy. The goal of raising student achievement is reasonable and essential; however, mandating localities do it by reducing class sizes precludes local decision-making and unnecessarily involves Washington in local affairs. In my own State, the Legislative Audit and Review Committee came to this conclusion: An analysis of 60 well-designed studies found that increased teacher education, teacher experience and teacher salaries all had a greater impact on student test scores per dollar spent than did lowering the student-teacher ratio. According to one researcher, ``Teachers who know a lot about teaching and learning and who work in settings that allow them to know their students well are the critical elements of successful learning.'' Given limited funds to invest, this research suggests considering efforts to improve teacher access to high quality professional development. A recent national survey of teachers found that many do not feel well prepared to face future teaching challenges, including increasing technological changes and greater diversity in the classroom. The legislature's-- In this case, Washington-- approach to funding K-12 education is consistent. . . . The legislature has provided additional funding for teacher salaries, staff development, and smaller classes, with more funding going to support teachers and less for reducing the student-teacher ratio. The point is that reducing class size is not a bad option. It is a good option. I think we can all agree that it is one good thing for students. It is best done, however, when the decision about whether or not to do it and how it is to be accomplished is made in local communities and not in Washington, DC. Even that proposal pales in comparison with the now platform of the Vice President of the United States. He calls for a massive Federal effort from recruiting to setting teaching standards in a sense that will make the Federal Government clearly a national school board. Teachers who please Washington, DC, bureaucrats will get bonuses. Those who do not do so will risk being fired. The only thing bold about that initiative is that he has no qualms in taking over each and every one of the 17,000 school districts in the United States. If he becomes our President, education policy will undergo a significant shift. Local community school boards and teachers will be shut out of the process. What we are doing in this bill is moving significantly in the right direction. There is little disagreement over the necessity of a significant Federal contribution to education. It is only about 7 percent of the money we have spent, but it is the persistent drive of this administration and of this Department of Education to increase to well over 50 percent the rules and regulations governing our schools that accompany that 7 percent. This bill takes a dramatic step in a far better direction, a direction in which the support from the Congress is generous, but the trust of the Congress in the ability of school boards, teachers, principals, and superintendents to make decisions about our education is vastly increased all to the benefit of our children's education.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.