T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. That is correct. We are prepared to implement that agreement now, if we have permission.

Mr. GORTON. That is also correct.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have at the desk a revised motion to instruct the conferees on the Transportation appropriations bill. I ask unanimous consent it be in order to consider it and it be reported.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada had a question about the duration of the motion that was just agreed to. It probably would have been better to have stated that it expires on September 30, 2001, as does the entire bill on that date. I know he wished my assurance and the assurance of the people on the other side, Senator Levin, that it is our intention, and we will make that clear in any final conference committee report that this is a 1-fiscal-year provision only and that the entire provision expires at the end of fiscal year 2001.

Mr. GORTON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, each and every one of my colleagues has received a letter signed by this Senator and by Senators Bryan and Feinstein on the subject of CAFE standards--that is to say, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards--relating to gas mileage of automobiles. In that Dear Colleague letter, we indicated there would be a sense- of-the-Senate resolution on that subject that would come before the Senate during the course of the debate on this Transportation appropriations bill. The reason we had adopted that course of action, identical to the course of action we took last year, is that the Senate bill itself has no reference, one way or another, to automobile and small truck fuel economy. The House bill, however--as it has for at least 10 consecutive years--prohibits the use of any funds appropriated in this bill for even the study of increasing the mandated fuel economy of automobiles and small trucks in the United States. As a consequence, it seemed to us the only way we could get at this subject, and perhaps reverse that very head-in-the-sand policy that has plagued us for so long, was somehow or another to express the views of the Senate on the subject. A year ago, 40 Senators voted with us, if my memory serves me correctly; 57 voted against us. This year, however, the situation on appropriations bills has changed. It has changed effectively by the readoption of rule XVI and the extension of rule XVI, not only to substantive amendments but to sense-of-the-Senate amendments as well. As a consequence, we now need to notify our colleagues we will deal with this question in a different fashion. The proponents of better fuel economy standards have not yet met formally to discuss our various alternatives, but in my view they are basically two in nature. Technically, what is before us at this point is the House bill, including the prohibition against spending any money on Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, with an amendment that strikes everything after the enacting clause and substitutes the Senate-reported bill for the House bill. So at this point, an amendment is in order to strike that funding prohibition in the House bill, which will give us a direct vote on the issue, though that House provision, together with every other House provision, will eventually be stricken in any event by the adoption of the Senate amendment. Our other option is to wait until the end of the debate, wait until final passage of the Transportation appropriations bill, and make a motion to instruct the Senate conferees to uphold the Senate position, something the Senate conferees have notoriously failed to do during the course of the last decade. I am inclined to favor that latter course of action, but the group has not yet made its decision. But we do wish all of our colleagues to know we are not going to be engaged in any procedural legerdemain by any stretch of the imagination. We will be debating this issue. We regard the issue as vitally important. Perhaps most significantly, I should like to say the ground of the debate may be somewhat different from the debate a year ago, for several reasons--at least three in number. The first of those reasons is we were still living as a country in a fool's paradise a year ago, a fool's paradise of abnormally low retail prices for gasoline. During the course of the last 12 months, of course, we have been subjected to a huge runup in gasoline prices motivated almost entirely by the reanimation of OPEC and its throttling back on petroleum production among its various members. This left us earlier this year with what I considered to be the humiliating spectacle of a Secretary of Energy traveling from one OPEC country to another, hat in hand, asking those OPEC countries: Please, please, please, resume higher production of your product and, thus, lower those product prices. The point was that we had no bargaining ability as the United States of America whatsoever to accomplish that goal, and while there was a brief respite, though nothing like a return to the original status quo in gasoline prices, we now know they are, once again, very much on the rise: increases of 30 to 50 cents a gallon in many places in the Midwest that have special air pollution requirements, the highest prices reported yesterday in the Washington Post, perhaps forever. We can look forward with apprehension but with a real expectation of regular gasoline prices hitting $2 a gallon in the relatively near future. I cannot possibly emphasize enough the fact that this is a pricing structure that is simply beyond our control because we have allowed ourselves to become so dependent on foreign oil. The largest single percentage of our trade deficit, which is itself alarmingly high, is due to the importation of foreign oil. We have three possible answers to that question: We must either increase domestic production, encourage to an even greater extent than we do the use of alternative fuels, or to use the fuels we have more efficiently and more effectively. The latter not only has a very positive impact on the cost of gasoline to every consumer in the United States but also will, in a very significant fashion, help clean up our air. We will bring this subject up once again. Second is the proposition that last year we were told--I am not sure entirely accurately--the law under which fuel economy was mandated did not allow the Department of Transportation to consider the safety of vehicles that would be designed to meet these standards. It is our explicit intention this year, whatever the validity of that argument, to allow the Department of Transportation, in fixing new corporate average fuel economy standards, to consider factors of safety. That was a major argument a quarter of a century ago against the original CAFE standards. We were told everyone would be driving a subcompact and death rates would go up markedly. We are not driving subcompacts. Our highways are far safer than they were 25 years ago, and will be, again, I am convinced, if we once again significantly increase our mandated fuel economy. In any event, we are explicitly allowing that consideration. Third, whether one is on this side of the political aisle or the other side of the political aisle, it is obvious this process will not be completed during the course of this administration. It will be another administration, whether a Democratic or a Republican administration, that will make that final decision, and the final decision will, for all practical purposes, be subject to the same kind of prohibition that has prevented the study of corporate average fuel economy for the last two and a half decades. This is a vitally important matter. I commend Chairman Shelby and Chairman Stevens, once again, for not including any such prohibition in the Senate bill. This time we want the prohibition stricken from the final package, as well as not being included in the Senate bill itself. It seems to me to be paradoxical and foolish that the United States of America should consistently say, in spite of our magnificent technologies, in spite of the huge advances in technologies in the last couple of decades, that this is a subject we will not even study. And that, in effect, is what the present law requires of us. It makes Luddites of us. It says we are afraid of such a study. It is perfectly acceptable to increase our dependence on petroleum products each and every year; that in spite of the technology, we are going to be as ostriches with our heads in the sand and not go forward at all. I believe that to be an indefensible position, but as I say, this is just simply both the invitation to join us in this cause and a statement that there will be a vote on this issue. Whether in the form of an amendment to the House bill or in the form of instructions to the conferees is not yet certain. There will be plenty of additional time to debate this issue, and debate it we will and vote on it we will. I am confident of a greater number of votes this year, for the reasons I have already outlined, than was the case last year. I hope my colleagues will join me in saying the United States will, once again, lead not only in abstract technology but in applied technology, and begin at least not only to clean up our air but to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and save money for our constituents every single day of their lives in which they drive automobiles and trucks. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators Durbin and Thomas in control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Amendments to the bill are expected to be offered and debated during today's session. Any votes ordered with respect to those amendments, however, will be scheduled to occur on Tuesday at a time to be determined. As a reminder, all first-degree amendments to the Defense appropriations bill must be filed by 3 p.m. today. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the citizens of eastern Washington will experience a rare occurrence this week: Al Gore will visit there for the first time since he was re-elected Vice President almost 4 years ago. I welcome him to that beautiful part of Washington, and hope that he takes the opportunity to listen to the concerns of as many people as he can. If he had come a week earlier, he could have joined me at any or all of the seven stops I made in eastern Washington, so that he could hear about the primary concern of citizens--the proposed removal of dams by the Clinton/Gore administration. On the other hand, knowing how eastern Washington citizens feel about hydroelectric dams, it is not a surprise that he would choose to stay away. But let me urge the citizens of eastern Washington to take a good look around this week, because they will be getting a preview of what life would be like under a Gore administration. Just as in the Clinton/ Gore administration, they would have a President and an administration who believe that the Federal Government knows better than local citizens do how to manage their eastern Washington way of life. They would have an administration and a President who appears more interested in politics and his own election than what is necessary to save salmon or which energy source is the cleanest and most efficient for Washington citizens. Consider the following dubious challenge that eastern Washington citizens face in this administration: Next week, the Clinton/Gore administration will enact its 4(d) rules under the Endangered Species Act. Under the rules, the National Marine Fisheries Service will have the right to regulate the ``daily behavior'' of Washington citizens, including how much energy they consume, how far they travel, and how they maintain their gardens. Earlier this year, the administration ignored eastern Washington's request for more public hearings on the subject and more time to gain a better understanding of the vast impact the rules will have on their lives. Later this summer, the administration will seek to implement the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project over the strong opposition of many citizens of eastern Washington. Tomorrow, Al Gore will announce that 200,000 acres on the Hanford site will be set aside as a national monument by Presidential fiat. No one disagrees that the Hanford Reach must be protected. It is a magnificent part of the state that deserves preservation for generations to come. Of course, it is not now under threat and no emergency requires presidential action without consulting those who live around the reach. So, as decisions are made on how to protect the Hanford Reach, local consensus should be a vital component in reaching those decisions. I have always advocated collaboration with and listening to all of the stakeholders to achieve a just solution. The Clinton/Gore approach is but one more example of Washington, D.C. deciding for Washington communities something I believe that they are fully capable of deciding for themselves. The fact that Gore will tell local people what the Federal Government intends to do on the Hanford site rather than listen is a preview of how a Gore administration will deal with local citizens on a whole host of issues in the future. The issue of the Snake River dams, however, is another matter. I expect that while Al Gore is in eastern Washington, much as with his previous visits to Seattle and Portland, he will refuse honestly to reveal his position about whether he believes tearing down the Snake River dams is necessary to save salmon. Equivocating on an issue that will affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, cost billions of dollars, and have minimal if any impact on salmon is flat out wrong. Last month, the only thing new that Gore told reporters in Portland about his position on dams is that the issue requires more study and that ``he refuses to prejudge or play politics'' with the issue. Well, if he's not playing politics with the issue, then I'm the inventor of the Internet. After all, last fall the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, using science from the National Marine Fisheries Service, released a report stating that more than 90 percent of adult salmon survive through all four of the Snake River dams--the very dams that the administration has proposed to take out. The Corps of Engineers was prepared to recommend, rightfully, that the costs are too high, that the benefits are too few, and that the dams should be left in place. But high-ranking officials within the Clinton-Gore administration directed the Corps' recommendation be suppressed. Al Gore owes the people of the Northwest an explanation. We deserve to know why the Clinton/Gore administration hid this important recommendation from thousands of Northwest citizens who spent the better part of four out of the last five months writing comments, attending public meetings, and speaking out on the dams. Al Gore apparently agrees with the National Marine Fisheries Service that, despite the expenditure of $20 million and five years of study so far by the Corps, any decision on the dams should be postponed for five years, and that a ``trigger'' should be set, based upon the arbitrary performance standards set by unelected bureaucrats, that will require that the dams be breached if the standards are not met to their satisfaction. The fisheries service hasn't even published its biological opinion, which was due two months ago. How can we trust that delaying a decision five years or the imposition of arbitrary performance standards won't also be moved to meet the Gore agenda to take out the dams? We can't. Another subject I'll bet the Vice President will ignore is the amazing return of salmon to the Columbia and Snake river system last fall and this spring. It was reported last week that 189,000--a record number--of spring chinook salmon have passed through the Bonneville Dam already. Will he be willing to declare victory and move on? Of course not. So, I hope that the Vice President enjoys his most recent trip to Washington. I ask him to listen to local people in eastern Washington about the Hanford Reach with or more open mind than Bruce Babbitt did three weeks ago. And I ask him to take a firm position on the dams now--to practice what he preaches and not to play politics with the lives of eastern Washington citizens.

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, today I join with my colleagues, Senators Feingold, Hutchison, Abraham, and Lieberman, who will introduce a resolution congratulating the people of Croatia on their successful parliamentary and presidential elections, the peaceful transition of power, and new initiatives for reform. In addition to congratulating the people of Croatia, the resolution expresses U.S. support for their progress and encourages Croatian participation in the NATO Partnership for Peace. One day, I hope that we will be expressing our support for Croatia, and other nations with similar democratic inclination, as members of NATO itself. The Balkan nations embracing democracy must be supported at every opportunity available became the government could so easily have taken the other path. The leaders of Croatia could have chosen to repress popular involvement and other fundamental rights of democracy, but instead have chosen the harder but correct path of working through discourse, debate, and democracy. Because we have also been through these trials as a nation, I hope that the American people will watch closely the progress of the Croatian people and will support their path to freedom, stability, and peace. The most important benefit to come out of this election will be the resolution of Croatia's domestic difficulties. Through the successful election, the Croatian people have taken the reins of control. In addition to the power instilled by this self-determination, the Croatian people are now spurred to take up the mission of reform that should further improve their government. Among the stated goals of President Mesic are the reintroduction of Serbian refugees to the homes they left behind, reform of the privatization system that has faced serious corruption allegations, and support for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. These improvements would certainly go far to legitimize the new Administration in the view of the international community, but more importantly, in the eyes of the Croatian people. President Mesic's continued efforts on these fronts will show its people that their new government takes seriously the need for honesty and accountability. As the government wins the support of its people, I am also encouraged by the efforts of the new Administration to get involved with the European community. In such a volatile region, a nation uniting the many groups will be the key to fostering a stable political and economic atmosphere. Part of the victory of democracy in Croatia has been the new spirit of regional harmony that I hope will spread to its neighbors. Peace in the Balkan nations will only come with honest attempts to live with differences, and Croatia will be a leader in the efforts for peace there. In addition to better conditions in the Balkans, democracy will encourage the involvement of other foreign nations. Just two weeks ago, Croatian President Stipe Mesic met with French President Jacques Chirac to discuss an agreement on stabilization and association, as well as the Croatian entrance to the NATO Partnership for Peace. The resolution I am supporting today suggests U.S. support for the addition of Croatia in the partnership, and I am happy to inform my colleagues that the nations of NATO have announced that Croatia will become a full member of the Partnership for Peace program today. This is truly a great accomplishment, and it affirms the commitment of all NATO allies to help Croatia in its chosen path. In addition to my appreciation for the democratic and international progress of the Croatian people, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the work of the Croatian American Association in bringing this subject to my attention and to the attention of the American people. The Croatian American community has worked tirelessly to create bonds of friendship between our two nations, and I hope that as Croatia becomes more democratic and involved in worldwide political affairs that we, as Americans, will continue to support them. I hope that this resolution will be an additional bond between two nations that democratic tenets have already joined.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Feingold, Hutchinson, Abraham, and Lieberman, to introduce a resolution congratulating the people of Croatia on their successful parliamentary and presidential elections, the peaceful transition of power, and new initiatives for reform. In addition to congratulating the people of Croatia, the resolution solidifies U.S. support for their progress and encourages Croatian participation in the NATO Partnership for Peace program. One day, I hope that we will be expressing our support for Croatia, and other nations with similar democratic inclination, in NATO itself. Mr. President, the Balkan nations that are embracing democracy must be supported at every opportunity available because the government could so easily have taken the other path. The leaders of Croatia could have chosen to repress popular involvement and other fundamental rights of democracy, but instead they have chosen the harder but correct path of working through discourse, debate, and democracy. Because we have also been through these trials as a nation, it is my hope that the American people will watch closely the progress of the Croatian people and will support their path to freedom, stability, and peace. The most important benefit to come out of this election will hopefully be the resolution of Croatia's domestic difficulties. Through the successful election, the Croatian people have taken the reins of control. In addition to the power instilled by this self-determination, the Croatian people are hopefully now spurred to take up the mission of reform that might further improve their government. Among the stated goals of President Mesic are the reintroduction of Serbian refugees to the homes they left behind, reform of the privatization system that has faced serious corruption allegations, and support for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. These improvements would certainly go far to legitimize the new Administration in the view of the international community but more importantly, in the eyes of the Croatian people. President Mesic's continued efforts on these fronts will show its people that their new government takes seriously the need for honesty and accountability. As the government wins the support of its people, I am also encouraged by the efforts of the new Administration to get involved with the European community. In such a volatile region, a nation uniting the many groups will be the key to fostering a stable political and economic atmosphere. Part of the victory of democracy in Croatia has been the new spirit of regional harmony that I hope will spread to its neighbors. Peace in the Balkan nations will only come with honest attempts to live with difference, and Croatia will be a leader in the efforts for peace there. In addition to better conditions in the Balkans, democracy will encourage the involvement of other foreign nations. Just two weeks ago, Croatian President Stipe Mesic met with French President Jacques Chirac to discuss an agreement on stabilization and association, as well as the Croatian entrance to the NATO Partnership for Peace program. The resolution I am supporting today suggests U.S. support for the addition of Croatia in the partnership, and I am happy to inform my colleagues that the nations of NATO have announced that Croatia will become a full member of the Partnership for Peace program today. This is truly a great accomplishment, and it affirms the commitment of all NATO allies to help Croatia in its chosen path. In addition to my appreciation for the democratic and international progress of the Croatian people, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the work of the Croatian American Association in bringing this subject to my attention and to the attention of the American people. The Croatian American community has worked tirelessly to create bonds of friendship between our two nations, and I hope that as Croatia becomes more democratic and involved in worldwide political affairs that we, as Americans, will continue to support them. Mr. President, I hope that this resolution will be an additional bond between two nations that democratic tenets have already joined.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we know the Medicare program has not kept pace with advances in medical care and changing technology, whether through access to new medical devices or to prescription drugs. Sometimes seniors do not have access to the most advanced care. That needs to change. Some issues, like adding a prescription drug benefit, required broad reform of the program and an influx of new money to pay for the changes. But there are some common sense changes that can be made today could enhance access to life-saving therapies for seniors, particularly those living in rural areas, and potentially save Medicare dollars. Medicare covers drugs that are administered in the hospital or in a physician's office but will not cover self-injectable drugs or biologics to treat the same disease, notwithstanding the fact that the latter may be superior in terms of efficacy and safety and less expensive. This outdated policy creates a perverse incentive for drug companies to develop drugs that can only be administered by I.V. in a hospital or other acute setting. Those companies that ignore Medicare's coverage policy and develop their products so that they are patient- friendly are penalized, as are the patients who need these products. The end result is often higher costs to the Medicare program, lack of beneficiary access to the best therapies, and treatment delivery problems for beneficiaries in rural areas who may not be in a position to travel to a hospital to receive regular treatments. Patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are particularly victimized by this coverage policy. RA is a devastating chronic disease. As the disease progresses, sufferers move from self- sufficiency to total disability. The pain in most cases is excruciating. Like all patients with a chronic disease, RA patients face extraordinary out of pocket costs. However, Medicare beneficiaries with RA face a unique set of costs. One of the most promising breakthroughs for the treatment of RA is a self-injected biologic developed through recombinant DNA technology. It already has been proven to prevent and reverse disability caused by RA, as well as dramatically reduce pain and avoid costly surgery. For many RA sufferers with private insurance or on Medicaid, it has meant the difference between being confined to a wheelchair and walking--and even returning to the workforce! Since it is self-injected, it is not covered by Medicare. Yet, Medicare will cover another therapy which happens to be delivered intravenously, simply because it is administered (via I.V.) in a hospital. In doing so, Medicare ends up spending more money when one factors in the costs of services and ancillary drugs associated with administration of this covered therapy. Just as important, the current policy denies beneficiaries access to a therapy that has been proven to be more effective, less toxic, and much easier to administer. This anomaly in Medicare's existing drug coverage policy is rooted in 1960's medicine, before the advent of biotechnology and the development of patient-friendly therapies. Fortunately, there is a simple, budget-neutral way to help seniors who are dependent on Medicare. The Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act of 2000, which I will introduce today, along with Senators Murray, Mikulski, Santorum, Chafee, and Cochran would change Medicare's current drug coverage policy to allow coverage for self-injected biologics that are prescribed in lieu of an intravenous or physician- administered therapy. It would provide individuals suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, and deep vein thrombosis access to the latest, most promising biotechnology therapies. This is a modest, common sense change that can and should be accomplished this year regardless of what may happen on comprehensive Medicare reform. If we do enact a Medicare drug benefit this year, this bill should be a part of that. Failure to do so would institutionalize a coverage gap that denies seniors access to breakthrough technology and the best care our medical system provides to everyone else with private health coverage. According to a budget impact analysis by the Lewin Group, this legislation would not cost the Medicare program money and actually could save approximately $2 million per year. This is a compassionate, common-sense improvement we can make this year to improve the Medicare program for seniors. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the confirmation today of Richard Tallman to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an unusual, if not unprecedented arrangement, particularly at this time and for the controversial Ninth Circuit, the White House, Senator Murray, and I have worked together quietly to select and confirm absolutely first rate judges from Washington State. Dick Tallman is no exception. I had not met Mr. Tallman before he was chosen as a finalist for a district court vacancy by a Judicial Merit Selection Committee jointly appointed by Senator Murray and me. He impressed me tremendously at the time and I was privileged to be able later to recommend him to fill a vacancy on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Tallman enjoys broad bi-partisan support within Washington's legal community, including that of the Democratic State Attorney General, two former United States Attorneys for Western Washington, the Federal Public Defender from Western Washington, the President of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association, and the Federal Bar Association for the Western District of Washington. Prior to starting his own small firm where he continues to specialize in white collar criminal defense, Mr. Tallman practiced law for many years at one of the largest private firms in Seattle, Bogle & Gates. Before that he served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington. He has also been sought out by all levels of state government, serving as a Special Assistant City Attorney for Seattle, a Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for King County, as well as a Special Assistant Attorney General for Washington State. Over the years, Mr. Tallman has taught and lectured extensively to groups of lawyers and non-lawyers on a range of legal topics, instructing groups including the National Park Service, the Washington Medical Association, and the Seattle Police Academy. Mr. Tallman's involvement in bar and civic activities is no less impressive than his professional record. In addition to extensive pro bono work, he has served as president of the local federal bar association and as chair of the lawyer delegates to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He has been active in committees for local, state, and federal bar associations, in the selection of judges, bench-bar relations, and in helping women and minorities interested in legal careers. As the accomplishments I have just reviewed attest, Mr. Tallman is an impressive man. What these accomplishments to not convey, however, is the warmth, good humor, and the clear unpretentious intelligence I have observed in my short acquaintance with him. The Ninth Circuit will clearly benefit from our action today.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the students at Kent Elementary School have witnessed many innovative changes thanks to the hard work and foresight of their principal, Dr. Pat Johnson. For the last nine years, Dr. Johnson has been called a strong and supportive leader by her colleagues and never ceases to make the mark of excellence high for her staff and students. I applaud Dr. Johnson's work in transforming an at-risk school into one of excellence. Kent Elementary School serves a low income and highly transient population, yet Dr. Johnson believes in the abilities of all students, preaching her motto that ``Together Everyone Achieves More'' (TEAM). Though many students face challenges both at home and in the classroom, Dr. Johnson uses her positive attitude to inspire her staff toward maintaining an environment that promotes student learning. One example of Johnson's commitment to enhancing student achievement was by creating a school-wide discipline program. Through this program, discipline problems have dramatically decreased on the playground and in the classroom. Dr. Johnson also believes in reinforcing positive social skills to the children through rewards and student recognition. All of the staff members share in this ``Positive Action'' program, making teamwork a priority for the children. Dr. Johnson has also implemented block scheduling to maximize student learning. In order to better target students' math and reading skills, students attend specifically assigned classes that fit their appropriate learning levels, giving children the opportunity to move to other classrooms as their needs and skill levels improve throughout the year. Student reading levels have also improved because of Dr. Johnson's Reading Mastery program which focuses on strategies that help students reach academic success. Johnson's impact on her students is also evident in Kent Elementary's 1998 Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) writing scores which were the highest scores in the Kent School District. Another challenge taken on by Principal Johnson was giving students a sense of stability in their lives by creating a ``multi-age format'' in each classroom. This system allows students to have the same home-room teacher for two years and lowers the student/teacher ratio. Clearly Dr. Johnson is a tremendous leader who works to enrich her students' lives. She has established many new ways to improve student learning and continues to inspire her staff and students to conquer new challenges. Clearly Dr. Johnson is an influential principal who is making local education in Washington State even stronger.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on March 23, 1999, I voted against the initial Senate resolution to authorize air attacks in Yugoslavia. More than 420 days have passed since I cast that vote, and I could not be more confident in my initial decision. I argued in 1999 that the United States was foolishly injecting and engaging the brave men and women of our Armed Forces into a civil war that I dare say may never be resolved. Furthermore, the Administration had then not proposed, and to date has not yet recommended an exit strategy for the occupation of Kosovo. In reaching my decision, I questioned the mission's objectives, the implication of a long-term U.S. commitment in Yugoslavia, and most importantly I argued that our vital national interests did not warrant a full scale war in the Balkans. In less than two months after the Administration was authorized to enter the war in the Balkans, Congress faced an $11 billion taxpayer commitment to the endeavor. Once again I voted against the U.S. commitment to the civil war in Kosovo, citing the same concerns. And what has resulted from the U.S. and NATO engagement in Kosovo? NATO's thrust into the Balkans has fostered the creation of an entirely new class of refugees; the U.S. military has been required to police the region for an undetermined and unspecified amount of time; our own NATO allies' financial and military obligation to the endeavor remains questionable; ethnic related violent incidents in the region have increased; commitment by the region's leaders to embrace reconciliation efforts are conspicuous by their absence; and now Americans and Congress are being asked to provide nearly $2 billion in additional funding for contingency operations in Kosovo. Just this week, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released its report on the U.S. involvement in the Balkans. The report is critical of not only the U.S. and NATO participation in the region, but provides further doubt about the long-term prospect for peace in Kosovo. The report points out that the security situation remains highly volatile, that political and social reconciliation efforts are unsuccessful, that the wartime goals of the factions remain intact, and that NATO has failed to prepare for the transition of security responsibilities to the United Nations. In addition, the GAO reports that between 1992 and 2000, U.S. military and civilian costs for operations in Bosnia and Kosovo have cost the American taxpayer more than $18 billion. This figure includes commitments by the State Department, DoD, the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping missions, the Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Treasury. GAO also concluded that between 1991 and 1999, more than 4.4 million people have been displaced as a result of the wars in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia. A large share of these people remain in refugee camps. These displaced, war torn individuals have lost their homes, and have few prospects to regain them. In spite of such a massive financial and political commitment, the report also concludes that should NATO withdraw, unrest is inevitable. Political leaders have not embraced change, people who have tried to return to their homes have been attacked, the peace process has been continuously obstructed by ethnic groups, the economy remains flat, and efforts to advance the formulation of a multiethnic society have failed. Our asserted goals are a multiethnic Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia; the Kosovars want independence and the expulsion of all Serbs. With all of these negative forces at play against the peace process, how long does the United States intend to police the region? How many more taxpayer dollars will be spent on security issues in Kosovo that appear to have little or no possibility of reformation? What is the price for peace, if peace is even attainable? One of the reasons that I opposed the war in Kosovo from the beginning was not the risk that we were going to lose the war but the consequences of winning. We now have ``won'', we have won most of what we asked for in the beginning, but the consequences of winning is that we are putting thousands of our troops into Kosovo without any thought of when they will return. I am convinced that a U.S. presence may continue in Kosovo for a generation or so. We have, and most likely will expend billions of dollars in an out of the way place that has never been important to our national security, and we are doing it in a way in which most of the destruction that we are going to pay for in the future was caused by us. Most Americans are going to find that Kosovo was much easier to get into than it was to get out of. I intend to vote against the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction Appropriations bill because of my deep concern over the U.S. commitment and participation in the Balkan conflict. It is time to leave it to the Europeans. Even though the State of Washington, home to the most efficient, strategically positioned, and significant Army, Navy and Air Force bases stand to inherit valuable military construction funds by the passage of this legislation, I cannot in good conscience support another financial commitment to an unresolvable conflict in the Balkans. Those brave and courageous men and women of the U.S. military who have been tasked with implementing this Kosovo intervention, and those serving in the Armed Forces in the State of Washington, have my admiration and support. But in the goal of attaining peace in the Balkans, of the Administration's questionable leadership in this endeavor, and the long-term commitment that is expected of the American taxpayer, I have no confidence at all.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 8 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in 1989, the Department of Energy signed an historic agreement with the State of Washington and the Environmental Protection Agency, committing to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the South-Central part of the State of Washington. This pact, known as ``The Tri-Party Agreement'' has, for the most part, worked well to assure that the federal government keeps its commitment to the citizens of the state of Washington to keep the byproducts of nuclear materials production from harming the people who live and work in that area. Last year, responding to different pressures, Congress created the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Some officials, including my own state Attorney General, are concerned that the creation of the NNSA may create some uncertainty as to the Department of Energy's continued legal obligation to clean up the site. The NNSA was never intended to disrupt the enforceability of legal agreements that assure sites such as Hanford are to be cleaned up under specific timelines. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify that environmental, safety and health provisions continue to apply to the functions of the recently created NNSA to the same extent as they applied to those functions before transfer to the NNSA. While the legislative history of the legislation creating the National Nuclear Security Administration demonstrated clear Congressional intent that the NNSA remain subject to state, federal and local environment, safety and health requirements, some have raised concern that the legislation could be construed as narrowing the existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity with respect to these requirements. The Department of Energy hosts some of the most challenging environmental contamination sites in the country. Although the Hanford site is perhaps the biggest challenge, there are sites in several other states as well. It is critical to the preservation of the environment and the protection of human health that states maintain their existing authority to enforce environmental, safety, and health requirements with respect to Department of Energy facilities under the NNSA's control. A wide range of support exists for this legislation clarifying that the earlier legislation creating the NNSA was not intended to impair state regulatory authority over facilities under the NNSA's jurisdiction. Organizations supporting this legislation include the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Attorneys General. Just as this bill will clarify that the NNSA does not impair state regulatory authority over facilities under the NNSA's jurisdiction, the bill is carefully worded so as not to expand the states' authority in this regard. This bill simply reaffirms the ability of states to use the enforcement measures that are contained in cleanup agreements made with the federal government, such as the Tri-Party Agreement.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in 1989, the Department of Energy signed an historic agreement with the State of Washington and the Environmental Protection Agency, committing to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the South-Central part of the State of Washington. This pact, known as ``The Tri-Party Agreement'' has, for the most part, worked well to assure that the federal government keeps its commitment to the citizens of the state of Washington to keep the byproducts of nuclear materials production from harming the people who live and work in that area. Last year, responding to different pressures, Congress created the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Some officials, including my own state Attorney General, are concerned that the creation of the NNSA may create some uncertainty as to the Department of Energy's continued legal obligation to clean up the site. The NNSA was never intended to disrupt the enforceability of legal agreements that assure sites such as Hanford are to be cleaned up under specific timelines. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify that environmental, safety and health provisions continue to apply to the functions of the recently created NNSA to the same extent as they applied to those functions before transfer to the NNSA. While the legislative history of the legislation creating the National Nuclear Security Administration demonstrated clear Congressional intent that the NNSA remain subject to state, federal and local environment, safety and health requirements, some have raised concern that the legislation could be construed as narrowing the existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity with respect to these requirements. The Department of Energy hosts some of the most challenging environmental contamination sites in the country. Although the Hanford site is perhaps the biggest challenge, there are sites in several other states as well. It is critical to the preservation of the environment and the protection of human health that states maintain their existing authority to enforce environmental, safety, and health requirements with respect to Department of Energy facilities under the NNSA's control. A wide range of support exists for this legislation clarifying that the earlier legislation creating the NNSA was not intended to impair state regulatory authority over facilities under the NNSA's jurisdiction. Organizations supporting this legislation include the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Attorneys General. Just as this bill will clarify that the NNSA does not impair state regulatory authority over facilities under the NNSA's jurisdiction, the bill is carefully worded so as not to expand the states' authority in this regard. This bill simply reaffirms the ability of states to use the enforcement measures that are contained in cleanup agreements made with the federal government, such as the Tri-Party Agreement.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, all of us have read accounts of Americans crossing our borders in order to buy vital prescription drugs at deeply discounted prices. Every day seniors and other Americans can save 50 percent, 60 percent, or even 70 percent on their drug bill simply by going to Canada or Mexico. A busload of seniors from Seattle recently saved $12,000 just by driving two hours north to buy their medications at a Canadian pharmacy. The reason drugs are so much less expensive in Canada, Mexico, and other countries? American manufacturers sell products that were discovered, developed and manufactured in the United States for far lower prices in virtually every other country in the world than the prices they charge American customers. Why? Every other country imposes some form of a price control on prescription drugs. As long as we let our drug companies impose all of their research and development costs on American consumers, our drug manufacturers agree to this arrangement because they can recoup their manufacturing costs and still make some profit. But the price other countries pay in no way compensates for the expensive research and development costs for new drugs. American consumers end up subsidizing the research and development for the rest of the world. When Americans pay higher prices at the drug store cash register, that is not the first time they subsidize the research and development of new drugs. Taxpayer dollars are used to fund the research conducted by the National Institutes of Health; much of the basic science conducted with NIH grants is then transferred to the private sector. Taxpayer money is also the major source of funds for training scientific personnel, scientists hired by the drug industry in large numbers. According to a 1993 report by the Office of Technology, in addition to general research and training support, there are 13 programs specifically targeted to fund pharmaceutical research and development. That same report noted: ``Of all U.S. industries, innovation within the pharmaceutical industry is the most dependent on academic research and the Federal funds that support it.'' Finally there are the tax breaks: for research and development, for orphan drug development; and possession tax credits for manufacturing drugs in Puerto Rico. Let me be clear. I understand and support the need to invest in research and development. I have supported all of the programs I just spoke about including the National Institutes of Health and the Research and Development tax credit. I also agree that drug companies should be able to recoup costs associated with research and development. But I do not think that American consumers should be the only ones to foot that bill. American consumers who already strongly support R&D efforts through their tax dollars should not have to pay for R&D costs again in the form of higher prices at the drug store. All users, domestic and foreign, should pay a fair share of those costs. But drug companies are satisfied with the status quo. They know that they can simply raise prices in the U.S., if other countries negotiate or regulate to win lower prices. American consumers should not be subject to this kind of price discrimination--especially for products that are vitally important to preserving our health. My idea is to borrow from a law that has applied to interstate commerce within the United States for the last 60 years--the Robinson- Patman Anti-discrimination Act. It simply says that manufacturers may not use price to discriminate among like buyers. My bill, the Prescription Drug Fairness Act, takes these same principles and applies them to prescription drug sales overseas. Drug manufacturers would not be able to offer lower prices at the wholesale level in Canada, Mexico or any other country than they charge inside the United States. Since 1936, the Robinson-Patman Act has established as a legal norm the concept of fair dealing in pricing by prohibiting unjustified price discrimination. The same principle of fair dealing should be applied to prescription drug sales to wholesale buyers in different countries. The drug companies have demonized my idea by labeling it ``price control.'' If this is a price control then we have had price controls on every product sold in the United States for the last 60 years. My bill in no way tells drug companies what they can or can not charge for a prescription drug. It simply says that they cannot discriminate against Americans. I asked the pharmaceutical companies for their ideas to ensure that Americans are treated fairly and have access to affordable prescription drugs. Their response? They simply want to expand Medicare by adding drug coverage for its recipients. While I do think coverage is one important part of the solution for seniors--it is only a partial answer. It does nothing to address the cost for the uninsured American and does nothing to address the growing concerns of employers, health plans, and hospitals about rising costs associated with prescription drugs. As more and more people use prescription drugs, drug costs take up more of overall health care spending. But drugs are also costing Americans more. Last week, Families USA released a study that showed the average cost of the 50 drugs most commonly used by seniors rose by 3.9 percent, outpacing the inflation rate of 2.2 percent. A study from the University of Maryland's Center on Drugs and Public Policy projects prescription drug expenditures will rise 15-18 percent annually. Total prescription drug expenditures could double between 1999 and 2004 from $105 billion to $121 billion. I do think the Medicare program should be modernized to include a prescription drug benefit. If we expand the program, however, it must be done responsibly and must not jeopardize the benefits seniors currently have. CBO estimates that the program will be insolvent by 2023. While there are a number of ideas for how to structure a benefit, the sticking point always seems to be how to pay for it. CBO recently revised its estimate of the President's proposal. It is expected to cost $160 billion between 2003 and 2010. And that is for minimal coverage up to $1,000 (with seniors paying a second $1,000 out-of- pocket), relatively high premiums, and no protection for those seniors with exceptionally high drug bills. My skepticism about the industry's support for simply expanding Medicare is increased by reports in the Wall Street Journal last week that Medicare and Medicaid have overpaid the drug industry by as much as $1 billion a year for the few drugs these programs do cover. My idea would save Medicare beneficiaries money on their drug bills and would in no way jeopardize the solvency of the fiscally ailing Medicare program. I am convinced that we need to address the issue of price discrimination this year, not only for Medicare patients but for the health system overall. I am pleased to note that Senator Jeffords will hold a hearing on the issue of drug pricing and safety in the next few weeks and I hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee, to which my bill has been referred, will also take a look at this issue. In the meantime, while seniors and health plans, employers, hospitals and others struggle with the growing cost of prescription drugs, the pharmaceutical industry has been among the most profitable U.S. Industries in the last five years, with year to year earnings growing by more than 10 percent and for some companies 20 percent. So far, they have refused to engage in this debate. I hope they will change their minds. Right now the current system leaves the drug companies' best customers feeling like they've been ripped off. Bob Elmer from University Place, Washington recently wrote: I am a recently retired pharmacist . . . and have always been proud of the American pharmaceutical manufacturers and the role that they play in . . . the search for new and innovative entities that help us live not only longer, but better. As a matter of fact, I worked for a major manufacturer for some time. I, like you, am outraged at the manufacturers' practices of charging the American public more than the Mexican public or the Canadian public. What is their rationale for the price differences? This overcharging is a black mark on this industry. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. Drug companies should no longer be allowed to discriminate against Americans by charging higher prices here than they do elsewhere in the world. My bill will end that discrimination.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I take the floor today to commemorate one of the most significant events in the history of my state--the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. On the 18th of May, 1980, Mt. St. Helens exploded with the force of a 24-megaton atomic bomb, scorching 230 square miles of picturesque Northwest landscape and triggered the largest known landslide in history, traveling at nearly 200 mph to bury Spirit Lake and the Toutle River. Tragically, fifty- seven men and women lost their lives, over 200 homes and 180 miles of road were destroyed and caused $3 billion in damages. Since that horrific day, the great people of Washington state began the long road to recovery. Today, I would like to recognize the astounding efforts of thousands of volunteers and donations from countless companies that have succeeded in making Mt. St. Helens a place where trees are growing at record speeds and animals are beginning to thrive in their new home. Mt. St. Helens is now a place where tens of thousands of visitors flock every year from around the globe to witness both the violent and healing powers of nature. Local residents devastated by the eruption have transformed their communities and now look to Mt. St. Helens to attract visitors and contribute to the local economy. There is still, however, an enormous amount of work to be done to help Mt. St. Helens and the surrounding areas continue on this path to recovery. The local communities' dedication to rebuilding infrastructure and ecosystems, the creation of a renowned research facility, and the construction of a world-class tourist attraction have demonstrated the highest degree of responsiveness and resourcefulness. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Forest Service for their achievements and commitment in bringing Mt. St. Helens back to life. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and a member of the Mt. St. Helens Institute Advisory Board, I am deeply committed to helping Mt. St. Helens make the best possible recovery and to finding federal dollars to keep Mt. St. Helens accessible and enjoyable for all visitors and to assist the surrounding communities in finding solutions to their many challenges. I am confident that in the next twenty years the people of the Northwest will make even greater strides in reviving the beauty of Mt. St. Helens, making Washington state an even greater place to live.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I take the floor today to honor one of the oldest and top community colleges in the great state of Washington. In honor, of their 75th Anniversary, I would like to say a few words about this fine academic institution. Centralia College serves the citizens of Southcentral Washington, offering outstanding community service programs and a high quality of student life. Centralia College, however, extends beyond traditional instruction of its students and participates in the greater-Centralia community, providing residents with informative and interesting public lectures, art shows and cultural events. Clearly, Centralia College is an integral part of the surrounding community. Students at Centralia College study a variety of disciplines from accounting and nursing to computer and forestry technology, receiving a well-rounded education that will prepare them for a bright and challenging future. Furthermore, Centralia College offers students an international experience. Students have the opportunity to study in a number of foreign countries or learn from the many international students that attend Centralia College. I applaud Centralia College for its commitment to expanding its students' horizons and exposing them to new ideas and different ways of life. The faculty at Centralia College are extremely dedicated to giving their students a balanced education and emphasize the importance of critical thinking skills, writing, oral and visual communication as well as fostering in their students a sense of resourcefulness and responsibility. I believe that the faculty's continuous hard work and dedication to these goals has made their students successful and contributing citizens of Washington state. Education is more than merely memorizing facts and Centralia College teaches its students vital problem solving and communication skills that will lead our country in the new millennium and give them a solid foundation to help Washington state continue in its prosperity. I wish Centralia College another successful 75 years. It is institutions like Centralia College that make Washington state one of the best places to live.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, more than 6 months ago I signified my support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Initiative when it came to the Senate floor for a vote. Today, I stand again with a bipartisan collection of my colleagues, a broad base of industry, faith-based and religious groups, a variety of free trade advocates, and supporters from the sub-Saharan African nations and the Caribbean to advocate for swift passage of this legislation. To begin, Senators Roth and Moynihan should be applauded for producing and delivering this legislation after more than three years of deliberation and negotiation. The long and arduous task of attaining agreements between U.S. industry and their counterparts in Africa and the Caribbean, as well as assuring that the various trade interests from all sides were accommodated, is a task that should be commended. As we continue to prosper and advance in this expanding and ever changing world economy, it is essential that the United States reach out to all regions of the globe. By unilaterally expanding access to U.S. markets, sub-Saharan nations and the Caribbean will be afforded new trade and investment policies that will propel these regions into 21st Century trade practices. Trade with the United States does imply that certain practices be instituted and embraced by participating nations. This bill promotes the establishment and development of free-market economies, insists on human rights standards, and champions democratic and economic principles, the U.S. expects from our trading partners. From textiles and apparel, to agriculture and specialty goods, not only does the United States stand to prosper from this trade agreement, but, so too do the sub-Saharan and Caribbean nations. While some have argued that U.S. companies could be harmed by expanded trade with these regions, stringent requirements regarding the transshipment of goods have been incorporated into the legislation. In addition, the bill includes a provision that enables the U.S. Customs Service to assist these countries with illegal transshipments. While I am somewhat disappointed that the bill no longer includes the reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Generalized System of Preferences, the crux of the bill, its intent, and its long- term impact on trade with sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean make it well worthy of passage. In addition, my home State of Washington, the most trade dependent state in the nation, naturally stands to gain from increased trade. Again, I reiterate my support for the legislation and its far- reaching intent. With such a broad base of advocates vying for its passage, not to mention the partnerships in trade this legislation creates for the United States, this measure deserves our support and swift approval.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Vice President of the United States is flying to Oregon this evening, or tomorrow morning, for a visit to that State. On the last five or six occasions on which he has visited the State of Washington, I have inquired of him, as politely as possible, as to his intentions with respect to the future of four dams on the Snake River. This inquiry is of significant importance to the people of the State of Washington, as well as the people of the State of Oregon. The answer from the Vice President is peculiarly important because of the disarray of the present administration. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that the dams come down, be removed, for salmon recovery. The Corps of Engineers, almost a year ago, was ready to recommend that the dams stay in place and that we deal with salmon recovery in another productive fashion. That recommendation was vetoed by the White House and removed physically from the Corps of Engineers' report. More recently, the National Marine Fishery Service has said that we don't know enough to decide whether or not we should remove the dams and that the decision may be at least 5 or 10 years away. The Governor of Oregon has recommended that the dams come down. The Governor of Washington, also a Democrat, has opposed that recommendation. As you know, Mr. President, so have I, in the most vehement possible terms. Of all of the proposals for salmon recovery, dam removal is, first, the most ineffective and, second, of the most marginal utility with respect to the recovery of the salmon resource in the Pacific Northwest. At a capital expenditure of $1 billion to $2 billion, and annual losses of at least a third of a billion dollars in perpetuity, the promise of salmon recovery from dam removal is extremely marginal, with no impact on some of the endangered runs, and only a modest improvement in the order of 10 to 20 percent in the prospects for certain other runs. Weighed against that are the potential real successes from the Salmon Recovery Board of the State of Washington, which has for the current year an appropriation from the Congress of $18 million for the work of citizen- based salmon recovery teams, which will be the beneficiary of an appropriation from this body of about $4 million. There is a very real concern with predation at the mouth of the Columbia River--a concern now frustrated by a lawsuit against any removal of Caspian terns from an artificial island at the mouth of the river by at least a temporary injunction. These and dozens of other projects in the Pacific Northwest have a far greater promise for the salmon recovery than does dam removal, with all of its devastating impacts on the loss of benign, renewable energy power, to be substituted by the use of fossil fuels, for all of the loss of agricultural land that requires irrigation to be anything other than a desert, for all the loss of a transportation system which is the most efficient and environmentally benign for the transportation of grain to ports on the lower Columbia River. All of these factors argue against dam removal. But the Vice President of the United States, in his candidacy for President of the United States, refuses to make any commitment whatsoever on this matter. Now, it may be that he didn't want to respond to this Senator on these visits to the State of Washington. But he is now going to be asked to respond by the Governor of Oregon, who supports his candidacy. His response has been demanded by the Portland Oregonian, the largest newspaper in the State of Oregon, which, incidentally, holds my position and that of my colleague, Senator Smith of Oregon, on the subject. One hopes that the Vice President will finally be able to come up with an opinion. Now, he has taken positions on other local issues. He is certainly quite willing to tell the people of South Carolina what flag they can fly. But he seems unwilling to tell the people of Washington and Oregon what his views are on an issue of vital importance to them and to their regional economy. So I am here to express the hope that the Vice President will finally come clean with his views on this subject. But I must express the expectation that he will, once again, dodge the issue, pretend that he has not made up his mind when, in fact, he has, and claim that he can't make a substantive comment on this until after the election in November is over. I will regret that, Mr. President. His opponent, the Governor of Texas, has taken the forthright stand that it is improper and uneconomical and unwise to remove those dams. He will protect the physical infrastructure of the Pacific Northwest. I am here to invite the Vice President of the United States to do likewise, without, I regret to say, any expectation that he is willing to do so.