T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will amend the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program (YRBWEP), first approved by Congress in 1994 (PL 103-434). That legislation established a comprehensive framework for increasing critical flows in the Yakima River in order to reverse a longstanding trend of declining salmon and steelhead runs. One portion of that legislation, Section 1208, authorized a specific project to electrify hydraulic turbines at the Chandler Pumping Plant near Prosser, Washington. By converting these pumps from hydraulic to electrical power, an additional 400 second feet of water would be added to a 12-mile stretch of the Yakima River below Prosser Dam called Chandler Reach. This project would increase survival rates and provide important new habitat for both the anadramous and resident fisheries in this critical section of the Yakima River. This electrification project is still a good approach to augmenting Yakima River flows, but early in its implementation an even better idea was developed that can nearly double the benefits projected from electrification. This new approach could result in completely eliminating the need to divert water at Prosser Dam and Wanawish Dam for use by the Kennewick Irrigation District (K.I.D.) and the Columbia River Irrigation District (C.I.D.). This plan will require building a new pumping plant on the Columbia River and a pipeline to connect this new facility to K.I.D. This approach could add back to the Yakima River during critical flow periods the entire 759 second feet of water now diverted at Prosser Dam. This project might well be the key to the success of the rest of the YRBWEP program. For the extensive efforts being made farther upstream to be entirely successful, the lower sections of the Yakima River must provide the conditions necessary for salmon and steelhead to survive their journey to and from the upper river and its tributaries. The Chandler Reach and the lower Yakima must have sufficient water at the right time for anadromous fish to be able to transit this area. Without it, the programs upstream will be less effective. The legislation I will introduce today authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to spend some of the funds previously authorized for the electrification project to develop this new approach. There are several studies and undertakings necessary to determine with certainty the efficacy and cost of this pump exchange project. These include carrying out a feasibility study, including an estimate of project benefits, an environmental impact analysis, and preparing a feasibility level design and cost estimate as well as securing critical right-of-way areas and such other studies as may be required. This change in approach to enhancing flows in the lower Yakima is enthusiastically supported by the resource agencies of the State of Washington, including the Washington State Department of Ecology, as well as by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and many other primary stakeholders on the Yakima River, such as the Yakama Indian Nation. To date all organizations and agencies contacted want to see the necessary work done to develop this project further, and this legislation will provide the crucial resources to complete the feasibility and engineering studies.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the extremely generous and thoughtful gift for the education of our nation's children that was announced today by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Although relatively young, the Foundation already has a track record of making significant contributions for the sharing of new technologies and improving the educational opportunities of all our children. For example, in 1999, Bill and Melinda Gates provided $1 billion to establish the Gates Millennium Scholars program, which will provide scholarships for academically talented minority students who would otherwise not have the financial resources to attend college. Today, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will announce a new gift of approximately $350 million, and more than $200 million of this gift will be directed to Washington state schools and districts. This gift is comprised of a series of grants that are designed to raise academic standards and help all students meet those standards. The grants are broken into two elements. The first is a series of grants for the development state, district, school and classroom leadership. Our educators are doing an outstanding job teaching our children. This funding, however, will give our teachers even more support and enhance their education which will in turn improve the education of our students. This series of grants consists of $100 million for state challenge grants for Leadership Development, $45 million for the Teacher Leadership Project, and $25 million for national teacher training and teacher quality initiatives. The second series of grants will encourage the development of model schools and districts. Throughout our state, educators and school administrators have hundreds of innovative and creative ideas to improve education. With this funding, educators can turn their ideas into reality and implement new solutions and ways to teach. This series of grants consist of the $30 million Washington State School Grant Program which will serve approximately 140 schools, and the $150 million School District Grant Program which includes $50 million for 10-11 districts in Washington State. Finally, the Foundation is providing the Seattle School District with a $26 million grant that will assist the district in its use of technology to help students meet Washington state's challenging academic standards. I'm sure my colleagues join me in thanking Bill and Melinda Gates for their significant and considerate contribution to education. I know that current and future generations of students will benefit greatly from this gift. The education of our children is the key to the success of our country and the Gateses have given all of our students an even greater chance of succeeding.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to announce the winner of my 33rd Innovation in Education Award. This award goes to a national group sponsored by Boston Public Radio titled ``From the Top.'' I learned about this program when I attended a ``From the Top'' performance in Spokane on January 29th. Two students from Washington state, Stephen Beus of Othello and Justin Mackewich of Vancouver, participated in the concert and I was amazed by their technique and their immense talent. I was delighted to see such outstanding students excelling in the arts and am pleased to award Stephen and Justin and recognize this exceptional program. Both Stephen and Justin are very gifted musicians. I was amazed by Stephen's skill at the piano and the Four Seasons Quartet that Justin played in was astounding. I hope to attend more of their concerts in the future. ``From the Top'' consists of a series of public radio performances, taped in front of live audiences. These performances have been given across the country in places like Boston, New York City, Sarasota, Florida, and St. Paul, Minnesota. The concept for ``From the Top'' is to highlight the performances of exceptional, pre-college age, classical musicians. Indeed, their performances make a ``From the Top'' concert a remarkable experience. An additional positive impact of ``From the Top'' is that it provides an arena for people of all ages to enjoy classical music. In today's modern world, we must take the time to enjoy the classics and encourage our youth to value the great symphonies and music from the past. ``From the Top'' is an excellent source for all ages and walks of life to learn more about classical music. Each week, I give an ``Innovation in Education'' Award to individuals or groups within the education system who make outstanding contributions to the education of our children. I believe that ``From the Top'' gives our students exposure to the arts that provides an invaluable enrichment to any child's upbringing. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the great contributions of ``From the Top''.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last Friday, Oregon governor John Kitzhaber announced his support for a radical Clinton-Gore administration proposal to begin dismantling the Columbia-Snake hydroelectric system by removing four hydroelectric dams in southeastern Washington. That same day, in Seattle, campaigning for president, Bill Bradley also announced his support for this proposal. Is support for destroying the Columbia hydro system now a litmus test for the Democratic Party and its candidates for public office? I hope not, because the importance of salmon recovery and the value of our Northwest hydro system is too important to every family and community in our region. The Clinton-Gore administration--most prominently through Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt--has aggressively advocated dismantling dams. Specifically, the administration has devoted significant agency resources to study removal of the four Snake River dams in Washington. Even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has publicly endorsed dam- breaching. Several other agencies list it as a serious ``option'' to recovery Pacific Northwest salmon. I will state here again--as I have many times already--no proposal to remove Snake or Columbia River dams will pass in Congress while I am Senator. I know that my colleagues, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, Senator Mike Crapo and Senator Larry Craig, as well as Governor Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho share my view. In addition, last year, Republican members in the House for Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Alaska--led by my friend Congressman Doc Hastings--co-sponsored a House resolution expressing opposition to the removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Scores of Washington State Senators and state legislators appeared at a rally last year in support of the dams. And unlike the Democratic presidential candidates, my friend governor George W. Bush has stated that he would not approve of such a proposal. I particularly commend Governor Gary Locke for stating his opposition to this unwise position. Governor Locke has been especially courageous and thoughtful in representing the best interest of his constituents in spite of the criticism of many of his own supporters. Removing dams from the Columbia hydro system is bad policy. It is bad for people. It costs too much. And the value to salmon is highly questionable. What is certain is that dam removal will make the Northwest a dirtier place to live as it will put tens of thousands of added trucks on the road and as clean hydro power is replaced with coal or gas burning energy. The case against breaching the Snake River dams is bolstered by evidence found in the Corps of Engineers own feasibility study. The Corps found that with existing dam conditions, the average survival rate through all four dams and reservoirs on the Snake River for juvenile salmon is already over 80 percent, and for adult salmon is 88- 94 percent. In addition, in the dozens of appendices, summaries, charts, glossy brochures, and documents, there is little, if any, concrete, verifiable biological or scientific data in the Corps' study that shows that the removing even one inch of these dams would restore salmon runs. At the same time, much of the Corps' own evidence in the feasiblity study verifies that the economic and social effects caused by dam breaching would be devastating to the region. The Corps' cost estimates, which are unrealistically low, assume that the economic impact measured in lowered farmland values, pump modification costs, and irrigation wells would exceed $230 million. Replacing lost hydropower with other energy forms would increase electricity costs to local ratepayers by as much as $291 million per year. And increased highway and rail traffic costs would cost industries an additional $24 million per year, and $100 to $200 million a year to replace barging with trucking and rail. On top of that, the government, through your taxpayer dollars, would have to find an estimated $1 billion just to accomplish the job of removing the dams. Throughout the study, the Corps acknowledges that breaching the dams would have an adverse effect on the environment, resident fish and wildlife, clean air, higher water temperatures, specifically through 50 to 75 million cubic yards of eroding sediment, increased dust and emissions from replacing hydroelectric power with natural gas, and increased annual pollution and safety concerns from highway and rail traffic. What the Corps didn't say in the study is that today, the Columbia and Snake Rivers provide a transportation corridor that moves more than $13 billion in cargo comprised of exports and imports to and from 43 states. This system in 1997 alone handled 43 percent of all U.S. wheat exports and 11 percent of U.S. corn exports. That's a significant amount of food for the world that would have to be transported in other ways. All of this comes at a time when the Bonneville Power Administration is reporting impending energy shortages for the Pacific Northwest and the Secretary of the Energy is traveling to the Middle East to try for cheaper oil to counteract increasing gasoline and oil prices. Also lost on this administration and other dam removal advocates is the fact that salmon populations are declining everywhere including in watersheds where there are no dams. The National Academy of Sciences studied Northwest salmon issues and found that in river basins like the Chehalis basin and the Willapa basin where there are no dams, the decline of salmon populations, per capita, is identical to that of the Columbia River. Native salmon runs on the East Coast are in more serious decline than many in the Pacific Northwest and yet almost none of those salmon runs are from rivers containing hydroelectric dams. But are we still to believe that destroying the Columbia hydro system is necessary to save salmon? And let's be clear about one more thing. Today, the dam removal advocates focus only on four dams that generate power for BPA on the Snake River. But let nobody be fooled. They and their political allies among the national environmental groups mean to destroy more of the Columbia hydro system than just these four dams. If removing these four dams on the Snake River--dams containing fish passage facilities--is necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act and other laws, then surely, Grand Coulee Dam without fish passage facilities blocking hundreds of miles of pristine salmon habitat must come down. Perhaps the Oregon Governor can explain why Oregon's Hells Canyon dam on the Snake River and with no fish passage capacity can survive under his criteria. This debate is about preserving or dismantling the Columbia River hydro system. I will fight to preserve this system and fight to restore salmon runs within the context of this system. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to express my ardent support for passage of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. It is very likely that this legislation will pass the Senate by a margin matching or nearing the unanimous 419 to 0 vote in the House of Representatives last September. The importance of this legislation should not be lost amid the widespread acclamation with which it will be sent to the President. This bill is aimed at controlling the transfer or sale of technology and expertise to Iran, especially from Russia, that will assist in its development of weapons of mass destruction and missiles designed to deliver these weapons. This is a very real, very well-documented and very serious security concern for the United States and Israel, our nation's most-trusted ally in the Middle East. The Central Intelligence Agency has reported Iran has the capability to launch a missile that will reach Israel, and it is well known that Iran is pursuing development of nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. The Iran Nonproliferation Act provides for biannual reports on who around the world is transferring prohibited technology or information to Iran, and allows the President to take action against persons or entities found to be engaged in such activity. This bill also includes new steps to ensure the Russian Space Agency, which is a partner with NASA in the International Space Station project, is complying with Russia's official Iran anti-proliferation policy. Media reports on the Iran election, held only days ago, show an encouraging shift in the attitudes of the Iranian people, a trend that we should applaud and encourage. Unfortunately, the structure of the Iranian government and its police services may well frustrate the will of the Iranian people, and the quest of its armed forces for weapon and missile technology proceeds apace. I look forward to the day on which Iran will be a good and peaceful neighbor. That day may be closer, but it has not yet arrived. This bill is a necessary step towards our goal of nonproliferation and certainly merits a high level of bipartisan support, as well as the signature of President Clinton.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last month I had the pleasure of visiting Wind River Middle School in Stevenson, WA. One of the reasons why the students at this school excel is because of its teachers and the commitment they demonstrate each day in their classrooms. One of the teachers who has made a tremendous impact on the education of her students is Ms. Traci Eccles. Ms. Eccles is a dedicated professional, a staff leader, a team player and most importantly, a teacher who encourages her students to grow. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Eccles' commitment to her students and award her with my 32d Innovation in Education Award. As a teacher of language arts to 7th and 8th grade students for more than a decade, she is constantly working to improve the lives of her students. She has also teamed up with her colleagues to create school- wide programs on topics such as health and nutrition, student tolerance, and a hands-on study of the respective decades of the 20th century. Six years ago, Ms. Eccles and her colleagues wanted to create more tolerance amongst their students and started a program to examine intolerance in the world and its impact. Eighth grade students must read a book by Elie Weisel, titled ``Night,'' that tells the stories of human suffering and degradation during the Holocaust. The students must also keep journals and take part in discussions of current events. Student reaction to the Tolerance Unit has been profound. At the end of the unit, teachers can see a much higher level of awareness among students reflected in how they treat and respond to each other. I applaud Ms. Eccles and her colleagues for taking the initiative and developing a program that has impacted their students such a positive way. In addition, Ms. Eccles took on another project to give students a first-hand look at their country's history through a program called the Decades Unit. The entire school is divided into different groups and participates in a week long program where students put together historical fashion shows, learn and perform popular dances of each decade, and create a time-line outlining significant events in United States history. Ms. Eccles' great work deserves our recognition. Through their creative ideas, dedication and hard work, Ms. Eccles and her fellow teachers have improved the lives of our children and created a greater sense of community and togetherness in their school. My many visits to schools around Washington state have shown me that the people who see our kids everyday are the ones who should have the greatest say in their education. It is teachers like Ms. Eccles who are both the true strength of our education system and who can prepare our kids with a foundation for the future. I will continue my work to give teachers like Ms. Eccles more freedom to innovate and improve the lives of our children.

Mr. GORTON

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

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to read portions of a proposed regulation found on page 173 of the January 3, 2000, issue of the Federal Register: ``[I]t is important that individuals alter their daily behaviors,'' ``and for governmental entities to seek programmatic incentives, public education, regulatory changes, or other approaches.'' ``Daily behaviors'' are further defined as ``Individual decisions about energy consumption for heating, travel, and other purposes;'' and ``individual maintenance of residences or gardens.'' Those passages come directly from a ``4(d)'' Endangered Species Act regulation for the Pacific Northwest proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The rule states flatly these are examples of activities that could kill salmon or steelhead through water, air, and ocean pollution, and that NMFS ``might or might not'' seek to regulate them as such under the rule. Taken literally, if these rules are enacted as written, National Marine Fisheries Service could regulate how often individuals drive their cars, where and how property owners could plant or fertilize their lawns, gardens, or farm crops. They could dictate the content of county zoning, public works, building, and road ordinances, and possibly even suggest limits on the setting of thermostats in homes or public school classrooms, or the operation of public transit buses--all to protect salmon. Washington citizens, and those in other Northwest States, would be asked to make a host of changes in their daily lives, but unfortunately, could be assured of nothing except for the certainty that a greater portion of their tax dollars would fund the salaries of even more Federal bureaucrats to draft more rules and regulations of this nature. This year, the National Marine Fisheries Service is asking Congress to fund 41 new employees just to implement its West Coast salmon recovery plan. Those proposals would represent a striking power grab by unelected bureaucrats if they were absolutely necessary to save whole species of salmon. But they are not. As I said in a letter to President Clinton 2 weeks ago, the Federal Government should be seeking to encourage and promote incentives for States, tribes, and local entities and private groups to come up with creative solutions to save salmon, not make it more difficult for them. And that is exactly what these rules do. The rules go far beyond telling hundreds of farmers in the Methow Valley that they cannot exercise their water rights to irrigate their crops until they have National Marine Fisheries Service-approved fish screens installed at their own expense, as the agency told my constituents in north central Washington last year. They would go beyond holding up the construction of bridges in Columbia County or cities' efforts to install stop lights, as the National Marine Fisheries Service's salmon regulatory process has already done. In short, these rules, if enacted as proposed, would be likely to slow down local salmon recovery efforts, rather than ``increasing people's flexibility in complying with the Endangered Species Act,'' as the National Marine Fisheries Service publicly claimed in mid-December. More Federal bureaucracy simply will not help local communities and private groups protect salmon and steelhead. I also notice that the National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a narrow set of exemptions within the rules, which could make the enforcement of the rule arbitrary and unfair against those who don't meet their stated criteria. The Oregon Department of Transportation, for example, would be in compliance with the rule in carrying out its road maintenance activities on roads abutting streams, because that agency agreed to implement special National Marine Fisheries Service- approved training for its road maintenance crews. No such exemption exists in the rule for private land owners anywhere or the Washington Department of Transportation to carry on the same activities. The people of Washington State realized the importance of not allowing endangered salmon and steelhead runs to go extinct long before any Federal agency told them they should modify their own ``daily behavior'' as part of the effort. The only ``daily behavior'' that local salmon enhancement groups are concerned with in Washington right now is to restore salmon and steelhead runs right in the streams and rivers near where they live and work. And they are doing it. Look, for example, at the successful efforts of the variety of agricultural, business, and tribal groups who formed the Skagit Watershed Council to produce an on-the-ground science-based strategy for prioritizing local habitat recovery projects. They came together, often disagreeing on other issues, but to work together on the most productive salmon recovery efforts--without the Federal Government telling them to do so. Then there are the successful efforts of Long Live the Kings on the Wishkah River on Grays Harbor County, where low-tech, inexpensive habitat restoration methods helped double the returns of natural spawning salmon there in 1 year. A captive brook stock facility was built with $1 million in private funds on Lilliwaup Creek on Hood Canal, and already the State of Washington has looked to that success in restoring the very most threatened local wild salmon runs. I can cite several more examples, but suffice it to say that local efforts are underway, and we should congratulate their efforts to proactively and successfully preserve salmon. Proposing regulations of this sort, at the very least, would be putting the ``cart before the horse.'' The National Marine Fisheries Service must come forward with concrete goals of how many fish they intend to recover throughout the Northwest in areas they call ``evolutionary significant units.'' This is something that Congress asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to do in an appropriations conference report last year. The National Marine Fisheries Service was directed to determine and set numerical goals for Puget Sound areas by July 1 of this year, and, by then, to set a schedule for establishing numerical goals for all other areas in Washington State. Why is this important? Well, very simply put: How can you mandate means, mandate lifestyle changes, before you know what you are trying to accomplish? In my view, having these numerical goals is critical to guiding the agency in any effort it makes to enforce 4(d) rules to protect threatened species. Unfortunately, not only has the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to provide the required numerical goals for salmon species, it has yet to deliver the actual funding to the State. Last year, Congress approved $18 million to be provided directly by the National Marine Fisheries Service to the Washington State Salmon Recovery Board, so that the board could distribute funds for State and local salmon recovery projects, as well as fund implementation of the Washington Forest and Fish Agreement, which was authorized by the State legislature. I am disturbed to learn that the National Marine Fisheries Service has not yet secured arrangements to distribute these much- needed funds to the State of Washington. As a result, the National Marine Fisheries Service is holding up State and local efforts to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Even without funding, several counties and salmon enhancement groups throughout Washington have been working on their own plans to comply with ESA requirements. Many smaller counties, however, simply do not have the resources to meet the National Marine Fisheries Service process under the rules. They are nevertheless expected to scramble to come up with their own ordinances that will be ultimately reviewed and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that they are ``adequate to help conserve anadromous salmonids.'' Aside from my concerns with the way these rules are written, I am not at all pleased that the National Marine Fisheries Service has decided to refuse even a modest extension of the public comment period, and has stated publicly that it wants to enact this rule by July. Keep in mind, these lengthy, 20 plus page rules were only printed for the first time in the Federal Register about 5 weeks ago. After tonight, the public hearings process will already have been slammed shut. That is why when I learned that the regional director of the National Marine Fisheries Service had scheduled all five of Washington's public hearings on these lengthy and complex rules within just a 7-day period, I asked for more opportunities for citizens to be heard. Most of the five hearings were so full of interested citizens that not everyone could find a chair or be given adequate time to have a face to face question and answer period with the very bureaucrats who want to have the authority proposed in these rules. While the National Marine Fisheries Service recently agreed to two additional hearings scheduled on the same day and time, they flatly refused to extend the comment process, stating that ``a longer extension to the public comment period would not be likely to provide any new information, and would delay implementation of the rules, which the National Marine Fisheries Service feels are necessary for salmon conservation.'' It is disturbing that while they are often criticized for being too slow to process permit requests, when it comes to listening to people on highly controversial proposals, they can't move fast enough to enact them into law. The National Marine Fisheries Service owes the citizens of Washington and the Pacific Northwest a more responsible handling of their duties to enforce the Endangered Species Act. Section 2(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires the National Marine Fisheries Service to cooperate with State and local agencies to protect endangered species. I believe the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot fairly force rules and local and State agencies without first establishing the goals and objectives requested by Congress last year. I renew the request made by the appropriations conference for the National Marine Fisheries Service to provide the numerical goals and objectives for Puget Sound salmon, to provide a framework for similar numerical goals and objectives for the rest of Washington and the Pacific Northwest, and to establish performance standards for salmon recovery projects. And they should do so before they enact these rules. I conclude my comments by noting that any proposal which would regulate ``daily behavior'' certainly requires closer scrutiny than 30 days of public hearings and 30 more days of written comments. I commend those Washington citizens who are now working hard on local-based solutions to protect salmon, and offer them my full and continued support for the successful course they are taking to rebuild and restore salmon. I am concerned that the Federal Government, with rules drafted in this manner, would not help these on-the-ground local efforts. I will continue to call on Federal agencies not to dictate how best to accomplish ESA compliance. I request that the National Marine Fisheries Service address the valid concerns I and others raise regarding these proposals and to do so before they begin implementing these sweeping regulations.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following bills be indefinitely postponed: Calendar No. 10--S. 270, No. 11--S. 271, No. 12--S. 280, No. 22--S. 364, No. 34--S. 96, No. 54--S. 272, No. 55--S. 392, No. 104--H.R. 509, No. 105--H.R. 510, No. 112--S. 858, No. 129--S. 415, No. 132--S. 109, No. 133--S. 441, No. 156--S. 607, No. 171--S. 140, No. 176--S. 946, No. 177--S. 955, No. 207--S. 1248, No. 216--S. 1393, No. 225--S. 581, No. 239--S. 953, No. 248--H.R. 695, No. 307--S. 1377, and No. 429--S. 2006.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are going to have a lot shorter calendar when we come back in a couple of weeks.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I now ask consent there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on February 10, 2000, by the President of the United States: Treaty with Russia on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Treaty Document No. 106-22). I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the address the Senate begin a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or his designee in control of the first half of the time, to be followed by Senator Thomas, or his designee, in control of the second half of the time. I also ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today it adjourn until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, February 22, under the provisions of S. Con. Res 80. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then recognize Senator Moynihan to read Washington's Farewell Address as under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 80.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes, Senator Moynihan will be recognized to read Washington's Farewell Address in honor of the impending holiday. Following this annual Senate tradition, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the Senate recesses at 12:30 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 p.m., it will begin consideration of any executive or legislative items cleared for action. However, the leader has announced there will be no votes prior to 2:15 p.m.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I was sitting in the seat the Presiding Officer is occupying about an hour ago when the junior Senator from New York regaled the Senate with his views on education in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He did me a great honor to denounce my proposal, Straight A's, rather specifically. But it did seem to me to be a strange and inverted world in which Straight A's, a proposal designed to empower education authorities such as parents, teachers, and superintendents--the very people who know our students by their first names--to say, somehow or another, this was an attack on local authority but that the issuance of thousands of pages of regulations, on hundreds of different individual categorical aid programs, at the Department of Education in Washington, DC, was somehow liberating. The Senator from New York criticized our present education system as a failure, a statement with which I do not agree. I believe there are many improvements necessary, but my own experience, in literally dozens of schools over the last 2 or 3 years, has shown a tremendous dedication to better teaching methods, to the education of our children, to innovation, changes that I want to encourage. In fact, if we look for something to criticize as a failure, we need look no further than the present Federal education system itself. Title I has now been in effect for 35 years. The difference in achievement between the kids it is designed to help and the less underprivileged children is as great as it was when the program began. Yet what we have from the Senator from New York and the Senator from Massachusetts is to have more of exactly what has failed and that perhaps what is really lacking is sufficient direction from Washington, DC. I do not claim to be an expert on what is needed for a higher and better education in the city of New York or in any other New York school district. However, I don't think the Senator from New York knows more about what the schools in my State need--I won't even say that I do--than the superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents of students in my own State. What we seek--and this will be the great debate that will take place in this body in less than a month--will be: Do we trust the people who have dedicated their lives and careers to educating our children, to make the fundamental decisions about what they need in 17,000 school districts across the country and hundreds of thousands of individual schools or do we believe they need total supervision and control in Washington, DC, in the bureaucracy in the U.S. Department of Education? We have increasingly followed that lateral line now for 35 years. It is a dead-end street. That is what has failed to work in connection with our education system. For the first time, with the minor exception of the Ed-Flex bill we passed last year, we seek to restore some of that authority to our local school districts, to our teachers, and to our parents. That is what Straight A's is all about. I suppose I should be honored to have my own program attacked specifically and by name because I think that means it is making very real progress. I know it is at home, whenever I go to a school or to a school administration building and discuss its ideas. Our teachers and our educators want more authority to make up their minds as to what their children need. Those needs are not the same in every school district. Not every school district has as its highest priority more teachers. Not every school district has as its highest priority more bricks and mortar. Not every school district has as its highest priority teacher education. Not every school district has as its highest priority more computers. But many school districts have any one of those as a highest priority, and many have some other. Each of them ought to be permitted, each of them ought to be encouraged, to make those decisions for the students. A final point. The Senator from New York attacked this proposal as lacking accountability. We certainly have accountability now. The way our schools account for the spending of money under hundreds of present school programs is by filling out forms and by being visited by auditors who make a precise determination as to whether $10 for one purpose has been used for some other purpose or not. It is a form of accountability that has required our school districts to spend more and more money on administrators and on filling out forms and less and less money on educating the students themselves. We substitute for that one ultimate form of accountability, accountability measured by whether or not our students are doing better, by whether or not our kids are getting a better education. No State may gain the benefit from the provisions of Straight A's unless that State agrees to a form of testing, of actual achievement of the students, and promising if it is given this flexibility, those student achievement standards will rise, scores will rise in the period under which they are working with Straight A's. It is neither more complicated nor more simple than that. The goal of educating our children is to see to it that they are prepared for the world in which they will live. We are now able more and more to measure how those goals are met. Do our students read better? Do they write better? Do they compute better? The accountability in Straight A's is measured by those standards, not by how well their administrators and teachers fill out forms and not how well they come out in an after-the- fact audit. I have every confidence that as a part of the very important debate over education and the renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will debate Straight A's. I am convinced as this body finishes its work it will be a part of the most constructive and most successful renewal of our activity in the field of education that this Congress has accomplished in generations.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I introduce the Electric Reliability 2000 Act, a measure that deals with the somewhat mysterious world of the bulk electricity system. Although most Americans are not experts on the intricacies of interstate electric transmission grids, they need to have confidence that the system will work and their lights and heat will be there when they need them. This nation's interstate electric transmission system is an extremely complex network that connects with Canada and Mexico. It has developed over decades with various voluntary agreements that allow areas to work together depending on changing power needs that vary from day to day and hour to hour and sometimes minute to minute. These voluntary agreements were developed after a disastrous event in 1965 led to a blackout in New York City and throughout other parts of the Northeast. Yet a fundamental change has made this voluntary system unworkable for the future. With the expansion of competition in the wholesale electricity market--starting with the 1992 Energy Policy Act--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 has increased while thousands of new electricity marketers and buyers have created new stresses on the system. These stresses to the system have affected many parts of the country. In August 1996, a sagging power line in Oregon made contact with a tree, and combined with other factors led to a power outage that affected over 7 million consumers along the West Coast. Other outages have occurred in different parts of the country since that time. To address this situation, more than a year ago a group of electricity industry officials began meeting to develop legislative language needed in this new era in electricity. They developed provisions that have been included as a small part of several bills, including the larger restructuring bills developed in the House and by the Clinton administration. Events in recent months have lent urgency to this issue. I believe it is time to separate the issue of electricity reliability from the larger issue of restructuring. Our continued economic growth is fueled by electricity, and we need to assure the public that the power will be there for their homes and their jobs when they count on it. The stresses in the system continue to mount. In the summer of 1999, Americans experienced a wide-range of severe electricity outages. The Department of Energy created a team of experts to investigate these outages, and it submitted its report last month. I quote from the report's summary: In anticipation of competitive markets, some utilities have adopted a strategy of cost cutting that involves reduced spending on reliability. In addition, responsibility for reliability management has been disaggregated to multiple institutions, with utilities, independent system operators, independent power producers, customers, and markets all playing a role. The overall effect has been that the infrastructure for reliability assurance has been considerably eroded. The report continues: Moreover, historical levels of electric reliability may not be adequate for the future. The quality of electric power and the assurance that it will always be available are increasingly important in a society that is ever more dependent on electricity. The report includes several findings that suggest a range of policy questions that need to be addressed in order to assure the reliability of the Nation's bulk power system. The bill I introduce today includes what has been termed the ``consensus language'' that was developed over the past year by these experts who work on the reliability side of the electricity industry. This bill is not the complete solution to the reliability issue for this industry. It is a good starting point. It creates a process to develop enforceable rules for the bulk-power system, while giving various regions the ability to tailor these rules in ways that make sense for their individual systems and their specific geography. In addition to setting up rules and a referee to enforce these rules, ``reliability'' also involves many other facets of the electricity industry that are not addressed in this bill: full and open access to transmission systems, effective conservation programs that can help reduce peak system demands, the ability to site electricity generation plants closer to the loads they serve, promoting small-scale distributed generation, such as fuel-cells, throughout the grid, and many other wide-ranging actions. Until we can gain a greater consensus of the need to address these issues, this bill provides the opportunity to begin these discussions. Despite being described as a consensus bill, there may need to be changes to this legislative language so that it is effective. For example, there are ongoing discussions about the appropriate role for State regulators as their responsibilities relate to the interstate transmission system. Therefore I respectfully request Chairman Murkowski to conduct hearings on this serious issue of the reliability of the bulk power system and also to hold hearings on this bill as the starting point for solving this problem. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and, finally, any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 244 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and, finally, any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 256, submitted earlier by Senator Specter.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as I have traveled throughout Washington State, meeting with parents and educators, I have learned about the unique needs that exist in each of our school districts. One of those challenges is teaching children who speak English as their second language. In Vancouver, Washington, Jason Lee Middle School has created a program called the Jason Lee English Transition System (JETS) that tackles this challenge head on and not only teaches English, but also identifies exceptional and special needs students and helps them to excel. I am proud to present my 32nd ``Innovation in Education'' award to the JETS program of Vancouver's Jason Lee Middle School. Twenty-five percent of Jason Lee's students are English Language Learners [ELL] and speak 14 different languages. A majority of these students speak either Russian, Ukrainian, or Spanish, creating a diverse student body and enhancing every child's education. When a child begins to learn English at Jason Lee, they do not immediately enter mainstream classes and instead are taught in their native language to demonstrate their math and reading levels. Students must also go through an intensive instruction in English before they are brought into general education classes. This advance preparation means that ELL students are greeted with a more inclusive atmosphere and will have a greater understanding of their classes and coursework. Another challenge that faces students new to the United States is understanding American culture while maintaining ties to their own native culture. The JETS program also recognizes this difficult adjustment by putting a great emphasis on encouraging both the celebration of the native culture and in actively encouraging parental involvement. In addition, JETS has taken the further step of working to not only provide these students with a smooth transition into English, but it goes one step further and identifies gifted students and students with special needs. Too often, programs for non-English speaking students struggle to identify children needing special attention. Clearly, JETS has addressed that obstacle and serves as a model for school districts struggling with the same challenges. The JETS program does not just teach students English, it identifies and addresses the many issues that a child new to this country must suddenly deal with and seeks an understanding of each student's learning level. I applaud the teachers and staff at Jason Lee Middle School for developing the JETS program which demonstrates the innovation and creativity that is happening in our schools today. I congratulate Jason Lee Middle School for its outstanding work in this field of education.