T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield those 2 hours to Senator Hutchison.

Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Hutchison and Boxer prior to the cloture vote on Hutchison amendment No. 1603.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Hutchison amendment.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on behalf of the Senate.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GORTON. As manager of the bill, I yield an additional hour to Senator Hutchison of Texas under the provisions of rule XXII, and I am authorized to yield an additional hour of the time of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the talents of my Staff Director, Bruce Evans, are exceeded only by his patience. This bill has been on and off the floor for the better part of two months at this point and has now been passed by a fairly near unanimous vote as against the situation a year ago when we were barely able to begin debate on it. Mr. Evans has led the staff of both parties with great skill and dedication and has kept me out of many troubles I might otherwise have had. Perhaps the best tribute to that is the fact that no changes were made in this bill in this 2-month period as a result of contested votes on the floor of the Senate. Many were made as a result of reasonable requests on the part of many of our Members. I thank my ranking minority member, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, whose help and cooperation from the beginning of my chairmanship of this subcommittee has been unfailing and of immense effect. Mr. President, I would once again like to thank both my staff and Senator Byrd's staff for all the hard work they have done on this bill. The Minority Clerk, Kurt Dodd, has been a pleasure to work with in his first full year with the Committee. He has proven to be a valuable resource for my staff through both his knowledge of the programs in this bill and his advocacy on behalf of members on the other side of the aisle. Kurt has been ably assisted by Carole Geagley of the minority staff, and by Liz Gelfer, whom we have enjoyed having on detail from the Department of Energy. My own subcommittee staff has also had benefit of an agency detailee this year. Sean Marsan has been with us courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and has done a wonderful job on a number of special projects. He has also performed well the laborious task of logging the thousands of member requests that the Subcommittee receives from members of this body. For those of my colleagues who have particular programs or projects funded in this bill--and I think I can safely say that includes each one of you--you owe Sean a debt of gratitude for keeping your ample requests in some sort of manageable order. I also want to thank the subcommittee professional staff for all of their good work. Ginny James continues to do a great job with the many cultural agencies funded in this bill, as well as with the Indian Health Service and U.S. Geological Survey accounts. I am pleased that we were able this year to provide modest increases for both the NEA and NEH, and hope that the two endowments appreciate the role Ginny has played in making this possible. It is not an easy thing to shepherd and provide counsel to the enthusiastic, but sometimes over- eager, arts community. Anne McInerney of the subcommittee staff has been responsible for the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs accounts, and this year took on the added responsibility of managing the land acquisition accounts for the four land management agencies. Members of this body continue to put individual land acquisition projects toward the top of their priority lists, making it quite a challenge to balance those priorities against the core operating needs of the agencies funded in this bill. Anne has done a marvelous job in this regard, as well as in helping me address the many management challenges faced by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee. Leif Fonnesbeck is in his first full year with the Committee staff. He has in effect been thrown in the deep end by being assigned the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management accounts, where he probably will spend as much time on policy issues as on more traditional appropriations matters. Of the half dozen or so amendments that have been debated and voted upon during consideration of this bill, I think all but one have been related to Leif's area of responsibility. He has acquitted himself very well, and has proven to be a quick study. We are glad to have him with us. Joe Norrell is also new to our subcommittee this year. Joe performs duties for both the Interior subcommittee and the VA/HUD subcommittee chaired by Senator Bond, and as such is frequently pulled in two different directions by two different masters. He has handled this difficult challenge with commitment and good humor, and has been a great help to both subcommittees. Finally, I would also like to thank Kari Vander Stoep of my personal staff for her work on the issues in this bill that are of particular importance to the people of Washington state. Kari has done a wonderful job in this regard since her predecessor, Chuck Berwick, departed for business school. Each of these individuals has already spent many late nights working on this bill, and will likely spend many more such nights over the coming weeks as we move to conference with the House. I want to express my own gratitude for their good work, and also convey the appreciation of the Ranking Member, Senator Byrd, and that of the Senate as a whole.

Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. GORTON. I now ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided, between Senators Hutchison and Boxer prior to the cloture vote on the Hutchison amendment No. 1603.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as the Record shows, I voted present during the rollcall vote on passage of the FY2000 Defense Authorization Conference Report. My decision to cast this vote was prompted by Section 651 of the Conference Report, which would repeal the reduction in retired pay for U.S. military retirees who are employed by the federal government or hold federal office. As a retired U.S. Air Force Reserve officer, I stand to be benefitted by this provision when it is signed into law by the President. It is for this reason I voted present.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in recent years, I have become increasingly frustrated with the inability of the Forest Service to complete work on several small hydroelectric projects located on the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest in my State. The Service's inability to make important decisions on these renewable energy resources is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the President's Northwest Forest Plan (``ROD'') which has stopped these projects from going forward. The President's Northwest Forest Plan states clearly that multipurpose uses of the federal forests are not precluded, and that the plan must follow existing law applying to such uses. Yet, since its adoption in 1994, the Forest Service has and continues to paralyze the development of small hydroelectric projects by ignoring laws applying to multipurpose. This inaction has delayed and stifled review of such projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--the agency responsible for issuing federal licenses for hydroelectric projects. Forest Service interpretation of the ROD intrudes directly on the ability of the Commission to perform its hydroelectric licensing function of balancing development and nondevelopment issues. Both the Commission, when determining consistency with the purpose of a national forest under Section 4(e) of the Act, and the Forest Service, when determining whether to issue a special use permit, must apply existing law fairly. Forest Service inaction on pending projects (some of which have been under review for over a decade) prevents FERC from completing its licensing responsibilities. In terms of federal forest management, the six small hydroelectric projects proposed for the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest are virtually inconsequential. All are located well above areas affecting anadromous fish, and would occupy a total of 10 to 40 acres each, with most of the sites being untouched except for the portions needed for project facilities. Adverse impacts to fish, wildlife or other environmental resources are subject to mitigation by FERC and the Forest Service. Project proponents in my state have spent millions of dollars to secure approval of six projects located in the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest, including project design and environmental analysis necessary to gain approval from the Forest Service and FERC. In spite of the fact that the 1994 ROD instructs the Forest Service to use ``transition'' provisions to approve pending projects, it has not done so, and continues to add project review requirements not allowed by the ROD or existing law. As a result, the Forest Service is stopping FERC from making timely licensing decisions on these projects. Shifting standards of review and delay by the Forest Service have deprived project proponents of their right to rely upon clear standards for project approval before expending funds in reliance on such standards. Many aspects of these projects were found to be in compliance with prior forest regulations and other environmental laws, and are being subjected to duplicative and inconsistent review. Provisions of the ROD developed for application to extremely large-scale timber harvest are not meant to impact small-scale hydroelectric projects. Timber management regulations are totally disproportionate with the scale of any potential environmental impacts of small scale hydroelectric facilities. In fact, the ROD itself explicitly recognizes that uses other than timber harvest do not require the same level of restrictions. The Forest Service continues to use the ROD as a reason for imposing new study requirements, increasing mitigation demands, and ignoring agreements on project compliance with forest plan standards and FERC requirements. Each new requirement adds onerous financial burdens on project proponents, delays project approval, and undermines the regulatory need for an end to project review so a final licensing decision can be made by FERC. Actions by the Forest Service have placed that agency in direct conflict with FERC, a result not intended by the ROD. FERC's jurisdiction over hydroelectric project licensing is unaltered by the ROD, which itself calls for increased interagency cooperation, not confrontation. Mr. President, I have tried in recent years through my position as Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for funding the Forest Service's annual budget to get some answers from this agency as to why it was holding up these hydroelectric projects. In 1995, I inserted language directing the Forest Service to ``conduct an expeditious review'' of projects covered by the ROD. In subsequent hearings, I have continued to ask agency witnesses for a status report. To date, none of the responses from the Forest Service have satisfied my concerns or adequately addressed this issue. For this reason, I am introducing legislation today that would expedite the hydroelectric project review process. It will require the Forest Service to convey to permit holders and license applicants for these projects at fair market value the parcels of land necessary for development of these projects. While I would prefer and am still hopeful that this issue can be resolved in negotiations between the project proponents and the agency, clearly this process is broken and needs to be fixed. This legislation should serve as a catalyst for resolving outstanding hydroelectric project review issues. Project proponents deserve at least that much.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in recent years, I have become increasingly frustrated with the inability of the Forest Service to complete work on several small hydroelectric projects located on the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest in my State. The Service's inability to make important decisions on these renewable energy resources is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the President's Northwest Forest Plan (``ROD'') which has stopped these projects from going forward. The President's Northwest Forest Plan states clearly that multipurpose uses of the federal forests are not precluded, and that the plan must follow existing law applying to such uses. Yet, since its adoption in 1994, the Forest Service has and continues to paralyze the development of small hydroelectric projects by ignoring laws applying to multipurpose. This inaction has delayed and stifled review of such projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--the agency responsible for issuing federal licenses for hydroelectric projects. Forest Service interpretation of the ROD intrudes directly on the ability of the Commission to perform its hydroelectric licensing function of balancing development and nondevelopment issues. Both the Commission, when determining consistency with the purpose of a national forest under Section 4(e) of the Act, and the Forest Service, when determining whether to issue a special use permit, must apply existing law fairly. Forest Service inaction on pending projects (some of which have been under review for over a decade) prevents FERC from completing its licensing responsibilities. In terms of federal forest management, the six small hydroelectric projects proposed for the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest are virtually inconsequential. All are located well above areas affecting anadromous fish, and would occupy a total of 10 to 40 acres each, with most of the sites being untouched except for the portions needed for project facilities. Adverse impacts to fish, wildlife or other environmental resources are subject to mitigation by FERC and the Forest Service. Project proponents in my state have spent millions of dollars to secure approval of six projects located in the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest, including project design and environmental analysis necessary to gain approval from the Forest Service and FERC. In spite of the fact that the 1994 ROD instructs the Forest Service to use ``transition'' provisions to approve pending projects, it has not done so, and continues to add project review requirements not allowed by the ROD or existing law. As a result, the Forest Service is stopping FERC from making timely licensing decisions on these projects. Shifting standards of review and delay by the Forest Service have deprived project proponents of their right to rely upon clear standards for project approval before expending funds in reliance on such standards. Many aspects of these projects were found to be in compliance with prior forest regulations and other environmental laws, and are being subjected to duplicative and inconsistent review. Provisions of the ROD developed for application to extremely large-scale timber harvest are not meant to impact small-scale hydroelectric projects. Timber management regulations are totally disproportionate with the scale of any potential environmental impacts of small scale hydroelectric facilities. In fact, the ROD itself explicitly recognizes that uses other than timber harvest do not require the same level of restrictions. The Forest Service continues to use the ROD as a reason for imposing new study requirements, increasing mitigation demands, and ignoring agreements on project compliance with forest plan standards and FERC requirements. Each new requirement adds onerous financial burdens on project proponents, delays project approval, and undermines the regulatory need for an end to project review so a final licensing decision can be made by FERC. Actions by the Forest Service have placed that agency in direct conflict with FERC, a result not intended by the ROD. FERC's jurisdiction over hydroelectric project licensing is unaltered by the ROD, which itself calls for increased interagency cooperation, not confrontation. Mr. President, I have tried in recent years through my position as Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for funding the Forest Service's annual budget to get some answers from this agency as to why it was holding up these hydroelectric projects. In 1995, I inserted language directing the Forest Service to ``conduct an expeditious review'' of projects covered by the ROD. In subsequent hearings, I have continued to ask agency witnesses for a status report. To date, none of the responses from the Forest Service have satisfied my concerns or adequately addressed this issue. For this reason, I am introducing legislation today that would expedite the hydroelectric project review process. It will require the Forest Service to convey to permit holders and license applicants for these projects at fair market value the parcels of land necessary for development of these projects. While I would prefer and am still hopeful that this issue can be resolved in negotiations between the project proponents and the agency, clearly this process is broken and needs to be fixed. This legislation should serve as a catalyst for resolving outstanding hydroelectric project review issues. Project proponents deserve at least that much.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I share the Senator's concerns and I am certain we will deal with those questions and ideas in the context of reauthorization legislation.

Mr. GORTON. I would like to thank my colleague from Washington State. She has been out front on this issue, and I commend her for her persistence. I look forward to working with Senator Murray during the reauthorization of the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety, a piece of legislation in which I will fully engage when it comes before the Senate Commerce Committee next year. While the interstate transportation of hazardous materials in above and underground pipelines has proven to be the safest and most cost-effective means to transport these materials, the Bellingham tragedy has once again alerted us to its tragic potential. During the OPS reauthorization process I intend to ensure that the Federal law and the Federal agency are performing their jobs of ensuring that tragedies like the one in Bellingham are not repeated. I will work closely with Chairman McCain, the Majority Leader and my Democratic colleagues to make this a top priority next year.

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator's interest and would like to explore a proposal submitted by my constituents interested in preserving and enhancing the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley. I believe an appropriate solution would be to transfer the monies appropriated to the Federal Highway Administration for this road project to the U.S. Forest Service, giving the U.S. Forest control over design of the road. The Forest Service is not so rigidly bound in its design standards as the Federal Highway Administration, and could construct a paved road which closely follows the alignment of the existing road and goes through the woods. Such a road would provide much improved access without compromising the valley's integrity. I look forward to working with my colleague from Alabama. Intelligent transportation system

Mr. GORTON. The Middle Fork Snoqualmie valley is 110,000 acres of forests, mountains, and rivers located just 45 minutes east of Seattle. Ninety-eight percent of the land is public ownership. In recent years, the valley has been plagued by dumping, indiscriminate shooting and general lawlessness. Strong efforts are being made, however, by federal agencies and conservation groups to turn the valley back into a place safe for recreationists. No other place in the Northwest presents such an opportunity to create a first-class recreation area so close to millions of people. A key part of turning this valley back into an attractive place is providing better and safer access. The present road into the valley is unpaved, potholed and dusty. An improved, paved road would provide safer, more pleasant access and allow for better law enforcement. The Federal Highways Administration, Western Federal Lands Division, currently has $5 million budgeted for a new Middle Fork highway. Local conservation groups in my state, however, feel that the kind of highway which the F.H.W.A. builds would amount to massive overkill. The F.H.W.A. is restricted by its design standards to build only one kind of road--a highway in every sense of the word, with huge cuts and fills, broad sweeping curves and a wide swath cleared of trees on both sides. Conservationists feel that such a highway would destroy the very qualities which make the Middle Fork valley an attractive place.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today is National Student Day. In honor of this day, I would like to congratulate an outstanding group of students from my home state. Recently, the SAT scores for Washington state's graduating classes of 1999 were released. At the top of the public school list were the graduates of the International School of Bellevue, averaging 601 on verbal and 590 on math. Both scores surpassed the national averages by almost one-hundred points. In my visits to hundreds of schools across Washington state, I have seen the benefits of countless innovative reforms and programs. The International School of Bellevue is an example of what local educators can do when they are given the freedom and flexibility to create new and better ways to educate. The International School is a public school that was created approximately eight years ago by highly innovative teachers from the Bellevue School District. The founders' vision was to create a school in which a student would be placed in the classroom based on his or her ability--not his or her age. The founders also wanted to create an atmosphere in which each student would maintain close relationships with the teachers, and would gain clear understanding of how our country fits into today's world. At the Bellevue International School, each student is required to take seven classes each year which include humanities, international studies, math, science, a foreign language, fine arts, and fitness. Even though this school serves grades 6-12, there are not specific grade levels. Each student takes his or her courses at the student's own performance level, starting at level one and ranging up to level seven for each of the seven courses. The students are also encouraged to spend one month abroad at one of the International School's sister schools. While abroad, the students attend classes and are treated as regular students of their guest schools. In order to attend the International School, students are not required to take an exam, submit test scores or previous grades. Any student with the desire and motivation to attend this school can submit his or her name into a lottery out of which names of the new students are chosen. The Principal of the International School said that her students, ``are not necessarily the smartest kids, but they have a terrific work ethic, converse with their teachers, and are highly resourceful and responsible for themselves and for others.'' I applaud the International School's class of 1999 for its magnificent scores on the SAT. I also applaud the rest of the student body for its passion for learning and for taking advantage of this tremendous opportunity. I know that each student who graduates from the International School will leave with an outstanding education and greater understanding of our country, our world, and his or her place in it. The International School's impressive performance on the SAT demonstrates that when given the flexibility to create a program, local educators will succeed. I believe that we must give control of federal education dollars to the states and local school districts because those who work with out children on a daily basis--their parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board members--best understand the needs of our children and should have the most significant role in setting education policy and priorities in our schools. Mr. President, I might be a bit disingenuous in sharing this praise with you if I were not to point out that my oldest grandchild, my granddaughter, Betsy Nortz, just won the lottery last spring and started last week as a sixth grader at Belleview International. Already, in just a few days, she reports great interest in the intellectual challenges to which she is subjected. She and I and her parents look forward to a fine career in the single school, I believe, in the State of Washington in the public system with the highest SAT scores. The students and educators at the International School of Bellevue deserve our recognition and I hope my colleagues will join me in applauding their achievements. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Nevada is entirely correct. If we can only take a quick vote on it with the Senators on the floor now, we would probably succeed. Unfortunately, we have yet to persuade all of our colleagues of this matter. The question the Senator puts--and he knows the answer--is a very profound and a very serious question.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Nevada is as learned as he is wise, and his reference to Luddites in the late 18th and early 19th century England is entirely correct. The word has come down to us today, referring to those who are so fearful of changes in our technology that in one way or another they would prevent it. The point he makes is particularly important, and it is one that I want to continue to emphasize to Members. We are not debating a law that will mandate a specific new set of fuel economy standards for automobiles and small trucks. We are not even debating whether or not a specific set of standards should be imposed after a study of their feasibility and desirability is completed. We are debating a proposition that says we should go forward in an orderly fashion, have this determination made by people who are expert in the field and who study it carefully and must follow all of the procedural requirements for setting rules and regulations, all of which will be vulnerable to future debates in the Senate should proposals be made that seem somehow or another unreasonable. There is not a single Member of the Senate, from the most conservative to the most liberal, who has not at one time or another been critical of some rule or regulation imposed by some agency of the Federal Government. Every Member of the Senate--and for that matter, the House of Representatives--knows how to bring up debate on that subject, the debate over this appropriations bill, or some other bill relating to transportation. But what we have today from the opponents to this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is a statement that we are ignorant of what might happen if we engage in another round of fuel efficiency standards and we want to remain ignorant. That is essentially what they are talking about.

Mr. GORTON. I was about to say, for the benefit of my friend from Nevada, isn't it fortunate that the Congress of the United States, in the first decade of the 19th century, didn't prohibit the development of a steam engine because it might explode? That is basically what the arguments against the amendment the Senator from Nevada and I have proposed amount to. My gosh, something bad might happen if you did something. But, of course, the argument against the steam engine in 1810, or 1812, or 1814 would have been stronger because they knew nothing about it. We have gone through this process before, and it was a complete success. But we are now told, not only should we not go through the experiment again, we should not even study it; we should not even try to come up with facts that would justify it or--and I think it is very unlikely--perhaps not justify making any change in the present system. Now, I think both the Senator from Nevada and I believe such a study would come up with more significant CAFE standards. But I don't think the Senator from Nevada, even more than I, has any idea what they would be, how far they would go, what we would find to be totally successful or not. We just want to find out whether or not we can't do something that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help clean up our air, and save money for the American purchaser of automobiles, small trucks and, of course, the fuel required to run them. That is all.

Mr. GORTON. Just before my friend from Nevada came to the floor, I began my remarks with a quotation, which sounded so remarkably similar to what we have heard in the last few days about this amendment, and it is particularly appropriate. For the Senator's benefit and for others, I will repeat it: In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines and car models, including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact sized cars, or even smaller ones. That was a statement by the duly authorized representative of the Ford Motor Company in 1974 in the hearings on the bill that allowed for the first corporate average fuel economy standards to take place. Now the Ford Motor Company, of course, was far more resourceful in its technology than it was in its language. And when these requirements were imposed, the Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Chrysler, and the rest of the manufacturers met them, and they met them gratefully to the advantage of the people of the United States, who ended up with far cleaner air. It is impossible to imagine what our air would be like today if we were all driving 1974 model automobiles--saving billions of dollars in fuel costs, saving the economy of the United States all of the costs of that extra fuel, all of which would have ended up coming from overseas, given our dependence on foreign oil at the time. One of the interesting things as we go into this debate right now, I tell my friend, is that a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal reported that the same company, the Ford Motor Company, is currently developing technology to increase fuel economy of its truck fleet by as much as 15 percent. The article in the Wall Street Journal said that internal documents posted on the world wide web show--I am quoting now: Ford could significantly increase its fuel economy on some of its biggest and most popular trucks without losing the things people buy trucks for, horsepower and pulling power. That is another illustration of the fact that an argument which was utterly invalid in 1974 is utterly invalid in 1999. Members of this body 25 years ago might have been excused for giving great credence to that argument. After all, we didn't know what was going to happen. It is very difficult to give credence to that argument given the tremendously positive results of the regulations which were adopted in 1974.