T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to express disappointment in the way this tax legislation takes a piecemeal approach toward electricity issues. It deals with only one of the three major provisions that need revision if this industry is going to meet the requirements of all citizens and ratepayers in an era of emerging competition. The electricity industry is in transition. Wholesale competition between utilities and suppliers is becoming a vibrant and competitive market, although there is still work to be done to make this market work more effectively. Consumers have benefited from lower prices and increased supply although the benefits have been invisible to many retail consumers. And nearly half of the states have moved to develop their retail electricity markets to give more consumers the chance to shop for their power provider. But the federal tax provisions that affect this industry were written for a monopoly era. This has the real effect of keeping many utilities from participating in competitive markets due to the penalties they would incur solely because of outdated tax provisions. If these utilities are somehow forced to respond to competition without the needed changes, rates would rise only because of laws written for a time before competition was imagined. This bill addresses only one of these tax problems, the taxation of nuclear plant decommissioning funds. This benefits the investor-owned utilities interested in buying or selling nuclear plants. Two other areas need to be addressed to prevent other consumers from being penalized: the private use restrictions on municipal and public power systems, and the restrictions on electric cooperatives when costs or revenues are incurred during the transition to more extensive competition. In my state we have a healthy mix of suppliers of electricity: investor-owned utilities, cooperatives, municipalities and public utility districts. These three major sectors of the industry should have their tax problems addressed at the same time. I hope Chairman Roth and Chairman Murkowski will keep their commitment to hold a hearing in the tax-writing committee in September, with an eye toward resolving these tax issues as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. It is, indeed, my expectation that the Department will work with the organization in getting started and will provide a progress report after ninety days, and a full report at the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin raising this issue. Leaving the regional office in Milwaukee will save the Forest Service $4.5 million slated for future years spending to build a new facility in Madison. The Committee agrees that using the $300,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget to improve the HVAC systems at the Forest Products Lab is a far better use of these funds.

Mr. GORTON. So it's clear that the MMS could have opted not to charge the City of Virginia Beach?

Mr. GORTON. I was pleased that the Georgia delegation, the Administration and a variety of local interests were able to reach agreement with regard to the preservation of lands and historic properties on Cumberland Island, and am pleased that we were able to provide a considerable amount of funds to implement the first phase of the agreement. Your leadership has been instrumental in this matter, and I appreciate your efforts to provide for the lands and management of the Cumberland Island National Seashore. I look forward to working with you to the extent additional funds are necessary to implement the agreement, recognizing the difficult fiscal limitations under which the Committee must operate.

Mr. GORTON. I thank my friends from Florida for their comments. Clearly the Everglades restoration effort is an important national priority. I can anticipate that funding for these accounts will likely be discussed further during the Conference with the House. I can assure my friends that I will take a close look at actions taken by the Department in response to the Committee's concerns and will work to ensure the funding levels are adequate to keep the restoration effort on track for the next fiscal year.

Mr. GORTON. I thank my friends from Florida for bringing this matter to my attention. I will take a look at the funding levels for the Task Force as we proceed to Conference.

Mr. GORTON. I understand the concerns of the Senator from Nebraska regarding the need for resources to address the increase in user population for the Ponca Tribe Health and Wellness Center. It is important the Ponca and other Tribes be able to continue providing quality health services for its members. I believe the IHS should examine this issue and identify ways to help the Ponca and other Tribes, which have experienced unusual increases in user populations.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last year, we enacted the Intestate 90 Land Exchange Act authorizing a large land exchange in Washington between Plum Creek Timber Company and the Forest Service. The land exchange was scheduled under the Act to be closed on July 19. Just prior to closure, however, Plum Creek discovered Marbled Murrelets on two sections of Forest Service land scheduled under the Act to be transferred to Plum Creek. The discovery of Marbled Murrelets occurred after the appraisal was completed and signed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Plum Creek and the Forest Service agree the two sections of land containing murrelets should remain in federal ownership. The legislation, however, did not contemplate or provide for the deletion of these lands or for the need to adjust the appraisal after it had been approved by the Secretary. We are working with the Forest Service and Plum Creek on a solution to this problem. The land exchange is vital because it substantially resolves a decades old conflict created by the checkerboard ownership pattern in central Washington. It places into public ownership thousands of acres of mature timber and essential wildlife habitat, dozens of miles of streams and riparian corridors and some of the most popular recreational lands in Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Certainly. I am happy to respond to my colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. GORTON. I am aware of the Senator's interest in this project and its importance to Nebraska's history and heritage. We were unable to include funding for one of the accounts where this project might be supported. However, I will work with the Senator to see if we can identify funds for this project in the future.

Mr. GORTON. That is correct. I point out that this project is not authorized as a federal acquisition project. In addition, stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund projects are determined at the State level, so if funds for state grants are included in the bill, it still will not be possible to secure dedicated funding for this project.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. The Committee notes the commitment of partners like the state of Wisconsin to provide matching funds for the establishment of our national trails when we make our determinations for funding. The Committee urges partners to honor their commitments as the prospects for future appropriations may be looked upon more favorably.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 167, which is at the desk.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Then I will certainly wait.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, when I began my Innovation in Education Award Program earlier this year, I endeavored to find and recognize programs, schools, and individuals whose work in improving education deserves recognition. The Federal Way School District's Internet Academy is just such a program and one which I am proud to present with my Innovation in Education Award. The Internet Academy is the brain child of recently departed Superintendent Tom Vander Ark, who is widely credited with injecting new life into the Federal Way District. The Academy has a standards- based curriculum that provides a comprehensive course of study designed to meet state guidelines and instructional objectives. What is innovative, however, is the way in which the Academy engages students under the continuous guidance of state accredited teachers. The Academy offers a full range of courses for school credit, via the Internet, for grades K-12. The program was created only 3 years ago as a pilot K-8 program and has expanded significantly since then. In June of 1998 it had 65 enrollees--by June of 1999 it had expanded to over 800. As our society's use of technology has increased, it is important that our public education system keep abreast of such transformation and provide opportunities using technology to encourage student learning. By offering an interactive curriculum that is accessible 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the district's Academy is ensuring that students are given maximum opportunity to access a good education. Today's best instructional technologies can enhance the learning environment by eliminating the time and space boundaries present with the traditional classroom. This alternative learning environment also allows for an increasingly active role for families in the education of our children. It is a common-sense proposition that increased parental involvement promotes a richer educational process. This aspect of learning is especially critical for home-schoolers in search of instruction for specific topics or seeking to tap into the resources of the public education system. The parent of one home-schooled child noted: ``Home-school can be really challenging sometimes. It is great to have a resource like the Internet Academy for my son.'' Meanwhile, a 10th grade student said: ``I like the Internet Academy because I can work at my own pace. The on-line curriculum gives me a better understanding than what I can get in a classroom with 30 other students. The approach allows me to explore areas that interest me while completing the course work.'' I have heard from many educators that they sometimes struggle to maintain the interest and energy of their students. The Federal Way School District, through its Internet Academy, has shown that creative means to keep students engaged in today's multi-media environment are not only possible but, can be highly successful. Our economy, powered in large part by a strong hi-tech sector, has achieved an impressive record of growth in recent months and it stands to reason that creatively injecting hi-tech tools into our education system can have equally rewarding results. I applaud the Federal Way School District's vision in establishing the Internet Academy, I endorse their efforts to ensure that students are given every possible opportunity to access and learn from our public education system. I hope my colleagues will join in my recognizing the Internet Academy's innovative work.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce the Take Pride in America Volunteer Recognition Act of 1999, legislation which will revitalize and expand an important program created in the 1980's to enhance the legacy of the Great Outdoors. Each American is part owner of an incredible asset--millions and millions of acres of national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges and other public lands. These wonderful places are part of the legacy each of us shares, whether we live in my state of Washington or on the other side of the nation. We visit these places often and for a variety of reasons. Together, federal lands attract nearly two billion visits annually. Americas' Great Outdoors is a place for active fun--for skiing and fishing, camping and whitewatersports--as well as for quite time away from our cities, jobs and commutes. Years ago, an important initiative was launched to encourage Americans to enjoy this legacy, and take responsibility for protecting it for future generations. The program was called Take Pride in America and had three components. The first portion was a public awareness campaign, designed to emphasize the importance of caring for federal lands and water. The second portion was an environmental education program for school children and for visitors to public lands. The third portion was a volunteer recruitment and recognition effort. The Take Pride in America program received the support of a great number of well-known Americans. Public Service Announcements and appearances were contributed by Clint Eastwood and Linda Evans, Lou Gossett and Charles Bronson, Gerald McRainey and even ALF. The Oak Ridge Boys wrote and recorded to Take Pride in America theme song, and donated all royalties to the program. Forty-seven governors initiated Take Pride programs within their states, recognizing outstanding volunteers ranging from young children to seniors. Volunteers from across the nation came to Washington for an annual national recognition event at the White House and similar prominent locations. The Ad Council obtained professional support for the program and donated placements for PSA's--in fact, some of the elements of this campaign continue to run. The results were good. Volunteerism for America's Great Outdoors surged and vandalism decline. Agencies such as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers were given a new tool to recruit and recognize Americans who invested their time and energy into enhancing our shared wealth of parks and forests. Other priorities have put the Take Pride in America Program on hold in recent years. It is time to take this tool out and put it to good use once again. Our public lands have maintenance and enhancement needs that exceed our ability to fund through general appropriations. We are now experimenting with new recreation fees and other mechanisms to attack a deferred maintenance backlog amounting to more than one billion dollars. My legislation would restore and expand the program created by Congress in 1990, recommitting us to all three parts of the original program. It would also strengthen the program to reflect a special opportunity associated with the National Fee Demonstration Program created in 1996, which provides nearly $200 million annually in additional resources to four key federal land systems. The legislation would strengthen our volunteer programs in several ways, including the establishment of a special pass to recognize volunteers who serve 50 hours or more on federal public lands. In my state, the Forest Service has done a tremendous job of organizing and utilizing the skills and enthusiasm of volunteers committed to improving our forests. The volunteer programs in the Northwest vary from forest to forest. Typically, groups like the Student Conservation Association, Mountaineers, Mazamas, and Backcountry Horsemen of Washington contract with the National Forest Service to complete specific projects designed to improve the health of the forests and enhance recreational opportunities. Individuals within these associations can earn passes for free access at national forest trailheads in the Pacific Northwest. I think this program is outstanding, and I want the Forest Service to continue accommodating and encouraging the efforts of volunteers. This bill is designed to encore these types of volunteer programs in other regions of the National Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, I want to recognize the special efforts of volunteers who contribute over 50 hours of work on federal lands. The legislation directs the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture to recognize these individuals with a pass to recreation areas throughout the federal system. I look forward to exploring appropriate means for recognition of volunteers as this legislation is considered in the hearing process. We need to consider carefully the relationship between the special Take Pride in America Pass and other passes, including the Golden Eagle and Golden Age passes. This legislation also will serve as a catalyst for expanding the scope of volunteer programs on federal lands. Too often in the past, our expectations for volunteer projects have focused on projects requiring shovels or paint brushes and requiring high levels of physical exertion. The truth is that important volunteer projects that can protect and enhance America's Great Outdoors are far more diverse. We need skills senior Americans have developed during a lifetime of living and learning, from research in libraries to teaching. We need those with special talents and gifts, from architects to web page designers, from attorneys--yes, even attorneys--to masons. We need to have meaningful projects for those with just a few hours to contribute as well as for those who are prepared to make an ongoing commitment of their time. Some of the projects can even be undertaken off-site. We need a good directory of needed volunteer undertakings that is widely available long before a volunteer shows up at a forest or park headquarters. To the hundreds of thousands of Americans who already spend time protecting and enhancing America's public lands--covering nearly one in three acres of the nation--I give my thanks and ask for help in devising a system that recognizes the wonderful contribution you make and inspires millions of others to join in your important work. I also ask for the support of the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture for this legislation and its goal of taking better care of America's Great Outdoors.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, like many in the Nation, Washington's agriculture communities have fallen on extremely tough times. For example, a combination of adverse economic circumstances has caused apple prices to fall to their lowest level in over a decade, while the price for soft winter wheat has plummeted to below $2.50 a bushel. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill, we have been discussing what to most growers is in the forefront of their mind--their bankbook and their bottom line. Without question, this issue deserves our time and attention. While crumbling commodity prices have taken their toll on far too many proud and previously profitable agricultural producers and their families, they also are eroding the very foundation upon which much of my State's rural economy is built. Simply put, many of my state's farmers and their communities are suffering. Washington State produces half the Nation's apples from orchards that start at the base of the Cascade mountains and stretch from the Canadian border in the north, to the Columbia River in the south. Aided by volcanic soil rich in nutrients, irrigation, cool nights and warm sunny days, Washington's apples are the envy of the world's other apple producing countries. Where my State's apple orchards end, Washington's lush fields of wheat begin. Spanning the eastern third of my State, Washington's wheat farms produce the most sought after wheat in Asia. And yet, being the best and producing such high quality products does not always equate to success. The Asian financial crisis and world wide overproduction have taken their toll on Washington's wheat farmers. At the same time, a record crop coupled with a decline in export opportunities and a flood of cheap apple-juice concentrate imports from China have imperiled many of my State's apple growers. Still, Washington's agricultural producers are fiercely independent and not ones to look for a handout from the Federal Government. Rather, in all my discussions with members Washington's agricultural community and its leaders, what I am told my State's farmers need and want most from the Federal Government is a fair shake. Specifically, their list of demands includes trade, access to the tools necessary for quality production, regulatory relief, tax relief a dependable labor force, and Federal participation in agriculture research. Growers have rightfully insisted upon fair and unfettered access to the world's consumers, which can only be achieved by insisting that there will be no trade deals until an acceptable agricultural agreement is reached during the upcoming round of multilateral trade negotiations slated to commence this fall in Seattle. I thoroughly support this demand, recognizing that Washington's producers export more than 25 percent of their harvest, with at least one third of the apples grown in Washington being shipped, and nine in ten bushels of wheat being exported. Unfortunately, far too many countries still restrict or prohibit the importation of Washington's cornucopia of commodities. That is why I have expressed to administration trade officials the importance and significance of agriculture negotiations during the Ministerial. We must work to pry open these markets and, if need be, deny another country's goods access to our market until the doors of trade swing freely in both directions. For example, just recently the Government of Taiwan agreed to delay implementation of pesticide tolerance tests that would have seriously hampered the U.S. apple and cherry trade with that country. Recognizing Taiwan is the apple industry's largest export market, I took the lead among my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that these tests would not be implemented until further scientific discovery had occurred. Farmers face not only bogus phytosanitary trade barriers, but unfair trade practices by other countries. In early June, I sent a letter of support to the International Trade Commission regarding the dumping case brought by the U.S. apple industry against China. The ITC recently unanimously agreed that dumping had occurred and will announce potential duties in the near future. The case brought by the industry was terribly justified, recognizing the price paid for U.S. apples for juice concentrate plummeted to nearly a penny a pound. Unilateral trade sanctions, as a result of the convincing messages sent by Washington farmers, have been at the center of nearly every agriculture discussion in the U.S. Senate. In response to the cries for relief from farmers, I have supported nearly every agriculture trade sanctions relief bill that has been introduced in the Senate. With nearly 60% of the world's population under U.S. sanction, the time to discuss the impact of these sanctions on the American family farm could not be more timely. It is without question that these sanctions do more harm to our agriculture communities than to the regimes on which they are imposed. In addition to all the various trade conditions facing the producer, farmers in Washington have also demanded access to affordable and effective crop protection tools, which can only be achieved through science-based implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. That's why I am an original cosponsor of the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act to ensure that decisions regarding health risks are informed and not hasty, that the intent of the FQPA is carried out with the use of sound science and practical application, that a dose of common sense is applied, and that adequate time is available to make certain all decisions and tolerance standards are healthy and equitable. Continued availability of water for irrigation, electrical generation and the transportation of bulk commodities from field to port, which can only be achieved through a balanced and scientifically-sound salmon recovery effort in the Pacific Northwest is a demand that resinates throughout Washington's orchards and fields. This is a demand I not only respect, but as most producers will know, continues to be one of my most important priorities as a U.S. Senator. I have gone to great lengths to ensure the solvency of the Snake and Columbia River hydroelectric systems with one key user in mind--farmers. Washington produces a wide array of minor crops, many that are very labor intensive and require special attention during harvest. Washington's agriculture community demands a dependable and legal workforce to harvest and process their crops, which can only be achieved by reforming the H2A labor program to provide agricultural employers with an affordable and workable system for securing temporary foreign labor. I have testified with my colleagues and introduced bills in the Senate that would provide such reforms. Farmers in Washington demand meaningful tax relief. Just last week, the tax bill passed in the Senate included the much sought after Farm and Ranch Risk Management accounts. These set-aside accounts will provide the savings mechanism growers have requested in order to secure financial longevity. In addition, I am a strong proponent for the elimination of the estate tax, one the most onerous financial burdens placed on a livelihood that is passed from generation to generation. And finally, with passage of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, growers demanded federal participation in agriculture research. My role as a member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee provides the mechanism necessary to ensure that the Pacific Northwest is adequately represented, and that science based research is utilized to assist growers in producing some of the most demanded, nutritional, and safest food supplies in the world. All of the aforementioned demands are intended to provide Washington's agricultural producers the tools they need to cultivate a profitable future. I remain convinced of their merit and committed to the task of securing their achievement. Unfortunately, this administration has yet to recognize their importance and, in most cases, actually opposes their adoption. And now the Senate is in the midst of a debate not only over the livelihood and longevity of the American farm, but to some extent, the policy that drives our nation's combines and tractors. I am unwilling to condone the approach being advocated by some of my colleagues, who are seeking to turn back the hands of time and to undermine the free- market principles embodies in the Freedom to Farm Act. Instead, I support an approach that provides the resources to those programs already in place to assist producers to overcome these difficult times. Meanwhile, as the Senate debates the issue of farm economy and financial assistance, the White House remains silent. Recognizing the bottom line for many in the agriculture sector is slowly dropping, my colleagues and I sent a letter to the President, requesting his active participation in the establishment of a financial relief package for farmers. This letter was in addition to a request included in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations bill for administration involvement. As we debate this sensitive issue today, the Administration's inactivity and silence is deafening. Recognizing the bleak financial future facing Washington's minor crops, I have during the past few days fought tirelessly to ensure that funding is provided in the Republican farm assistance package for fruits and vegetables. I have undertaken this endeavor very seriously and have engaged in extremely frank discussions with my colleagues over my support for an amendment that includes such a provision. During the debate on the original Cochran financial relief package, I was successful in negotiating the inclusion of $50 million for the fruit and vegetable industries. Because of my desire to provide additional funds for fruits and vegetables, I worked with Senator Roberts to include in his amendment $300 million for specialty crops. While the entire Roberts amendment failed in the Senate, I am pleased that our tree fruit and vegetable industries have a $50 million starting point. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I will have the opportunity to work to increase this funding during conference on the bill. I also responded to the calls for assistance from those in orchard country by including an amendment in the bill directing the Farm Service Agency to review all programs that assist apple growers in time of need. Specifically, I requested that FSA review the limits placed on operating loans utilized by apple farmers, and report back to Congress what the agency perceives is a workable remedy. Rest assured, whatever the final outcome of the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill, I will send two important messages to my agriculture constituency back home. First, I will continue working tirelessly to make certain all commodities produced from Washington's fertile soil will have a fair shake at receiving some form of assistance. I am poised and prepared to continue this challenge. And second, I will continue working on agriculture's list of demands, pushing to ensure that from trade to labor, and from taxes to environment, the livelihood that has made agriculture the career choice for so many will remain just that.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce the Take Pride in America Volunteer Recognition Act of 1999, legislation which will revitalize and expand an important program created in the 1980's to enhance the legacy of the Great Outdoors. Each American is part owner of an incredible asset--millions and millions of acres of national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges and other public lands. These wonderful places are part of the legacy each of us shares, whether we live in my state of Washington or on the other side of the nation. We visit these places often and for a variety of reasons. Together, federal lands attract nearly two billion visits annually. Americas' Great Outdoors is a place for active fun--for skiing and fishing, camping and whitewatersports--as well as for quite time away from our cities, jobs and commutes. Years ago, an important initiative was launched to encourage Americans to enjoy this legacy, and take responsibility for protecting it for future generations. The program was called Take Pride in America and had three components. The first portion was a public awareness campaign, designed to emphasize the importance of caring for federal lands and water. The second portion was an environmental education program for school children and for visitors to public lands. The third portion was a volunteer recruitment and recognition effort. The Take Pride in America program received the support of a great number of well-known Americans. Public Service Announcements and appearances were contributed by Clint Eastwood and Linda Evans, Lou Gossett and Charles Bronson, Gerald McRainey and even ALF. The Oak Ridge Boys wrote and recorded to Take Pride in America theme song, and donated all royalties to the program. Forty-seven governors initiated Take Pride programs within their states, recognizing outstanding volunteers ranging from young children to seniors. Volunteers from across the nation came to Washington for an annual national recognition event at the White House and similar prominent locations. The Ad Council obtained professional support for the program and donated placements for PSA's--in fact, some of the elements of this campaign continue to run. The results were good. Volunteerism for America's Great Outdoors surged and vandalism decline. Agencies such as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers were given a new tool to recruit and recognize Americans who invested their time and energy into enhancing our shared wealth of parks and forests. Other priorities have put the Take Pride in America Program on hold in recent years. It is time to take this tool out and put it to good use once again. Our public lands have maintenance and enhancement needs that exceed our ability to fund through general appropriations. We are now experimenting with new recreation fees and other mechanisms to attack a deferred maintenance backlog amounting to more than one billion dollars. My legislation would restore and expand the program created by Congress in 1990, recommitting us to all three parts of the original program. It would also strengthen the program to reflect a special opportunity associated with the National Fee Demonstration Program created in 1996, which provides nearly $200 million annually in additional resources to four key federal land systems. The legislation would strengthen our volunteer programs in several ways, including the establishment of a special pass to recognize volunteers who serve 50 hours or more on federal public lands. In my state, the Forest Service has done a tremendous job of organizing and utilizing the skills and enthusiasm of volunteers committed to improving our forests. The volunteer programs in the Northwest vary from forest to forest. Typically, groups like the Student Conservation Association, Mountaineers, Mazamas, and Backcountry Horsemen of Washington contract with the National Forest Service to complete specific projects designed to improve the health of the forests and enhance recreational opportunities. Individuals within these associations can earn passes for free access at national forest trailheads in the Pacific Northwest. I think this program is outstanding, and I want the Forest Service to continue accommodating and encouraging the efforts of volunteers. This bill is designed to encore these types of volunteer programs in other regions of the National Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, I want to recognize the special efforts of volunteers who contribute over 50 hours of work on federal lands. The legislation directs the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture to recognize these individuals with a pass to recreation areas throughout the federal system. I look forward to exploring appropriate means for recognition of volunteers as this legislation is considered in the hearing process. We need to consider carefully the relationship between the special Take Pride in America Pass and other passes, including the Golden Eagle and Golden Age passes. This legislation also will serve as a catalyst for expanding the scope of volunteer programs on federal lands. Too often in the past, our expectations for volunteer projects have focused on projects requiring shovels or paint brushes and requiring high levels of physical exertion. The truth is that important volunteer projects that can protect and enhance America's Great Outdoors are far more diverse. We need skills senior Americans have developed during a lifetime of living and learning, from research in libraries to teaching. We need those with special talents and gifts, from architects to web page designers, from attorneys--yes, even attorneys--to masons. We need to have meaningful projects for those with just a few hours to contribute as well as for those who are prepared to make an ongoing commitment of their time. Some of the projects can even be undertaken off-site. We need a good directory of needed volunteer undertakings that is widely available long before a volunteer shows up at a forest or park headquarters. To the hundreds of thousands of Americans who already spend time protecting and enhancing America's public lands--covering nearly one in three acres of the nation--I give my thanks and ask for help in devising a system that recognizes the wonderful contribution you make and inspires millions of others to join in your important work. I also ask for the support of the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture for this legislation and its goal of taking better care of America's Great Outdoors.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I submit for the Congressional Record a column by Michael Kelly that appeared in the July 28th edition of the Washington Post. Mr. Kelly asks in his column whether it ``strikes anyone as odd'' that the Clinton-Gore Administration continues desperately to hand onto its policy of ``constructive engagement'' with China, even as Beijing breaths fire in response to reasonable statement made by the freely- and fairly-elected President of Republic of China on Taiwan. This Senator, for one, has serious questions about the wisdom of President Clinton's foreign policy as it relates to China, and the competence of the Clinton-Gore Administration to protect and advance America's interest in this vital region of the world. In response to statements by Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hui that discussions and talks between Taiwan and China should be conducted on a ``special state-to-state'' basis, China has repeatedly issued not-so- veiled threats of its intent to use military force against Taiwan unless President Lee retracts his statements. What was the response of the Clinton-Gore Administration? Let me reference a news story from the July 26th edition of the Washington Post entitled ``Albright, Chinese Foreign Minister Hold `Very Friendly Lunch.' '' The article reads in part, Lee's announcement triggered a ferocious response by Beijing. Washington also criticized it and dispatched a representative to pressure Taiwan to modify its statement. Today, Albright said that Richard Bush, the U.S. envoy to Taiwan, told Lee ``that there needs to be . . . a peaceful resolution to this and a dialogue. And I think that the explanations offered thus far don't quite do it.'' Mr. President, this is an amazing as it is outrageous. Rather than defend the Republic of China on Taiwan and its right to live in peace and choose its own form of government, Secretary of State Albright has a ``very friendly lunch'' with one of the highest ranking members of the repressive communist Chinese regime while one of her assistants reprimands and pressures Taiwan to appease China. Can it truly be our nation's policy is to protect China from Taiwan? Taiwan is not the bully in this matter. Taiwan deserves America's commitment to defend it against China's threats. Our nation should proudly and firmly stand by Taiwan, a blooming and prosperous democracy where free speech, religious freedom and the benefits of capitalism are practiced and enjoyed. The United States should stand in the future, as it has in the past, for freedom and democracy whenever those great qualities are threatened by the forces of repression. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``On The Wrong Side,'' by Michael Kelly be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the question now being considered by the Senate is whether we should refund a portion of the federal government surplus to American families. Over the next ten years, the federal government will collect $996 billion more in income and other taxes than is necessary to pay fully for every existing federal program, agency and department. This means that the IRS will be taking almost $1 trillion more in taxes from the American people's paychecks than it needs to operate the government. This is a tax surplus--a tax overpayment. This tax relief debate, serious as it is, concerns only the non- Social Security surplus. Both sides agree that the Social Security surplus itself is to be reserved for Social Security recipients only, and not be diverted to any other purpose. There is, however, an important distinction between the two parties even on Social Security. Republicans, myself included, believe that we should pass a ``lockbox'' law, giving the strongest possible statutory protection to that Social Security surplus. Democrats have consistently filibustered our proposal, asking Americans simply to trust them not to raid the Social Security surplus in the future as they have in the past. That is not enough. The difference between the parties on taxes is even more striking. Republicans believe that the lion's share of the non-Social Security surplus ought to be returned to the American taxpayer whose taxes created that surplus; Democrats want to spend that surplus on new and expanded government programs. I am convinced that this tax overpayment should be refunded to the American people who worked for and earned it. It is their money and it should be returned to them to invest and spend as they deem best for their families and their futures. The alternative to refunding the tax surplus to taxpayers is to leave the money in Washington, DC where it will be spent to create $1 trillion in new government programs. The President and his supporters in Congress are making outrageous claims that giving a refund to taxpayers is risky or even dangerous. They say that somehow returning a portion of the government surplus to American families will somehow endanger the very livelihoods of women and children. On that point, I would ask every American citizen to challenge the President and his Democratic allies to back up with facts their politically-charged claims. This latest shameless charade by the President is absolutely outrageous. The inference propounded by President Clinton is that those of us in this Chamber who support a tax refund are out to harm women and children, and that those who oppose such a refund care more about women and children than we do. That's an absolute outrage, and I'm truly sorry to see that the President of the United States will stoop to such low levels in order to keep this money here in Washington, D.C. so that he can spend it on new government programs. I will resist the temptation to join the President in his game of scare tactics, but I will take this opportunity to challenge all Americans to ask themselves this question when they hear these ridiculous charges: how will women and children, or anyone else for that matter, possibly be hurt by the government giving them back some of the money they overpaid to Washington, D.C.? To further illustrate the weakness of the President's argument, I'd like everyone watching this on C-Span back home to take three dollars out of his or her purse or wallet. Now imagine that each dollar bill is worth a trillion dollars. That's the surplus--the people's tax overpayment. That's the amount that Americans have overpaid the government in personal income and other taxes. We Republicans want to put two of these dollars aside to protect Social Security and Medicare and other essential programs, and to cut the national debt in half. The debate with the Democrats is over what to do with the third dollar. Republicans want to give it back to the taxpayers who earned it. Democrats want to spend it on new programs and bureaucracies. It's as simple and clear as that. The surplus is generated from personal income and other taxes, it belongs to the American people. It's not the government's money--it's your money . . . you sent it here. Shouldn't you get some of it back? While I strongly support refunding the tax surplus to the taxpaying families and hardworking individuals all across this country, it is my sincere hope that Congress will ultimately pass a bill that reduces the tax burden on Washington state families while moving towards simplification of the federal tax code. Fundamental reform of the tax code is my number one tax priority. I am a strong, committed advocate for the elimination of our current federal tax system. It is too complicated, too burdensome, too unfair. The current system should be scrapped and replaced with one that is much simpler and easier to understand. We need to focus our energy and attention in Congress on developing an alternative. I will support a replacement code that is based on four principles: the new code must be fair, simple, uniform and consistent. Americans deserve a tax code they can understand and predict. A vast majority of the American people and those in Congress support reforming our tax code. I hope that when Congress takes action to ease the cost burden of the federal tax code, the opportunity to simplify or reduce the complexity of the tax code will be seized. I do not pretend to believe there is consensus on how to reform the code completely at this time, but at the very least Congress should pass a tax bill that does not make the code even more of a bewildering mess than it is today. Unfortunately, the bill reported out of the Finance Committee does not achieve the goals of either simplifying the code, or even to do no further harm. The bill contains 15 titles, 19 subtitles and 163 various sections to total over 400 pages in length. It takes a report of an additional almost 300 pages to explain what the bill even does. Yes, the bill does refund nearly $800 billion in unneeded tax dollars back to the American people, but at what price? Adding more pages to the tax code? Making the code more complicated? Further confusing taxpayers as they struggle to fill out their tax returns? What is most unfortunate is that a tax relief bill need not be so complex. It is certainly possible to refund the tax surplus simply and directly. An alternative was proposed during committee consideration by Senator Gramm that accomplished the goal of simple tax relief by including just four elements: broad-based income tax rate relief, repeal of death taxes, elimination of the marriage penalty, and full deductibility for health insurance for all Americans. I voted for that alternative in the Senate. While I may not fully endorse every aspect of this specific proposal, I strongly and enthusiastically support its intent to refund the taxpayers' money in a manner that simplifies and corrects injustices in the current tax code. We should get rid of death taxes, stop penalizing married couples through the tax code, allow self-employed and individual Americans to fully deduct their health insurance costs just as corporations can, and we should permanently extend the R&D tax credit so that our increasingly technology driven economy can continue to grow and create jobs. I cannot, though, happily endorse a tax relief package that moves toward such reform only to get lost in a 443-page swamp of countless new provisions and rules. The citizens of Washington state and the taxpayers of this nation deserve to have a significant portion of the tax surplus returned to them, and they deserve it in a manner that doesn't make filling out their IRS return by April 15th even more of an exasperating experience. For now, I will continue to push for a debate that reforms our tax code. In the meantime, I am committed to pushing onward with the principles that guide this debate: Should a portion of the government surplus be refunded to American families, or should the rest of the non-Social Security and Medicare surplus be left in Washington, D.C. for increased spending on government programs? On that question, the answer is easy . . . give American families a tax refund. That requires a yes vote, though with serious reservations. captial gains exclusion

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to signify my support for the introduction of the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999. According to data compiled in the last five years, the State of Washington produces more than 230 food, feed and seed crops; ranks in the top five for the value of the commodities produced; leads the nation in the production of apples, spearmint oil, red raspberries, hops, edible peas and lentils, asparagus, sweet cherries, and pears; is second in the nation in the production of winter wheat, potatoes, Concord grapes, and carrots; and contributes more than $5 billion to the State's economy annually. Not only do all these facts signify the importance of the agriculture industry to the State of Washington and the nation, but highlight the importance of having the proper tools and chemicals necessary to produce one of the most abundant, economical, and safest food supplies in the world. I agreed to be an original cosponsor the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999 for many reasons, but the most significant reason comes down to common sense. I supported the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996 and still believe in the intent of the legislation. However, recent accounts from the agriculture industry cite concern about the practical application of reliable data and science to the process. Just this week a 25-year-old apple farmer from Orondo, Washington visited my office to voice her concerns over the implementation of FQPA. Karen Simmons explained that with the current manner in which FQPA is being implemented, entire classes of pesticides are threatened with elimination. Should these tools of agriculture be lost, an orchard like Karen's faces possible extinction. Karen's story is not the first I've heard, as farmers from Washington have been invaluable in expressing their concerns to me over the future of their livliood. Karen's account mimics the thousands of reports my colleagues and I have heard from growers across this country. Karen, like many farmers, never follows the application suggestions prescribed by the chemicals she uses. Not only does she not follow these recommendations for practical purposes, but because of the cost incurred as well. For example, one of the pesticides she utilizes recommends application up to twice a week, but Karen informed us that she rarely uses it that frequently. While Karen might not utilize this chemical often, it is imperative that she has it as a tool. Should this tool be eliminated altogether, Karen's crop is susceptible to infestation, thereby putting her entire orchard in jeopardy. Unfortunately, in establishing the risk cup for chemicals, EPA has been using application recommendations, often referred to as default assumptions, and not taking into consideration actual usage. This approach is threatening the tools growers have at their disposal. That is why it is imperative that we incorporate into the implementation of FQPA a rulemaking process, allowing growers, chemical utilizers, and household pest producers the ability to divulge actual usage and to apply practical sense to the process. How could we suggest threatening the livelihood of the American farmer and others, while not providing for them an avenue to participate, comment and clarify? Children's health is equally important, and, as several of my colleagues have suggested, improper application of the FQPA to household pest controls could create a host of health hazards for children and the elderly. For example, there is a real threat that current FQPA implementation could eliminate the use of some household insecticides and repellants. As many of you know, children and the elderly are susceptible to disease, often carried by cockroaches and other insects. Improper control of these pests could equate to serious health hazards across the nation, a scenario none of us predicted with the passage of FQPA. Again, I stress that the intent of the legislation is not to alter the importance or significance of human health, but to ensure that decisions regarding health risks are informed and not hasty, that the intent of the FQPA is carried out with the use of sound science and practical application, that a dose of common sense is applied, and that adequate time is available to make certain all decisions and tolerance standards are healthy and equitable. Without question, the United States produces the most abundant, desirable, inexpensive, and safest food supplies in the world. The FQPA must be implemented in a fashion that not only takes into account these very facts, but continues to consider the needs, choices and health of the American consumer. I thank my colleagues for their continuing interest in this issue, and look forward to working with everyone to pass the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. There is plenty of time to speak after the amendments are before the Senate. If the Senator, my colleague from Washington, wishes to make a motion to strike now, I will yield the floor for her to do so. If she does not, I suggest we go on to an amendment we can deal with right away.

Mr. GORTON. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.