T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senators from the Northwest are sometimes frustrated in trying to get our message across, to deliver or reflect the views of our constituencies almost 3,000 miles away, and to let our Senate colleagues from around this country understand what it's like to live in the Northwest. The Northwest is known for clean air and water, a high quality of life, picturesque landscapes, the beauty and majesty of the Cascade and Olympic Mountains, the rolling hills of the Palouse, lush wooded forests, sparkling lakes, a playground for backpackers, hikers and recreational enthusiasts, home of America's success story--Microsoft, the apple capital of the world, breadbasket to the nation, a vibrant salmon fishery and home of the most wonderful people who possess a zest for life and fierce instinct to preserve and protect these truly unique qualities of my great state of Washington and of Oregon, Idaho, and Montana as well. Mr. President, I share the passion of my constituents. I consider it an honor to represent a state as great and diverse as mine. But what is often overlooked is the fact that our hydroelectric power system plays a central role in keeping Pacific Northwest a clean, healthy, and affordable place to live, work, play, and raise a family. I have come to this floor many times to explain what makes the Northwest tick to my colleagues and to others unfamiliar with the region. And I have been frustrated or puzzled by the reaction I get when I reflect the views of my state, and in particular, my eastern Washington communities. We have been waging a battle with this administration, radical environmental organizations, and other dam removal advocates over the issue of removing Columbia-Snake River dams. Advocates of dismantling our Columbia River hydro system place the choice in stark terms of dams or salmon. That choice, presented in such terms, is false. The truth is that by applying adaptive management to our hydro system, we can and will preserve endangered salmon runs and our valuable hydro system. I reject the false choice of salmon versus the Columbia hydro system. I believe passionately that we can and will restore a vibrant salmon fishery to the Columbia and that we can do so within the confines of the hydro system. To an outsider, one would think the administration has the momentum. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has been a roll--tearing down dams from the California coast to Maine in the Northwest. Incidentally, however, we may be a new ally in Vice President Albert Gore. While he has been known as a removal advocate, last week, in order to get a photo opportunity on the Connecticut River, he had a dam release some 4 billion gallons of water in order that he could go cancoeing. Perhaps now we have found a new use for dams and a new ally in the Vice President, as long as we can offer him canoeing activities by releasing water. Most of us in the region believe we have the facts and support on our side to defeat those who wish to remove the Snake River dams and thereby destroy a central piece of the Northwest economy and a way of life for millions of Northwesterners. I have asked myself--What do we have to do? We can have thousands rally to ``Save Our Dams''--as we did in eastern Washington and Oregon communities earlier this year. We can have our local, State, and Federal officials unite in their opposition to dam removal, and we have added Governor Gary Locke and Senator Murray to the ranks of those opposed to removing our eastern Washington dams. And we can have scientists, federal agencies, and even environmental groups point to global warming as a major cause for salmon decline. We can have the National Marine Fisheries Service scientists tell us, in a report released April 14, that the chance of recovery for a few distinct salmon runs is only 64 percent if all four lower Snake River dams are removed, as against 53 percent by continuing to transport smolts around the dams--a difference that is barely statistically significant. And we can have recent media reports tell us that the ``Outlook is bright for salmon runs this year.'' In this July 12 Seattle Times article, scientists and biologists are predicting a potential rebound in salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest. And the reasons they cite are: improved ocean conditions, better freshwater conditions, and cutbacks in fishing. But still we hear the dam removal clamor from national environmental groups and bureaucrats in the Clinton-Gore administration. And we have an energized Interior Secretary who in his words has been ``out on the landscape over the past few months carrying around a sledgehammer'' giving speeches saying ``dams do, in fact, outlive their function'' and ``despite the history and the current differences over dams, Babbitt said he believes change is inevitable.'' (Trout Unlimited Speech, CQ, July 17, 1999) Here I am again, to share some compelling statistics recently released by the Army Corps of Engineers that further prove that removing dams in eastern Washington would be an unmitigated disaster and an economic nightmare. Ten days ago, the Corps released three preliminary economic studies that will be included in an overall Lower Snake River Juvenile Fish Migration Feasibility Study set for completion later this year. The Corps studies quantified the economic impact of the removal of the four Snake River dams as removal relates to the region's water supply, navigation, and power production. I simply cannot overstate the importance of these studies and what they mean for the future of the Pacific Northwest, its economy and the livelihood of our families and communities. That is why I was surprised when there was little attention paid to the release of these three studies. I can remember that as recently as March of this year when the Corps was preparing to release a study on recreation benefits involving the four lower Snake River dams, environmental groups including the Sierra Club, NW Sportfishing Industry Association, Trout Unlimited, and Save Our Wild Salmon were tremendously successful in getting the media's attention and substantial coverage of their claims that removing the four Snake River dams would bring a $300 million annual recreational windfall to the region. The environmental groups leaked the $300 million number knowing that the study was incomplete, but the false information made big news. Then, the report was completed and the truth was told. In fact, the real number, according to the Corps report is: ``Under the natural river drawdown alternative, the value of recreation and tourism then increased to $129 million annually, which represents an increase of about $67 million per year.'' Why did this report, with complete analysis, receive so little attention: I am again surprised at the lack of attention given to the results of the latest three studies, which standing alone, send such a clear signal to this administration, radical environmental groups, and dam removal advocates everywhere that they should abandon their cause. Let me share these numbers with you: First, starting with power production: The economic effect of breaching on the region's power supply would be $251 million to $291 million a year. Residential bills for Northwest families and senior citizens would increase $1.50 to $5.30 per month. But the region's industrial power users, which rely on cheap power to provide thousands of jobs can see a monthly increase ranging from $387 to $1,326. Our aluminum companies would see an increase in their monthly bills ranging from $222,000 to $758,000. If the Snake River dams are breached, how would we replace the 1,231 megawatts the dams produce annually? Keep in mind it takes 1,000 megawatts to serve Seattle. The answer is, there is no cheap alternative. We can increase power production at thermal power plants or build new gas-fired combined-combustion turbine plants. Finally, these power estimates wouldn't be complete without reminding my colleagues that last month the Administration sought to collect at least $1 billion beyond normal power costs to create a `slush fund' to fund the removal of the four Snake river dams. I was delighted to pass any amendment prohibiting the Bonneville Power Administration from raising rates on Northwest power customers for a project they don't even want. Second, lets look at irrigation. The Corps report assumes that there is no economically feasible way to continue to provide irrigation to the 37,000 acres of farmland served by the four Snake River dams. The report assumes 37,000 acres of farmland will be taken out of production as a result of breaching those dams. What does this loss of water supply mean for eastern Washington? The loss of irrigated farmland would cost $9.2 million annually. The cost to retrofit municipal and industrial pump stations would be $.8 to 43.8 million a year. The cost to retrofit privately-owned wells would be 43.9 million annually. In light of these sobering statistics, what options would be left for irrigators? The Corps estimated the economic effect on dam breaching on farmland value would amount to more than $134 million. The Corps also considered ways to alter the irrigation system in order to continue to irrigate the 37,000 acres--to accomplish this alternative, we would have to spend more than $291 million--more than the value of the land. Our farmers and agricultural communities are struggling enough as it is, and removing their ability to even water their crops puts them beyond despair. Therefore, the Corps assumes this irrigated farmland will disappear. Lastely, let's look at transportation: The Corps studied transportation impacts of breaching the four Snake river dams. The transportation costs resulting from breaching the four Snake River dams would rise to $1.23 per bushel from .98 cents per bushel--a 24 percent increase. The annual increase in transportation costs to the region would be $40 million for all commodities. Breaching the four dams would remove 3.8 million tons of grain from the Snake River navigation system. Of this 3.8 million, 1.1 million would move to rail transportation and 2.7 million tons would move to truck transportation. According to the report, barge transportation of commodities on the Snake river limits the cost of rail transportation and truck transportation. Removing competition among these types of transportation could drive up costs. According to the report, barge transportation has saved, on average, $5.95 in per ton when compared with other transportation alternatives. ``Disturbing this competition would be one of the most important regional consequences of permanent drawdown.'' According to the Washington State Legislative Transportation Committee, additional costs resulting from road and highway damage range from $56 million to $100.7 million. Further, it is important to note that the navigation system of the Columbia allows enough barge transportation that if it were destroyed, more than 700,000 18-wheelers a year would be added to our already congested state roads and highways to replace the lost hauling capacity. (Source: Pacific Northwest Waterways Association) I want to put all this together and construct a picture for you and what this scenario would mean in eastern Washington. In exchange for breaching or removing the four Snake river dams, here's what the citizens of the Pacific Northwest could get: We would lose four dams that produce hydro-power, which emit no pollutants into the air, for a thermal based power source that would jeopardize the clean air unique to the Northwest and enjoyed by countless residents and visitors to our state. The 37,000 acres of irrigated farmland in Franklin and Walla Walla counties and the hundreds of employees that help supply food to more than a million people would disappear. There is a likelihood that there would be a temporary loss of water for well users after dam breaching due to the inability to alter well depths until the actual removal of dams. The increased truck traffic on our roads to haul wheat and barley to coastal ports will have an adverse effect on air quality and impose an additional financial burden on the family farm, which for many would be too much to bear and force them to give up their land. So what do we get by removing the four Snake River dams? Shattered lives, displaced families and communities who will have seen their livelihoods destroyed, generations of family farmers penniless, industries forced to drive up consumer costs, air pollution, a desert that once bloomed with agriculture products goes dry, a far less competitive Northwest economy and a Northwest scrambling to repay a BPA treasury debt with less revenue, and scrambling to buy or build higher cost polluting sources of power. So according to these three latest studies, the bottom line is that if we breach the four dams to increase our chances of bringing a select number of salmon runs back by only 11%, the Northwest will suffer economic impacts of $299 to $342 million a year in perpetuity. This staggering figure doesn't even include the estimated $1 billion it would take to actually remove the dams. If we remove the Snake river dams, over the next 24 years we only improve our chances of recovering spring and summer chinook to the survival goals set by NMFS by 11 to 30 percent over the current system of barging. Over 24 years, NMFS would like to reach the survival standard of returning 150 to 300 spring and summer chinook to the Snake River tributaries each year. But there is something else that these numbers, studies and data can't quantify: What many outside the region don't understand is that the four dams on the Lower Snake river are part of our life, heritage, and culture. I repeat the call I issued last month to the administration and dam removal advocates: abandon your cause and work with the region on cost- effective salmon recovery measures that can restore salmon runs and preserve our Northwest way of life. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is merely a technical amendment sent up simply so Members proposing amendments should ask to have it set aside. We will proceed in a more orderly manner in that fashion. I expected the Senator from Washington to make a motion to strike. If she wishes to do so now, there will be an amendment to that, and we can complete this debate. If she does not wish to do so, the Senator from New Hampshire is prepared to offer an amendment on which there could be a vote probably in an hour or so. Does the Senator from Washington wish to make a motion to strike or some other motion at the present time?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to make a quick unanimous consent request. Privilege Of The Floor I ask unanimous consent that Sean Marsan and Liz Gelfer, both on detail to the Appropriations Committee staff, and Kari Vander Stoep of my personal staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the fiscal year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Mr. GORTON. I note for the Record technical clarifications to the committee report: On page 37 of the report, the section of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act that is cited should be section 1306(a), not section 1307(a). In the last paragraph on page 13 of the report, the reference to the ``Las Vegas Water Authority'' is an error. The language should have referred to the ``Las Vegas Valley Water District.'' With that, I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Rarely has a debate on an amendment had less to do with the content of the amendment itself. This debate is not about past mining practices or the leftovers from those practices or who will pay for them. The passage of the amendment will not affect that whatever, nor will the passage of the motion to table. Royalties for mining on public lands is not a part of this debate. Passing the Murray amendment will not change those royalties. Passing a motion to table won't change those royalties. The past simply is not involved in this matter. The way in which mining claims are patented is not involved in this matter, nor does this debate involve the environmental laws of the United States. Every plan of operation of a mine must meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, must meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, must meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. You don't get the permit unless you have met all of those requirements. The mine in the State of Washington that was the subject of the earlier amendment in this body met all those requirements, got all those permits, and won tests against them in courts of the United States. And every other mining claim that will come up, if this motion to table is agreed to, will have to meet the same environmental laws. What this debate is about is whether or not the laws of the United States are to be amended by the Congress of the United States or by an employee of the Department of the Interior. This 1872 law has been amended by the Department of the Interior's ruling. No Member of Congress, whatever his or her views of the Mining Act of 1872, should favor the proposition that a bureaucrat can amend the laws of the United States. Of course, we ought to debate the 1872 Mining Act. Of course, we ought to vote on it. We have in fact debated and voted on it here in the Congress. But the fact that the changes have not taken place to the satisfaction of some does not delegate the authority to change the laws of the United States to the Department of the Interior. The subject here is simply that. If this motion to table is agreed to, as the person who will probably chair the conference committee on this subject, I assure you that no final provision will be any stronger than the Craig-Reid amendment because of what the House has done and may well be less sweeping even than that. So at the most, Members, by voting for this motion to table, are voting for the Craig-Reid amendment and probably for something somewhat less stringent.

Mr. GORTON. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1360 (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to millsite limitations)

Mr. GORTON. There will be no limitation on debate until the amendment is agreed on both sides.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

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

Mr. GORTON. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. GORTON. Then I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The bill totals $13.924 billion in discretionary budget authority, an amount that is $1.125 billion below the President's budget request and $19 million below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The bill fully complies with the spending limits established in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and the amount provided is right at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. As is always the case, putting this bill together has been a tremendous challenge. While I am extremely grateful that Senator Stevens, in consultation with Senator Byrd, was able to provide the subcommittee with an increase over its original 302(b) allocation, the amount contained in this bill is still slightly below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. I wish to point out to my colleagues, however, that this does not mean that delivery of programs can be continued at the current level simply by holding appropriations even with last year. The programs funded in this appropriations bill are highly personnel- intensive, supporting tens of thousands of park rangers, foresters, and Indian Health Service doctors. As such, mandated pay and benefit increases for Federal personnel and increases in rent charged by the General Services Administration--increases over which the subcommittee has no control--place a significant burden on Interior bill agencies. The committee must choose either to provide funds to cover these costs, or require agencies to absorb them by reducing services or finding more efficient ways of delivering programs. For fiscal year 2000, these fixed costs amount to more than $300 million. While the committee has provided increases to cover a majority of this amount by drawing on carryover balances and reducing low priority programs, some agencies will be forced to absorb a portion of their fixed costs. Given the necessity of funding most fixed costs increases within an allocation that is slightly below the current year level, there is little room in this bill for new programs, increases in existing programs, or additional projects of interest to individual Members. But by terminating low priority programs and making selective reductions in others, we have been able to provide targeted increases for certain high priority programs. The committee has provided a $70 million increase for the operation of the national park system, including $27 million to increase the base operating budgets of 100 park units. This increase is further indication of the Senate's commitment to preserving and enhancing our national park system while remaining within the fiscal constraints of the balanced budget agreement. The Senate bill puts funding for the operation of our parks at a level fully $277 million higher than the fiscal year 1995 level, and 82 percent over the amount provided a decade ago. For the other land management agencies, the bill provides an increase of $27 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, including more than $13 million for the operation of the national wildlife refuge system. The bill increases the Forest Service operating account by $17 million, including significant increases for recreation management, forest ecosystem restoration, and road maintenance. A $22 million increase is provided for management of lands by the Bureau of Land Management, as well as another $5 million increase for payments in lieu of taxes. The amount provided for PILT reflects a continued effort to steadily increase appropriations for this program without harming the core operating programs funded in this bill. Though appropriations for PILT were stagnant throughout the first half of this decade, the amount provided in this bill represents a 28 percent increase over the amount provided in fiscal year 1995. Among the programs in this bill that are specifically for the benefit of Native Americans, the committee's top priority has been to provide the Secretary of the Interior with the resources necessary to fix the Indian trust fund management system. Indian land and trust fund records have been allowed to deteriorate to a deplorable state, and the Department of the Interior now finds itself scrambling to reconcile thousands upon thousands of trust records that are scattered across the country. Many of these records are located in cardboard boxes that have not been touched for years, or in ancient computer systems that are incompatible with one another. The Department is performing this task under the watchful eye of the court, having been sued by those whose trust accounts it is supposed to be managing. I believe that Secretary Babbitt is making a good faith effort to address this problem, and as such have recommended a funding level for the Office of the Special Trustee that is $39 million over the amount originally provided for fiscal year 1999. This amount will provide for both the manpower and the trust management systems necessary to fix the problem. I will note, however, that the Federal track record in managing large system procurements is spotty at best. As such, I hope to continue to work closely with the Committee on Indian Affairs and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to ensure that these funds are expended wisely, and that we will not regret our decision to provide such a considerable amount for this purpose. I plead with my colleagues, however, to refrain from offering amendments to this bill that would radically change the course of action for trust management that has been laid out by the administration. Any such changes should be carefully considered and have the benefit of hearings by the authorizing committees. With regard to other Indian programs, I will quickly note that the bill provides an $83 million increase for the Indian Health Service, as well as significant increases for both Indian law enforcement and Indian school construction and repair. Funding for Indian schools continues to be among the highest programmatic priorities expressed by members of the Interior Subcommittee. The Interior bill also funds a myriad of programs that preserve and enhance our nation's cultural heritage. Perhaps the most visible of these programs are the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. While the subcommittee's allocation did not allow us to increase these accounts by large amounts as would be the desire of many Senators, the bill does provide a $1 million increase for each program. These increases will not allow for any dramatic expansion the Endowments' ongoing programs, but do indicate the committee's general support for the Endowments and the efforts they have made to respond to the various criticisms that have been leveled at them. I hope that we may able to do even better next year. The bill also includes the full $19 million required to complete the Federal commitment to the construction of the National Museum of the American Indian on The Mall, and $20 million to continue phase two of the comprehensive building rehabilitation project at the Kennedy Center. The final grouping of agencies in this bill that I will mention at this time are the energy programs. The bill provides funding for both fossil energy R&D and energy conservation R&D at roughly the current year level. These programs are vital if we hope to stem our increasing dependence on foreign oil, to preserve the country's leadership in the manufacture of energy technologies, and to enable our economy to achieve reductions in energy use and emissions in ways that will not cripple economic growth. The bill also preserves funding for the weatherization and state grant programs at the fiscal year 1999 level. Maintaining current funding levels for these programs is made possible in part by the absence of any new appropriations for the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves, and a deferral of appropriations previously made for the Clean Coal Technology Program. Mr. President, I would like to touch on two more issues that may be of particular interest to members. The first is funding for land acquisition. Many Senators are aware that the President's budget request included some $1 billion for a ``lands legacy'' initiative. This initiative is an amalgamation of programs, some of which the committee has been funding for years, some of which are entirely new. Many of the programs included in the initiative lack authorization entirely. While the committee may well have chosen to provide many of these increases if it were allowed to distribute a $1.1 billion increase in spending, the lands legacy initiative is absurd in the context of any overall budget that adheres to the terms of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--the very act that has helped produce the budget surplus that the President is so anxious to spend. To be clear, this bill does include large amounts of funding for a variety of land protection programs. The bill provides about the same amount of funding for Federal land acquisition as was included in the Senate reported bill last year. It also includes significant increases for other land protection programs such as the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund and the Forest Legacy program. The bill does not, however, include funds for the new and unauthorized grant programs requested by the administration, and does not include funds for the Stateside grant program that is authorized under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. While I am sympathetic in concept to the Stateside program, the subcommittee's allocation does not provide the room necessary to restart the program. Finally, I would like to take a moment to discuss the issue of appropriations ``riders.'' This administration has leveled much criticism at this Congress for including legislative provisions in appropriations bills. This criticism is disingenuous in at least two ways. First, there are without question legislative provisions in this very bill that, if removed, would prompt loud objections from the administration itself. Among these are provisions well known to my colleagues, such as moratoria on offshore oil and gas development and a moratorium on new mining patent applications. There are also some less well-known provisions that have been carried in this bill for years, the subjects of which range from clearcutting on the Shawnee National Forest to the testing of nuclear explosives for oil and gas exploration. Nearly all of these provisions are included in the bill because Congress at some point felt that the Executive branch was tampling on the prerogatives of the legislative branch. This leads to my second point. It should be well apparent to my colleagues that this administration long ago made a conscious decision not to engage Congress in productive discussions on a wide array of natural resource issues. Most of these issues are driven by statutes that most reasonable people admit are in dire need of updating, streamlining or reform. Instead, the administration has chosen to implement its own version of these laws through expansive regulatory actions, far-reaching Executive orders and creative legal opinions. When the administration overreaches in this fashion, concerned Senators are compelled to respond. The administration knows this, and has clearly made a political calculation that it is in its interest to invite these riders every year. For the administration to criticize the very practice that it deliberately provokes is, as I have said disingenuous at best. If the administration wishes to take issue with the substance of these provisions rather than hide behind a criticism of the process, it is welcome to do so. Consideration of this bill is an open process. It is not done ``in the dark of night,'' as we so often read. The bill has moved through subcommittee and full committee, and is open for amendment by the full Senate. I expect that we will discuss some of these provisions during the coming debate, and hope that Senators will carefully consider the arguments made on both sides. What I hope Senators will not do, is vote to abdicate the Senate's responsibility to oversee the actions of the executive branch, or sacrifice the power of the purse that is granted to the Congress by the Constitution. With that admonition, Mr. President, it is probably an appropriate time to turn to Senator Byrd and thank him for his assistance in drafting this bill. He has been an invaluable resource as I have tried to be responsive to the priorities of Members on that side of the aisle, and has been particularly helpful in securing an allocation for the subcommittee that enables us to report a bill that is deserving of the Senate's support. I thank Senator Byrd's staff as well--Kurt Dodd, Liz Gelfer, a detailee, and Carole Geagley for all the hard work they have done on this bill. I also want to thank my subcommittee staff for the long hours and hard work they have put in on this bill--Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Leif Fonnesbeck, Joe Norrell, and our detailee Sean Marsan. Kari Vanderstoep of my personal staff and Chuck Berwick--who has now departed my office for business school--have also done a great job of coordinating the many parts of this bill that have a direct impact on the State of Washington. Once again, I think this is a good bill that balances the competing needs of the agencies it funds against the broader fiscal constraints that we have imposed upon ourselves. I hope my colleagues will support the bill. There is one final point I want to make, Mr. President, and emphasize to all the Members and their staffs who are within hearing. This is a bill created by many individual Senators' requests for projects in their home States, and sometimes for projects that are regional and national in scope. This year, at least during my tenure, we set another new record. One hundred Senators made more than 2,400 requests for specific provisions in this bill. Obviously, we could not grant all of the requests that are valid. I must say most of them were, in the sense they were for projects that would increase the ambience of the park system, the national historic system of the country as a whole. Senator Byrd and I, working together, have done the best job we possibly could in setting priorities for those programs, within the constraints of a bill I have already said is very limited in the total amount of money we have. So Members' requests that are not included in the bill were not ignored; they were simply omitted either because the given individual had higher priorities within his or her own State or because other priorities intervened in their way.

Mr. GORTON. I believe I have not abandoned the floor at this point.

Mr. GORTON. How much time is available?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the time extended to 10 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Or any amendment which may be proposed.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I withdraw the formal text of the unanimous consent request by the majority leader, and I will reread it so it is grammatically correct. I ask consent that the Senate turn to the House Interior bill and, immediately following the reporting by the clerk, Senator Gorton be recognized to offer the text of the Senate-reported bill, as modified, to strike page 116, lines 3 through 7; page 129, line 18 through page 132, line 20, as an amendment to the House bill. I further ask consent that the amendment be agreed to and the bill as thus amended be considered original text for the purpose of further amendment and that any legislative provision added thereby may nonetheless be subject to a point of order under rule XVI.