T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I also ask unanimous consent that my own assistant, Jeanne Bumpus, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allow a Commerce Committee staffer, Jim Sartucci, the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on this bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that this vote will not take place before April 21.

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

Mr. GORTON. I have no objection.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with the exception of the single paragraph toward the beginning of the eloquent statement by the Senator from Texas, I agree, literally, with every word of her remarks. In fact, I think, as I will show to you, that single paragraph with which I disagree is totally inconsistent with the remarks of the Senator from Texas. Let me tell you why. For my first 3 years in the U.S. Senate, 1981-1984, I held hearings, drafted, worked on, discussed, and ultimately sponsored and passed the Shipping Act of 1984. Fifteen years ago, I probably could have recited it from memory. I was at that time the chairman of the subcommittee of the Commerce Committee now chaired by my esteemed friend, the Senator from Texas. The goal of the Shipping Act of 1984 was to breathe fresh air, competition, and deregulation into the worldwide system of ocean carriage of goods, at least as that carriage affected the United States. It was an industry controlled by cartels and monopolies far less interested in those whom it served than in those who provided the service--most particularly, many foreign-flagged merchant marines. I am certain when I introduced that bill for debate I made the same remarks the Senator from Texas has just made--that it was not perfect, that it did not create a purely competitive market, but that it represented a major step forward in allowing the fresh air of competition to breathe on the ocean carriage of goods. And now building on that 1984 act, the Senator from Texas has brought us a further proposal which opens up, still wider, the field of ocean carriage of goods to competition. It is in that respect a fine bill. What the bill does is say that shippers can make agreements with ocean carriers in the same fashion that almost all contracts in the private sector can be made in the United States without having to follow the specific monetary requirements of filed tariffs, but simply as private contracts in which the shipper could get the best possible deal that it can negotiate and the carrier can get as high a price for that carriage as it can negotiate. This is the heart of the free market system. It is a precisely proper philosophy for the carriage of goods by sea. The bill also allows the ocean carriers to get together with land carriers so that you can get one price for shipping your goods from, say, in your case, Mr. President, Cheyenne, WY, to Yokohama, Japan, also a major step forward. One thing, however, it does not do, and that is what my amendment is all about. If you are a major manufacturer, a huge shipper, capable of filling an entire vessel with a single shipment of your goods, or at least so large a container that you can effectively deal directly with the ocean carrier, you get the advantage of this competitive system. You can make the best deal you can wring out of that ocean carrier. But if you are the kind of shipper or seller that I suspect is more common in a rural State like Wyoming, and you are shipping only a modest amount of goods, you have very little leverage with the ocean carrier. You probably don't even know very much about how to engage in that business. So you hire an intermediary, usually in one of America's ports, a customs broker, or a freight consolidator, to do it for you. These intermediaries, almost without exception, are small business people. That intermediary gets together a bunch of shipments from small shippers and it makes the contract with the ocean carrier. In other words, small business people hire other small business people to consolidate their shipments so they can have advantages equal to those of the big businesses and the big shippers. At the present time, under the 1984 law the same rules as to published tariffs and the degree of competition or lack of competition apply to the big shipper and the small shipper. And I may say that when the Senator from Texas wrote this bill, she provided the same advantages to the small shipper and the intermediary as she did to the big shipper. Obviously, there should not be discrimination between those two groups. And that is the way the bill was reported from the Commerce Committee--more competition, more ability to negotiate. You didn't have to tell your competitors what you were paying. Everybody benefited. Oh, but, Mr. President, what happen then? Well, then, the big longshore unions objected. The International Longshoremen's Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehouseman's Union don't like these little guys because sometimes the little guys don't use the longshore unions to put these shipments together. So the longshoremen's unions go to the majority leader and the Senator from Texas and say: We are not going to let this bill pass unless you help us drive these little people out of business and say that we will give all of these new competitive advantages to the big boys, who automatically use the longshore unions, but we are not going to give the benefits of competition to the little people, to that small shipper from Cheyenne, WY; we are not going to give them to that freight intermediary in Seattle, WA, or in Newark, NJ. Oh, no. They still have to publish their rates. They still can't enter into long term contracts and make the best possible deal. So not only are you depriving the small shippers and transportation intermediaries of an advantage of a free market, you are telling them they are in a terribly unfavored competitive situation as against the ocean carriers themselves. You are forcing the small shipper in Cheyenne, if he can possibly do so, to go directly to the ocean carrier. What kind of deal do you expect he is going to get under those circumstances? He doesn't know anything about these transactions and he doesn't have any expert working for him. He will pay far more than his large competitor will for the carriage of his goods. Or, of course, he could still go to the intermediary, but the intermediary can't get as good a deal for him as the large shipper can get. You listened to the unanimous consent that preceded this debate, Mr. President, and you may have questioned the end of it. The end of it states that if I win, the ball game is over. If my amendment is adopted, most of the members of the party that claims to be for the little guy will kill the bill, and they will kill it because the little guy gets equal advantages with the big guy. That is what the unanimous consent is all about. Mr. President, it is no more complicated and no less complicated than just that. If we are willing to put our votes where our mouths are when we go home and talk about the virtues of small businesses, if we are willing to carry out the kind of pledges we make in our election campaigns and treat people equally, if we are willing to say that if a competitive market is good for the large, it is good for the small, we will vote for the Gorton amendment and see whether or not the people on the other side dare kill a procompetitive bill just because it doesn't add to the monopoly of two unions at the expense of small businesses all across the United States of America. Mr. President, I ask that you and other Members of this body consider this matter in the 2\1/2\ weeks we are going to be away, and see whether or not we don't want to treat people fairly and not ratify an agreement that was made behind closed doors, with the ocean carriers present and the big shippers present and the unions present, but the small business people told: Get lost; we are not going to listen to you while we make this deal. That is the wrong way to reach an agreement, and it is the wrong way to pass legislation. We can correct it by passing this amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, I simply would like a clarification that the 20 minutes, after the recess is over, is 20 minutes on the Gorton amendment, is it not?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Texas. We are about finished with debate on this amendment, and it is the appropriate course of action for both of us to yield back our time. I will maybe take 2 minutes on it and then relieve the Chair for my assignment there, and we can go on to something else. Mr. President, I appreciate the courteous response of the Senator from Texas to my remarks. Again I have to say that she and I agree profoundly on the goals of this legislation. I am proud that she has been able to build on what I started a decade and a half ago. She has worked as hard and almost as long on this bill as I did on the 1984 act itself. It certainly can be said they go in precisely the same direction--more competition, better service, and a higher degree of competitiveness on the part of American business in that portion of the world's merchant marine, including the U.S. flag merchant marine that operates out of the United States. She is certainly right when she says many of the current rules disadvantage American businesses and cause some shipments to go to Canada or Mexico that might otherwise come directly here. The amendment that I have proposed, of course, moves another major step in that direction. It is, as I emphasized, exactly what the Senator from Texas wanted when she wrote the bill in the committee and was forced to retreat from by these large interests, particularly the maritime unions. But it does disadvantage one group. If you have a semicompetitive system and all American businesses, large and small, operate under the same rules, that is one thing. If you have a system that says the big boys get to operate under much less restrictive rules, do not have to publish their fares and their tariffs, can enter into any kind of agreements they want, but the little guys cannot, they are still subject to those old rules, you have created a fundamentally unfair situation. When that unfairness is directed at small shippers and small freight consolidaters, the difference, the discrimination, is particularly egregious. I agree with the Senator from Texas. However it ends up, this is not the final form of the bill; it has not passed the House of Representatives yet. But, Mr. President, you and my colleagues should not fool yourselves to think if we do not adopt this fairness amendment, this small business amendment now, it is somehow going to come back in later. I think if we do adopt it now, we have a far greater opportunity to see to it that this bill is not only procompetition and deregulatory but fair; that all the people, all the groups in America who deserve that fairness, the small businesses, about whom we talk so much on every one of our trips home, do deserve an equal opportunity to compete. That is all this amendment is about. It allows the little guys to contract the way the big guys contract. Often we will make a policy that says the little people will have an advantage over the big ones because the big ones have the advantage of their bigness. Rarely do we say, as we are asked to here, that we will give the big guys an advantage and deprive their small competitors of that advantage. Equal the playing field. If competition is good for the large shippers, it is good for the small shippers. If it is good for the large carriers, it is good for the small carriers. That is what this amendment is all about. With that, I will yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield for a moment? I am informed by staff that, assuming the passage of this resolution, it will be the earliest the Senate has ever passed a budget resolution and probably the first time that the manager has not lost a single amendment in which he was interested.

Mr. GORTON. Thank you for your commitment to this effort. I look forward to working with you during the Conference Committee to see that this issue is resolved in a favorable manner. sec fees

Mr. GORTON. I am concerned about one program which has been slated as an offset for transportation increases--the Market Access Program. The Market Access Program is a USDA cost-share program which provides assistance to U.S. agriculture when competing against subsidized nations overseas. In the State of Washington we have seen a dramatic increase in apple exports from 4.5 million boxes to over 25.1 million--an increase of over 500 percent. Export sales now total well over $300 million. This success is due, in part, to the Market Access Program. MAP is absolutely essential if U.S. agriculture is to remain viable and competitive in the international marketplace.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, six months ago, I came to the floor of the United States Senate to announce my reluctant support for removing one of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. Today, after spending countless hours working with interested Washington State residents, I am introducing legislation to accomplish this difficult and costly endeavor provided certain conditions are met. As I mentioned in my statement last fall, I have never been enthusiastic about the idea of dam removal on the Elwha River as a means to enhance declining salmon runs on the river. For many years, national environmental groups, the Clinton Administration, much of the Northwest media, and many Northwest elected officials have pushed for removal of both dams from the Elwha River. In 1992, I supported legislation to begin the process of having the government acquire both of these dams with an eye toward removing them someday. While I have always been enthusiastic about the federal government buying these two dams from a local paper company, I continue to be skeptical toward claims that salmon runs will see a significant benefit through dam removal on the Elwha River. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to ask him why salmon runs on nearby rivers on the Olympic Peninsula with no dams are doing just as poorly. I am quite certain, however, that there are clear costs to dam removal. The taxpayers must pay at least $65 million to remove just one dam on the Elwha River. Power generation will be lost, and in the case of the Elwha River dams, serious questions remain about the potential damage to the City of Port Angeles' water supply. As I weigh these costs against the potential benefits to salmon, I have generally inclined against dam removal. Unfortunately, the issue isn't as simple as a cost-benefit analysis. There is a wild card over which I have no control that could have a devastating effect on the Port Angeles community. The lower Elwha River dam produces a tiny amount of power--only a quarter of the amount of power produced by the upper Elwha River dam and a minuscule amount in comparison to our productive Snake and Columbia River dams. In addition, the lower Elwha River dam is in poor physical condition. These two factors, combined with the desire of the Interior Secretary to tear down a dam, have me concerned that there is a very real and growing threat that a federal judge or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) could order removal of the Elwha River dams without Congressional approval. A court or agency ordered removal will impose all of the costs of removing the dams on the local community, jobs will be destroyed, and Port Angeles' supply of clean drinking water will be threatened. The risk of court or agency action is too great and will leave the local community in a terrible position if a judge, or a Washington, DC bureaucrat, suddenly decides he needs to be in charge of this issue. Instead, if Congress acts, we can remove the wild card and assure an important level of community protection. Thus, I have conditioned my support for this dam's removal on certain legislated protection for Port Angeles' water supply and protection for the jobs created by the local mill. No legislation to remove the dam will pass the U.S. Senate without these protections while I am a member. As a result of these recent developments and circumstances beyond my control, this comprehensive package will complete the federal government's acquisition of both Elwha River dams, authorizes removal of one dam, while at the same time protecting local economic interests. Over the last three years, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee that I chair has appropriated $11 million of the $29.5 million necessary to complete the acquisition of the projects. Acquisitions of the projects is extremely important to the future economic health of the Port Angeles community. While the James River Corporation currently holds title to the projects, Daishowa America, as local owner of the directory paper mill and second largest employer in Clallam County, uses energy from the dams. Clearly, continued uncertainty over the fate of these dams reduces the competitive position of the mill and inhibits future investment in the plant and its equipment. My bill amends the 1992 Act and calls for completion of acquisition of the projects. As Chairman of the Subcommittee that controls the purse strings for this project, I have every intention of allocating the remaining $18.5 million needed to complete acquisition as part of the $699 million worth of additional Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars that we appropriated last year and have yet to be spent. In addition to committing to fund the removal of the Elwha project should it become law, my bill prohibits the Secretary from removing the larger dam, better known as the Clines Canyon Project, for 12 years. Many have asked why we can't remove both dams simultaneously. My answer is that I prefer the phased approach to restoration of the river spelled out by the Elwha Citizens Advisory Committee in its 1996 report. The Committee, which is comprised of a diverse array of local interests, cautions against simultaneous removal of both dams. As an appropriations subcommittee chairman, I can tell them that they are absolutely correct because it is simply unrealistic to expect sufficient funds immediately to remove both projects. More importantly, immediate removal of both projects would have unpredictable consequences for the community's water supply--something my bill is careful to protect--and would needlessly forgo a valuable economic and recreational resource that can be put to use to accomplish restoration activities. When the 12 year moratorium has expired, my bill allows the Secretary to remove the upper dam provided he determines that the benefits of dam removal to salmon restoration and the natural state of the river outweighs the importance of the project's power generation capabilities and the recreational value of the lake that was created by its construction. The 12 year waiting period also spells out several important steps that the Secretary must take to evaluate the impact removing one dam has on fish runs. I firmly believe that should we decide one day to remove the second dam, we will do a far better job if we take the time to learn from the challenges of removing the first dam before deciding on the fate of the second one. Should the Secretary determine that it is necessary to remove the Glines Canyon project before 12 years have gone by, nothing in the bill I am offering today prevents him from seeking Congressional approval to do so. Finally with regard to the Elwha River, my bill takes several important steps to project the local community from the potentially adverse impacts of dam removal. They include: (1) protecting the quality and quantity of the community's existing water supply to meet current and future demands; (2) continued protection of James River and Daishowa from potential liability; and (3) compensation for Clallam County for further loss of tax revenue due to federal acquisition of the projects. As a Senator who takes pride in trying to represent all interests in my state, I have also taken great interest in the concerns of my constituents in eastern Washington, who while not directly impacted by the removal of the Elwha dam, have legitimate fears that something similar could happen to a dam on the Columbia or Snake Rivers. Clearly some groups and agency officials within the Clinton-Gore Administration want to use the removal of Elwha River dams as a first step toward removing or severely limiting the effectiveness of Columbia River system hydroelectric dams. Already, the Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating dam removal on the Snake River as a legitimate option. The Corps has even taken the unprecedented step of paying Pacific Northwest residents $12 to fill out a totally biased survey in favor of dam removal to build support for this cause. I will never support such efforts to cripple the world's most productive hydro system. As the source of the nation's lowest power rates, water for irrigating productive farmland in three states, and a cost effective transportation system that moves our agricultural products to market, these dams are truly the lifeblood of our economy in the Pacific Northwest. While Columbia River dams have hurt salmon runs, that damage was felt primarily in the 1930's and 1940's. Since the last Columbia River dam was constructed we still had large and healthy salmon runs. The last decade's decline in Columbia River salmon runs cannot be honestly attributed solely to our hydroelectric facilities. Nevertheless, we can and should do more for salmon especially by acting in a more coordinated way to restore this vital resource. But the costs associated with removing dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers will vastly exceed any potential benefit that might occur in terms of salmon restoration. Rather than working cooperatively with local communities directly impacted by the Columbia-Snake Resource on a rational policy that balances the rivers' important uses, the Clinton-Gore Administration has chosen a combative policy. Its approach punishes people who make their livelihoods from this resource and who have made good faith efforts to reach out and work together. Another example of the draconian actions federal agencies are using against ordinary people who depend on the Columbia Snake River System for their livelihoods is the National Marine Fisheries Service's recently announced Columbia Basin water policy. The NMFS approach seeks to discourage or even eliminate any new additional water withdrawals for municipal, industrial, or irrigation development within the Basin. The NMFS policy goes even further in challenging the legislative authority of states to regulate, manage, and allocate water rights. If adopted, the NMFS policy would effectively abrogate state authority to grant future water rights for such uses. By calling for a review of existing water withdrawals, the policy postures toward challenging existing state-granted water rights. The agency has completely ignored the efforts of local irrigators to work together on a plan that balances the rivers' competing uses. Moreover, the agency has taken this direction without Congressional approval. Given the out-of-control nature of agencies like the Corps and NMFS to go beyond their statutory authority to severely compromise the Columbia-Snake system as well as their eagerness to tear down a Columbia-Snake River dam, I would not be surprised to see this administration try to fulfill its dream without Congressional approval. The people of my state are simply fed up with this top down approach and my bill attempts to do something about it. In addition to prohibiting the removal or breach of any dam on the Columbia or Snake Rivers, my bill prohibits any federal or state agency from taking the following actions without an act of Congress: (1) Impairing flood control activities on the Columbia-Snake system; (2) Reducing the power and energy generating capacity of federally owned and federally licensed projects to unaffordable levels; (3) Further restricting access to the Columbia or Snake River for irrigation and recreational use; (4) Impairing the river navigation system; and (5) Restricting state water rights. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest on building support for my proposal. If the Administration can not bring itself to support something very close to what's in the Columbia-Snake River section of this bill, we will know just how serious it is about dam removal in eastern Washington. I have made major concessions to bring myself to support removal of a dam even though I find the policy a dubious one, and if the administration is serious about preserving the effectiveness of the Columbia-Snake system it will support my proposal.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, six months ago, I came to the floor of the United States Senate to announce my reluctant support for removing one of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. Today, after spending countless hours working with interested Washington State residents, I am introducing legislation to accomplish this difficult and costly endeavor provided certain conditions are met. As I mentioned in my statement last fall, I have never been enthusiastic about the idea of dam removal on the Elwha River as a means to enhance declining salmon runs on the river. For many years, national environmental groups, the Clinton Administration, much of the Northwest media, and many Northwest elected officials have pushed for removal of both dams from the Elwha River. In 1992, I supported legislation to begin the process of having the government acquire both of these dams with an eye toward removing them someday. While I have always been enthusiastic about the federal government buying these two dams from a local paper company, I continue to be skeptical toward claims that salmon runs will see a significant benefit through dam removal on the Elwha River. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to ask him why salmon runs on nearby rivers on the Olympic Peninsula with no dams are doing just as poorly. I am quite certain, however, that there are clear costs to dam removal. The taxpayers must pay at least $65 million to remove just one dam on the Elwha River. Power generation will be lost, and in the case of the Elwha River dams, serious questions remain about the potential damage to the City of Port Angeles' water supply. As I weigh these costs against the potential benefits to salmon, I have generally inclined against dam removal. Unfortunately, the issue isn't as simple as a cost-benefit analysis. There is a wild card over which I have no control that could have a devastating effect on the Port Angeles community. The lower Elwha River dam produces a tiny amount of power--only a quarter of the amount of power produced by the upper Elwha River dam and a minuscule amount in comparison to our productive Snake and Columbia River dams. In addition, the lower Elwha River dam is in poor physical condition. These two factors, combined with the desire of the Interior Secretary to tear down a dam, have me concerned that there is a very real and growing threat that a federal judge or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) could order removal of the Elwha River dams without Congressional approval. A court or agency ordered removal will impose all of the costs of removing the dams on the local community, jobs will be destroyed, and Port Angeles' supply of clean drinking water will be threatened. The risk of court or agency action is too great and will leave the local community in a terrible position if a judge, or a Washington, DC bureaucrat, suddenly decides he needs to be in charge of this issue. Instead, if Congress acts, we can remove the wild card and assure an important level of community protection. Thus, I have conditioned my support for this dam's removal on certain legislated protection for Port Angeles' water supply and protection for the jobs created by the local mill. No legislation to remove the dam will pass the U.S. Senate without these protections while I am a member. As a result of these recent developments and circumstances beyond my control, this comprehensive package will complete the federal government's acquisition of both Elwha River dams, authorizes removal of one dam, while at the same time protecting local economic interests. Over the last three years, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee that I chair has appropriated $11 million of the $29.5 million necessary to complete the acquisition of the projects. Acquisitions of the projects is extremely important to the future economic health of the Port Angeles community. While the James River Corporation currently holds title to the projects, Daishowa America, as local owner of the directory paper mill and second largest employer in Clallam County, uses energy from the dams. Clearly, continued uncertainty over the fate of these dams reduces the competitive position of the mill and inhibits future investment in the plant and its equipment. My bill amends the 1992 Act and calls for completion of acquisition of the projects. As Chairman of the Subcommittee that controls the purse strings for this project, I have every intention of allocating the remaining $18.5 million needed to complete acquisition as part of the $699 million worth of additional Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars that we appropriated last year and have yet to be spent. In addition to committing to fund the removal of the Elwha project should it become law, my bill prohibits the Secretary from removing the larger dam, better known as the Clines Canyon Project, for 12 years. Many have asked why we can't remove both dams simultaneously. My answer is that I prefer the phased approach to restoration of the river spelled out by the Elwha Citizens Advisory Committee in its 1996 report. The Committee, which is comprised of a diverse array of local interests, cautions against simultaneous removal of both dams. As an appropriations subcommittee chairman, I can tell them that they are absolutely correct because it is simply unrealistic to expect sufficient funds immediately to remove both projects. More importantly, immediate removal of both projects would have unpredictable consequences for the community's water supply--something my bill is careful to protect--and would needlessly forgo a valuable economic and recreational resource that can be put to use to accomplish restoration activities. When the 12 year moratorium has expired, my bill allows the Secretary to remove the upper dam provided he determines that the benefits of dam removal to salmon restoration and the natural state of the river outweighs the importance of the project's power generation capabilities and the recreational value of the lake that was created by its construction. The 12 year waiting period also spells out several important steps that the Secretary must take to evaluate the impact removing one dam has on fish runs. I firmly believe that should we decide one day to remove the second dam, we will do a far better job if we take the time to learn from the challenges of removing the first dam before deciding on the fate of the second one. Should the Secretary determine that it is necessary to remove the Glines Canyon project before 12 years have gone by, nothing in the bill I am offering today prevents him from seeking Congressional approval to do so. Finally with regard to the Elwha River, my bill takes several important steps to project the local community from the potentially adverse impacts of dam removal. They include: (1) protecting the quality and quantity of the community's existing water supply to meet current and future demands; (2) continued protection of James River and Daishowa from potential liability; and (3) compensation for Clallam County for further loss of tax revenue due to federal acquisition of the projects. As a Senator who takes pride in trying to represent all interests in my state, I have also taken great interest in the concerns of my constituents in eastern Washington, who while not directly impacted by the removal of the Elwha dam, have legitimate fears that something similar could happen to a dam on the Columbia or Snake Rivers. Clearly some groups and agency officials within the Clinton-Gore Administration want to use the removal of Elwha River dams as a first step toward removing or severely limiting the effectiveness of Columbia River system hydroelectric dams. Already, the Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating dam removal on the Snake River as a legitimate option. The Corps has even taken the unprecedented step of paying Pacific Northwest residents $12 to fill out a totally biased survey in favor of dam removal to build support for this cause. I will never support such efforts to cripple the world's most productive hydro system. As the source of the nation's lowest power rates, water for irrigating productive farmland in three states, and a cost effective transportation system that moves our agricultural products to market, these dams are truly the lifeblood of our economy in the Pacific Northwest. While Columbia River dams have hurt salmon runs, that damage was felt primarily in the 1930's and 1940's. Since the last Columbia River dam was constructed we still had large and healthy salmon runs. The last decade's decline in Columbia River salmon runs cannot be honestly attributed solely to our hydroelectric facilities. Nevertheless, we can and should do more for salmon especially by acting in a more coordinated way to restore this vital resource. But the costs associated with removing dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers will vastly exceed any potential benefit that might occur in terms of salmon restoration. Rather than working cooperatively with local communities directly impacted by the Columbia-Snake Resource on a rational policy that balances the rivers' important uses, the Clinton-Gore Administration has chosen a combative policy. Its approach punishes people who make their livelihoods from this resource and who have made good faith efforts to reach out and work together. Another example of the draconian actions federal agencies are using against ordinary people who depend on the Columbia Snake River System for their livelihoods is the National Marine Fisheries Service's recently announced Columbia Basin water policy. The NMFS approach seeks to discourage or even eliminate any new additional water withdrawals for municipal, industrial, or irrigation development within the Basin. The NMFS policy goes even further in challenging the legislative authority of states to regulate, manage, and allocate water rights. If adopted, the NMFS policy would effectively abrogate state authority to grant future water rights for such uses. By calling for a review of existing water withdrawals, the policy postures toward challenging existing state-granted water rights. The agency has completely ignored the efforts of local irrigators to work together on a plan that balances the rivers' competing uses. Moreover, the agency has taken this direction without Congressional approval. Given the out-of-control nature of agencies like the Corps and NMFS to go beyond their statutory authority to severely compromise the Columbia-Snake system as well as their eagerness to tear down a Columbia-Snake River dam, I would not be surprised to see this administration try to fulfill its dream without Congressional approval. The people of my state are simply fed up with this top down approach and my bill attempts to do something about it. In addition to prohibiting the removal or breach of any dam on the Columbia or Snake Rivers, my bill prohibits any federal or state agency from taking the following actions without an act of Congress: (1) Impairing flood control activities on the Columbia-Snake system; (2) Reducing the power and energy generating capacity of federally owned and federally licensed projects to unaffordable levels; (3) Further restricting access to the Columbia or Snake River for irrigation and recreational use; (4) Impairing the river navigation system; and (5) Restricting state water rights. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest on building support for my proposal. If the Administration can not bring itself to support something very close to what's in the Columbia-Snake River section of this bill, we will know just how serious it is about dam removal in eastern Washington. I have made major concessions to bring myself to support removal of a dam even though I find the policy a dubious one, and if the administration is serious about preserving the effectiveness of the Columbia-Snake system it will support my proposal.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. I announce on behalf of the majority leader there will be no further votes this evening.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the Kyl amendment at 12 noon, Wednesday, April 1, and no amendments be in order to the Kyl amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. This sounds like a generous offer. I will ask now that Senator Reid of Nevada be recognized to offer an amendment in spite of the existing unanimous consent agreement, and then when he is done, we will see who is here and perhaps be able to accommodate Senator Allard.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are operating under a unanimous consent agreement under which the next two amendments are to be proposed by Senator Conrad of North Dakota and Senator Coverdell of Georgia. Neither of them is here. We do have two Senators here who are ready to offer amendments, Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Allard of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent now that we hear first from Senator Reid and then from Senator Allard, warn the other two Senators that this will take perhaps half an hour combined, something of that sort, and they will come after that.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Does the Presiding Officer have any additional appointments? If not, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate the two judicial nominees from Washington state. The federal bench will be enriched by the addition of Margaret McKeown to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as it will by Edward Shea's presence on federal district court for the Eastern District of Washington. Both Margaret McKeown and Edward Shea are deservedly respected within the legal community and in the community at large, and well qualified to perform the important jobs for which they have been chosen. Ed Shea has been in private practice in Pasco, Washington for many years. He has handled a wide range of cases, both civil and criminal, and his experience will have prepared him well for the job he's about to undertake. As testament to the respect he commands within the Washington legal community, Ed served as President of the Washington State Bar Association in 1996. Equally impressive as his commitment to his profession is his commitment to his community. Over the years, he has contributed his time and talent to a host of worthy causes, including the March of Dimes, the Tri-Cities Sexual Assault Response Center, and the Association of Retarded Citizens. Margaret McKeown also comes to the bench from private practice. She is a high technology litigator of national repute, with a particular expertise in antitrust and intellectual property. She was also the first woman partner at the prestigious Seattle law firm, Perkins Coie, where she practices today. Her remarkable intellect, and the accomplishments that evidence speak to her ability to perform the job with which she has been entrusted. There is no question that Margaret McKeown is familiar with the law. But, as her statement to the graduating class of the University of Washington Law School last year reflects, in this case familiarity did not breed contempt. Her mastery and understanding of the legal process rang through her commencement address. As did her continued respect for the law. She also urged the new lawyers to bear in mind her own formula for survival, a formula composed of five elements: humor, humility, hubris, humanity and home. The formula is one that has made Margaret an excellent lawyer. I am confident it will make her an excellent judge. I thank my colleagues for joining me in supporting both of these nominees. And I congratulate them again.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Earlier this afternoon, I introduced an amendment which would have instructed the U.S. representative to the International Monetary Fund to vote against any proposal with respect to Indonesia that would have benefited President Soeharto or his family or his close associates. I did so because it seemed to me that while several of the Nations in Southeast Asia that have been subjected to these runs on their currency and toward the present economic crisis were close friends of the United States, had developed democratic institutions like our own, were struggling toward free markets like our own, this was not taking place in Indonesia. It was a wholly-owned family subsidiary benefiting largely the Soeharto family and not the people of Indonesia. I pointed out that it seemed to me unfair to impose heavy requirements on friends of ours like the Republic of Korea and the Philippine Republic and allow any IMF money to go to Indonesia that was resisting all of the attempts by IMF to reform its economy. Others, including the Treasury, the distinguished chairman of the committee, and many others who have been interested in the International Monetary Fund asked me to modify my amendment. I have done so, to make it more narrow with respect to aid to the Soeharto family, narrow enough so I must say, I think it is symbolic only, but to require the United States not to favor any proposition with respect to Indonesia that is less stringent than those that the IMF is imposing on the Republic of Korea and the Philippine Republic, two of the closest allies and best friends with the longest association with the United States of any of the countries of Southeast Asia. With that motion, I understand the amendment is acceptable and will be adopted by a voice vote. But I do want to say that I know that I represent a strong strain of opinion in this Senate that we should not be bailing out the Soeharto family, even indirectly, through our contributions to the International Monetary Fund. I want the message to be heard loud and clear in Jakarta that true reforms to its economy are absolutely essential, that the International Monetary Fund and the United States are simply not interested in bailing out a family enterprise--fortunes stolen through corruption and inside dealing in the way that has been all too true in Indonesia over the course of the past decades--that there is a difference among the countries seeking aid in Southeast Asia from the International Monetary Fund. I am told that in some respects the requirements being imposed on Indonesia are tougher than those on South Korea and the Philippine Republic. If so, that is fine. But I certainly don't want us favoring Indonesia over those two nations that have been our allies for such an extended period of time. So even if this amendment is only symbolic at this point--and it may very well be--I think the symbolism is important. I think that symbolism is vitally important. I believe as a general proposition that it is in the interests of the United States to help the International Monetary Fund help countries that are willing to try to help themselves out of a severe economic crisis, even selfishly from the point of view of our own economy and our own exporters who are already seeing, in increasing trade deficits, the adverse impacts on trade in the crisis in Southeast Asia. Certain IMF assistance is in the interest of the United States. Bailing out the Soeharto family is not, and that is what this amendment is designed to accomplish.