T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on January 5, 1995, four firefighters were killed in a blaze in Seattle's International District. After intensive investigations by the Seattle police and fire departments, the King County Prosecutor's Office, the U.S. Attorney General's Office, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Martin S. Pang was charged with deliberately setting his parents' seafood warehouse on fire to collect insurance money. In January of 1995, Mr. Pang fled to Brazil where he stayed until March 1, 1996. He was extradited on the condition that murder charges not be brought against him. The focus of this resolution is on that extradition, and why those conditions should be waived by the Brazilian Government to see that justice is fully served. You see, Mr. President, under the extradition treaty we have with Brazil, criminal suspects may only be extradited to face charges for crimes that exist in both countries. In Brazil, murder as a result of arson is not a crime. It is in the United States. Martin Pang's pretrial hearing is scheduled for October 8, 1996. Under the conditions of our extradition treaty, the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled that Pang could be returned to the States to face arson charges only. Murder, a crime of which he has been accused and which he should stand trial for, is not an option. There is recourse, however. The United States Government believes that under our extradition treaty, the executive branch of Brazil has the authority to consent to the prosecution of Martin Pang on felony murder charges, despite the Brazilian Supreme Court's ruling. By doing so in this case, Brazil would give its consent for the United States to try Pang on all of the charges which have been brought against him. This resolution sends a strong message to the Brazilian Government. Four firefighters died doing their job honorably. It is no less our responsibility to see that the accused be tried for the full scope of his crime.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Alaska is entirely correct. The National Park Service is not set up to be the manager of the extensive and varied kinds of buildings that are found on the Presidio, very expensive to keep up, very expensive in requiring a great deal of sensitivity to lease or to rent in a way that is consistent with the land around and in the Presidio itself. So the trust is clearly the right way to go, and that is the leading element of the bill that the Senator from Alaska has reported. It is by no means the only one. As I understand from his notes, as many as 41 States may have projects that are helped by that bill. I hope, as the Senator from Alaska does, that the Senate will take it up promptly and will pass it promptly and it will be signed by the President. But in any event, that is the only way we are going to get from here to there.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to say to my dear friend, the distinguished colleague from Alaska, how much I have admired all of the work that he has done as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and especially for his dedication to putting together and crafting a bill with a wide-ranging impact on our national parks and on other recreational land, and lands that are appropriate for preservation. I know how much that he wanted also to pass and have included provisions that are very important to him and to the people he represents in Alaska, and to other Members of this body. I must confess that I felt that his ambitions were as great as they were worthy and that they were very likely to cause this body to not be able to act on many of these matters. As a consequence at the request of a number of Members of both the House and Senate, I have seriously considered whether or not it is appropriate to include in the Department of the Interior portion of our appropriations bill at least some of the important and not so controversial elements of that bill. I do have a particular interest--not that of a constituent interest--in one part of that. The Presidio portion of that bill is very important because the Presidio is by far the most expensive of our national parks and takes up a tremendous amount of the appropriations in which I supervise and oversee and chair in this body. To get the kind of community participation in San Francisco that we have desired to take some of the burdens of the local aspects of the Presidio off our hands so that we can better fund other national parks is important. So that was one element of the bill that we proposed to include. I have been as delighted, however, as I was surprised at the ability of the Senator from Alaska now to put together a conference committee report which is ready to be reported and debated in the Senate. I simply say to my colleagues they are not going to get the half or quarter loaf that was a possibility in the appropriations bill. This was an alternative if the conference committee could not work a way out. I am as committed and as dedicated to the passage of the entire bill that the Senator from Alaska as the chairman of the committee has submitted, I hope, almost as much as he is. It is, in the vernacular, the only train through town during the rest of this session, and I hope the Senate will soon be able to take it up and be able to pass it. With that, I yield.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator, while he retains the floor, yield for a question?

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the two of us who represent the State of Washington in the U.S. Senate, this is a day that is both joyous and sad. It is sad because on December 31 of this year, we will miss the company of Dr. Jack Lein who, for decades, has represented the University of Washington before this body and with particularly, of course, the Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate who represent the State of Washington. It is a happy occasion, of course, because it gives us an opportunity to crown his career with at least a tiny share of the praise that it deserves. I can say, Mr. President, after a relatively long career in the U.S. Senate and an even longer one in the Government of the State of Washington, that no person, no individual representing an institution has matched Jack Lein in the quality of his knowledge about the issues that he brings to us, in his dedication to the university that he represents, or in the personal qualities which cause all of us to welcome him into our office, to go out of our way to seek his company and to learn from him. He has been nonpartisan or bipartisan in the highest sense of that term, with an ability to tell wonderful and always affirmative stories about the people he has met along the way, but with the overwhelming ability to cause us, who obviously believe in our university and want to help our university, to go even further than we would otherwise do simply because it is so important to please him and to help him. He will be not just difficult to follow in that respect, he will be impossible to follow in that respect. So from the point of view of this Senator--and I know that my sentiments are shared, as they have already been expressed, by my junior colleague--we are not just simply missing someone who represents a vital institution to us here in this body, we are going to miss a very close friend, a good and delightful companion, a wonderful servant of this institution and his State and his medical profession in Dr. Jack Lein. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Within the programs authorized in S. 1994, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, are allocations for noise mitigation. Under the Airport Improvement Program [AIP], the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] has allocated funds to airports of all sizes to implement noise mitigation programs. Due to lower funding levels of the AIP, the FAA has recently implemented a rule that limits an airport to $8 million maximum for Federal noise mitigation funds--$5 million a year for single family housing and $3 million a year for all other uses. Mr. President, while this type of new cap may be appropriate in certain circumstances, I believe that a single cap, regardless of an airport interests or needs, is inappropriate for two reasons. First, in evaluating existing noise programs around the country, I think it is evident that certain airports have made noise mitigation a top priority. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, for example, has been the national leader and was the first to implement the local housing insulation program to reduce noise impacts in houses surrounding the airport. Having enacted noise mitigation programs, certain airports that enacted plans prior to imposition of this new cap, and after extensive negotiations and commitments with both the surrounding communities and the FAA, are now expected to follow through on previous commitments. If the program cost exceeds the new cap, the FAA is essentially abandoning its previous commitments. I believe that is unacceptable. Second, it is clear that large airports in densely populated areas should have to implement broader noise mitigation programs than small, general aviation airports. For that reason, a single, hard cap for all airports, regardless of size and location, is not the best way to distribute funds in an equitable manner. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona knows that I included language in the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations Senate report that directs the FAA to consider pledges and agreements made by the airport authority, in consultation with the FAA, to communities prior to the promulgation of the new ceiling, and to make appropriate exceptions to the policy where necessary to meet legitimate expectations of neighborhoods near airports. Because the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations House report was silent on the issue, the Senate language is the prevailing language that should be followed by the FAA. I believe it is appropriate, however, to also discuss this matter within the context of this legislation to ensure that my sentiments on this issue are correct.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there being relatively few people here, I ask unanimous consent that that time be extended at least for those Members who are willing to speak on this issue tonight.

Mr. GORTON. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 minutes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, our journey to this point on this bill has been long and tortured. And at the end of the road I find a product that, from the Washington State perspective, is greatly improved from the measure that passed out of committee and immeasurably better than H.R. 39, which was rejected by every Member of the Washington delegation, Republican and Democrat alike, and which has my support. Let me make absolutely clear, however, that even though I will vote for S. 39, as amended by the manager's amendment, any unilateral changes made by the House will be the death knell to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in this Congress. The Sustainable Fisheries Act has been sold, and bought hook, line, and sinker, by the national press and the majority of my colleagues, as the strongest environmental bill of this Congress. That is, I am afraid, an overly simplistic characterization. I do not, and have not, taken issue with the true conservation measures in S. 39. But the act is as much a social and economic manifesto as an environmental one. The bill is as much about the allocation of fishery resources--the allocation between commercial and recreational fishers, between processors and harvesters, between on- shore and offshore processors, and yes, between Washington and Alaska, as it is about the conservation of fish. Before I comment on what I think is wrong with this measure, I would like to recognize those aspects that are sound. I generally endorse the measure's conservation provisions; its treatment of individual fishing quotas; and its efforts to mitigate the effects of the Federal court's allocation of shellfish resources to Indian tribes in Washington State. Conservation of Fishery Resources The conservation provisions in S. 39 are the only aspect of the bill that most of the public knows or cares about. Contrary to reports, I join my colleagues in lauding those provisions that aim to reduce waste and bycatch in the fisheries, to prevent overfishing, and to restore overfished fisheries to health. But I take a more cautious view of the extent to which these worthy goals will be achieved than do most of my colleagues and members of the national press. This bill pushes the regional fishery management councils, some of which have proven unwilling to practice sound management, in the direction of responsible conduct. In fact, I don't believe that the Sustainable Fisheries Act empowers the fishery management councils, or the Secretary of Commerce, to do much more than these entities already are empowered to do. Rather, the Sustainable Fisheries Act is a statement by Congress that conservation of the resource must be a priority, and the bill highlights the tools that councils and the Secretary can use to achieve this goal. I approve of inviting fishery managers to act more responsibly, but I urge vigilance. Regional politics and short-term interests have conspired in the past to undermine responsible resource management to certain fisheries. It is naive to think that this bill alone can correct this condition. It cannot. So while I support the conservation provisions in S. 39, I caution that the work of ensuring responsible conservation and management of fishery resources does not end with the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act--it only begins. Ironically, the fishery that has been singled out in S. 39 for particularly stringent waste and bycatch reduction measures is the North Pacific groundfish fishery. I do not now object, and have never objected to the bill's prescriptions for this Washington State- dominated trawl fishery, but it is important to note that the singling out of this fishery is a function of politics and not sound science. Despite its Alaska-heavy composition, the North Pacific Council, to which many of the bill's waste and bycatch reduction provisions are addressed, has been praised for its resource conservation measures. Despite its recent dramatic public demonstrations, even GreenPeace acknowledged in 1992 that ``The North Pacific * * * provide[s] a model for the way other [regional fishery management] Councils should be managing the fisheries in this nation and probably in the world.'' Again, I do not oppose strong and sensible bycatch and waste reduction measures in the North Pacific groundfish fishery, but only so long as the singling out of any sector of a fishery is supported by scientific evidence. I note that recently, GreenPeace launched a public relations attack on the Seattle-based factory trawlers in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. Certainly GreenPeace is within its rights to do so. I sincerely hope, however, that as we continue to strive toward responsible management of our fisheries, that we do not allow policy to be set by meretricious activists whose often uninformed rantings drown out the voices of scientists, fishery managers, and environmentalists who properly place conservation ahead of a radical social agenda. ifq's My opposition to this bill has often mistakenly been reduced only to a disagreement over the treatment of individual fishing quotas. Ironically, I believe that Senator Stevens and I were, from the beginning, more in agreement on this issue than on a number of others that affect the allocation of resources in the North Pacific. Although I am not an unqualified supporter of IFQ's, it is hard to ignore the success of the North Pacific halibut-sablefish IFQ program that was implemented last year. The program has not been flawless, but its initial effectiveness in improving safety, providing fresh fish year round to consumers, and reducing overcapitalization in a fishery-- without a regional epidemic of bankruptcies or a hemorrhage of the Federal budget in the form of Federal buy-out assistance--is promising. Throughout this process, I have tried to ensure that this infant program will continue without interruption. I sincerely appreciate Senator Stevens' support on this issue. I believe that Senator Stevens and I agree that IFQ's are a powerful tool, and that it is reasonable to adopt a moratorium to suspend, for a time, the implementation of new IFQ programs until we have had the chance further to study and better to understand the social and economic effects of IFQ's on the conservation and management of resources, on participants in all sectors of the industry--harvesters and processor alike, and on the American public. Senator Stevens and I have disagreed, however, on the duration of this moratorium. We also had a critical disagreement over whether or not IFQ's should be barred indefinitely in the North Pacific by requiring a supermajority vote of a council to adopt new IFQ's in the absence of further congressional action on this subject. Despite these disagreements, the Senate has reached a reasonable compromise. The moratorium on the implementation of new IFQ's is longer than I would have liked--it is 4 years--but it is finite, and requires no supermajority vote of councils after the moratorium expires. The compromise provisions also permit councils to study and develop IFQ's during the moratorium. Moreover, the moratorium on IFQ's will not preclude the implementation of a new bycatch accountability system that should help to reduce bycatch by holding every vessel accountable for what it catches. Significantly, the Sustainable Fisheries Act provides for a comprehensive study of IFQ's by the National Academy of Sciences, which study which will be available to educate Congress when we next consider this issue. Education is critical: despite my reservations about implementing new IFQ's in the North Pacific at this time, I consider it pure folly to adopt the House approach of crippling all prospective quota programs before we have had the chance to assess them adequately. Mitigating the effects of U.S. versus Washington I fully support the provisions of the bill that attempt to mitigate the loss to Washington's commercial crabbers caused by the adjudication of tribal claims to shellfish in a subproceeding of U.S. versus Washington. Last year, a decision by a district court, a decision that is now on appeal, allocated a large portion of the catch to Indian tribes and threatens to deprive nontribal fishermen, who have been fishing for generations, of their livelihoods. We have amended S. 39 in two ways to try to mitigate the loss to nontribal commercial crabbers in Washington. First, the manager's amendment now authorizes State-managed fisheries, such as the 250- vessel inner Puget Sound dungeness crab fishery, to obtain Federal funds for a license buy-out program. Second, for the coastal dungeness fishery, the manager's amendment gives Washington, for a limited time until a Fishery Management Plan is in place, tools to regulate all crabbers equally in the exclusive economic zone adjacent to the State. This new regulatory authority will help to ensure that the cost of the tribal allocation will be borne more fairly by all commercial crabbers who fish in the EEZ adjacent to Washington, not just crabbers whose vessels are registered in the State. The managers amendment permits the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, among other things, to set pot limits to slow the pace of fishing by all nontribal commercial crabbers to help facilitate management or settlement with the tribes. Although this provision gives Washington, Oregon, and California new powers to regulate vessels not registered in these respective States, and restates these States' ability to regulate landings, the provision is intentionally silent on whether the limited access program in each State can be enforced in the EEZ. I anticipate, however, that when it prepares a Fishery Management Plan for dungeness crab, the Pacific Council will be guided by the limited access programs already in place on the west coast. Having just described those aspects of the bill that I support heartily, I would like to speak for a moment to those that I believe are subject to serious reservations. There are three provisions in this bill that I think are misguided. They are: The provision regarding fishing communities; the demotion of the role of efficiency in fishery management; and the creation of a permanent entitlement program for Native Alaskans in the form of community development quotas. fishing communities The managers' amendment corrects a fundamental inequity in the original S. 39, that would have further skewed the allocation of North Pacific fishery resources in Alaska's favor by giving economic protections and preferences to fishing communities, and by defining these communities so as apparently to exclude any in the State of Washington. While my parochial concerns have been fully addressed in the manager's amendment by redefining ``fishing communities'' to include the communities of tens of thousands of Washingtonians employed in the fishing industry, I continue to believe that establishing a national standard to protect fishing communities is bad policy. It authorizes nothing certain except for bad policy and litigation. Moreover, it seems to me to be contrary to the purported conservation goals of this bill to attempt to insulate fishing communities from the economic effects of instituting sound management and restoring healthy stocks. Correcting years of irresponsible management and concern for short-term profit cannot be accomplished painlessly, though we should strive to minimize that pain. Continuing to delay the inevitable, however, by giving councils another excuse for ineffective conservation measures will only make more likely the total demise of our fisheries. efficiency The Sustainable Fisheries Act demotes the role of efficiency in fishery management and conservation by changing national standard five from one of promoting efficiency in the use of fishery resources, where practicable, to merely considering efficiency. Again, this change was made on the pretext of improving conservation, but the provision's authors have never been able to explain how the current standard undermines conservation efforts, and why this change is needed. Under the guise of promoting conservation, this provision promotes a foolish social agenda--one that fails to reorganize a sensible balance between the legitimate interests of traditional small-vessel fishers, the interests of consumers, and the need to improve productivity to remain competitive in a global economy. There is, I believe, a perception that an attack on efficiency is a triumph for small vessels and a blow to what are perceived to be the larger, more cost-effective vessels such as those in Washington's factory trawlers fleet. This perception reveals a disturbing trend toward unfairly demonizing more productive, more efficient fleets. I repeat my earlier adomination--we need to recognize that good management, not small vessels or large vessels, leads to sound conservation and healthy fisheries, and that there is room in a healthy and efficient fishery for both. CDQ's Without a doubt, the allocation-related provision in this bill that I find most objectionable is the provision mandating a permanent entitlement program for Native Alaskans through community development quotas--an entitlement program that will be paid for largely by the Washington fishing industry. Codifying this assistance program is not only inappropriate in a bill that purports to deal with resources, not social management, but is inappropriate in this Congress, which just recently succeeded in reforming another entitlement program called welfare. CDQ's are set-aside programs that reserve a sizable percentage of various fisheries for Native Alaskan communities. Currently, CDQ's are not authorized by the Magnuson Act. Nevertheless, the Alaska-dominated North Pacific Council has reserved 7\1/2\ percent of the largely Washington-fished Bering Sea pollock stock for Native Alaskan communities, and even larger percentages in the halibut and sablefish fisheries. Recently, the council recommended CDQ's for crab and groundfish, but this recommendation has not yet been approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Not surprisingly, the council has not imposed CDQ's on fisheries dominated by Alaskans. The fundamental unfairness of CDQ's was certainly appreciated by other Members of this body, for the Sustainable Fisheries Act, while going after fishermen from Washington State, protects other fishermen from this particular poison by specifically prohibiting CDQ programs in almost every other part of the country. But since CDQ's would be a reality even in the absence of a Magnuson Act reauthorization, our ability to limit this unfair practice was slight indeed. In exchange for allowing this bill to proceed, I have exacted concessions on the issues of CDQ's. But these concessions are small. First, to provide relief for the Bering Sea crabbers who, even before the implementation of CDQ's are struggling to survive amid record low stocks, the managers' amendment provides for a graduated phase-in of development quotas. In addition, the manager's amendment provides for a study of CDQ's to determine if these development quotas are meeting their stated purpose of facilitating participating communities' entry into commercial fisheries, and to recommend how long this social assistance program should last. Having commented on some of the substantive provisions in this bill, I would like to speak for a moment on the process that brought us to this point. As I stated in my opening remarks, getting here has not been easy. And I have come as far as I intend to go. The committee mark of S. 39 was sprinkled with sweeteners for most interested parties--except Washington harvesters. Washington's sizable fishing fleet was presented with a poison pill more palatable only than the outrage our House delegation was forced to swallow last October. Despite this strategic isolation, I had two invaluable assets--time, and the unwavering support of Senator Murray. As much as I would like to avoid having to repeat this process, I have truly appreciated the opportunity to work so closely with my colleague form Washington State. When it became clear that Senator Murray and I had no intention of succumbing to the attack on our State's fishing industry, a sincere effort was made to address our concerns. Much of the credit for this final compromise is due to the tireless and creative efforts of Senator Kerry and his staff, Senator Pressler and his staff, and the majority leader and his assistants. Credit is due, too, to Senator Stevens and his staff. Because of the different composition of our industries and our constituencies, the Senators from Washington and Alaska may rarely agree on the substance of fishery bills. But although we may lack agreement, I have never lacked trust and respect--I sincerely appreciate the constructive manner with which Senator Stevens and his staff have worked with me and my office even as he resolutely protected the interests of his constituents.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conference report on H.R. 3675, the Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill for FY 1997, incorporated the Amtrak Privatization Study that was included in the Senate report. As my colleagues know, within 1 year, the Federal Railroad Administration is to conduct a study of reforms and specific privatization options that I believe hold the potential to revitalizing intercity passenger rail service in the United States. As the sponsor of the Senate report language, I want to emphasize that this is a very important undertaking. Congress has failed to enact much-needed reforms in liability and other areas during this Congress, and Amtrak is facing numerous financial difficulties. Accordingly, Amtrak announced its intention last month to cut back routes as a means of reducing its current operating deficit. In my view, Congress must not sit by and watch Amtrak wither away. The language included in the ``Statement of Managers'' refers to the Senate initiative, which permits the Federal Railroad Administration's study to include the recommendations of the Discovery Institute Inquiry on Passenger Rail Privatization of October 1995. As many may know, representatives from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA, have already done substantial work on passenger rail privatization. In fact, I recently met with Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, who indicated that the Discovery Institute intends to give this matter high priority. Already, Discovery has scripted plans to form a high- level Public-Private Council, which would assist in the study process, analyze various options, and make recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administrator for the final report, which is to be transmitted to Congress by August 1, 1997. Because of its continued enthusiasm regarding this issue, I would hope that the Discovery Institute is allowed to play a significant role in the Federal Railroad Administration study following its commencement later this year.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on The National Labor Relations Board, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 17, 1996, at 10:00.

Mr. GORTON. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a joint hearing with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to receive the legislative presentations of the American Legion. The hearing will be held on September 17, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room 334 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 17, 1996, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the issue of U.S. Climate Change Policy.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 17, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on economic development on Indian reservations.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet twice during the Tuesday, September 17, 1996 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on airport security and a hearing on computational biology.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, September 17, 1996, at 9:15 a.m., for a hearing on S. 1794, Congressional, Presidential, and Judiciary Pension Forfeiture Act.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, obviously, we are not going to be able to do any more business between now and the scheduled recess for the two parties to meet. As a consequence, I ask unanimous consent that the recess scheduled to begin at 12:30 begin immediately.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I strongly support the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill. Included in the fiscal year 1997 energy and water conference report is an amendment that I authored to amend the Northwest Power Act. My amendment, which has received bipartisan support, would amend the Northwest Power Act to establish an independent scientific review panel and peer review groups, to review annual projects to be funded with BPA ratepayer moneys. Each year, roughly $100 million in BPA ratepayer dollars are spent to fund fish and wildlife projects that support the Northwest Power Planning Council's fish and wildlife plan. The Northwest Power Planning Council is the regional body, created by the Northwest Power Act, that provides advice and input to BPA in spending the annual $100 million in fish and wildlife funds. The purpose of the council program is to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife populations along the Columbia and Snake River system. Currently, the single body that provides advice to the council on the expenditure of these funds, is the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority [CBFWA]. CBFWA is made up of affected tribal officials, State fish and wildlife managers, and representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Prior to my amendment, CBFWA members had recommended that roughly 75 percent of the $100 million annual expenditure go to fund projects that would be carried out by CBFWA members. This is a most serious conflict of interest, one that was brought to my attention several months ago by constituents in my State. Let me be clear, CBFWA's advice is important. But, I believe that BPA ratepayers expect their hard earned dollars to be spent wisely--not to fund the projects of a select number of groups. My amendment requires the independent scientific review of projects proposed for funding under BPA's annual program and would remove any suggestion of conflict of interest in prioritizing programs. I believe that advice of independent scientists with expertise on the enhancement of Columbia River fish and wildlife will result in successful implementation of the Northwest Power Planning Council's fish and wildlife program. The council recently recognized the need for independent science recently, and together with the National Marine Fisheries Service, has established an Independent Scientific Advisory Board [ISAB] in order to provide scientific advice to the council and NMFS on the council's plan for fish and wildlife for the river system. My amendment directs the National Academy of Sciences to submit a list of individuals to the council to serve on an Independent Scientific Review Panel to review projects for funding under BPA's annual fish and wildlife program. I would like to make clear that nothing in the bill language precludes NAS from recommending the same scientists that serve on the ISAB to serve on the newly created Independent Scientific Review Panel, provided that members meet the conflict of interest standards spelled out in the bill language. If ISAB scientists are selected to serve on the newly created panel, such scientists should not be compensated twice for their services. My amendment also requires that the council establish, from a list submitted by NAS, scientific peer review groups to assist the panel in making its recommendations to the council. Projects will be reviewed based upon the following criteria: Projects benefit fish and wildlife in the region; have a clearly defined objective and outcome; and are based on sound science principles. After review of the projects by the panel and peer review groups, the panel will submit its recommendations on projects priorities to the council for consideration. The council will then make the panel's recommendations available to the public for review. The council is required to review recommendations of the panel, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, and others, in making its final recommendations to BPA of projects to be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget. If the council does not follow the advice of the panel, it is to explain in writing the basis for its decision. Mr. President, an important part of my amendment requires the council to consider the impacts of ocean conditions in making its recommendations to BPA to fund projects. Ocean conditions include, but are not limited to, such considerations as El Nino and other conditions that impact fish and wildlife populations. My amendment also directs the council to determine whether project recommendations employ cost effective measures to achieve its objectives. I want to make an important point here, Mr. President, the bill language expressly states that the council, after review of panel and other recommendations, has the authority to make final recommendations to BPA on project(s) to be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget. This language was included to clear up any confusion as to the council's authority to make final recommendations to BPA on projects to be funded through its annual fish and wildlife budget. The amendment goes into effect upon the date of enactment, and it is intended that the provision be used to start the planning process for the expenditure of BPA's fiscal year 1998 fish and wildlife budget. This provision will expire on September 30, 2000. Mr. President, in closing, I would like to thank Senator Hatfield and Senator Murray, and the Northwest Power Planning Council for their input in the development of the amendment. I believe that the final language, as it appears in the fiscal year 1997 energy and water conference report, reflects a bipartisan effort to make sure that BPA ratepayer dollars are spend wisely. I believe that my amendment is the first step to restoring accountability in the decisionmaking process for the expenditure of BPA ratepayer dollars for fish and wildlife purposes. I look forward to working, on a bipartisan basis, with my Northwest colleagues to rewrite the Northwest Power Act during the next Congress to ensure that Northwest ratepayer dollars are spent effectively for fish and wildlife, and that the people of the Northwest are given a greater role in the decisionmaking process.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have now resumed consideration of the Bumpers-Gregg amendment?

Mr. GORTON. Between now and 12:30, while we are on the Bumpers-Gregg amendment relating to grazing fees, I believe that that amendment was debated thoroughly yesterday afternoon. In addition, there will be 20 minutes equally divided on the amendment after we reconvene following the party luncheons before our vote on that amendment. As a consequence, Mr. President, I suspect that there is time between now and 12:30 to deal with any other amendments that Members of the Senate may wish to propound. There are some 25 or 30, at least, amendments that are relevant to this bill on which the managers have been notified. Probably half or more of them can be accepted in their present form or another form can be worked out. So all Senators who are within hearing of these proceedings can be on notice that this may be a particularly convenient time in which to bring such amendments to the floor and to have them considered. With that, and until we have some business to do, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the amendment itself?