T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee is correct. That reference is specifically intended to refer to the Swan Lake-Tyee Intertie project and was inadvertently referred to as the southeast Alaska intertie. I hope the Record will reflect this clarification and will result in an expeditious use of the funds. liheap

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his fine comments and compliments. I may tell the Senator, that relationship is perhaps a result of the marvelous biblical statement about casting your bread upon water and having it come back manyfold. When I was first a member of the Appropriations Committee, I was in the minority. The Senator from Nevada was the chairman of the modest subcommittee on the legislative branch, and I was his ranking minority member. The Senator from Nevada came to my office to consult with me in a way he did not need to about those appropriations. I think it was I who persuaded him to put more benches and trash receptacles on the Capitol grounds, which was denuded of them at the time, so I can believe I actually accomplished something in that modest position. It was that lesson when we went into the majority that taught me that on the Appropriations Committee and the Senate as a whole, it was best to work with everyone when it was at all possible to do so and that you were far more likely to be successful not only for the people of your own State but the country, if you used the experience and the wisdom of all Members of your committees or of the Senate itself. So I am particularly grateful for the comments of the Senator from Nevada. But whatever courtesies he was rendered by this Senator he earned by having taught the same lesson.

Mr. GORTON

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Given the presence of the assistant Democratic leader, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to the consideration of H.J. Res. 128.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday morning, without any notice to this Senator, my distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, came to the floor to congratulate me in my career in the Senate in a most generous and gracious fashion and to yield time to other Senators for the same purpose. Each of them, including the other Senator present, Mr. Burns, was more than generous and profuse in their praise. The experience of listening to it in my office bore some resemblance to attending one's own wake. But, nonetheless, the many fine things that were stated about my career by Members on both sides of the aisle is deeply appreciated. I reflected a little bit later on the fact that while our public image--and, for that matter, our public duties--has to deal with profound political and social questions of public policy, our personal relationships among the 100 Members is something really quite different. Each of us leaves the others with strong impressions. Friendships become both broad and deep during the course of a career here in the Senate. When one comes to the end of such a career, it is those personal relationships, in my view, that are the most deep and most profound and that have the greatest effect on one as an individual. To listen to expressions from people who are not accustomed to speaking emotionally or personally is an extremely moving experience. For that reason, as close as each of those individuals was to me, I don't want to mention them by name but simply express my thanks and my appreciation for all they said. Those friendships, of course, will continue in most cases through a lifetime. Relationships of necessity are really quite different. There is, however, one other set of relationships about which I should like to speak very briefly, and that is the relationship between a Member of this body and his or her staff, both present and past. I think I can say unequivocally that quite profoundly I am and have been a creature of my staff over the period of my entire 18 years in this body. My proudest achievement is that so many young people--almost all from my own State--have worked for a great or shorter period of time on my staff either here or in the State of Washington. The great majority of them, of course, have already gone on to other careers--most of them in the State, a return that I find particularly gratifying. If I have a legacy--I think in many respects if any of us has a true legacy over the years--the best of all the bills we have gotten passed and almost inevitably amended within a relatively short period of time--that legacy is the young people to whom we have given a start here in highly responsible positions, working on important matters of public policy and dealing with dozens, hundreds, and even thousands of the constituents whom we represent, growing in not only thoughtfulness but responsibility during that period of time. For me, the great legacy for generations to come will be the new, young, and maturing people who have worked for me during the course of these 18 years. I have every hope that at some time in the not too distant future at least one of them may appear in this body as a Member. And certainly I am of the belief that many of them will appear in my State and other States in positions of increasing responsibility in a lifetime that will have been marked by our association together. I thank my colleagues. I thank the staff here and of the Senate itself in this Chamber, but most particularly the hundreds of young people who have worked for and with me during the course of the last 18 years.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, one of my priorities in this bill was to make sure that Washington seniors continue to have access to their Medicare+Choice program and to expand choices for other seniors who have been dropped from the program due to low payment rates in Washington state. We need to make sure Medicare+Choice is a stable option in the Medicare program for our seniors. I am concerned, however that the new requirements on the submission of adjusted community rate ACR proposals for 2001 may interfere with my goal of ensuring the stability of this program for seniors in my state. Under this bill, plans that have ensured seniors have consistent access to the Medicare+Choice program cannot use the increased funds to stabilize the benefits they already provide or to ensure adequate payments to providers such as doctors and hospitals--even if they are losing money on providing those benefits right now. In Washington State we have plans that are operating at a deficit every year but they continue to stick with this program and offer health care to our seniors. They need this money simply to stabilize and maintain current benefits. Without these funds, there will be no basic programs for seniors at all. Plans cannot offer enhanced benefits or lower premiums if there is no program in existence, in Washington state, that is what we are facing--the possibility of no Medicare+Choice programs at all. I don't disagree with the intent of the provision to ensure that seniors benefit from this new funding in the form of reduced premiums or increased benefits. My point is that there are more ways to help out seniors and one way is to ensure that their plan will not only be there this year, but the next year and into the future. One way to do that is to simply add a provision to the current language that allows plans to stabilize or enhance patients access to providers such as doctors and hospitals. You can spend millions of dollars on the fixtures of a new house, on antique furniture, on expensive paintings, and the like but if there is no foundation the house will fall to the ground and no one will benefit. Our first priority should be to ensure that the Medicare+Choice program is stabilized that at a minimum seniors continue to have the choice we promised them.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Older Americans Act amendments of 2000. Seniors are a vital part of our community. The programs authorized by this Act help make sure low- income and frail seniors have every opportunity to stay independent, in their own homes, and remain a part of the community. Through meals on wheels and the congregate meal program thousands of seniors in Washington state whether homebound or not, receive nutritious meals and an opportunity to socialize with their peers. Through community service employment many low-income seniors who have poor job prospects have been meaningfully employed in a wide range of activities including education, health care, senior centers and nutrition services for older people. This reauthorization makes sure these needs will continue to be met. In addition this bill funds activities to protect the rights of the vulnerable elderly through the long-term care ombudsman program which provides volunteer advocates for seniors living in nursing homes and other long-term facilities; through programs to prevent elder abuse, neglect and exploitation; and through assistance programs for insurance and other public benefits. This year's authorization also includes an important new addition to the Older Americans Act--the National Family Caregiver Support program. Thousands of families are choosing to care for their senior parents and grandparents in their own homes. This can be a wonderful option for seniors who are no longer able to live independently but may not need or want the full time care of a nursing home, or for those seniors unable to afford assisted living arrangements. Counseling, training and respite care will be available to family caregivers. These services will also be made available to grandparents who are caregivers to children. I deeply believe that seniors in this country should continue to have access to the quality services they have received in the past from the Older Americans Act. This reauthorization not only accomplishes that goal but includes needed improvements. My only regret is that I was unable to be here in person to vote in favor of its passage.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I regret I was unable to vote on the final passage of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, S. 2508. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of this legislation. This legislation has the support of the Governor and Attorney General of Colorado, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Native American Rights Fund, the Clinton Administration, not to mention the bi-partisan efforts of the Colorado and New Mexico delegations. In addition, I would have voted in favor of the H.J. 115, the continuing resolution.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for not more than 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we live in a period of unprecedented prosperity and opportunity. We can go more places than ever before. We are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. We are employed in jobs today that were unthinkable just a few years ago. Our lives have changed dramatically because of computers, the Internet and technology. But with all the good that comes with technology, there are elements that cause us concern. One such concern that has captured our attention is the issue of privacy. As more of us use the Internet to shop and conduct business, more of our personal information is being spread throughout the web. That information, in many instances, is used properly and in a way that is good for consumers. But as in any field, there are those who abuse the public trust by using this personal information in unethical ways. Because of concerns about consumer privacy, the Senate has considered how we might do better at protecting consumers while not unwittingly turning off the Internet engine that is such a key part of the economic prosperity we currently enjoy. The Senate Commerce Committee recently held its third hearing this year on the privacy of information gathered from consumers who use the Internet. Since the Federal Trade Commission recommended legislation in this area earlier this session, I, and I believe a substantial number of my colleagues, have come to agree that we must act on this issue in the not-too-distant-future. I have come to believe that Federal legislation is needed to protect consumers. I don't think that the current voluntary privacy policies are sufficient. Consumers who use the Internet should be given more information about what data is being gathered about them, and they should be given greater control over how this data is used. I have also come to believe that Federal legislation is needed to protect and improve Internet commerce which, of course, benefits consumers and businesses alike. Not only will the assurance of adequate, enforceable privacy standards increase consumers' comfort with on-line transactions, but the possibility of States acting to protect consumers in the absence of a Federal law threatens to create a patchwork of conflicting privacy mandates that could be hard to apply to a medium that does not recognize State borders. Though I know that I support Federal legislation regarding the on- line collection and use of consumer information, I confess to not knowing at this time exactly what should be legislated. At the last hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee we considered three different bills, and additional, and more varied, bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives. I don't know which of these approaches or combination of approaches will best protect consumers without making on- line transactions overly burdensome. On-line merchants, providers of both goods and services, have touted the benefits to consumers of using the Internet to gather information that facilitates targeted marketing. This could very well be the case but I want to know that consumers are informed of and agree with these marketing practices. Determining more specifically what consumers want from privacy legislation is something that I hope we can do in the next session of Congress. While much, through certainly not all, of the discussion in Congress about privacy is focused on the issue of the on-line collection and use of consumer information, I think it is also important that Congress remain cognizant of the fact that ``privacy'' as it relates to the Internet is a far broader and more complex issue. For all of its salutary effects, the ease with which the Internet allows for the compilation and sharing of private information gathered in the physical world, information about financial transactions, medical histories, reading habits, eating habits, sleeping habits, information about almost every aspect of one's life raises legitimate concerns that Congress should and will continue to address. The privacy of medical information, which can be intensely personal, is one such issue about which Congress must remain vigilant. Improved technology along with changes in health care delivery, billing systems, information gathering and genetic testing all increase the number of people who have access to health records. Americans should know that personally identifiable health information is private and they should have control over who has access to it. At the same time our challenge is to find a way to balance legitimate needs for health care information--for example, medical research--and individual privacy rights. Future Congresses will adopt additional health care reforms. We clearly need to improve our Nation's health care system. Although most Americans are satisfied with their health care, most Americans are also concerned about those in our country who have inadequate health care and no hope of improving their situation. I support reforms that improve access to quality health care for those who have none, that keep intact our wonderful system of hospitals and clinics in all areas of our country and that provide people with meaningful choices. When future Congresses address this area, one issue I will watch most carefully is the amount of health care information that is provided to the Government, and how this information is used. We must be careful not to adopt measures that give Government regulators the ability to peek into people's private medical records. A few years ago, my home State of Washington embarked on several health care reforms. Most of these reforms were in the wrong direction. Our legislature adopted reforms that put the government in charge of health care decisions for people and gave a government commission the ability to cancel private health insurance coverage in our state. I found both of those moves bothersome, but our legislature didn't stop at just controlling health care decisions for our citizens. No, our legislature took one additional chilling step. It decided that if the government was providing health care, as well as dictating which private health plans could remain in business, the government should have access to personal, private medical records. That is going way too far, and fortunately, the good people of Washington made sure that radical change was not placed into the law. Over the next year, I am convinced that Congress will adopt meaningful health care reforms that help people, but as we do that, I must constantly advise my colleagues to follow the ``do no harm'' rules of medicine and not fall prey to those who believe that government-run health care, along with all that it brings, is the right solution to this challenge. No matter the type of information in question--consumer or medical-- Americans have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thoughtful legislative action is needed at the federal level to address the legitimate concerns many Americans currently have in this regard.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mississippi for 10 minutes or less on the bill.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it has taken a considerable period of time to reach the happy conclusion of the debate over the appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture. None of that delay is due to the distinguished chairman or to his ranking member, the Senator from Wisconsin, who have worked with extraordinary diligence and I think immense success in bringing this bill before us. I can't even begin the major portion of my remarks without thanking him for his thoughtfulness to the particular concerns of my own State-- first, of course, the field of agricultural research. There is research money in this bill for wheat, apples, asparagus, animal diseases, small fruit, barley, and potatoes, to name a few. In each and every case, that money will help our farmers meet the demands of the market in the future--both here in the United States and overseas. In addition, without precedent, there is a considerable and most indispensable relief for the tree fruit industry in my State and others--formerly a highly profitable occupation that has fallen on bad times. A bridge is provided in this bill until more successful times in the future. The cranberry industry falls into exactly the same situation. And, of course, with respect to low farm prices in many other commodities nationwide in scope, relief is included in this bill, again with the hope that we will soon have better times in the future for our agricultural products. There are, however, two subject matter areas of this bill that are of particular importance. The first has to do with sanctions--the unilateral sanctions that the United States has imposed on itself barring the export of our agricultural commodities and for that matter medicines to a number of countries around the world for some form of foreign policy reasons. Those sanctions by and large are canceled by this bill, and the President is deprived of the power in the future to impose them unilaterally without dealing with us in Congress. This may be very important in the immediate future with the threat that sanctions will be taken against even our good friend Japan with our agricultural products by reason of its whaling practices. I disagree vehemently with its whaling practices. But I don't think we should deal with them by punishing our farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers. Personally, I would have preferred the more sweeping language of the original Senate bill in this respect. There was vehement opposition to some of its provisions in the House of Representatives. My colleague from the State of Washington, Congressman Nethercutt, worked diligently, and often in opposition to his own party's leadership, in crafting this compromise. This compromise, I guess, I would describe as being 80 percent of what we need. It includes what I think are some unwise provisions related to travel to Cuba. But, in my view, we should take this three-quarters, or 80 percent, of what we need, and we should begin to restore the opportunity to secure these markets to our farmers. And we should take care of the rest of the controversy next year. Will we immediately begin to see huge sales of our wheat, for example, to Iran and to other former major customers? I am not at all sure we will. It may take years to repair the damage we have created by these unilateral sanctions. But this is a start. This gives our farm community, at a time of very low prices, once again the ability to compete in the world markets, and not just in some of those markets. Finally, and most importantly, are the provisions of this bill dealing with the price of prescription drugs. My colleague from Nevada, who just concluded his remarks, had a number of points, with which I don't entirely agree, but I certainly do agree with him on that one. He was one of the cosponsors of the Jeffords-Dorgan proposal on the reimportation of drugs. Simply stated, we face a situation in which American pharmaceutical manufacturers that are benefiting from huge tax subsidies through research and development tax cuts, and benefiting from the immense research that we do in the National Institutes of Health, nevertheless, sell their products outside of the United States in Canada, in Europe, and in Latin America for prices half or less the price they charge for those drugs in the United States. That is outrageous. It is a form of discrimination without any justification whatsoever. Six months or so ago, I introduced a bill to directly ban price discrimination in prescription drugs in the same way it has been banned in almost every other commodity in the United States in interstate commerce for some 65 years. A Congressman from New York, Congressman Hinchey, made a similar proposal in the conference committee. Personally, I would prefer a more direct approach. Once again, the perfect was the enemy of the good. We have the ability not only for individuals to go into Canada or Mexico and buy drugs that are manufactured in the United States, but under the same circumstances they are manufactured in the United States, and then they are reimported to the United States for individuals to use. It is something that I think is very important for people who need to use drugs and find them far too expensive here; but also for our pharmacists to do the same thing to the extent that their wholesale prices are the result of discrimination against them and in favor of Canadians and Europeans and others. Some of those costs will be passed back to the purchasers of prescription drugs here in the United States who can't travel to Canada or to Mexico or to someplace else to make their own purchases. Is this a perfect solution? No. It is not. First, it is indirect rather than direct. Second, there are opportunities, I am convinced, in the way their bill was written, in spite of all of the efforts of its proponents, through which the pharmaceutical manufacturers may find loopholes and may be able to frustrate the proper desire of Americans to lower drug prices. If that happens, we will certainly be back next year at the same time and at the same place to see to it that a discrimination which is entirely unjustifiable is ended. American companies benefiting from American society, from American tax credits from American research should not discriminate against Americans. We have taken a major step forward in this bill to at least reducing and I hope eliminating that kind of discrimination. I want to express my enthusiastic support for the passage of this bill.

Mr. GORTON. Washington state's rural communities have also benefited by the National Rural Development Partnership, particularly those regions that have been forced from their natural resource-based economies. For the sake of those who have come to rely on the NRDP, I would sincerely hope the Secretary of Agriculture would take into consideration the few remaining resources available to these communities when allocating discretionary funds in the future.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as expected, Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl have once again crafted an excellent Agriculture Appropriations bill that benefits not only the State of Washington, but natural resource dependent communities and rural economies all across the nation. For my own State of Washington, this equates to more than $5 million in essential research programs for wheat, apples, asparagus, animal diseases, small fruits, barley and potatoes to name a few. I have long advocated for increased emphasis on agriculture research, noting that projects such as these advance the development of new technology, generate healthy food systems, promote environmentally sound growing practices, and maintain the U.S. dominance in agriculture production. Also included in the legislation are the indispensable relief funds necessary to ensure the longevity of the once highly profitable and prosperous tree fruit industry in Washington. The $138 million in direct payments to apple producers will provide necessary short-term relief favored by Washington's orchardists. The cranberry industry, lesser known to most but still one of the hardest hit in the agriculture economy, will also benefit from $50 million in relief. In response to the other natural disasters that have plagued our nation, $3.4 billion in emergency spending is included for farmers and rural areas that have already experienced continued low farm commodity prices. While the core issues in the bill are of great significance, there are two other issues in the conference report I wish to highlight. Both the sanctions relief and drug re-importation provisions deserve the Senate's support. With respect to sanctions relief, I believe few members of Congress would argue that food and medicine sanctions fail to cripple regimes or handicap the ability of dictators to simply find these goods elsewhere. What sanctions on food and medicine do promote are uncompensated losses to America's farmers and poor health in sanctioned countries. For more than a year-and-a-half, many members of this body have fought to right this situation and remove these onerous barriers. Obviously our efforts to provide a comprehensive package of sanctions reform has been met with determined resistance. With that said, however, the compromise my friend and colleague from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt, brokered to the best of his ability, without ever losing sight of the common goal of sanctions relief, and to the severe chagrin of several influential members, was agreed to by the Agriculture Appropriations conference committee, of which I was a member. While some will argue that this compromise is not comprehensive enough and does not perfectly mirror the language of the original Senate bill, this language is unquestionably significant. What the language does include is sanctions relief for exports to Cuba, Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Libya. If my colleagues believe this major shift in policy does not make a positive statement regarding Congress' intent to provide sanctions reform, I think they are sadly mistaken. Perhaps even more pivotal, this language prohibits the Administration from imposing any new unilateral food or medicine sanctions without the consent of Congress. What with the Administration considering wheat sanctions on Japan for that country's whaling practices, I hope this change in policy will be supported by agriculture advocates. This is another significant goal the sanctions coalition has sought to attain. I choose not to argue with my colleagues over the merits of the Cuba travel or financing restrictions contained in the bill, but instead choose to remind my colleagues that we have accomplished something great here. While this compromise does not reflect everything we intended when we sought to achieve our goals, it does contain the core principles necessary in order to ensure unilateral sanctions reform. And I remind my colleagues that it is a compromise. It's not perfect. It's a starting point, a means by which we test the system. If the changes we have incorporated into this bill aren't workable, then we will work to change them. No one in this body believes agriculture trade will resurrect with each of these countries overnight. Will Iran announce a wheat tender in the next few months? Few years? We cannot tell. Sanctions reform will take work, and it will take time. But we must begin somewhere and we must begin now rather than later. I fear some of my colleagues have lost sight of the ultimate goal, and I hope they and the Administration would not seek to undermine the language our agriculture community supports and desires. As a representative for a Northern border state, I have been privy to issues surrounding drug prices. Everyday Americans pay 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent or more for prescription drugs than our neighbors in Canada, in Mexico and for that matter most of the rest of the world. Who does this affect most? Those who take the most prescription drugs--typically seniors, and those without any kind of prescription drug coverage from their insurance. But all Americans pay more whether through higher prices at the drugstore counter or higher insurance premiums. Why does this problem exist? American pharmaceutical companies sell the exact same prescription drugs overseas, drugs developed and manufactured here in the U.S., for a fraction of the price they demand from American citizens. Other countries have implemented price control policies that successfully tempt manufacturers to discriminate against American consumers with higher drug prices. Our drug companies agree because the costs of manufacturing are nominal, and they can make some profit overseas by simply charging Americans all of the high costs of research and development. This bill takes a first step towards solving this problem. It allows wholesalers and pharmacists to go to Canada and other countries where prescription drugs are sold at deep discounts and bring the same FDA- approved, FDA-manufactured products back to the U.S. in order to pass the discounts on to American consumers. It is important to note that safety is a priority in this bill. Only products that have been determined to be safe and effective can be brought into the United Sates. The importer is required to test for authenticity and degradation. And importers can only bring in these products from countries that the Secretary of HHS has determined have an appropriate regulatory infrastructure to ensure the safety of prescription drugs. This provision should give our American families access to lower cost prescription drugs that are safe and effective. Is it perfect? Probably not. But, I hope it will work and I hope it results in lower prices for consumers in the U.S. and eventually puts pressure on drug companies to end price discrimination in the U.S. Critics say the bill has loopholes and drug companies will find a way around it. Let me be clear--if they do I will be back to make sure this provision is even stronger. I hope that is not necessary, that drug companies will simply end the current discrimination against Americans by charging fair prices here in the United States. This is not my favorite idea for dealing with price discrimination. It is a much more complicated solution than I would prefer. My idea is straightforward and based on a law that has applied to every product sale in the U.S. since 1935--the Robinson-Patman Act. This law simply says that manufacturers can't use price to discriminate among buyers. If that principle is applied to prescription drug sales overseas--drug companies would no longer be allowed to discriminate against their best customers--American families. But this bill is something that can be done this year to lower prices for American consumers. I believe it represents a genuine step forward to lower prescription drug costs for all Americans. With all that said, the bill before the Senate not only represents a response to the core needs of agriculture, but signifies a profound shift in sanctions reform, and puts the drug companies on notice. While I have indicated that neither proposal represents perfection, what each does signify is the goal of Congress to address issues vital to those we represent. I sincerely hope my colleagues will work to pass this bill without hesitation.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today, the Senate will pass H.R. 3986, a bill introduced by Representative Doc Hastings, R-Washington, that will authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to study the feasibility of moving the intake system for the Kennewick Irrigation District from the Yakima River to the Columbia River. I introduced a similar bill earlier this year, S. 2163, which was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this month. The Senate's action today sends this bill, critical to Central Washington's efforts to recover threatened and endangered salmon, to the President's desk--an achievement long sought by the Yakama Indian Nation and the irrigators of the Yakima River Basin. Disputes over how to allocate and use water have always been contentious in the Pacific Northwest, and the disputes have only become more difficult as the region has been forced to deal with the recovery of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead species. Over the past year, however, I have been pleased to support a new era of cooperation among tribes and various irrigation districts in Eastern Washington. An area of consensus has developed around the concept of ``pump exchanges,'' which move the intake systems of irrigation districts from over appropriated streams and rivers to rivers downstream with more water. In July, I introduced legislation that authorizes the study of a pump exchange for the Okanogan Irrigation District and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. I hope this legislation will receive quick approval during the 107th Congress. H.R. 3986 will amend the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program, YRBWEP, first approved by Congress in 1994 (P.L. 103-434). That legislation established a comprehensive framework for increasing critical flows in the Yakima River in order to reverse a longstanding trend of declining salmon and steelhead runs. One portion of that legislation, Section 1208, authorized a specific project to electrify hydraulic turbines at the Chandler Pumping Plant near Prosser, Washington. By converting these pumps from hydraulic to electrical power, an additional 400 second feet of water would be added to a 12- mile stretch of the Yakima River below Prosser Dam called Chandler Reach. This project would increase survival rates and provide important new habitat for both the anadramous and resident fisheries in this critical section of the Yakima River. This electrification project is still a good approach to augmenting Yakima River flows, but early in its implementation an even better idea was developed that can nearly double the benefits projected from electrification. The pump exchange approach proposed in H.R. 3986 could result in completely eliminating the need to divert water at Prosser Dam and Wanawish Dam for use by the Kennewick Irrigation District, K.I.D., and the Columbia River Irrigation District, C.I.D. This plan will require building a new pumping plant on the Columbia River and a pipeline to connect this new facility to K.I.D. This approach could add back to the Yakima River during critical flow periods the entire 749 second feet of water now diverted at Prosser Dam. This project might well be the key to the success of the rest of the YRBWEP program. For the extensive efforts being made farther upstream to be entirely successful, the lower sections of the Yakima River must provide the conditions necessary for salmon and steelhead to survive their journey to and from the upper river and its tributaries. The Chandler Reach and the lower Yakima must have sufficient water at the right time for anadromous fish to be able to transit this area. Without it, the programs upstream will be less effective. The legislation passed today authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to spend some of the funds previously authorized for the electrification project to develop this new approach. There are several studies and undertakings necessary to determine with certainty the efficacy and cost of this pump exchange project. These include carrying out a feasibility study, including an estimate of project benefits, an environmental impact analysis, and preparing a feasibility level design and cost estimates as well as securing critical right-of-way areas. This change in approach to enhancing flows in the lower Yakima is enthusiastically supported by the resource agencies of the State of Washington, including the Washington State Department of Ecology, as well as by the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Bonneville Power Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. It is important to note that a change in the diversion for K.I.D. from the Yakima River to the Columbia River will completely change the current operational philosophy of the district. It will evolve from a relatively simple system relying on gravity to supply its customers to one of significant additional complexity involving a major pump station and pressure pipeline to the main feeder canals. This remodeling of K.I.D. will have significant impact on the existing system and its users during construction, startup, and transition. That is why it is essential for K.I.D. to be in a position to develop these facilities in a way that best fits their current and future operational goals and causes the least impact to the district water users. This legislation requires the Bureau of Reclamation to give K.I.D. substantial control over the planning and design work in this study with the Bureau, of course, having final approval. It is an approach that will continue local improvement and support, which is vital to the success of this project and other projects. I thank Representative Doc Hastings for his leadership on this bill in the House of Representatives and appreciate the support of my colleagues in passing this bill that will provide a crucial component to the salmon recovery efforts in the Yakima Basin.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. That is also correct.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before I make some general remarks, I will respond to the three--and I think there have only been three--critics of this bill. For the better part of 3 days, the Senate has indulged in the remarks of the Senator from Illinois over one item out of many hundreds in this bill. Normally speaking, items such as the Lincoln Library are included in bills such as this because the Senators from the States concerned believe they are important and because we believe they are reasonable national priorities. I think I can assure the Senator from Illinois and the body that, had I known we were going to go through this process, there would have been no money for this project in this bill at all. It may very well be there will be no more tomorrow. I do think a library for Abraham Lincoln's papers in Springfield, IL, is an appropriate project. The State of Illinois and various local entities and individuals are providing the great majority of the money that is going into that project. The Senator from Illinois has engaged in a filibuster, required the vote of 89-8 on cloture, all over the bidding practices with respect to the way in which that project is undertaken, as to whether or not they ought to be Federal bidding practices or the State of Illinois' bidding practices--bidding practices of the State of Illinois that I believe he had something to do with creating while he was a member of the legislature of that body. Even under the bill as it appears here, the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to review the design, method of acquisition, and the estimated cost, and can deal with anything that the Secretary believes to be untoward in this entire question. But I have to say that to spend 3 days of the time of the Senate on this internal dispute involving Members of Congress and others from the State of Illinois was an imposition on the time of the Senate at any time, but especially when the Senate is attempting to finish many important bills of which this is one, but only one. We will go forward with it at this point. We will pass the bill at this point. I believe the President of the United States will sign it at this point. But I can certainly not remember any other instance in which a Member from a State that is getting a benefit from the bill has looked so carefully at the teeth of a gift horse. The second question I raise is about some of the criticisms from my good friend, the Senator from Arizona. He complains about money in this bill for carriage barn rehabilitation at the Longfellow National Historic Site. That is a national park site. That is the very kind of thing that we must rehabilitate. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, when he lived at his place, had a carriage barn. I don't know whether the Senator from Arizona feels we should let it fall down, but my own view is our first duty is to maintain the national park sites that we have at the present time. The Senator from Wyoming has just referred to that. How that constitutes pork, or a reason to vote against this bill, is, I must say, beyond my understanding. He complains about dollars for the southeast Alaska disaster fund that he claims were not included in either the House or the Senate bill. In fact, they were included in the Senate bill under a different account number. He complains about $30 million for site-specific earmarks or emergency funds, one quarter of which turn out to be--slightly more than one quarter--for hazardous fuels reduction activities carried on by Northern Arizona University. When I was on the floor, he was complaining about the rehabilitation of a fish hatchery in White Sulfur Springs, WV, which was requested by my good friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia. Again, I am puzzled why it is we should not provide such office rehabilitation at a site that is a specific function of the people of the United States. In other words, I don't find those criticisms to have any particular merit whatsoever. This is our business. It is the business of this bill to see to it that the lands and historic sites and facilities of the United States of America are properly maintained. I think one of the great shortcomings, one of the overwhelming shortcomings that we have had in the last few years is that we have not been maintaining these sites to the extent they ought to be maintained. One of the goals, which I have accomplished in this bill, is to increase the amount of money for that maintenance, both in the regular bill and in this supplement to this bill that is the third item of controversy here today. This bill is criticized by the Senator from Louisiana as not including the full authorization for the so-called CARA bill, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. She is certainly correct; it does not. That bill is an almost $3-billion-a-year entitlement for some 15 years, the net result of which is that the items included in it are deemed to be more important, should that bill pass the Congress of the United States, than saving the Social Security system, than education, than health care, or any of the other items for which we appropriate every year. In my view, it is utterly inappropriate as an entitlement that automatically comes off the top, before all the other priorities of the people of the United States. On the other hand, many of the items preferred in that CARA legislation are highly worthy items, items for which this subcommittee chairman is delighted to have what now amounts to a greater authorization. Many of them will be more liberally funded in the future as a result of the proposals that are a part of this bill now. It is said--it was said in that criticism--that this bill sends all the money through the Federal bureaucracy rather than CARA sending it directly to the States. First, it doesn't send all the money through the Federal bureaucracy. Many of these programs are existing programs that result in formula grants to the States, and others are competitive grants to the States. At this point, the Congress can, through its authorizing committees, change the distribution formula for any one of these programs, either to make them more direct or more focused. CARA, of course, doesn't send all its money directly to the States, either. It does include large amounts for payment to coastal States but they are for new programs which are not even authorized at this point and will not be unless some bill of that nature is passed. Second, this is criticized by some conservatives for not providing protections for private property. The Interior bill funds currently authorized programs. It doesn't authorize them; it funds currently authorized programs and therefore, by definition, includes every protection for private property that exists in any one of those authorizing laws. If there are shortcomings in this field, it is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee but of the very authorizing committee that presented CARA to us in the first place. For Federal land acquisitions that are funded by this CARA-lite, in future years everyone is going to be subject to the same process as is used at the present time. They are all going to go through appropriations committees. I can assure my colleagues, I cannot think of a case where this committee has approved a project that did not have the support of the relevant Members of Congress, except maybe for this one in Illinois, which has been the subject of debate for some 3 days. So that objection is simply not valid. It is also pointed out this bill does not provide States and local governments with a predictable funding stream. You bet your life it does not, and it was not so designed. Why should we give a predictable funding stream for grant programs to State and local governments in precedence to the very programs for which we are directly responsible? We do not have a fully predictable or legally enforceable funding stream for schools. We don't have it for most of our health care programs. We don't have it for research and development programs. We don't have it for a wide variety of the programs that are subject to debate every year. It is just for that reason that we do not have it. They should be subject to debate and revision with respect to priorities every year. That is why we have a Congress. On the other hand, this new title does provide a decidedly increased likelihood that these grant programs will be sustained and will increase in future years. What this bill does is to say that if you do not spend this money on the programs outlined in this bill, you cannot spend it on something else, but it will go to reducing the national debt. It is only a couple months. Members on both sides of the aisle vociferously were saying that a reduction of the national debt was the most important single economic activity in which we could engage. Chairman Greenspan was quoted constantly on the floor of the Senate. We forgot that when some decided we needed these ``predictable funding streams,'' that is to say, entitlements which come directly out of debt reduction. I have never been able to see the logic of a 15-year guaranteed funding stream that could not easily be adjusted if the programs were ineffective or if we went into economic times in which there were higher priorities. Those are some of the critiques of the particular proposal, additional portions of which are likely to be included in the appropriations bill for Commerce-State-Justice, particularly the oceans portions of it which will be debated later. Finally, Senator Graham from Florida criticized the bill for not providing adequate funds for national parks. While CARA would have guaranteed an extra $100 million per year for the National Park Service--Mr. President, I am allowed to take time from Senator Stevens.

Mr. GORTON. The answer is, of course, CARA did not either. CARA gave money to the National Park Service above the line but not below the line, and very likely future Congresses will simply reduce the discretionary portion of that account by the amount guaranteed in CARA itself. It was at my insistence that this CARA-lite does include an item, I believe $150 million a year, for national park maintenance. I think that is one of the most important elements of the bill itself. The vote on cloture indicated the broad support for this bill, as did the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. For that overwhelming bipartisan support, I owe particular thanks to Senator Byrd for helping me in developing the conference agreement and shaping it in a way that merits the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. His new staff minority clerk, Peter Kiefhaber, has been a tremendous asset during the course of his first year. He has been ably assisted by Carole Geagley of the minority staff and Scott Dalzell, who has been with us on detail from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I thank my own exemplary staff: Bruce Evans, who is sitting here with me, Ginny James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Christine Drager, and Joe Norrell, as well as our detailee, Sheila Sweeney, and Kari Vander Stoep of my personal staff. All have also worked so many hours on this bill that I do not dare count them for fear of feeling ashamed. They have worked extremely hard, but they have been successful and have every reason to be gratified with their work. I note for the record this is the last year in which I will be privileged to work with my counterpart chairman, Congressman Ralph Regula from the House of Representatives. He will have another subcommittee next year, and I tell you, I will miss him. I have never dealt with anyone in this body or in the other body with whom I have had a more positive and affirmative, constructive working relationship, often with a great many laughs because of his marvelous sense of humor. Ralph Regula will have left a substantial legacy of increased priority for the maintenance of our Federal lands and facilities and a great approach in a matter of principle. In summary, this is a popular bill that has every right to be popular because it meets with many of the needs of deferred maintenance for past neglect. It has many projects in it that are of great importance to Members on both sides of the partisan divide in this body and our significant national priorities as well, and will get us through another year with respect not just to these natural resources used in energy research and cultural institutions in the United States but in a way I think worthy and which I recommend heartily to my colleagues.

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

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Will the Presiding Officer state what the order of business is now?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.