Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if you are one of the millions of rural school children who ride buses 2.9 billion miles every year, if you attend school in one of the thousands of rural schools that have no school library or no classroom computers, if one of the buildings at your school is in serious disrepair, or if you are sharing a few 30 year-old textbooks with the other students in your class, then you probably feel like you are going to school in an education sacrifice zone. Our country spends less than a quarter of our Nation's education dollars to educate approximately half of our nation's students. You don't have to be a math whiz to know that the numbers just don't add up. The students who are short-changed often live in rural areas. Thousands of rural and small schools across our nation face the daunting mission of educating almost half of America's children. Increasingly, these schools are underfunded, overwhelmed, and overlooked. While half of the nation's students are educated in rural and small public schools, they only receive 23 percent of Federal education dollars; 25 percent of State education dollars; and 19 percent of local education dollars. We all grew up thinking that the ``three R's'' were Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Unfortunately for our rural school children, the ``three R's'' are too often run-down classrooms, insufficient resources, and really over-worked teachers. The bill I am introducing with Senators Frist and Sessions, the Rural Education Development Initiative, REDI, would provide funding to 5,400 rural school districts that serve 6.5 million students--a short-term infusion of funds that will allow rural schools and their students to make substantial strides forward. Local education agencies would be eligible for REDI funding if they are either ``rural'', school locale code of 6, 7, or 8, and have a school-age population, ages 5-17, with 15 percent or more of the kids are from families with incomes below the poverty line; or ``small''-- student population of 800 or less and a student population, ages 5-17, with 15 percent or more of the kids are from families with incomes below the poverty line. In Oregon, among the schools eligible for REDI funding would be Jewell High School in Seaside, Burnt River Elementary in Unity, Gaston High School in Gaston, and Mari-Lynn Elementary School in Lyons, Oregon. Like the Education Flexibility Act of 1999, Ed-Flex, I authored with Senator Frist last Congress, REDI is voluntary--states and school districts could choose to participate in the program. Both Ed-Flex and REDI are designed to provide states and districts with flexibility they need so they can target their local priorities. Rural school districts and schools also find it more difficult to attract and retain qualified teachers, especially in Special Education, Math, and Science. Consequently, teachers in rural schools are almost twice as likely to provide instruction in two or more subjects than their urban counterparts. The History teacher may be teaching Math and Science without any formal training or experience. Rural teachers also tend to be younger, less experienced, and receive less pay than their urban and suburban counterparts. Worse yet, rural school teachers are less likely to have the high quality professional development opportunities that current research strongly suggests all teachers desperately need. Limited resources also mean fewer course offerings for students in rural and small schools. Consequently, courses are designed for the kids in the middle. So, students at either end of the academic spectrum miss out. Additionally, fewer rural students who dropout ever return to complete high school, and fewer rural higher school graduates go on to college. On another note, recent research on brain development clearly shows the critical nature of early childhood education, yet rural schools are less likely to offer even kindergarten classes, let alone earlier educational opportunities. To make matters worse, many of our rural areas are also plagued by persistent poverty, and, as we know, high-poverty schools have a much tougher time preparing their students to reach high standards of performance on state and national assessments. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently show large gaps between the achievement of students in high-poverty schools and students in low-poverty schools. Our legislation will provide rural students with greater learning opportunities by putting more computers in classrooms, expanding distance learning opportunities, providing academic help to students who have fallen behind, and making sure that every class is taught by a highly qualified teacher. I've heard it said that this will be the Education Congress, but we have much to do before we earn that title. It's time to show that we when it comes to education, we won't leave anyone behind, and REDI will give children from rural and small communities more of the educational opportunities they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if you are one of the millions of rural school children who ride buses 2.9 billion miles every year, if you attend school in one of the thousands of rural schools that have no school library or no classroom computers, if one of the buildings at your school is in serious disrepair, or if you are sharing a few 30 year-old textbooks with the other students in your class, then you probably feel like you are going to school in an education sacrifice zone. Our country spends less than a quarter of our Nation's education dollars to educate approximately half of our nation's students. You don't have to be a math whiz to know that the numbers just don't add up. The students who are short-changed often live in rural areas. Thousands of rural and small schools across our nation face the daunting mission of educating almost half of America's children. Increasingly, these schools are underfunded, overwhelmed, and overlooked. While half of the nation's students are educated in rural and small public schools, they only receive 23 percent of Federal education dollars; 25 percent of State education dollars; and 19 percent of local education dollars. We all grew up thinking that the ``three R's'' were Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Unfortunately for our rural school children, the ``three R's'' are too often run-down classrooms, insufficient resources, and really over-worked teachers. The bill I am introducing with Senators Frist and Sessions, the Rural Education Development Initiative, REDI, would provide funding to 5,400 rural school districts that serve 6.5 million students--a short-term infusion of funds that will allow rural schools and their students to make substantial strides forward. Local education agencies would be eligible for REDI funding if they are either ``rural'', school locale code of 6, 7, or 8, and have a school-age population, ages 5-17, with 15 percent or more of the kids are from families with incomes below the poverty line; or ``small''-- student population of 800 or less and a student population, ages 5-17, with 15 percent or more of the kids are from families with incomes below the poverty line. In Oregon, among the schools eligible for REDI funding would be Jewell High School in Seaside, Burnt River Elementary in Unity, Gaston High School in Gaston, and Mari-Lynn Elementary School in Lyons, Oregon. Like the Education Flexibility Act of 1999, Ed-Flex, I authored with Senator Frist last Congress, REDI is voluntary--states and school districts could choose to participate in the program. Both Ed-Flex and REDI are designed to provide states and districts with flexibility they need so they can target their local priorities. Rural school districts and schools also find it more difficult to attract and retain qualified teachers, especially in Special Education, Math, and Science. Consequently, teachers in rural schools are almost twice as likely to provide instruction in two or more subjects than their urban counterparts. The History teacher may be teaching Math and Science without any formal training or experience. Rural teachers also tend to be younger, less experienced, and receive less pay than their urban and suburban counterparts. Worse yet, rural school teachers are less likely to have the high quality professional development opportunities that current research strongly suggests all teachers desperately need. Limited resources also mean fewer course offerings for students in rural and small schools. Consequently, courses are designed for the kids in the middle. So, students at either end of the academic spectrum miss out. Additionally, fewer rural students who dropout ever return to complete high school, and fewer rural higher school graduates go on to college. On another note, recent research on brain development clearly shows the critical nature of early childhood education, yet rural schools are less likely to offer even kindergarten classes, let alone earlier educational opportunities. To make matters worse, many of our rural areas are also plagued by persistent poverty, and, as we know, high-poverty schools have a much tougher time preparing their students to reach high standards of performance on state and national assessments. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently show large gaps between the achievement of students in high-poverty schools and students in low-poverty schools. Our legislation will provide rural students with greater learning opportunities by putting more computers in classrooms, expanding distance learning opportunities, providing academic help to students who have fallen behind, and making sure that every class is taught by a highly qualified teacher. I've heard it said that this will be the Education Congress, but we have much to do before we earn that title. It's time to show that we when it comes to education, we won't leave anyone behind, and REDI will give children from rural and small communities more of the educational opportunities they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 25 years after enactment of the Clean Water Act, we still have not achieved the law's original goal that all our nation's lakes, rivers and streams would be safe for fishing and swimming. After 25 years, it's time for the next generation of strategies to solve our remaining water quality problems. We need to give States new tools to overcome the new water quality challenges they are now facing. The money that has been invested in controlling water pollution from factories and upgrading sewage treatment plants has gone a long way to controlling these urban pollution sources. In most cases, the remaining water quality problems are no longer caused by pollution spewing out of factory pipes. Instead, they are caused by runoff from a myriad of sources ranging from farm fields to city streets and parking lots. In my home State of Oregon, more than half of our streams don't fully meet water quality standards. And the largest problems are contamination from runoff and meeting the standards for water temperature. In many cases, conventional approaches will not solve these problems. But we can achieve water temperature standards and obtain other water quality benefits by enhancing stream flows and improving runoff controls. A major problem for many streams in Oregon and in many other areas of the Western United States is that water supplies are fully appropriated or over-appropriated. There is currently no extra water to spare for increased stream flows. We can't create new water to fill the gap. But we can make more water available for this use through increased water conservation and more efficient use of existing water supplies. The key to achieving this would be to create incentives to reduce wasteful water use. In the Western United States, irrigated agriculture is the single largest user of water. Studies indicate that substantial quantities of water diverted for irrigation do not make it to the fields, with a significant portion lost to evaporation or leakage from irrigation canals. In Oregon and other States that recognize rights to conserved water for those who conserve it, irrigators and other water users could gain rights to use conserved water while also increasing the amount of water available for other uses by implementing conservation and efficiency measures to reduce water loss. The Federal government can play a role in helping meet our nation's changing water needs. In many Western States, water supply problems can be addressed by providing financial incentives to help water users implement cost effective water conservation and efficiency measures consistent with State water law. And, we can improve water quality throughout the nation by giving greater flexibility to States to use Clean Water Act funds to control polluted runoff, if that's where the money is needed most. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Burns, in introducing legislation to authorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program to provide loans to water users to fund conservation measures or runoff controls. States would be authorized, but not required, to use their SRF funds for these purposes. Participation by water users, farmers, ranchers and other eligible loan recipients would also be entirely voluntary. The conservation program would be structured to allow participating users to receive a share of the water saved through conservation or more efficient use, which they could use in accordance with State law. This type of approach would create a win/win situation with more water available for both the conservers and for instream flows. And, by using the SRF program, the Federal seed money would be repaid over time and gradually become available to fund conservation or other measures to solve water quality problems in other areas. My proposal has the support of the Farm Bureau, Oregon water users, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Oregon Water Trust. I urge my colleagues to support giving States greater flexibility to use their clean water funds for water conservation or runoff control when the State decides that is the best way to solve water quality problems and the water users voluntarily agree to participate.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 25 years after enactment of the Clean Water Act, we still have not achieved the law's original goal that all our nation's lakes, rivers and streams would be safe for fishing and swimming. After 25 years, it's time for the next generation of strategies to solve our remaining water quality problems. We need to give States new tools to overcome the new water quality challenges they are now facing. The money that has been invested in controlling water pollution from factories and upgrading sewage treatment plants has gone a long way to controlling these urban pollution sources. In most cases, the remaining water quality problems are no longer caused by pollution spewing out of factory pipes. Instead, they are caused by runoff from a myriad of sources ranging from farm fields to city streets and parking lots. In my home State of Oregon, more than half of our streams don't fully meet water quality standards. And the largest problems are contamination from runoff and meeting the standards for water temperature. In many cases, conventional approaches will not solve these problems. But we can achieve water temperature standards and obtain other water quality benefits by enhancing stream flows and improving runoff controls. A major problem for many streams in Oregon and in many other areas of the Western United States is that water supplies are fully appropriated or over-appropriated. There is currently no extra water to spare for increased stream flows. We can't create new water to fill the gap. But we can make more water available for this use through increased water conservation and more efficient use of existing water supplies. The key to achieving this would be to create incentives to reduce wasteful water use. In the Western United States, irrigated agriculture is the single largest user of water. Studies indicate that substantial quantities of water diverted for irrigation do not make it to the fields, with a significant portion lost to evaporation or leakage from irrigation canals. In Oregon and other States that recognize rights to conserved water for those who conserve it, irrigators and other water users could gain rights to use conserved water while also increasing the amount of water available for other uses by implementing conservation and efficiency measures to reduce water loss. The Federal government can play a role in helping meet our nation's changing water needs. In many Western States, water supply problems can be addressed by providing financial incentives to help water users implement cost effective water conservation and efficiency measures consistent with State water law. And, we can improve water quality throughout the nation by giving greater flexibility to States to use Clean Water Act funds to control polluted runoff, if that's where the money is needed most. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Burns, in introducing legislation to authorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program to provide loans to water users to fund conservation measures or runoff controls. States would be authorized, but not required, to use their SRF funds for these purposes. Participation by water users, farmers, ranchers and other eligible loan recipients would also be entirely voluntary. The conservation program would be structured to allow participating users to receive a share of the water saved through conservation or more efficient use, which they could use in accordance with State law. This type of approach would create a win/win situation with more water available for both the conservers and for instream flows. And, by using the SRF program, the Federal seed money would be repaid over time and gradually become available to fund conservation or other measures to solve water quality problems in other areas. My proposal has the support of the Farm Bureau, Oregon water users, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Oregon Water Trust. I urge my colleagues to support giving States greater flexibility to use their clean water funds for water conservation or runoff control when the State decides that is the best way to solve water quality problems and the water users voluntarily agree to participate.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise as the original cosponsor of the Pelton Dam Agreement legislation introduced today by my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. This legislation sanctions an historic agreement, reached on April 12, 2000, between the Oregon Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Warm Springs, Portland General Electric Company, PGE, and the United States Department of the Interior (Department). This agreement is important because it sets a responsible precedent for the joint ownership and operation of the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project located in Jefferson County, Oregon, on the Deschutes River. It also provides a model for how the United States, Indian tribes and private companies can work together to solve contentious issues. Beginning in the summer of 1998, the Warm Springs and PGE began negotiations to settle Pelton Dam Project ownership and operation issues. Approximately one-third of the Project lands are located on the Warm Springs Reservation. Because of the Department's legal trust responsibility to the Warm Springs, Department representatives also participated in the negotiations. On April 12, 2000, Department, Warm Springs and PGE representatives signed the Long Term Global Settlement and Compensation Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement creates shared ownership responsibilities and benefits between PGE and the Warm Springs for all three Pelton Project dams and facilities located both on and off the Warm Springs Reservation. The Warm Springs, PGE and the Department worked with myself and Senator Smith to carefully craft this legislation to authorize the Department to sanction the Agreement. This legislation provides Federal approval for only the aspects of the Agreement that affect tribal lands, resources, or other tribal assets. Section 2(b)(1) makes it clear that the legislation does not affect the normal Federal and State regulatory approvals that would be required for an agreement of this type. Section 2(b)(2) was included to address a Departmental concern that this legislation will not be interpreted to mean that legislative approval of future similar agreements will be necessary. In addition, this bill authorizes a 99-year leasing authority for the Warm Springs that is shared by countless other tribes. This bill is supported by PGE, the Warm Springs Tribe and Jefferson County.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Little Sandy Watershed Protection Act. I promised Oregonians that one of my first legislative actions when the 107th Congress convened would be the introduction of this bill. Therefore, joined by my friends Senator Gordon Smith and Congressman Earl Blumenauer, I introduce this legislation to make sure that Portland families can go to their kitchen faucets and get a glass of safe and pure drinking water today, tomorrow, and on, into the 21st century. The Bull Run has been the primary source of water for Portland since 1895. The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Mount Hood National Forest, was protected by Congressional action in 1904, in 1977 and then again, most recently, in 1996 (P.L. 95-200, 16, U.S.C. 482b note) because it was recognized as Portland's primary municipal water supply. It still is. Today I propose to finish the job of the Oregon Resources and Conservation Act of 1996. That law, which I worked on with former Senator Mark Hatfield, finally provided full protection to the Bull Run watershed, but only gave temporary protection to the adjacent Little Sandy watershed. I promised in 1996 that I would return to finish the job of protecting Portland's drinking water supply, and I intend to continue to push this legislation until the job is completed. The bill I introduce today expands the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit boundary from approximately 95,382 acres to approximately 98,272 acres by adding the southern portion of the Little Sandy River watershed, an increase of approximately 2,890 acres. The protection this bill offers will not only assure clean drinking water, but also increase the potential for fish recovery. Reclaiming suitable habitat for our region's threatened fish populations must be an all-out effort. Through the cooperation of Portland General Electric and the City of Portland, the Little Sandy can be an important part of that effort. The bill I introduce today is a compromise that was passed unanimously by the Senate during the last days of the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives of the 106th Congress refused to pass this important, noncontroversial, piece of legislation before the final bells rang. My belief is that the children of the 21st century deserve water that is as safe and pure as any that the Oregon pioneers found in the 19th century. This legislation will go a long way toward bringing about that vision. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise as the original cosponsor of the Pelton Dam Agreement legislation introduced today by my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. This legislation sanctions an historic agreement, reached on April 12, 2000, between the Oregon Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Warm Springs, Portland General Electric Company, PGE, and the United States Department of the Interior (Department). This agreement is important because it sets a responsible precedent for the joint ownership and operation of the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project located in Jefferson County, Oregon, on the Deschutes River. It also provides a model for how the United States, Indian tribes and private companies can work together to solve contentious issues. Beginning in the summer of 1998, the Warm Springs and PGE began negotiations to settle Pelton Dam Project ownership and operation issues. Approximately one-third of the Project lands are located on the Warm Springs Reservation. Because of the Department's legal trust responsibility to the Warm Springs, Department representatives also participated in the negotiations. On April 12, 2000, Department, Warm Springs and PGE representatives signed the Long Term Global Settlement and Compensation Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement creates shared ownership responsibilities and benefits between PGE and the Warm Springs for all three Pelton Project dams and facilities located both on and off the Warm Springs Reservation. The Warm Springs, PGE and the Department worked with myself and Senator Smith to carefully craft this legislation to authorize the Department to sanction the Agreement. This legislation provides Federal approval for only the aspects of the Agreement that affect tribal lands, resources, or other tribal assets. Section 2(b)(1) makes it clear that the legislation does not affect the normal Federal and State regulatory approvals that would be required for an agreement of this type. Section 2(b)(2) was included to address a Departmental concern that this legislation will not be interpreted to mean that legislative approval of future similar agreements will be necessary. In addition, this bill authorizes a 99-year leasing authority for the Warm Springs that is shared by countless other tribes. This bill is supported by PGE, the Warm Springs Tribe and Jefferson County.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Little Sandy Watershed Protection Act. I promised Oregonians that one of my first legislative actions when the 107th Congress convened would be the introduction of this bill. Therefore, joined by my friends Senator Gordon Smith and Congressman Earl Blumenauer, I introduce this legislation to make sure that Portland families can go to their kitchen faucets and get a glass of safe and pure drinking water today, tomorrow, and on, into the 21st century. The Bull Run has been the primary source of water for Portland since 1895. The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Mount Hood National Forest, was protected by Congressional action in 1904, in 1977 and then again, most recently, in 1996 (P.L. 95-200, 16, U.S.C. 482b note) because it was recognized as Portland's primary municipal water supply. It still is. Today I propose to finish the job of the Oregon Resources and Conservation Act of 1996. That law, which I worked on with former Senator Mark Hatfield, finally provided full protection to the Bull Run watershed, but only gave temporary protection to the adjacent Little Sandy watershed. I promised in 1996 that I would return to finish the job of protecting Portland's drinking water supply, and I intend to continue to push this legislation until the job is completed. The bill I introduce today expands the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit boundary from approximately 95,382 acres to approximately 98,272 acres by adding the southern portion of the Little Sandy River watershed, an increase of approximately 2,890 acres. The protection this bill offers will not only assure clean drinking water, but also increase the potential for fish recovery. Reclaiming suitable habitat for our region's threatened fish populations must be an all-out effort. Through the cooperation of Portland General Electric and the City of Portland, the Little Sandy can be an important part of that effort. The bill I introduce today is a compromise that was passed unanimously by the Senate during the last days of the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives of the 106th Congress refused to pass this important, noncontroversial, piece of legislation before the final bells rang. My belief is that the children of the 21st century deserve water that is as safe and pure as any that the Oregon pioneers found in the 19th century. This legislation will go a long way toward bringing about that vision. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a key principle of economic competition today is that one big merger begets another. Known as copycat mergers, these deals are made when the companies that did not merge first felt forced to copy the initial merger. If those left behind do not merge, then they just can't keep up with the Joneses. This morning, I am going to focus for a few minutes on competition in the airline industry. I want to begin by saying that when it comes to copycat airline mergers, this country has reached the point where there are virtually no more cats. This weekend, Americans opened their newspapers to learn that Delta Airlines, the nation's third largest carrier, and Continental, have begun merger discussions. The Associated Press says that Delta and Continental don't even really want to merge. But you guessed it--they say other major airline mergers might drive them to it. The latest round of airline merger reports comes on the heels of the proposed United-U.S. Airways merger and American's proposed deals with TWA and United. In my opinion, if nothing is done in the face of these proposed airline mergers, our country is headed down a runway of no return. If this lineup of mergers takes off, it will destroy the last remnants of competition in the airline history. The trend toward concentration in the airline industry did not begin in the last few weeks. More than 20 consecutive airline mergers were approved in the 1980s. I believe much of the problem we are seeing today stems from that huge array of airline mergers that took place in the 1980s. In fact, I think the merger between TWA and Ozark sets in motion the trend that began in the 1980s. I come to the floor this morning to say I believe it is time to change course. The central problem stems from the fact that the major proponents of deregulation have not been willing to simultaneously and vigorously enforce the antitrust laws. As a result, our country gets the worst of both worlds: dominant companies with a choke hold on the market, and nobody setting rules to make sure they don't run roughshod over the American consumer--the flying public. The Justice Department, which has been run by officials from both political parties since concentration in the airline industry accelerated, has not fully utilized the antitrust tools at its disposal. As a result, I want to make a proposal this morning: Before the Justice Department clears one more major airline merger, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should have to make a public report demonstrating that the merger will not have negative long-term implications for consumers and the economy. The FTC should dig in, hold public hearings to examine these deals, and get to the bottom of the long-term consequences of these airline mergers. It is time to make sure that these mergers don't strand any more airline passengers with too few choices and too many headaches. The real question is: Is competition in the airline industry working today? In my view, there certainly aren't enough competitive forces in the airline industry to force companies to compete now to improve service. Actually, some of our constituents report to us that they are left out on the runway for hours with a glass of water. Is it any wonder consumer complaints are at record high levels and some fliers call the departure board at our airports the ``delay board''? I think not. I think those problems stem from the lack of competition we are seeing in the airline sector today. This Congress should not stand idly by while a chain reaction of mega-mergers squeezes out whatever competitive juices remain in the airline industry. As I make my proposal for airline mergers this morning, I want to make clear that I am not one who believes that all the mergers taking place in America are bad. Many of the mergers our country is watching have not only not been harmful, they have been beneficial. They have resulted in more efficient companies that ultimately benefit consumers with better service and lower prices. When it comes to the big airlines, it doesn't look like that's the case. These airline mergers seem to permanently reduce competition. So I believe it's time for Congress and the executive branch to take a time out on airline mergers and assess the long term implications of where the airline industry is headed. The shape of the airline industry created today is one America will have to live with for a long time, and we ought to know what we are getting into. Competition in the airline industry is too important to too many people, who fly to conduct their business and their personal affairs. Slowing up this airline merger frenzy to look at the long-term consequences, as I propose this morning, is a modest step that the U.S. Congress ought to take now. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation that will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on ways to improve water management in the Malheur, Owyhee, Powder and Burnt River basins in northeastern Oregon. An earlier study by the Bureau identified a number of problems on these four Snake River tributaries, including high water temperatures and degraded habitat. These types of problems are not unique to these rivers; in fact, many rivers in the Pacific Northwest are in a similar condition. However, Oregon has a unique approach to solving these problems through the work of Watershed Councils. In these Councils, local farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders sit down together with the resource agencies to develop action plans to solve local problems. The Council members have the local knowledge of the land and waters, but they don't have technical expertise. The Bureau of Reclamation has the expertise to collect the kinds of water flow and water quality data that are needed to understand how the watershed works and how effective different solutions might be. One class of possible solutions includes small-scale construction projects, such as upgrading of irrigation systems and creation of wetlands to act as pollutant filters. This legislation would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to partner with the Watershed Councils in determining how such small-scale construction projects might benefit both the environment and the local economy. This bill authorizes a study; it does not authorize actual construction. It simply enables the Bureau to help find the most logical solution to resource management issues. Last Congress, the Senate passed the same bill I am introducing today. However, the other body did not act on the legislation before the last Congress adjourned. I look forward to prompt action to enact this bill in the current Congress. I welcome my colleague, Mr. Smith, as an original cosponsor of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation that will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on ways to improve water management in the Malheur, Owyhee, Powder and Burnt River basins in northeastern Oregon. An earlier study by the Bureau identified a number of problems on these four Snake River tributaries, including high water temperatures and degraded habitat. These types of problems are not unique to these rivers; in fact, many rivers in the Pacific Northwest are in a similar condition. However, Oregon has a unique approach to solving these problems through the work of Watershed Councils. In these Councils, local farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders sit down together with the resource agencies to develop action plans to solve local problems. The Council members have the local knowledge of the land and waters, but they don't have technical expertise. The Bureau of Reclamation has the expertise to collect the kinds of water flow and water quality data that are needed to understand how the watershed works and how effective different solutions might be. One class of possible solutions includes small-scale construction projects, such as upgrading of irrigation systems and creation of wetlands to act as pollutant filters. This legislation would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to partner with the Watershed Councils in determining how such small-scale construction projects might benefit both the environment and the local economy. This bill authorizes a study; it does not authorize actual construction. It simply enables the Bureau to help find the most logical solution to resource management issues. Last Congress, the Senate passed the same bill I am introducing today. However, the other body did not act on the legislation before the last Congress adjourned. I look forward to prompt action to enact this bill in the current Congress. I welcome my colleague, Mr. Smith, as an original cosponsor of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every day the Secretary of the Interior makes decisions that directly affect the quality of life in the West. This Department manages almost 500 million acres of public lands, and the debates that westerners have about the management of these lands are not for the fainthearted. To the people I represent, controversies about spotted owls, raging forest fires and mining waste are not intellectual abstractions. Almost invariably, discussions about these issues divide into two camps, with the environmental community on one side, and the affected industries on the other. Finding common ground between these two camps is extraordinarily difficult, but it is the premier challenge in the natural resources field. Today--and I say this with reluctance--I rise to state that I will be voting no on this nomination. I still have reservations about the nominee's commitment to make, as the central focus of her office, the bringing together of these two camps, the environmental community and the affected industries, to find common ground. America wants and deserves this because it is the common ground where we can protect our treasures and be sensitive to local economic needs. First, I do not necessarily share the views of those who believe that Gale Norton will throw open the doors at Interior, invite in powerful interest groups and say: Feel free to plunder our natural treasures and resources. In her testimony before the committee, Ms. Norton committed to not just enforce the Federal environmental laws as written but also as interpreted by the courts. In my opinion, she significantly changed her previous position on the Endangered Species Act, the so-called right to pollute, and global warming science. The Gale Norton who testified this month before the Senate is certainly no James Watt, but at this unique time in our history, that distinction alone is not enough to warrant confirmation. My reservations about this nominee fall into two major areas. First, Ms. Norton's desire to provide flexibility to private parties and the States to comply with our environmental laws has not been accompanied by a demonstrated commitment to watchdog those companies and the States to ensure that our national treasures are not exploited. Ms. Norton is right--what works for the Bronx does not necessarily work for Prineville, Oregon. One size does not fit all. But her demonstrated record suggests that she did not come down with hobnail boots on private parties who abuse our national treasures in the name of exercising flexibility. Look at what happened at Summitville in Colorado where a vast amount of cyanide spilled into the Alamosa River. Colorado was supposed to supervise that mine. It was the State's job and the State didn't do it. When I asked Ms. Norton at the confirmation hearings how she would prevent future ``Summitvilles,'' she was unwilling to say that the key to preventing these environmental tragedies is leadership that steps in when private parties go over the line. After Summitville, Ms. Norton could have immediately pushed to extend the statute of limitations on environmental crimes, which would have allowed criminal prosecution in that case. But she didn't, and respected Colorado commentators took her to task for not doing so. In another case involving heavy metal pollution at the Asarco plant in the Globeville neighborhood of Denver, Ms. Norton said she couldn't move quickly and aggressively because she could act only on referrals from the State health department. Every U.S. State senator knows that a State attorney general has more power than that. The State attorney general has the power to call in the officials from State agencies that are not doing their job and tell them to get on the stick and protect the public and the environment. Ms. Norton could have even taken her concerns about the State health department dragging its feet to the public, but she didn't. That absence of leadership led to a settlement from her agency that was so inadequate that a private citizens lawsuit recovered significantly more damages than Ms. Norton did. The Secretary of the Interior has wide latitude under the law as to who gets the land for leases or how the land will be handled under those leases. The Secretary of the Interior has the right to say we will lease this land for oil and gas, but we will not lease this land for coal exploration or we will not lease it at all or we will lease it with the following requirements to protect the environment. For example, many new oil and gas leases require the lessee to take the special precautions to protect wildlife on public lands. By Secretarial order, Ms. Norton could direct the Bureau of Land Management to weaken protective requirements enclosed in oil and gas leases, and at the same time significantly harm the environment. The fact is, the power of this office could allow virtually any private interest to build in one of our national treasures. In addition, through this office, the Secretary of the Interior can do much to deep six the prosecution of egregious environmental disasters. The reality here is: whether lawyers for the Interior Department are handling a case or the Justice Department is handling it, the Secretary of the Interior will be consulted just as any client is consulted by a lawyer about important appeals. Should there be an appeal at all? What kind of settlement would be appropriate? Is this offer satisfactory? Given Ms. Norton's record, the evidence does not demonstrate that she will be tough with polluters. The fact is, as you try to find the common ground between the environmental community and the affected industries, when one of those parties goes over the line, you do have to have a Secretary of the Interior who is willing to be tough about using the enforcement capabilities of the office. Finally, I am concerned about Ms. Norton's interest and willingness to do the heavy lifting, to bring parties together, to find creative solutions to vexing environmental problems. I am proud to have been able to work with the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, in an effort that was successful in the last session to resolve the question of how you pay for schools and roads in rural communities that have historically been tied to the harvest of timber. When Senator Craig and I started that effort, the two sides were 180 degrees apart, and virtually no one thought we could bring them together. But with good will and rolling up our sleeves, we were able to do it. When Ms. Norton was kind enough to come visit me at my office, I asked her to bring to the committee specific examples of how she would try similar efforts on other longstanding conflicts, such as the Endangered Species Act. I thought for a long time that it was extremely important to relieve some of the redtape and bureaucratic requirements on small private landowners, for example, under the Endangered Species Act, and I believe that can be done without destroying the mission of that critical statute. That would be the kind of thing that I would like to see the Secretary of the Interior take on and bring together these rival camps in an effort to find common ground. But she didn't give us those examples at the hearing that was scheduled. I asked--not just when she came to the office, but at the hearing--for specifics where she might work to try these common ground efforts that are so important, but none were furnished. So I will be a reluctant vote on Ms. Norton. I strongly hope that her record proves me wrong. As I stated in the committee, it would not be the first time, nor the last time, that that was the case. I hope Ms. Norton goes on to lead the Interior Department and that she will, in fact, look for specific ways to do what the President of the United States is asking us in natural resources and other areas, and that is to unite, not divide. On that important objective articulately stated by the President of the United States, Ms. Norton will always have my assistance. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I believe about 15 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to state my objection to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to proceed to or adopt H.R. 4020, authorizing the expansion of the boundaries of Sequoia National Park to include Dillonwood Giant Sequoia Grove, unless or until S. 2691, to provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, is discharged, unamended, from the House of Representatives Resources Committee and passed, unamended, by the House of Representatives. I do so consistent with the commitment I have made to explain publicly any so-called ``holds'' that I may place on legislation. S. 2691 is a bipartisan bill, authored by myself and Senator Smith of Oregon, and supported by all the members of Oregon's congressional delegation. It passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the entire Senate, unanimously. This legislation protects the current and future drinking water source for the city of Portland, home to one in four Oregonians. Despite its broad support, and my personal appeal to the Resources Committee, that committee has failed to act on it. Oregonians expect their elected representatives will act responsibly to protect Portland's drinking water source. As a result, I cannot agree to H.R. 4020 until S. 2691 clears the House of Representatives unamended.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague yielding. I thank him for the extraordinary bipartisan approach he has taken throughout this session. I think 18 months ago, when the session began and we were tackling the county payments question, particularly rural schools and roads, nobody thought we could put together a bipartisan coalition. Two sides were completely dug in. One side said we should totally divorce these payments from any connection to the land; others went the other way and said let's try to incentivize a higher cut. I believe the Senator from Idaho, in giving me the opportunity that he has as the ranking Democrat on the forestry subcommittee, has shown that we can take a fresh approach on these natural resources issues--in particular, timber. I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time. I am looking forward to working with him again next session because it was an exhilarating moment to have the first major natural resources bill in decades come to the floor of the Senate, as our legislation did. I thank my colleague for letting me intrude on his time. I have had a chance to be part of a historic effort with my friend from Idaho, and it has been a special part of my public service. I thank him for that.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased this morning that the Senate thus far is functioning the way it should when it comes to new controversial matters such as my State's physician-assisted suicide law. I have been forced to filibuster the tax bill since late last week because at that time there was an effort to stuff the Nickles legislation into that package in the dead of night. This legislation troubles me greatly because I believe it will cause unnecessary suffering for patients in every corner of the country. It involves law enforcement--specifically, the Drug Enforcement Administration--in a process that is so sensitive with respect to helping patients who are suffering around our country. This legislation has never been marked up by the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate. It has never been open to amendment by the Senate. It has not cleared even one of the traditional hurdles to which important legislation is subjected when it is introduced in the Senate. This is legislation that has over 50 leading health organizations, including the American Cancer Society, stating that it is going to hurt pain care for the dying. It is also fair to say that the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, has a number of organizations that support his efforts. When we have a number of organizations, respected organizations, that disagree about a very sensitive, totally new issue before the Congress, the Senate certainly should move carefully to evaluate the consequences of its actions. I spoke with the President of the United States about this matter twice on Monday. I was pleased to read the comments of the President expressing concern about the bill's impact on pain care and on physicians. I am absolutely convinced that if this legislation were to become law, there would be many health care providers in this country who are opposed to physician-assisted suicide, as I am, who would be very fearful about treating pain aggressively because the Nickles legislation criminalizes decisions with respect to pain management. The people of Oregon, who have a ballot in their hand such as this one right now, want to know that this ballot really counts. The people of Oregon, in coffee shops and beauty parlors all over the State, when they are considering how to vote right now, are asking themselves: Does this ballot really count? When we vote on a matter that is critical to us, particularly on a measure that has historically been left to the States, we want to make sure that people 3,000 miles away won't substitute their personal moral and religious beliefs for ours on a matter that has historically been left to us to decide. I can tell the people of Oregon now that their vote still counts. As of today, whether you vote for my party or the party of Senator Nickles, it doesn't matter. This ballot, as of this morning in the State of Oregon, still counts, regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a Liberal, a Conservative, Independent. Regardless of your political persuasion, as of now in the State of Oregon, this ballot still counts. Your vote is important. I hope folks at home exercise that right. Their vote still means something. I am going to do my best to see that it continues to count when Congress reconvenes after the election. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I object. high speed rail investment

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I am happy to allow Senator Gramm to speak before me. I would have to have unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Gramm's remarks, I be recognized next to speak, and that I be allowed to address several issues before there are any votes that go forward. I am concerned about a number of issues. As the majority leader knows, I have dedicated my service here to bipartisanship. I happen to agree with the distinguished majority leader that no one ever gets everything they want in a package. Senator Kerry showed that Democrats are willing to bend over backward to be bipartisan in areas such as small business. But on a number of issues that concern this Senator, there has not been that level of bipartisanship. I am compelled to object and will need to speak at some length this morning on the several issues that are important to me.

Mr. WYDEN. If the majority leader will yield further, I am going to need the time that I intend to consume because one of the issues I am going to talk about is one of the most sensitive bioethical decisions of our time. It was stuffed into this legislation a little before midnight, when a handful of conferees were meeting, and has never been considered on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I was prepared to allow Senator Gramm to speak because the two of us were on the floor at the same time, to speak for 15 minutes, on the proviso that I could go next. I would then talk for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. WYDEN. I would ask----