[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the passage of 
a provision of S. 1146 regarding the Yakima Basin Water Conservation 
Program. As you know, despite the fact that at least one Senator had 
put a hold on this very contentious provision, and there were holds on 
other provisions of S. 1146, it was passed inadvertently by the Senate 
in the end-of-session confusion on Tuesday night.
  First, no hearings have been held in the Senate on this very costly 
and controversial legislation which was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Water and Power, which I chair, of the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Second, there has been a loud outcry of opposition from the national 
and Washington State environmental community, including American 
Rivers, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural 
Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Trout Unlimited, the 
Environmental Defense Fund, and Waterwatch. Their opposition is based 
primarily on the fact that the bill grants tens of millions of dollars 
to the irrigation community with no guarantee that water conserved at 
public expense will go to the endangered Yakima fishery or to cure the 
serious water quality problems in the basin.
  I have many questions of the Senator from Washington, that because of 
the peculiar nature of its passage, remain unanswered such as:
  Are the bill's target instream flows for the endangered Yakima 
fishery greater than current river conditions?
  Can the Bureau of Reclamation succeed in acquiring water for the fish 
from voluntary leases or purchases as the bill requires when the Bureau 
has been unable to buy or lease any water in the Snake this year, and 
it is expected to be even more difficult to do so in the Yakima?
  If the fish, wildlife, and recreation purposes of the bill shall not 
impair the operation of the project to provide water for irrigation 
purposes and shall not impact existing contracts, is it possible that 
the bill may actually result in more irrigation in the basin, and thus 
even less water in the river?
  I am also concerned that this bill takes us back in time to another 
era because of its lack of certain critical features contained in the 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which this body enacted over 2 
years ago. This bill has no provision for a habitat restoration fund; 
no insurance that dry year reductions will not be disproportionately 
visited on the fishery; and no biological goals for fish recovery.
  Early in the next Congress I intend to reopen the debate on the 
Yakima in order to address these questions.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I share many of the concerns Senator Bradley expressed 
regarding the Yakima Basin Water Conservation Program. In condoning the 
passage of this legislation, I think we are supporting a strong step 
forward toward resolving the complex issues facing water appropriation 
in the Yakima Basin. In addition, I welcome hearings on this measure 
early in the next Congress and will support efforts by you and others 
to improve the legislation, particularly to ensure that conservation 
efforts in the basin result in more beneficial flows for endangered 
fisheries. I look forward to working closely with the Senator and the 
subcommittee to address the many legitimate concerns raised by you and 
the national and Washington State environmental organizations.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, when majority leader George Mitchell 
announced that he would not be seeking reelection this year, it sent 
shockwaves through this body and the Washington political 
establishment. Democrats and Republicans alike were shocked because we 
have come to appreciate and respect his strong leadership, honesty, and 
principled partisanship. We have become comfortable with his soothing 
style and his judicious manner and temperament. Although he has only 
been majority leader since 1989, he has in those short 5 years become 
synonymous with the body like few others have, and we have come to take 
him for granted in many ways.
  When most people use the term ``partisan,'' they do so in the 
pejorative sense. They use it to imply blind allegiance to a political 
party or cause, without regard to right and wrong, or what is in the 
best interest of the country as a whole. Senator George John Mitchell, 
however, is a partisan in the very best sense of the term, In the sense 
that it was meant before it became distorted by the politics of 
obstruction and destruction.
  George Mitchell's partisanship is guided by principles--his own 
personal principles and the principles of the Democratic party to which 
he is so committed and which he loves so dearly. He is fiercely loyal 
to the broad goals that every Democrat professes to stand for--equal 
opportunity, liberty, fairness, and improving the lives of average 
Americans. In upholding his party's principles, he is also strictly 
guided by his own set of principles--honesty, integrity, 
forthrightness, and, above all, personal honor.
  If George Mitchell has appeared excessively partisan to members on 
the other side of the aisle during his 5 years as majority leader, it 
is because he believes passionately in the Democratic party and what it 
stands for, and has been unwavering in supporting our party's goals. He 
has been anything but a blind partisan; there is not a hint of impaired 
political vision on his part. On the contrary, his brand of 
partisanship comes from his soul as clear, strong, principled 
leadership.
  George Mitchell's rise to the top leadership post in the Senate was 
meteoric, and a dramatic testament to the ability and legislative skill 
of the former Federal judge. When the venerable Senator Edmund S. 
Muskie left the Senate in 1980 to become President Carter's Secretary 
of State, George was appointed to his Maine seat. At that time, he had 
never won an election. In 1982, he won a full term with 61 percent of 
the vote against a proven campaigner. Just as he has as majority 
leader, George that year demonstrated steadiness and good humor 
in endearing himself to the Maine electorate.

  He became chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 
after the 1984 mid-term elections, and in 1986, the Democrats 
recaptured the Senate with 55 seats. Almost no one had thought that 
possible when George took on the task. He later distinguished himself 
on the Iran-Contra Committee, where I had the privilege of working with 
him and getting to know him better.
  George Mitchell comes from one of the most humble backgrounds in the 
Senate. His father was an orphan who worked as a janitor at Colby 
College and his mother was a Lebanese immigrant. He grew up in the 
small town of Waterville, a poor athlete in an athletically conscious 
family. Many of his strong Democratic principles come from growing up 
among the hard-working poor. There is no doubt that when he evokes the 
principles of his party, he speaks from a heart shaped by personal 
experience.
  After working his way through Bowdoin College in Maine and law school 
at Georgetown University, he served with the United States Army 
counter-intelligence corps in Berlin, Germany. He got his start in 
politics as a protege of Senator Muskie, another immigrant's son, 
became Democratic State Chairman in 1966, and then State attorney 
general. He ran an unsuccessful campaign for Governor in 1974, but 5 
years later, after practicing law and serving for a time as U.S. 
attorney, was named a Federal judge by President Carter. It was from 
the Federal bench that he came to the Senate.
  George Mitchell is one of those Senators who many of us thought would 
be here for a very long time to come, and when he steps down next year 
he will leave a void that will be difficult, if not impossible, to fill 
for the foreseeable future. The Democratic Party will lose perhaps its 
most effective unifying force at bringing all of our diverse factions 
together. Our party will also lose one of its most accomplished orators 
and debaters on a host of issues.
  The U.S. Senate will lose an impeccable ethical leader who is 
respected and admired by both parties. The country will lose a true 
national leader guided by traits such as intelligence, industry, and 
integrity.
  George Mitchell doesn't come close to setting any records for length 
of service in this body, something that we traditionally associate with 
so-called Senate giants. But he will leave an uncommon mark of 
distinction nonetheless, and will surely assume his place among the 
ranks of the giants who have dedicated themselves to this institution.

                          ____________________