Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from North Dakota and Indiana, and assume that the USDA will be attentive to the discussion that we have had with regard to this program. amendment no. 4997

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, almost 20 years ago, I traveled to Pendleton, OR, to hold a hearing on longstanding water disputes in the Umatilla River Basin. These disputes were somewhat typical of other water conflicts throughout the western United States, in that, I was lucky to get out of that hearing room alive. The tension between all sides at that 1977 hearing was so high, I was almost certain that a small war would break out right there in the room. Fortunately, that meeting was the low point in the effort to resolve water conflicts in that northeast Oregon river basin. Since that time, we have experienced many high points. In the ensuing 11 years since that fateful meeting of 1977, local leaders were successful in bringing irrigators, Indian tribes, environmentalists, elected officials and government bureaucrats together on one of the most successful fishery restoration projects this Nation has ever seen, the Umatilla Basin project. In 1988, Congress enacted the Umatilla Basin Project Act in an effort to develop a pragmatic, least-cost approach to meeting the Federal Government's treaty obligations in the basin without devastating the area's valuable agricultural economy. This project has truly been a model of cooperation between those seeking to utilize water for agricultural purposes and those whose historical way of life and culture hinged on the restoration of healthy fish runs in the Umatilla River. The Umatilla Basin project has been a product of years of debate and grassroots consensus building. Its two main purposes have been to restore a healthy anadromous fishery to the Umatilla River and to provide irrigated agriculture with a predictable water supply. On both counts, the project has been a tremendous success. Under the 1988 act, new pumping facilities were authorized to allow three irrigation districts, which previously withdrew their water from the Umatilla River, to leave the water instream for fish. In exchange, the irrigation districts received an equal volume of water from the adjacent Columbia River to irrigate their crop lands. The project has had no impact on Columbia River flows and has restored strong, healthy fish runs to the Umatilla River for the first time in decades. In fact, in the first 6 months of 1996 already, over 4,000 fish have returned to a river that in the 1960's lost its native salmon. In fact, prior to the authorization of the Umatilla Basin project, irrigation withdrawals from the Umatilla River literally dried the river up during the summer months. While the Umatilla Basin project has been a huge success for all parties involved, the 1988 act provided Columbia River exchanges for only half of the Umatilla River irrigation withdrawals. In order to make the project whole and satisfy the Federal Government's treaty fishery obligations to the Umatilla Tribes, the remainder of the project must be built. Today, I am introducing legislation which achieves this goal, while at the same time, resolves a longstanding dispute regarding the delivery of water to lands not officially within Bureau of Reclamation project boundaries. The bill I am introducing today, entitled the ``Umatilla Basin Project Completion Act,'' incorporates the key components of a general agreement reached last April in meetings between the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, irrigation districts, State water resources department, locally elected officials and Federal agencies. My bill has three major provisions. First, it calls for the construction of the third and final phase of the Umatilla project, which will exchange Columbia River water for an equivalent amount of irrigation water now taken out of the Umatilla River. This final phase, known as phase 3, will cost $71 million and will fully satisfy all obligations of the Federal Government to provide the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation with water for fishery needs in the Umatilla River below the mouth of McKay Creek, as recognized by their 1855 treaty with the United States. The 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act authorized the construction of phases 1 and 2. Phase 3 alone will provide almost as much water to the fishery resources of the Umatilla River as did the previous two phases. Second, my bill adjusts the boundaries of three of the four irrigation districts in the Umatilla project to include lands irrigated with project water prior to 1988. The three districts for which these boundary adjustments will be legislatively granted, are already exchanging Umatilla River for Columbia River water, as authorized under phases 1 and 2. The fourth district, Westland Irrigation District, was not included in phases 1 and 2 of the 1988 Act and is still withdrawing water from the Umatilla River. My bill does not grant a boundary adjustment for Westland until the phase 3 Columbia River water exchange is fully up and running. Finally, my legislation calls for the preparation of a comprehensive water management plan for the Umatilla River Basin. As a followup to last April's meetings, all of the affected parties--the State, Federal and local Governments, the tribes, and the irrigation districts--agreed to cooperate in preparing a comprehensive water management plan for the Umatilla Basin. The Plan would serve as a guide in allocating water to maximize the fishery benefits while recognizing valid existing uses. My bill authorizes $500,000 to assist this most promising and valuable effort. It should be noted at this time that not all of the items identified in last April's consensus process were included in my legislation. While I felt that each of these items had merit, fiscal realities and the short time frame remaining prior to sine die adjournment of the 104th Congress precluded me from including them in this bill. Mr. President, I recognize that large authorizations for new construction projects are not particularly popular at this time. This bill, however, is far preferable to the traditional mode of meeting our Nation's treaty fishery obligations to Indian tribes. To date, the standard mode of operation has been protracted litigation and adjudication of rights, followed by construction of costly projects. In the Yakima River Basin, for example, the Federal Government and irrigators spent nearly 20 years and $50 million just adjudicating the tribe's treaty fishery rights. During that time, the Yakima River salmon runs continued to decline, and Congress passed legislation authorizing another $150 million to restore the Yakima River fishery. Unfortunately, similar sad tales reverberate throughout the Pacific Northwest. Our experience in the Umatilla River Basin, to date, has been more positive and successful. The bill I am introducing today reflects the general consensus reached by Tribes, irrigation districts, local communities, environmentalists, and State, local, and Federal governments. These groups came together in the same cooperative spirit that characterized the 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act to reach agreement that the final phase of the Umatilla Basin Project should be completed and that, once and for all, the longstanding debate over authorized water deliveries for irrigation purposes should be resolved. I am proud of the work these groups have done and look forward to working with them to resolve their remaining issues and concerns with this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, almost 20 years ago, I traveled to Pendleton, OR, to hold a hearing on longstanding water disputes in the Umatilla River Basin. These disputes were somewhat typical of other water conflicts throughout the western United States, in that, I was lucky to get out of that hearing room alive. The tension between all sides at that 1977 hearing was so high, I was almost certain that a small war would break out right there in the room. Fortunately, that meeting was the low point in the effort to resolve water conflicts in that northeast Oregon river basin. Since that time, we have experienced many high points. In the ensuing 11 years since that fateful meeting of 1977, local leaders were successful in bringing irrigators, Indian tribes, environmentalists, elected officials and government bureaucrats together on one of the most successful fishery restoration projects this Nation has ever seen, the Umatilla Basin project. In 1988, Congress enacted the Umatilla Basin Project Act in an effort to develop a pragmatic, least-cost approach to meeting the Federal Government's treaty obligations in the basin without devastating the area's valuable agricultural economy. This project has truly been a model of cooperation between those seeking to utilize water for agricultural purposes and those whose historical way of life and culture hinged on the restoration of healthy fish runs in the Umatilla River. The Umatilla Basin project has been a product of years of debate and grassroots consensus building. Its two main purposes have been to restore a healthy anadromous fishery to the Umatilla River and to provide irrigated agriculture with a predictable water supply. On both counts, the project has been a tremendous success. Under the 1988 act, new pumping facilities were authorized to allow three irrigation districts, which previously withdrew their water from the Umatilla River, to leave the water instream for fish. In exchange, the irrigation districts received an equal volume of water from the adjacent Columbia River to irrigate their crop lands. The project has had no impact on Columbia River flows and has restored strong, healthy fish runs to the Umatilla River for the first time in decades. In fact, in the first 6 months of 1996 already, over 4,000 fish have returned to a river that in the 1960's lost its native salmon. In fact, prior to the authorization of the Umatilla Basin project, irrigation withdrawals from the Umatilla River literally dried the river up during the summer months. While the Umatilla Basin project has been a huge success for all parties involved, the 1988 act provided Columbia River exchanges for only half of the Umatilla River irrigation withdrawals. In order to make the project whole and satisfy the Federal Government's treaty fishery obligations to the Umatilla Tribes, the remainder of the project must be built. Today, I am introducing legislation which achieves this goal, while at the same time, resolves a longstanding dispute regarding the delivery of water to lands not officially within Bureau of Reclamation project boundaries. The bill I am introducing today, entitled the ``Umatilla Basin Project Completion Act,'' incorporates the key components of a general agreement reached last April in meetings between the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, irrigation districts, State water resources department, locally elected officials and Federal agencies. My bill has three major provisions. First, it calls for the construction of the third and final phase of the Umatilla project, which will exchange Columbia River water for an equivalent amount of irrigation water now taken out of the Umatilla River. This final phase, known as phase 3, will cost $71 million and will fully satisfy all obligations of the Federal Government to provide the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation with water for fishery needs in the Umatilla River below the mouth of McKay Creek, as recognized by their 1855 treaty with the United States. The 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act authorized the construction of phases 1 and 2. Phase 3 alone will provide almost as much water to the fishery resources of the Umatilla River as did the previous two phases. Second, my bill adjusts the boundaries of three of the four irrigation districts in the Umatilla project to include lands irrigated with project water prior to 1988. The three districts for which these boundary adjustments will be legislatively granted, are already exchanging Umatilla River for Columbia River water, as authorized under phases 1 and 2. The fourth district, Westland Irrigation District, was not included in phases 1 and 2 of the 1988 Act and is still withdrawing water from the Umatilla River. My bill does not grant a boundary adjustment for Westland until the phase 3 Columbia River water exchange is fully up and running. Finally, my legislation calls for the preparation of a comprehensive water management plan for the Umatilla River Basin. As a followup to last April's meetings, all of the affected parties--the State, Federal and local Governments, the tribes, and the irrigation districts--agreed to cooperate in preparing a comprehensive water management plan for the Umatilla Basin. The Plan would serve as a guide in allocating water to maximize the fishery benefits while recognizing valid existing uses. My bill authorizes $500,000 to assist this most promising and valuable effort. It should be noted at this time that not all of the items identified in last April's consensus process were included in my legislation. While I felt that each of these items had merit, fiscal realities and the short time frame remaining prior to sine die adjournment of the 104th Congress precluded me from including them in this bill. Mr. President, I recognize that large authorizations for new construction projects are not particularly popular at this time. This bill, however, is far preferable to the traditional mode of meeting our Nation's treaty fishery obligations to Indian tribes. To date, the standard mode of operation has been protracted litigation and adjudication of rights, followed by construction of costly projects. In the Yakima River Basin, for example, the Federal Government and irrigators spent nearly 20 years and $50 million just adjudicating the tribe's treaty fishery rights. During that time, the Yakima River salmon runs continued to decline, and Congress passed legislation authorizing another $150 million to restore the Yakima River fishery. Unfortunately, similar sad tales reverberate throughout the Pacific Northwest. Our experience in the Umatilla River Basin, to date, has been more positive and successful. The bill I am introducing today reflects the general consensus reached by Tribes, irrigation districts, local communities, environmentalists, and State, local, and Federal governments. These groups came together in the same cooperative spirit that characterized the 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act to reach agreement that the final phase of the Umatilla Basin Project should be completed and that, once and for all, the longstanding debate over authorized water deliveries for irrigation purposes should be resolved. I am proud of the work these groups have done and look forward to working with them to resolve their remaining issues and concerns with this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for recommending sound, fiscally responsible funding legislation to the Senate, I am deeply disturbed about the spending levels contained in the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense appropriation bill. This bill provides over $244 billion in budget authority for the coming year. This reflects the recently passed national defense authorization bill, which authorized nearly $11.3 billion more than the administration requested for military spending for 1997. Included in this legislation are billions of dollars worth of weapons the Pentagon says it does not want and cannot afford to maintain in the future. Meanwhile, vital domestic programs are being critically underfunded or terminated. Fiscally, this is unwise; morally, it is unconscionable. Despite all the debate about balancing the Federal budget, it is apparent to me that we are not yet ready to break off our addiction to excessive military spending. Of even more concern, is the continued failure of this body to define national security in a truly comprehensive and meaningful way. As I have stated many times before, true national security consists of more than our arsenal of military weapons, it also includes the health and welfare of our population. Many years ago, the cabinet agency tasked with protecting the national security of the United States was renamed from the Department of War to the Department of Defense. This is an important distinction. The definition of war is a state of open and hostile conflict between states or nations. The definitions of defense and security carry with them much broader connotations. Defense, or to defend, is to drive danger or attack away from. While security means freedom from danger, freedom from fear or anxiety, freedom from want or deprivation. The mission of the Department of Defense is to protect the citizens of the United States against threats to our security. Let us recognize that these threats can take many forms, that they are internal as well as external. The American people are under attack today. The attacks are not as obvious as tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue or nuclear submarines sailing up the Potomac River. The enemies aren't as easily identifiable as a soldier pointing a gun, rather they are often subtle and insidious. But, make no mistake, we do have formidable enemies threatening our population. The enemies I speak of are disease and disability. In one year, more Americans will die from disease than from all the military battles fought in the twentieth century. The number of Americans killed in battle during World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, the Persian Gulf, and Somalia total 426,175. Certainly a horrendous number and a tragic loss of life. In contrast, however, approximately 500,000 people will die of cancer this year alone. Lung cancer will kill 115,000 Americans, breast cancer 48,000, and prostate cancer 41,000. I could go on and on. Heart disease will kill over 743,000 people, diabetes 53,000, and AIDS 37,000. The list of casualties from disease is endless. Make no mistake, there are thousands of tiny wars being fought in America today. The battleground is the human body. The command centers are clinical research laboratories and our weapons are test tubes and microscopes. The Generals and Admirals leading the fight are the medical researchers, physicians, and nurses all around the country searching for new treatments and cures for disease. But in this war, the front line troops are civilians as well as soldiers. This battle is as ugly and painful as any military conflict. Every day men, women, and children are being killed, maimed, and ravaged by disease. No mortars are being launched, but limbs are being amputated as a result of diabetes. No napalm has been dropped, but skin is destroyed and bodies are disfigured by EB. No nerve gas has been released, but brains and central nervous systems are disabled by Alzheimers and Parkinsons diseases. It is time to declare war on disease and disability. This is a battle which is worthy of the full commitment and resources of our Federal Government, including the Department of Defense. In fact, this is one war which I fully support. The Department of Defense also has the responsibility to care for the men and women who sacrifice to serve and protect our country. In devoting a small portion of its considerable resources to medical research and treatment, the Pentagon invests in the health and welfare of our troops, as well as our military retirees, veterans, and family members. Several years ago, Congress appropriated funds for and directed the Department of Defense to establish a peer-reviewed breast cancer research program. This program has been a tremendous success and is a vital component in the effort to find a cure for breast cancer. We have continued funding for that program in 1997. In this bill, we have also provided $100 million to establish a similar program for prostate cancer research. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men. Yet, it has largely been overlooked by the general public and research has been grievously underfunded by the Federal Government. In 1996, over 317,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 41,400 will die from it. Yet, with early detection, 9 out of 10 men can be successfully treated for prostate cancer. Clearly, an investment in research to improve detection and treatment of this disease will yield a tremendous return. Medical research is the key to winning the war against disease and disability. I am pleased that the Senate has included some funding for this critical effort in this legislation. In my view, however, the amount of resources devoted to life-destroying technologies compared to life-sustaining endeavors is still critically out of balance. The health and well-being of our population is every bit as vital to the Nation's security as our arsenal of military weapons. Until this imbalance is recognized and corrected, the people of our Nation will continue to be vulnerable to these destructive enemies and true national security will not be achieved, no matter what our level of military might.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. This project has been one of the top priorities in my recent years in the Senate. This past year, the Columbia River was the largest volume export port on the west coast and its significance means the impacts are felt well beyond my State and region. I appreciate having the chairman of the authorizing committee recognize this importance and commit to timely consideration of the Columbia River Channel improvement project in the future. Water Resources Development Act and the La Farge Dam

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the top marine transportation priority for my region is the project to deepen the Columbia River deep-draft channel from 40 to 43 feet. Local sponsors of the project include three Oregon ports: Astoria, Portland, and St. Helens; and four Washington ports: Longview, Kalama, Woodland, and Vancouver. The project enjoys strong support within the Oregon and Washington congressional delegations. Port and regional interest is so keen because some of the ships calling in the Columbia River now exceed the 40-foot draft of the existing channel. If the channel comes to be viewed in the world shipping community as too shallow for the larger, more efficient vessels, our region's reliance on trade and distribution as economic mainstays will be at risk. On June 27, Mr. President, the biggest container vessel ever to call in the Columbia River, the Ever Ultra, took on more than 2,100 containers in Portland. If loaded fully, the Ever Ultra would have needed a channel nearly 42 feet deep. This class of vessel will operate out of the river at low-water periods by leaving light loaded, but the vessel owners clearly view this as a test of the Columbia River port market. As world trade mushrooms in the years ahead, there will be more pressure on these vessels, and the channel as well, to operate at full capacity. At stake is more than $15 billion in annual trade and more than 46,000 jobs in the region. Obviously, the job impact climbs even higher when you consider job impacts throughout the region. Exports crossing the Columbia River docks originate around the country, coming from the Midwest and northern tier States. Thus, the trade impacts of the channel reverberate throughout the U.S. economy. Mr. President, let me cite just one regional example: An estimated three-quarters of Montana wheat is exported through the Columbia River system. Montana grain growers acknowledge that bottlenecks in the Columbia River Channel hamper their efforts to bet their grain to market. The same is true for States around the west that rely on the channel as the gateway to the international marketplace. Columbia River ports handle grain from throughout the Midwest and products from around the rest of the country. Restrictions on channel draft mean lost business opportunities. for grain vessels, a foot of draft equates to 2,000 tons of cargo, valued at $324,000. For container cargo, that same foot of draft equates to $2.5 million in cargo value. When vessels leave light loaded or without taking a full load so that they do not exceed channel depth, that is the value of cargo left behind for each foot of draft sacrifices. Mr. President, my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, and I have worked diligently with the committee on moving this project ahead. Included in this year's water resources bill is language directing the corps to move ahead with technical improvements on turns in the lower Columbia River. But I want to put the Senate on notice that more needs to be done on this project. I have discussed the importance of the Columbia River Channel deepening with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee as he assures me the committee is well versed in the importance of this navigation improvement project.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my honor today, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley and Harkin, to introduce legislation that will fulfill a lifetime dream. The Honorable Harold Hughes, the ``man from Ida Grove,'' has made the struggle against alcoholism and its affects on individuals and their families his life work. Harold Hughes vision is to combat alcoholism, not only on a personal level, but on a community and national level as well. His dream will be fulfilled with the creation of a commission on all matters related to alcoholism and its affects on America. The Talmud defines a good man as, ``one who needs no monuments because their deeds are shrines.'' The Honorable Harold Hughes deeds are indeed shrines. My distinguished friend has devoted his life to helping others. He has served as Governor of Iowa, U.S. Senator, and now as a leader in the fight against the abuse of alcohol and drugs. He is the founder and chairman of the Hughes Foundation as well as the Harold Hughes Centers for Alcoholism and Drug Treatment. He has become a front-line soldier in the war against alcohol abuse in the United States. Alcohol use and abuse in the United States affects all of us. Although alcohol is a legal drug, its effects are devastating. Alcoholism tears apart marriages, families and communities. As a Nation, we cannot allow the devastating effects to continue. Alcohol abuse and dependency affects 10 percent of Americans, 18.5 million, but we all pay the price for this addiction. About 56 percent of American families are affected by alcoholism. If alcohol were never carelessly used in our society, 105,000 fewer people would die each year. Alcohol is a factor in one-half of all homicides, suicides, and motor vehicle fatalities. Treatment, support, direct health care costs, as well as lost work time and premature death cost the public $98.6 billion in 1990. The Harold Hughes Commission on Alcoholism will provide the President, Congress, and the American people with the tools that are necessary to address the effects of this disease. Unlike commissions of the past, which studied the affects of alcoholism on our society, the work of this Commission will be uniquely narrowly tailored. The focus will not be on the big picture of alcoholism in the United States, rather it will be on the limited, practical, and cost-effective solutions to our growing crisis with alcoholism. The Commission will examine better ways to coordinate existing Government programs, improve education on the affects of alcohol, improve alcoholism research, and increase public/private sector cooperation in combating this disease. This work will be carried out by small working groups that will include academics, business executives and alcoholism experts. These working groups will focus on single policy issues in order to produce recommendations that will lead to tangible solutions to alcoholism. Currently, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism under the National Institutes of Health is the leading research and funding organization for issues dealing with alcohol abuse. NIAAA conducts 90 percent of all research in these areas. Current research in the area of alcoholism includes: Searching for the genome for genetic markers that are linked to alcoholism; developing and approving a new drug, Naltexone, for the treatment of alcoholism; educating mothers on the risks drinking poses during pregnancy; preventing alcoholism through educational programs developed for schools, the workplace, and the community. This research and programming will greatly reduce the overall cost of alcohol abuse to society. The Harold Hughes Commission will be a vehicle for existing programs like NIAAA as well as other research programs and Government agencies to increase their effectiveness. The coordination of exsisting programs will increase the success rate of all the programs. This legislation marks the beginning of a renewed congressional commitment to fighting alcoholism in America. It also pays tribute to a man who made a similar commitment in his own life for himself, his community, and others who are fighting the battle against alcoholism.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my honor today, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley and Harkin, to introduce legislation that will fulfill a lifetime dream. The Honorable Harold Hughes, the ``man from Ida Grove,'' has made the struggle against alcoholism and its affects on individuals and their families his life work. Harold Hughes vision is to combat alcoholism, not only on a personal level, but on a community and national level as well. His dream will be fulfilled with the creation of a commission on all matters related to alcoholism and its affects on America. The Talmud defines a good man as, ``one who needs no monuments because their deeds are shrines.'' The Honorable Harold Hughes deeds are indeed shrines. My distinguished friend has devoted his life to helping others. He has served as Governor of Iowa, U.S. Senator, and now as a leader in the fight against the abuse of alcohol and drugs. He is the founder and chairman of the Hughes Foundation as well as the Harold Hughes Centers for Alcoholism and Drug Treatment. He has become a front-line soldier in the war against alcohol abuse in the United States. Alcohol use and abuse in the United States affects all of us. Although alcohol is a legal drug, its effects are devastating. Alcoholism tears apart marriages, families and communities. As a Nation, we cannot allow the devastating effects to continue. Alcohol abuse and dependency affects 10 percent of Americans, 18.5 million, but we all pay the price for this addiction. About 56 percent of American families are affected by alcoholism. If alcohol were never carelessly used in our society, 105,000 fewer people would die each year. Alcohol is a factor in one-half of all homicides, suicides, and motor vehicle fatalities. Treatment, support, direct health care costs, as well as lost work time and premature death cost the public $98.6 billion in 1990. The Harold Hughes Commission on Alcoholism will provide the President, Congress, and the American people with the tools that are necessary to address the effects of this disease. Unlike commissions of the past, which studied the affects of alcoholism on our society, the work of this Commission will be uniquely narrowly tailored. The focus will not be on the big picture of alcoholism in the United States, rather it will be on the limited, practical, and cost-effective solutions to our growing crisis with alcoholism. The Commission will examine better ways to coordinate existing Government programs, improve education on the affects of alcohol, improve alcoholism research, and increase public/private sector cooperation in combating this disease. This work will be carried out by small working groups that will include academics, business executives and alcoholism experts. These working groups will focus on single policy issues in order to produce recommendations that will lead to tangible solutions to alcoholism. Currently, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism under the National Institutes of Health is the leading research and funding organization for issues dealing with alcohol abuse. NIAAA conducts 90 percent of all research in these areas. Current research in the area of alcoholism includes: Searching for the genome for genetic markers that are linked to alcoholism; developing and approving a new drug, Naltexone, for the treatment of alcoholism; educating mothers on the risks drinking poses during pregnancy; preventing alcoholism through educational programs developed for schools, the workplace, and the community. This research and programming will greatly reduce the overall cost of alcohol abuse to society. The Harold Hughes Commission will be a vehicle for existing programs like NIAAA as well as other research programs and Government agencies to increase their effectiveness. The coordination of exsisting programs will increase the success rate of all the programs. This legislation marks the beginning of a renewed congressional commitment to fighting alcoholism in America. It also pays tribute to a man who made a similar commitment in his own life for himself, his community, and others who are fighting the battle against alcoholism.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure today to recognize the Buddy Bears for Abused Children Program. This program is a volunteer effort coordinated with Oregon law enforcement agencies that donates teddy bears to abused children. The growth and popularity of this program serves as an example of its success in promoting a very special cause. The Buddy Bear program provides a simple but immediate gift to children who are often at their most vulnerable. In many cases these children are being taken from the trauma of an abusive or drug addicted home life or have been completely abandoned by their parents. At a confusing and frightening moment in their young lives, this gift, presented to them by an officer, serves as an important signal of caring and trust. The driving force behind this program for the last 5 years has been Leonard H. Odom of Salem, OR. Mr. Odom is a member of the Marion County Sheriff's Office and has spent hundreds of volunteer hours each year collecting donations from individuals and businesses in the community. As a result of his tireless efforts with the Buddy Bear program, he was awarded a letter of commendation from the Marion County Sheriff's Office at an awards ceremony on May 17, of this year. As an example of the impact of the Buddy Bear program, I would like to share a letter that Mr. Odom received. It reads: Dear Mr. Buddy Bear, An unusual and touching incident arose when I went to buy the Buddy Bears, and I thought you might find it interesting. A young, black girl, 18 or 19 waited on me. When she saw the bears she picked one up and said, ``Hi Mr. Bear,'' and gave him a hug. I said, ``Now don't get too attached to those bears, they are for a very special purpose.'' I then proceeded to tell her that we have a friend who works with the Sheriffs department and he collects bears to give to children who have been in a traumatic situation. The girl stopped what she was doing and she had this very startled look on her face. She said, ``I got one of those bears when I was a little girl. My Step-Dad tried to kill my Mother. He went after her with a machete, he beat her, he hit us, and when the police got there they gave me and my sister a teddy bear to hug. I remember it to this day. I think your friend is doing a wonderful thing.'' So now you know first hand how appreciated your work is to the victims. Elcena It is programs like the Buddy Bears for Abused Children, and the energy and commitment of people like Mr. Odom, that make volunteer efforts in Oregon and across the country so successful. I am honored today to recognize this program and individual.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, S. 295, better known as the TEAM Act. I firmly believe that to be competitive in today's marketplace managers and employees need to have open lines of communication. The TEAM Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] to clarify that an employer may establish and participate in worker-management organization to address matters of mutual interest; quality, productivity, and efficiency. In addition, the bill would not allow the entity to negotiate or enter into collective-bargaining agreements. Many American businesses have discovered that including their employees in workplace decisionmaking has increased their productivity. Unfortunately, a series of rulings by the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] has prohibited employers from meeting with employees to discuss issues such as productivity, safety, and quality. While the NLRB made a decision based upon a fair interpretation which takes into account current law, this law was written at a time when company unions were commonly used to avoid unionization. However, I do point to the NLRA's failure to account for today's work force situations where there is an honest effort to increase productivity, safety, and quality among employees and employers. Mr. President, in my home State of Oregon we have seen tremendous growth and development, much of it attributed to the influence of the electronics industry. To be competitive in today's international electronics market, employees must act in partnership with management. These partnerships succeed in a cooperative rather than an adversarial environment. However, under the specter of litigation, companies are fearful of implementing employee involvement programs [EI] or have stopped them altogether. Under the current National Labor Relations Board interpretation of the law, the definitions are so broad as to prohibit or restrict implementing these employee involvement programs. Again, many of our Federal labor laws were written in the 1930's, at time when employers used company unions or sham unions to avoid negotiating with representatives of employee selected unions. Labor laws such as Davis-Bacon were written in the 1930's and we know that it is in dire need of reform. These laws need to be updated and employers must be able to discuss the workplace environment without the fear of litigation or violating the National Labor Relations Act. I believe that the TEAM Act will update and improve existing law to address the issue of legitimate company efforts to include employee input and increase competition in the marketplace. As written, S. 295 only amends the section of the NLRA which prohibits employer-dominated labor organizations and specifically provides that all other rights under the NLRA remain intact. Organizations do not have the authority to enter into or negotiate collective-bargaining agreements or to amend existing agreements and the TEAM Act certainly does not affect an employee's right to choose union representation. If workers choose to work through union representation, the employer must recognize and then arbitrate with the union. Mr. President, my father was a longshoreman and I am an advocate for the common worker. Yet, I support the TEAM Act. It is not a contradiction to support labor and management when both mutually agree to improve work force efficiency, safety, and productivity; benefiting all those involved in the process. Give credit to today's workers who know their options and know when they are being treated fairly or unfairly. The TEAM Act secures an innovative opportunity for workers to contribute to the success of their companies. Let us ensure that workers have that option by passing the TEAM Act.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I agree that Congress should increase the minimum wage standard. I have voted for reasonable minimum wage increases in the past and will certainly vote for the reasonable increase of the minimum wage today. As this Congress discusses welfare reform, it has been emphasized time and time again that those who can work should work. However, with the minimum wage today at $4.25 an hour, a person laboring 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year would gross only $8,840. The minimum wage is already very close to its lowest real value in over 40 years. In addition, paired with inflation, the minimum wage increase of 1989 has been virtually nullified. If the minimum wage in January 1978 had kept pace with the Consumer Price Index, for example, the current level would be $6.40 in 1996. If we expect those on welfare to work, we can at least ensure that a minimum wage is a living wage and by voting for an increase in the minimum wage today we will have taken steps to assure those who are working are justly compensated for their work. The minimum wage, established in 1938 by the Fair Labor Standards Act has been raised 17 times, more recently in 1989 and 1991. I voted both for final passage and the conference report of the wage increases in 1989, which raised the minimum wage to $3.80, and 1991, which raised it to its current level. A minimum wage provides vital protection for those workers who are not union members or who have few if any skills and little bargaining power. With bipartisan support, Congress should raise the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour and I support that increase. clarification of section 4271 aviation excise tax

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am pleased to share with the Senate information about a very special facility in Oregon that I believe serves as a model for the nation. Meadowwood Springs Speech and Hearing Camp was established in 1964 through the initiative of four University of Oregon students. These students saw the need for a speech and hearing development camp in the Pacific Northwest. They selected a secluded site in the Blue Mountains of Northeastern Oregon and established a camp for some of the most special children in our society--those with speech and hearing difficulties. Only 15 children attended the camp's first session over 30 years ago. Today, the camp boasts over 100 student participants annually. There are now over 40 buildings on 143 acres in this beautiful forest setting. The buildings include cabins, an infirmary, a dinning hall, a store, a multipurpose building, and a swimming pool. Children come to Meadowwood in order to improve their speech and hearing skills. The caring and loving environment at Meadowwood allows these children to develop skills at a significantly accelerated rate. In some cases, a child at Meadowwood may learn as much in a 2-week period as they may have learned in a span of 6 months in a traditional school setting. The staff members at Meadowwood are a group of highly motivated and caring individuals. Many have specialized educational backgrounds in speech pathology and or audiology from acclaimed schools throughout the country. These devoted staff members are often drawn from local communities. In recent years, the staff-to-child ratio has been approximately 1-to-1. It is the care and commitment of the staff that make this unique facility what it is. They ensure that the children develop in a loving and nurturing environment. I want to share with my colleagues one of the most remarkable elements of this venture--it receives no Federal funding. Meadowwood is a non-profit organization. It is funded through the generous donations of the Oregon Elks Association and individual contributions. In addition to financial contributions, Meadowwood also receives the very valuable gift of time from the many Oregonians who volunteer there. The Oregon Elks Association and the other Oregonians deserve our highest praise. They have donated their time, money, and attention to Meadowwood and have made it a success. It is a place filled with growth and with the laughter of very special children. Meadowwood is a unique miracle. As public officials, we must never lose sight of the human face that is behind nearly every issue we confront in this chamber. For this country to advance and become more prosperous in the future, we must place our highest priority on the needs of our children. I have reviewed many programs during my decades of public service. Few are better examples of the high commitment we must place on our children than the fine program at Meadowwood.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the clarion call of this Congress, and the current administration, has been to balance the budget. To reduce the Federal deficit and balance the budget. I believe that, with the passage of this bill, the Senate takes a step away from that goal. The fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill authorizes a total of approximately $265.7 billion for national defense programs, which is more than $11.2 billion more than the administration requested. I have to question the sincerity, and certainly the logic, of those who ardently advocate for a balanced budget while refusing to look realistically at defense spending. When we speak of health care, education, and foreign aid, the self- professed fiscal conservatives rave about how the public must be prepared to sacrifice today to preserve the future. About how the Federal Government must cut costs and eliminate waste. And about how there is not one extra penny to spare for even the most essential domestic programs. Yet, when we even broach the subject of significantly reducing military spending, these same fiscal conservatives take to the floor and raise the specter of national security as justification for maintaining an unconscionable level of funding. Congress and the administration must share the blame for the failure to significantly reduce defense spending. Over the next 6 years, both the administration's and the Congress' budget plans call for $1.6 trillion in military spending. This would mean that during the decade of the 1990's, the United States Government will have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.7 trillion on its military. This, when we haven't even yet begun to pay off the tremendous debts incurred during the massive military build-up of the 1980's. For fiscal year 1997, the Senate has added $11.2 billion dollars to the administration's request for the Department of Defense. Much has been made of the fact that each of the Joint Chiefs came to Capitol Hill earlier this year and presented a list of additional programs and projects they needed beyond the initial request. These soon became referred to as their wish lists. And, of course, Congress dutifully added the funds for those items. There has developed an attitude here that to question the funding requests from the Pentagon is to undermine the Nation's security. To spend a penny less than what is requested, it is suggested, will put our security into jeopardy. I think we should recognize that the posture and weapons systems requested by the Defense Department as essential to security do not carry with them any mandate from heaven. It is the estimation of dedicated people working in an enormously complex bureaucracy and influenced heavily by the interests and biases of that bureaucracy. Moreover, it must be remembered that the Defense Department defines and regards ``national security'' in the most narrow vein. Only the military factor is considered. But when Congress evaluates the national security, it must recognize that our true security is a combination of economic health, political stability, and domestic tranquility, as well as our military resources. Congress has the unique task of judging the relationship of all these factors as it attempts to ensure our overall national security. We have the responsibility of prioritizing our limited resources, and we must keep in mind that the most important element of our defense policy is the will of our people. The disillusionment and dissatisfaction caused by the lack of adequate education, health services, and housing creates as great a threat to our national security as anything we may face outside our own borders. President Eisenhower, one of America's most celebrated and dedicated military leaders, used to say that military strength is only the sharp edge of the sword. The strength of the blade, and therefore of the sword, is based on the economic might and political freedom of the American people. Today, the United States leads the world in military power, yet we lag behind other developed nations in literacy, per capita income, infant mortality, doctor-patient ratios, and other important indicators of a society's strength. We must realize that our national security is not solely dependant on our military might. The prevailing consensus around here seems to be that if it doesn't fly, shoot, float or explode, then it isn't relevant to the security of our country. But unless we can enjoy a strong economy, adequate housing, good nutrition, educational opportunity, satisfying employment, and the liberties on which our Nation was founded, we are not truly secure, no matter how many arms and men we can muster against an enemy. This broader definition of ``national security'' must be kept in mind when considering the allocation of our financial resources in the federal budget. In my opinion, the Senate has failed in its responsibility to do so today by authorizing over $267 billion dollars for military spending at the expense of much needed domestic programs. We must examine our military requirements carefully, so that we don't rob ourselves of the resources necessary to provide a high standard of living for every American. This bill fails in that regard, and therefore I cannot support it.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. On behalf of the Republican leader, I would like to indicate, as the Chair already stated, this morning there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 9:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1745, the DOD authorization bill. Pending will be a Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment regarding terrorism, on which there will be 10 minutes of debate time remaining. Following the expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate will proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment, to be followed by a vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the DOD authorization bill, if necessary. If all debate time is used, Senators can expect those rollcall votes to occur at 9:40 a.m. Rollcall votes are expected throughout the day on the DOD authorization bill, and a late night session is expected in order to complete action on the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Pacific Northwest is home to what many believe is the worst environmental mess on Earth--the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Today, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Wyden, to enhance the voice of Oregonians in the cleanup of this site of such tremendous importance to the health and safety of our State. Let me thank the Senators from the State of Washington, Senators Gorton and Murray, for their cooperation in resolving the technical details of this amendment. I look forward to continuing to the cooperative relationship our two States have shared with respect to this complex cleanup process. Let me also thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking member, Senator Nunn, for working with Senator Wyden and myself to resolve a number of concerns with this amendment. The Hanford facility is located on the Columbia River within the State of Washington. From the early 1940's to the late 1980's, the U.S. Government made plutonium for nuclear weapons at the Hanford site. In the process, Hanford emitted enormous volumes of radioactive and chemical wastes, much of which found its way--through air or water-- into the State of Oregon. Hanford is just 35 miles north of the Oregon border. Not far downstream from Hanford, the Columbia River forms the border between Oregon and Washington. The cool waters of the Columbia River were vital to the locating and operation of the Hanford facility. Hanford used large amounts of water from the Columbia to cool nuclear fuel in eight reactors between 1944 and 1971. Through the years, those waters included high levels of contaminants from Hanford. As many of my colleagues on this committee know, the shutdown of the weapons production facilities at Hanford and its subsequent cleanup efforts have been a top priority of mine during my tenure as a U.S. Senator. The waste problem at Hanford has immediate and deadly ramifications for the people of Oregon. Some specific areas of concern are the transportation of waste to and from the Hanford Reservation, the seepage of liquid waste into the Columbia River drainage from Hanford's underground storage tanks, and the past aerial releases of radioactive gasses from the reservation in the 1940's and 1950's. Over the last 10 years, through the energy and water appropriations bill, I have been able to stop funding for the operation of the N- Reactor and Purex facilities at Hanford. I am proud of the fact that DOE's mission at Hanford has successfully been refocused from weapons production to environmental restoration. While I am pleased with the financial priority the Federal Government has placed on the Hanford cleanup operation, and recognize improvements in recent months, I share the concerns of many of my colleagues that sufficient progress has not been made to warrant the billions that have been spent. My colleagues are also aware of my concern that Oregon is too far removed from the information flow and decision-making process at Hanford. More specifically, Oregon does not possess sufficient access to information upon which cleanup decisions are made. Nor does Oregon have the right to comment upon the important cleanup decisions that are made there. The amendment now before the Senate will greatly enhance the information available to the State of Oregon and the voice of Oregonians in the decision-making process at Hanford. The State of Oregon will have access to all information required to be provided to the State of Washington under the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement. Oregon will have notice and comment rights in all instances where the State of Washington has such rights. The amendment makes clear that this new requirement will not slow cleanup and will not give the State of Oregon the right to participate in Tri-Party Agreement negotiations. Finally, the amendment makes clear that the States of Oregon and Washington and the Department of Energy have the authority to enter into a memorandum of understanding on areas of mutual concern to the States with regard to this important site. Mr. President, under this amendment, Oregonians will at last be brought into the loop on Hanford cleanup. We have many decades of cleanup ahead of us. Some believe the site will never be clean. It is therefore of great importance that Oregonians have meaningful access to information about Hanford and the right to comment on that information. Again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance in this matter and urge adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for yielding. I want to also say the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, has been carrying the burden, pretty much, here on the floor on this issue of the Kyl amendment. I want to express my deep appreciation to the Senator for assuming that role. I am sorry I have not been able to be more helpful, but other duties have precluded me from engaging in more activity until now. Mr. President, our negotiators in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty conference are on the brink of success from many perspectives. The conference concludes at the end of this month, so in 3 days we will know if the goal that we have worked toward for 40 years will come to fruition. I am speaking of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has been a goal of mine for many years. When we passed the current moratorium on nuclear testing in 1992, we provided significant momentum toward the CTBT. I am very concerned that the amendment pending is characterized as a minor change in policy and a clarification of the original moratorium of testing which is current law. Let me be clear that this is not a simple change. This amendment will have the effect of completely undermining the baseline agreement reflected in that moratorium created in 1992 and the momentum for a CTBT. I think it sends a signal that somehow we are backing out or changing our mind on that moratorium--one that I worked 27 years to achieve. The current U.S. moratorium is a critical show of good faith to other countries with whom we are negotiating this treaty. To change our testing policy now, I think, will send shockwaves through the international arms control community at the most critical time of the CTBT negotiations. Not only is this amendment untimely, it is also, I believe, unnecessary. The President has extended the 1992 testing moratorium because he and his military advisers concluded that our nuclear arsenal is safe and reliable. Not even the scientists involved in nuclear testing are calling for underground tests to resume. More importantly, the President already has the ability to resume testing if he determines that it is in the Nation's supreme national interest. If we have a severe safety and reliability problem, even I would agree with the President in exercising this option. It seems to me that this debate would be more appropriate after the Conference on Disarmament concludes. The Senate will have the opportunity to debate this issue fully when the CTBT is presented to the Senate for ratification. And if the negotiations do fall apart and we are not able to get a treaty this year, the Congress can debate this issue then, or any time following. Any action now seems to me to be premature. For these reasons, I strenuously oppose the Kyl-Reid amendment and urge my colleagues who believe in the nonproliferation goal of achieving a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 to join me in opposing this amendment. At an appropriate time, I believe the authors of this amendment are aware that I will make a motion to table the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to table the Kyl amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATFIELD. About 4 minutes.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am honored to join my friend and colleague from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, in sponsoring legislation to revitalize the crown jewel of medical science in this country, the National Institutes of Health. Senator Kassebaum deserves the Nation's gratitude for her commitment to biomedical research and her efforts to ensure that the wealth of this country is measured by the health of its citizens. The NIH has enhanced the health of our Nation immeasurably, and through the efforts of its scientists and staff continues to place us on the cutting edge of biomedical research. Yet, as all of us in this body know so well, all institutions must evolve if they are to continue to thrive. The legislation introduced today provides the elements necessary for the NIH to evolve successfully in the years to come. Every year, medical researchers uncover more mysteries of the human body. Because of their efforts, today we have therapies, drugs and technologies that were unimaginable just a decade ago. Of great importance to all Americans is the outcome of our investment in biomedical research. We want to know, what has been cured lately? How have the billions we invest in NIH each year reached Americans and eased their suffering? How has the chasm between the scientist in the laboratory and the physician administering treatment been bridged? To address that gulf, I believe we must heighten our support for translational--or clinical--research. To that end, I introduced S. 1534 this year, the Clinical Research Enhancement Act of 1996. This bill will increase funding for clinical research, improve training for persons planning clinical research careers, and modify the focus of the NIH to make it more receptive to clinical research proposals. I am very pleased that Senator Kassebaum has included components of S. 1534 in her legislation. The bill authorizes the General Clinical Research Centers which are the frontline troops not only in the training of clinical researchers but in performing many of the clinical studies in our academic medical centers. The 75 current centers have never been authorized despite their continued congressional support since 1965. The bill also establishes two new award programs: the Clinical Research Career Enhancement Awards and the Innovative Medical Science Awards. These awards will provide both young and established investigators with the resources needed to bridge unfunded periods while promoting continued clinical research and training. At present training opportunities for persons considering clinical research careers are few and fragmented. The bill also expands loan repayment opportunities for young physician scientists to pursue research careers. Currently the average medical school graduate has a debt of $63,000. This burden has resulted in a decline of physician researchers to just 2.2 percent of the physician population of the United States. Last year, Congress acknowledged the importance of biomedical research when it restored proposed cuts to the NIH budget for 1996. As a result, we are now enjoying a 5.7-percent increase in funding for the NIH. However, we have far to go in stabilizing funding for medical research, and we must now turn our attention toward insuring sustainable growth in the coming years. I am pleased that Senator Kassebaum's legislation also includes my bill, S. 1251, to establish a national fund for health research. This fund will supplement annual appropriations to the NIH by contributing public and private donations to enhance research grants. While the language in this bill does not specify a funding source, I am hopeful that when the bill comes to the floor we will have several options to consider to secure its financial future. I have proposed a 25-cent increase in the tobacco tax, as well as a voluntary Federal income tax checkoff in the past, and would be willing to look at other options in the future such as some sort of managed care set-aside. I believe this proposal marks the beginning of a longer-term strategy for biomedical research funding and I am gratified by its inclusion in this bill. Senator Tom Harkin has been my long-time partner in this matter and I know he is as pleased as I am that the foundation for the fund has today been further advanced. Finally, Senator Kassebaum has included one additional piece of my legislative portfolio, S. 184, a bill to establish an Office for Rare Disease Research at the NIH to assist our citizens who have the misfortune of suffering from uncommon diseases. This legislation has already passed the Senate this year, only to languish in the House. I am hopeful that this vehicle will carry it through to enactment. This legislation, Mr. President, is essential for the continued effective functioning of the National Institutes of Health, and for the continued health of our citizens. I believe this legislation deserves our strong support and I urge my colleagues to endorse its contents. At this time, I would like to publicly commend Senator Kassebaum's staff, David Stevens, Kent Bradley, and Ann Rufo, for their work in crafting this revitalization package. They have been mentors to my staff and have represented Senator Kassebaum with great dedication and commitment in putting this vital piece of legislation together.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am honored to join my friend and colleague from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, in sponsoring legislation to revitalize the crown jewel of medical science in this country, the National Institutes of Health. Senator Kassebaum deserves the Nation's gratitude for her commitment to biomedical research and her efforts to ensure that the wealth of this country is measured by the health of its citizens. The NIH has enhanced the health of our Nation immeasurably, and through the efforts of its scientists and staff continues to place us on the cutting edge of biomedical research. Yet, as all of us in this body know so well, all institutions must evolve if they are to continue to thrive. The legislation introduced today provides the elements necessary for the NIH to evolve successfully in the years to come. Every year, medical researchers uncover more mysteries of the human body. Because of their efforts, today we have therapies, drugs and technologies that were unimaginable just a decade ago. Of great importance to all Americans is the outcome of our investment in biomedical research. We want to know, what has been cured lately? How have the billions we invest in NIH each year reached Americans and eased their suffering? How has the chasm between the scientist in the laboratory and the physician administering treatment been bridged? To address that gulf, I believe we must heighten our support for translational--or clinical--research. To that end, I introduced S. 1534 this year, the Clinical Research Enhancement Act of 1996. This bill will increase funding for clinical research, improve training for persons planning clinical research careers, and modify the focus of the NIH to make it more receptive to clinical research proposals. I am very pleased that Senator Kassebaum has included components of S. 1534 in her legislation. The bill authorizes the General Clinical Research Centers which are the frontline troops not only in the training of clinical researchers but in performing many of the clinical studies in our academic medical centers. The 75 current centers have never been authorized despite their continued congressional support since 1965. The bill also establishes two new award programs: the Clinical Research Career Enhancement Awards and the Innovative Medical Science Awards. These awards will provide both young and established investigators with the resources needed to bridge unfunded periods while promoting continued clinical research and training. At present training opportunities for persons considering clinical research careers are few and fragmented. The bill also expands loan repayment opportunities for young physician scientists to pursue research careers. Currently the average medical school graduate has a debt of $63,000. This burden has resulted in a decline of physician researchers to just 2.2 percent of the physician population of the United States. Last year, Congress acknowledged the importance of biomedical research when it restored proposed cuts to the NIH budget for 1996. As a result, we are now enjoying a 5.7-percent increase in funding for the NIH. However, we have far to go in stabilizing funding for medical research, and we must now turn our attention toward insuring sustainable growth in the coming years. I am pleased that Senator Kassebaum's legislation also includes my bill, S. 1251, to establish a national fund for health research. This fund will supplement annual appropriations to the NIH by contributing public and private donations to enhance research grants. While the language in this bill does not specify a funding source, I am hopeful that when the bill comes to the floor we will have several options to consider to secure its financial future. I have proposed a 25-cent increase in the tobacco tax, as well as a voluntary Federal income tax checkoff in the past, and would be willing to look at other options in the future such as some sort of managed care set-aside. I believe this proposal marks the beginning of a longer-term strategy for biomedical research funding and I am gratified by its inclusion in this bill. Senator Tom Harkin has been my long-time partner in this matter and I know he is as pleased as I am that the foundation for the fund has today been further advanced. Finally, Senator Kassebaum has included one additional piece of my legislative portfolio, S. 184, a bill to establish an Office for Rare Disease Research at the NIH to assist our citizens who have the misfortune of suffering from uncommon diseases. This legislation has already passed the Senate this year, only to languish in the House. I am hopeful that this vehicle will carry it through to enactment. This legislation, Mr. President, is essential for the continued effective functioning of the National Institutes of Health, and for the continued health of our citizens. I believe this legislation deserves our strong support and I urge my colleagues to endorse its contents. At this time, I would like to publicly commend Senator Kassebaum's staff, David Stevens, Kent Bradley, and Ann Rufo, for their work in crafting this revitalization package. They have been mentors to my staff and have represented Senator Kassebaum with great dedication and commitment in putting this vital piece of legislation together.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce today legislation to name a Federal courthouse in my State after a fine lawyer, judge and Oregon citizen, U.S. District Judge James Anthony Redden. My legislation would rename the currently unnamed Federal courthouse in Medford, OR, the James A. Redden Federal Courthouse. Over the years Judge Redden's many accomplishments have made him worthy of this tribute. Judge Redden practiced law in Medford, OR, from 1956-72. While practicing law he was elected to the Oregon State House of Representatives, in which he served from 1963-69. During the 1967 session he served as the minority leader of the Oregon House of Representatives. Judge Redden left private practice in 1973 to serve as the Oregon State treasurer. In 1977, he began serving as Oregon attorney general. He served as Oregon's attorney general until 1980, when President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the position of U.S. District Judge. He was also appointed to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee in 1990 and reappointed to another 3 year term in 1993. Judge Redden is a charter member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. In 1954, he was admitted to the Massachusetts State bar followed by the Oregon Bar in 1955. In 1955, he was also admitted to the bars of the U.S. District Court of Oregon and Court of Appeals, and finally, in 1979, to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court. The most important of Judge Redden's accomplishments is that he practiced law for 20 years in the Federal courthouse my legislation proposes to name in his honor. This courthouse is located in Judge Redden's beloved Jackson County. During his political life, he represented the people of Jackson County for 6 years, and now as a senior judge, he plans to try cases in Jackson County again. He has also taken a special interest in the ongoing renovation of the fine old building. Once again I believe that it would be a highly appropriate honor to name this courthouse after an individual who has done so much, and who has had such a successful career. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to advance this important proposal through the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce today legislation to name a Federal courthouse in my State after a fine lawyer, judge and Oregon citizen, U.S. District Judge James Anthony Redden. My legislation would rename the currently unnamed Federal courthouse in Medford, OR, the James A. Redden Federal Courthouse. Over the years Judge Redden's many accomplishments have made him worthy of this tribute. Judge Redden practiced law in Medford, OR, from 1956-72. While practicing law he was elected to the Oregon State House of Representatives, in which he served from 1963-69. During the 1967 session he served as the minority leader of the Oregon House of Representatives. Judge Redden left private practice in 1973 to serve as the Oregon State treasurer. In 1977, he began serving as Oregon attorney general. He served as Oregon's attorney general until 1980, when President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the position of U.S. District Judge. He was also appointed to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee in 1990 and reappointed to another 3 year term in 1993. Judge Redden is a charter member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. In 1954, he was admitted to the Massachusetts State bar followed by the Oregon Bar in 1955. In 1955, he was also admitted to the bars of the U.S. District Court of Oregon and Court of Appeals, and finally, in 1979, to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court. The most important of Judge Redden's accomplishments is that he practiced law for 20 years in the Federal courthouse my legislation proposes to name in his honor. This courthouse is located in Judge Redden's beloved Jackson County. During his political life, he represented the people of Jackson County for 6 years, and now as a senior judge, he plans to try cases in Jackson County again. He has also taken a special interest in the ongoing renovation of the fine old building. Once again I believe that it would be a highly appropriate honor to name this courthouse after an individual who has done so much, and who has had such a successful career. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to advance this important proposal through the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Idaho who was on the floor before me. I will follow the Senator from Idaho. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in wishing our majority leader a senatorial farewell. His contributions are well known, his integrity is unquestioned, and his service has been an example for each one of us on both sides of the aisle. I want to just comment about the service factor in his life and how we are all drawn to those who serve--whether it is a Boy Scout who walks a hobbling grandmother across the street, or a community clothing drive, raising money for charity, or a PTA member spending hours at local meetings. Service we admire, service we respect, and service from our elected officials we always expect. Majority Leader Dole is no exception. Kansans expect him to represent their interests. Republicans expect him to lead the party, and Senators--well, we expect him to guide us through the joys and trials of partisan politics. So, as a U.S. Senator, I have often expected him to serve me as well. Long before leaving this Senate, Bob Dole had my admiration. Long before he led this Senate, he had my respect, and I am led to believe that long before he was decorated as a war hero, I would have wanted Bob Dole as my friend. The issues we debate during the 104th Congress we have debated before. Like a pendulum, important issues swing away from us, and eventually they swing back. Every so often, we see a leader who is able to stop the pendulum, who is able to lead us into a solution that gives the pendulum a bit of a rest. For the causes of the disadvantaged and disabled Americans, Senator Dole has proven to be such a leader. And for the need to reduce our deficit, he has few equals. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have seen the work that he has done. I have seen the money come in and, with greater detail, I have seen the money go out. Senator Dole's legacy is his willingness to fight for the welfare of today while just as eagerly vying for the welfare of our children and our grandchildren for the future. So, in 1968, he joined the ranks of this body, and in 1996 he leaves. I shall not wish him a happy retirement, for no matter what lies ahead, he will not retire. I expect his service will always continue. I wish him well. Antoinette and I both pray that Bob and Elizabeth's future will be strewn with God's blessing. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on February 8, 1995, I addressed the Senate regarding my views on a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced Federal budget. I stated at that time that I was opposed to an amendment to do something that can be done without a change to the Constitution. My position on this matter, some 13 months later, has not changed. However, I would like to take a few moments to point out some things that have changed over the past 13 months. The first is that the 104th Congress, with a majority of Republicans in each Chamber, voted and passed legislation which would have balanced the budget by 2002. That legislation contained painful decisions for all Members--Democrats and Republicans. But in the end, Congress was able to do something that few people thought was politically possible, it passed a balanced budget. I think it is important to note that the success in the Senate and House of this effort was due in large part to the outstanding leadership of Majority Leader Dole, and Speaker Gingrich, as well as Senator Domenici and Congressman Kasich as the chairmen of the respective Senate and House Budget Committees. Despite the achievements by the Congress to pass legislation which would have lead to a balanced budget by 2002, this bill was vetoed by the President. That does not mean that the Congress failed to make headway toward the goal of balancing the budget during the 104th Congress. I would like to note that one committee, the Appropriations Committee, was able to cut $23 billion in discretionary spending this year. As members of the Appropriations Committee in the House and the Senate know, that process was not a pretty picture. I liken it to major surgery without the benefit of anesthetics. I am happy to report that the Appropriations Committee is ready to do its part again this year. As I have stated here on the floor of the Senate many times before, we should not, we cannot, and we will not balance the budget of the Federal Government solely on the back of nondefense discretionary spending accounts. I do not wish to slip into Washington language so I will explain what nondefense discretionary accounts actually are. Education funds are discretionary, environmental programs fall under discretionary spending, crime prevention programs come from discretionary accounts, and medical research falls under the discretionary umbrella. Do not forget agriculture programs, the State Department, housing programs, NASA, and many other programs which touch each of our lives every single day. By excluding military spending, entitlements and mandatory spending from our calculation to balance the budget--each one of these programs must bear the brunt of any reduction in spending. Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are important and vital programs--but they should not be held above everything else that the Federal Government invests in. There have even been calls by some to take a $348 billion program off the negotiating table as the key to passage of a version of a constitutional balanced budget amendment; $348 billion represented 22 percent of all Federal outlays in 1996. Compare that 22-percent program to the 17 percent of the Federal budget that represents all nondefense discretionary spending. Is it realistic to take 22 percent of the budget off the table in trying to balance the Federal budget? I do not believe it is realistic. All Federal spending should be on the table, even if it is an entitlement program--and even if that program is Social Security. Mr. President, I support balancing the Federal budget, and I will do all that I can as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee during my last year in the Senate to see that it is done. What I cannot do is support a constitutional promise to the people of this country that its elected representatives will balance the Federal budget. Congress and the President can and should, with the support of the public, balance our budget.