Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am pleased to share with my colleagues today a piece of history that is being realized in Oregon this year. The celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Oregon Symphony is truly a grand accomplishment. The Oregon Symphony has entertained, hosted, and delighted audiences all over the world, myself included. In 1896 the Portland Symphony Society was founded, with the first symphony conducted by W.H. Kinross performing in October of that same year. Now, 100 years later and still going strong, the symphony is the sixth oldest symphony in the United States, and the oldest symphony west of the Mississippi River. The Oregon Symphony is truly that, a symphony for all of Oregon to enjoy. The symphony is not confined to its home in downtown Portland. It is not confined by the glorious Cascade mountain range. What makes this symphony so unique is the ability it has to reach out to all of the citizens of Oregon. The symphony plays in front of audiences in school gymnasiums, parks, and small auditoriums. Wherever there is a demand in the State for the Oregon Symphony, the symphony will go. Recently the symphony played in a full gymnasium in Burns, OR. This small community with a population of 2,880, is located in the remote eastern high desert portion of the State. The town of Burns enthusiastically welcomed the symphony. The townspeople gladly rolled up their sleeves and with their own hands built a proper stage for the symphony members in the schools gymnasium. The town of Burns sold 760 tickets for the event, a complete sellout. This concert is a true testimony to what the symphony means to the citizens of Oregon. When the symphony cannot travel, it often makes arrangements for free concerts in Portland. The symphony routinely plays for schoolchildren from all over the State in the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall, showcasing their talents and educating the children in the arts. One of the greatest moments in the history of the symphony was in 1980 with the appointment of Maestro James DePreist as music director and conductor. Under Maestro DePreist the Symphony is no longer made up of volunteer musicians, the symphony now draws some of the finest professional musicians in the country. In 1987 the professionalism of the symphony shone through as they released their first recording. Today, the Oregon Symphony is truly something to be proud of. Whether playing in front of a sold out audience in a high school gym in Burns, OR, or in the elegant surroundings of the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall, the symphony amazes and entertains crowds with a triumphant and magnificent sound. I would like to thank the Oregon Symphony, and wish it 100 more glorious years.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator if the McCain amendment we have adopted has any application to the Bonneville power administration as it relates to its corporate status.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure today to introduce to my colleagues Rev. Ron Mehl, pastor of Beaverton Foursquare Church. Over the past several years, I have joined the ranks of Reverend Mehl's admirers. Uncompromising leadership and commitment to God have enabled him to embody the Biblical mandate to ``speak the truth in love.'' Reverend Mehl pastors Oregon's Beaverton Foursquare Church. Twenty- three years under his gifted teaching have made this one of Oregon's healthiest and most dynamic churches. Thousands sit in the pews of Beaverton Foursquare weekly. There are three services on Sunday, perhaps going to a fourth because of the tremendous turnout that holds some 2,500 or 3,000 people in the church sanctuary. When I am home, I count myself privileged to be one of many to hear Reverend Mehl's Biblical preaching. A man dedicated to pursuing God's calling, he has served in many ways over the years. Besides being a gifted preacher and counselor, Reverend Mehl is a celebrated author of three books, one of which, ``God Works the Night Shift,'' recently won the Evangelical Christian Publisher's Gold Medallion Award in the category of ``inspirational.'' The Reverend Billy Graham, whom we recently honored, once said, ``The greatest form of praise to God is the sound of consecrated feet seeking out the lost and helpless.'' Reverend Mehl has spent the majority of his life doing just that--reaching out with the message of Christ and encouraging others to do the same. In I Peter, the apostle writes, ``Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.--I Peter 4:10. Reverend Mehl is a faithful steward of the gifts he has received and is an able administrator of God's grace. He has also been blessed by his wife Joyce and their two sons, Ron, Jr., and Mark. I had the pleasure of getting to know Mark 3 years ago when he participated in my internship program. Mark's strong character shone through during his brief tenure in my office, a great tribute to his parents in their rearing. Again, on behalf of my Senate colleagues we are privileged that Reverend Mehl is willing to fulfill the duties of Senate Chaplain today, and I would like to officially welcome him to this Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate will immediately resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 57, the concurrent budget resolution. There are 8.5 hours of debate time remaining on the resolution with that time equally divided. When all time has expired or is yielded back, Senators can expect a large number of consecutive rollcall votes on or in relation to amendments to the budget resolution. Those votes could begin as early as this afternoon, or, if necessary, be ordered to begin on Wednesday morning. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m., in order to accommodate the weekly party conferences, and that the time during recess be deducted from the remaining debate limitation.

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, Portland, OR, has long been hailed as a city of innovation and vigor. While all denizens of the city bask in that community energy, there are a handful of people who can be credited with fostering Portland's uncommon spirit. Through visionary imagination and bold leadership, they have made Portland the progressive city it is today. Bill Naito, who died last week, was one of those leaders. Naito was a Portland businessman who combined his business acumen with a deeply-felt sense of civic obligation. Working with his brother, he started his career in 1962 as the proprietor of a bustling import business. The brothers soon bought the building that housed their business, and thus began Bill Naito's long legacy as a property developer. Over the next three decades, he repeatedly built thriving developments in areas shunned by other businessmen. Skid Road, home of the Naito brothers Import Plaza, grew into revitalized Historic Old Town. An abandoned department store building became the Galleria shopping center, the 1980's anchor of Portland's commercial revitalization. He turned an old warehouse district into the McCormick Pier apartments, luring middle-income residents into downtown Portland. While he prospered personally from his business initiatives, Bill Naito was generous with his time and assets, and his sense of civic responsibility enriched Portland endlessly. In addition to serving on countless boards and civic organizations, he donated space in office buildings to nonprofit or public agencies. He was a founder of Artquake, a long-running annual arts festival. He also donated land to help launch Saturday Market, a weekly showcase of local performers and artisans that has drawn tourists and suburbanites to downtown Portland for a generation. He was perhaps most popularly noted for preserving the White Stag landmark when the company moved out of Portland. Thanks to Bill Naito's sense of whimsy, each Christmas season west-bound motorists enjoy the White Stag reindeer's illuminated red nose. Though he was never one to trumpet his own accomplishments, it was clear that Naito took the greatest pride in the creation of the Japanese-American Historical Plaza in Tom McCall Waterfront Park. Naito is the son of Japanese immigrants, and his family was forced to relocate to Utah in 1942 to avoid the internment forced on Portland's Japanese community. Though he seemed to carry little personal bitterness from those war years--in fact, he joined the Army himself in 1944--he worked the rest of his life to make sure that Oregonians wouldn't forget the lessons learned from the Japanese internment. The memorial he spearheaded, dedicated in 1990, is a moving tribute to the families interned during World War II, and serves as a reminder of the guarantees the Bill of Rights provides for us all. The accomplishments I have enumerated only begin to convey the varied contributions Bill Naito made to Portland throughout his life. This 70- year-old, who worked long days at an age when most men are content in retirement, spent a lifetime fusing community and business pursuits. Bill Naito seemed the image of hard-working vigor and energy when cancer snuck up on him, and he died just a week after being diagnosed. His death saddens those he touched personally, and he enriched the lives of many more Oregonians who live, work, and visit the city to which he brought so much life. The nose of the White Stag reindeer burned red last week in tribute to Bill Naito. Portland has truly lost a treasure, Mr. President, and I want to pay tribute to him again here today.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues a unique conference which took place earlier this week--the sixth annual Southern Women in Public Service conference hosted in Birmingham, AL, by the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service. The theme of this gathering was ``Coming Together to Make a Difference.'' Over the past 6 years, this event has become the most significant annual bipartisan gathering of women political and business leaders throughout the South. The event has grown each year but the purpose remains the same: to make government better, more effective and more responsive by bringing women into public service leadership. As a board member of the Stennis Center, I have watched this organization consistently enable women to pursue public service careers by providing an avenue in an area of the country which needs it more than any other. This challenge is illustrated by the fact that only 1 of 8 women in the U.S. Senate is from the South; 1 Southern State has never elected a woman to statewide executive office while another has never sent a woman to Congress; 9 of the 11 States which rank lowest in the percentage of women in State legislatures are in the South and no Southern State currently has a female Governor. I can tell you however, Mr. President, this will not be the case for much longer. This conference is changing attitudes by its very visibility in training and inspiring women for appointed and elected office each year. In fact, the Stennis Center was credited this week as the last great glass ceiling breaker. Much credit goes to former Congresswoman Lindy Boggs, who serves as the chair of the conference year after year. She is an inspiration for many women and she is continuing to use her platform to define public service for others. Quite simply, Lindy is contagious. Recently, our Nation celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage--to coin a phrase, women have come a long way, baby. We now have women serving in the public policy arena in nearly all capacities, yet the pace is agonizingly slow. In the early 1970's, only 4.5 percent of all State legislative seats were held by women. Today, 21 percent of the 7,424 State legislative seats in this country are held by women. Women hold 56 or 10.5 percent of the 535 seats in the 104th Congress. One State in the Union has a woman Governor--New Jersey, led by Christine Todd Whitman. In 1994, four States had women Governors, including my own State of Oregon which was led by Barbara Roberts. Governor Roberts is currently teaching at the John K. Kennedy School at Harvard University. My State has a strong history of capable women serving in statewide and locally elected positions. Currently, the mayor of Portland is Vera Katz, a talented legislator. Our chief State school officer, Norma Paulus, serving in a nonpartisan, statewide elected capacity, has been the trailblazer for women in government in Oregon. Even with this history, Oregon only has women serving in 28 percent of its elected positions. I hope that the Stennis model can be duplicated in other regions across the country, with the Northwest at the top of the waiting list. Among the reasons for increasing the number of women in public service leadership is to improve government at all levels. Women make up 52 percent of the population and the majority of all registered voters. Without large numbers of women in government, America is missing out on some of its most capable, effective leaders who can improve the quality of life not just for women, but for all Americans. I would like to just add a word of personal tribute to all of the forms of public service women give. Some of our strongest role models were never elected but served in one of the most difficult positions of power--from Eleanor Roosevelt to Nancy Reagan to Hillary Clinton--all of these First Ladies deserve our gratitude for blazing the trail to serve their country. Their example will serve the initial ``First Gentleman'' quite well. The Stennis Center, established in 1988 to exemplify the life of public service defined by Senator John C. Stennis of Mississippi, is doing quality work not only for women in the South, but for many of our own staff family. This is the second year of the John C. Stennis congressional staff fellows--a program which provides senior congressional staff with an opportunity to focus on improving the performance of Congress as an institution. The center also operates the John C. Stennis National Student Congress, a State executive development institute, a legislative staff management institute and a national black graduate students conference--an activity designed to recruit minorities to be congressional aides. All of this work is done by a small staff led by the very capable Mr. Rex G. Buffington II, the executive director of the center. We all owe Mr. Buffington and his staff a debt of gratitude for the time and effort they are expending, in the name of my friend John Stennis, to insure that young people are attracted to careers in public service, that training and development opportunities exist for those in public service and that congressional staff are better equipped to perform their duties more effectively and efficiently. This week's conference provides just the most recent example. As one of the conference participants shared this week ``If this conference didn't light your fire, then check your wood, because it must be wet.'' Mr. President, I suspect that many flames are burning bright right now.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today the Senate passed much needed legislation to restructure our Nation's laws with respect to illegal immigration. I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy for their diligence and leadership in crafting legislation to address this issue. As this debate has shown, the highly emotional and diverse views on the issues surrounding both legal and illegal immigration makes it very difficult to get a consensus on legislation reforming our immigration laws. Despite previous efforts by Congress to control illegal immigration, the evidence shows that thousands of people cross the border illegally each year. Clearly, our Nation simply cannot continue to absorb this unregulated stream of illegal aliens. The costs to society of permitting a large group of people to live in an illegal, second-class status are enormous. It strains not only the financial resources of our local, State and Federal governments, but also the compassion of our people. The Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act will help ensure that the Federal Government meets it's responsibility to enforce our Nation's illegal immigration policies. This legislation nearly doubles the number of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years, authorizes an additional 300 INS investigators, increases criminal penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud, and authorizes additional detention facilities for illegal aliens. Through these increased enforcement activities, our Nation will be better equipped to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders and to respond to the problems and abuses which accompany the presence of a significant illegal population. For these reasons, I voted in favor of final passage of this legislation. I did so not without some reservations. While I believe in the underlying principles of the legislation, I have serious concerns over some of the provisions agreed to in this bill. I am concerned about the costs and administrative burdens this legislation may impose on the States by the extension of deeming to all Federal means-tested assistance programs. Additionally, by failing to exempt some minimal emergency and health services from deeming, I am fearful that we will discourage legal aliens from seeking basic treatments such as immunizations and prenatal care. As we know, this can lead to adverse effects to the public health and safety. In addition, the original version of the bill contained provisions which imposed unwarranted new bars to an individual's ability to seek political asylum in this country. Due to my concern about these summary exclusion procedures, I joined Senator Leahy as a cosponsor of his amendment to limit the use of summary exclusion except in emergency migration situations. Mr. President, most persons who are fleeing persecution do not have the luxury of asking their governments for appropriate exit papers to leave their countries. Many flee without documents. Others flee with fraudulent documents. The summary exclusion provisions in the underlying bill had the potential of excluding these people if they failed to convince an INS border officer that they have a credible fear of persecution. I can understand the concern that our asylum laws have been abused in the past. But we have taken steps to reform the asylum system. In 1995, our asylum system was tightened and adequate resources have been invested to root out these abuses. This effort has been successful; 90 percent of claims are now adjudicated within 60 days of their receipt. There has been a drastic decline in new asylum applications, from 13,000 per month at the end of 1994 to 3,000 per month currently. One reason for this is that asylum seekers are no longer automatically eligible for work authorization. As a result of the reforms, our asylum system now works to ensure that legitimate asylum seekers are protected and those who file fraudulent claims are weeded out. We have a tradition in this country of protecting bona fide refugees. We have an asylum system that is working well to continue this tradition. The provisions included in the underlying bill would have undermined our good efforts to the detriment of the very people we are seeking to protect. The Leahy amendment appropriately gives the Attorney General the flexibility to address emergency migration situations but retains our current asylum procedures for those who arrive in the United States and request political asylum. I am happy to say that my colleagues in the Senate recognized the importance of retaining this flexibility and voted to include this amendment in the final bill. While I support the general principles underlying this bill, I believe we must also find new ways to address the problems of illegal immigration. I am among the first to admit that we cannot afford to absorb an unregulated flow of immigrants into our country. However, I am concerned by the shortsighted approach that is taken to address this problem. Sometimes we find ourselves so caught up in the crises of the day that we forget to look at the root causes of problems. In the case of illegal immigration, I think we have fallen into this trap. We can continue to increase our Border Patrol and our enforcement activities in the United States. We can build a wall that stretches along the United States-Mexico border and the United States-Canadian border. While this may make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to enter the United States, I do not believe that these measures will solve the problem of illegal immigration. Similarly, we can tighten employer sanctions and cut off all public benefits for illegal aliens, in an attempt to take away the ``magnets'' which create the desire for people to enter our country with or without proper documentation. I believe we must look beyond these so-called magnets to focus on creating opportunities for people within their own countries so they aren't compelled to leave in search of better opportunities to support their families. To do this, the United States must maintain it's leadership in promoting human rights, democracy, and economic stability in our neighboring countries, and around the world. Unfortunately, I fear that we have recently begun to retreat from this position. In the past few years, the United States has curtailed it's spending on foreign aid and humanitarian assistance programs. This year, we essentially demolished our international family planning program, which will severely affect maternal and child health around the world. Further, we continue to funnel arms into the poorest and most politically unstable countries across the globe. We cannot continue along this path. It is only when we address the root causes of illegal immigration--poverty, warfare, and persecution-- that the United States can truly address and eliminate this problem. One final note, Mr. President. In this bill, we have significantly enhanced the ability of the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] to meet one of its primary missions, to control the entry of illegal immigrants into this country. But, I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that the enforcement mission is not the only mission of the INS. The INS also exists to serve, to meet the needs of citizens, legal residents, and visitors. It has the responsibility to provide service to millions of individuals and employers who are following the rules, and trying to bring family and employees into the United States legally. Due to the recent national attention that has been given to illegal immigration, I fear that this part of the INS mission statement has been severely neglected. For example, many district and regional INS offices have unreliable phone service, have tremendous backlogs in paperwork, and fail to initiate community outreach. My State's district office in Portland, OR, no longer even distributes necessary forms to the public. I had planned to introduce an amendment to this bill which would have addressed this situation. It would have required all INS district and regional offices to distribute forms, and would have expressed the Senate's desire that the INS provide adequate resources to fulfill its service mission. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to bring this amendment to the floor for consideration on this bill. However, I believe this is an issue of utmost importance and will continue to pursue enhancing the INS's service mission through subsequent legislation or through communications with Commissioner Doris Meissner. Citizens, permanent residents, and visitors across the country need, and deserve, to have access to the services only the INS can provide for them.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress will meet in SR-301, Russell Senate Office Building, on Tuesday, May 7, 1996 at 10 a.m. to receive testimony on a report done by the General Accounting Office on the Library of Congress. For further information concerning the hearing, please contact Chuck Frost of the committee staff on (202) 224-8312. committee on indian affairs

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this resolution makes several adjustments to the Omnibus appropriations bill which the President has signed. I would like to take this unexpected opportunity to express my disappointment, and some astonishment, at the way the funding issue on international voluntary family planning found its conclusion. Though I wrote the language on family planning that this resolution repeals, despite what misgivings I and others may have about this action, we made a deal in conference and will stick to it. Since we are all a little battle-weary from consideration of the omnibus bill, I will forego a reiteration of the history of the family planning provision, or a reassertion of what has already been stated on the merits of the issue. A few points that were lost in the din of debate, however, deserve a brief note. It is axiomatic that reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in the world will reduce the number of abortions. Conversely, where there is no access to family planning, and this will be the case in more regions of the world now, the number of abortions and maternal deaths will quickly rise. Through the 85-percent cut in AID's voluntary family planning program which regrettably is now in the law, we are going to find this out the hard way. Of the many ironies which have dogged this matter from the outset, among the most painful is that hundreds of thousands of women and children are going to die because prolife Members of Congress, many of whom understand basic biology, failed to apply their understanding to this issue. A related irony is that voluntary family planning has become hostage to the politics of abortion. Though AID is prohibited by law from using any U.S. money for abortion, the fungibility argument, a slim reed at best, is being used to deny family planning services to millions of poor couples overseas. While prolife Members continue to engage in fungibility discussions, millions more abortions will occur. This offends both decency and common sense, but for now it appears that we can do no better. We all care about vulnerable families, particularly women and children. I will remind my colleagues, especially those who would fund child survival programs but cut family planning, that UNICEF's ``State of the World's Children'' report states that ``Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single `technology' now available to the human race.'' I assure my colleagues that this matter will not go away. It is my hope that Members on both sides of this issue will avoid the temptation to let rigid ideology stand in the way of compassion and common sense in the next round of debate, which will surely occur on the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations appropriations bill.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to give recognition to a very outstanding group of young people from my State of Oregon, who represent the Lincoln High School of Portland, OR. Mr. President, as you know, during the bicentennial of the Constitution, there was a commission formed of which Chief Justice Burger of the Supreme Court was chair. I was privileged to serve on that commission. In part of that commission's proceedings, we decided to develop an ongoing project, bringing a focus to the Constitution of the United States amongst the high school students of our country. That started in 1987. I want to say that that has been a program that I think has certainly been worthy of the investment the Federal Government has made sustaining that program over the years. I suppose you might call it boasting, but I do not really think so. I am merely making a recognition of an extraordinary accomplishment. One high school out of the State of Oregon has not only won the State championship each year of the 9 years of this program, it has finished in the top 10 contestants from high schools from every State in the Union here in Washington, except for 1 year. It had won the national championship 2 years, until last night when it won it for the third time--one high school. I want to say that this is a high school that is in an urban setting, and it is a high school that draws students from many diverse and social economic backgrounds. The students who compete have varied academic backgrounds, and the team consists of sophomores, juniors, and seniors, and they work together as a team. The competition these student participated in was rigorous and very meaningful. Students demonstrated their knowledge of the Constitution before simulated congressional committees made up of constitutional scholars, lawyers, journalists, and government leaders. The panel of judges tested the expertise of the classroom teams on a number of significant questions--questions such as, ``How did the values and principles embodied in the Constitution shape American institutions, and what are the roles of the citizens in an American democracy?'' Mr. President, these are questions I still contemplate and struggle with. There is something exciting about a room full of high school students excited themselves about the Constitution, and excited about the Nation's heritage. Senator Pell and I had the privilege of being with this group from all over the country last night. The students have worked very hard for this honor, and there are a number of people who have helped them make this achievement a reality. Special recognition must go to Marilyn Cover, the State coordinator, and Dan James, the district coordinator for the We the People Program. I must also recognize the teachers and volunteers who gave up their time to prepare the students. Dave Bailey and Gailen Norsworthy are both teachers at Lincoln High School and coaches for the constitutional team. Also, Chris Hardman and Chuck Sparks, who are attorneys from the local community who volunteered to prepare the students for the legal rigors of the competition. Also, I must single out the principal of Lincoln High School, Velma Johnson. She is proud of these students, and she has been extremely supportive of the We the People Program. Mr. President, while it takes a number of outstanding individuals to achieve the winning record of Lincoln High School, one individual stands out as the catalyst and mentor for this stellar group of young scholars--Hal Hart. Hal Hart is an attorney by profession. He has a private law practice in Portland, but he takes time out of his busy practice to teach at Lincoln High School. For Hal, this is a labor of love and an opportunity to give back to the community. He teaches the students about the intricacies of the Constitution, and based on the school's record of success, he is obviously a master teacher. I also want to individually commend the students by placing a list of the participants from all over this country in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD. I must also recognize the program that generates the enthusiasm of the Constitution in these students, the We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution features an intensive curriculum, which provides students with a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the principles and values they embody. The program is designed to promote an understanding of the rights and responsibilities of citizens of our constitutional democracy, and gathered around this particular focus have been more than 22 million students in this country who have participated in the program, at all levels, during the last 9 years--22 million. Developed and administered by the Los Angeles-based Center for Civic Education, the program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education. In discussing the We the People Program, I want to pay special tribute to my good friend, Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. Senator Pell's commitment to education is unparalleled in this institution. He is the father of the We the People Program, and he has been actively involved in its activities since its inception. Senator Pell has been a mentor to me and to all of us over the years on the issue of education, as well as other issues. The Senate is going to miss his intellect and pragmatic approach to governing. I want to also thank a gifted member of Senator Pell's staff, David Evans, for all of his hard work in conjunction with the We the People Program and his many years of faithful service. Mr. President, Lincoln High School has built a dynasty in the We the People Program. This is a dynasty of success, but, most importantly, a dynasty of knowledge--knowledge that will enable them to understand our country's origins and foundations and knowledge that will help them to be better citizens. Mr. President, I shout from the housetops, congratulations, Lincoln High School. You have made many people, myself included, very, very proud. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a list of all the winners of the 1996 competition--the national winner at the top, Lincoln High School; second place, Amador Valley High School, Pleasanton, CA; third place, East High School, Denver, CO; and the following honorable mentions, regional awards, and unit awards--printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to share with the Senate the accomplishments of an outstanding researcher from Oregon Health Sciences University [OHSU], Dr. David A. McCarron. His research was recently validated by a team of researchers from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. The findings of the research was published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, on April 10, 1996, accompanied by an editorial from Dr. McCarron. The research done at McMaster University has bolstered the findings of Dr. McCarron and his team of researchers in dealing with the relationship between calcium deficiency in pregnant women, and the amount of maternal and fetal morbidity. What the team found was that if the amount of calcium taken by pregnant women is increased, the amount of maternal and fetal morbidity was significantly reduced. In fact, high blood pressure was reduced by 70 percent among women who consumed the equivalent of four servings of dairy products a day, or 1,500 milligrams of calcium. What does this mean to all Americans? The 1992 direct health care costs related to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been estimated at $18 to $22 billion. But more importantly, the savings would be felt by millions of children who would have a healthier head start in life. This is another fine example of the cost savings results of biomedical research. Let me again point out for my colleagues that an important portion of the funding for this program came from the legislative language in an appropriations bill. The fiscal year 1992 Agriculture appropriations bill led to a grant to OHSU, and Dr. McCarron, to continue their research effort in the field of assessing calcium impacts on pregnancy, infant birth weight and a wide variety of other nutritional areas. The money bridged a gap for the program until further private funds could be obtained. The importance of this grant and the continuation of this program is now being felt throughout the medical community. This is the type of appropriations funding provision that has been the subject of heavy criticism in recent years. However, it is this type of modest investment, this type of gentle nudge to the administration, that leads to huge strides in medical research and better health for Americans. The simple fact is, without the funding that Dr. McCarron's research received, as a result of this provision, the program would likely have ended. The continued funding and granting of money to these programs is not only important, it is imperative. Billions of dollars will be saved and lives will be improved as a result of this work by Dr. McCarron. Dr. McCarron is a soldier in the cause of medical research. He not only fought for his program, but cleared a path for all medical research programs. His tireless devotion to the betterment of the community around him has made him an ally to all medical research. His research will help hundreds of thousands of mothers and children for decades to come. I ask to have printed in the Record the JAMA piece written by Dr. McCarron. The material follows: Dietary Calcium and Lower Blood Pressure--We Can All Benefit Dietary calcium intake fails to meet recommended levels in virtually all categories of Americans. The health implications of this trend were recently addressed by a National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference, which noted that several other common medical conditions besides osteoporosis are associated with low dietary calcium intake. The articles by Bucher et al in this issue and the April 3 issue of The Journal focus on one of these conditions: increased arterial pressure. These meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of blood pressure and calcium levels in 2412 adults and in 2459 pregnant women provide compelling evidence that both normotensive and hypertensive individuals may experience reductions in blood pressure when calcium intake is increased. Do these reports represent this week's favorite nutrient- disease relationship, only to be cast aside when a subsequent study fails to confirm these authors' conclusions? Several factors argue against that possibility. Viewed in the context of substantial prior observational and experimental evidence, the biological plausibility that calcium exerts a favorable effect on arterial pressure is strong. Furthermore, these summary analysis provide insights concerning why nutrient- disease relationships appear at times inconsistent. A threshold of calcium intake below which arterial pressure increases has been documented in experimental models and in epidemiological reports linking low calcium intake to higher arterial pressures. The threshold range overlaps with the median intake of calcium for adults. As observed by Bucher et al, such a threshold effect predicts that trials composed of participants with varying baseline calcium intake may result in a heterogeneous response, with a negligible or small benefit. The benefits for those individuals whose calcium intake is below the threshold may be masked by the null effect in those whose baseline calcium intake is sufficient. To better estimate the cardiovascular impact of achieving the recommended levels of dietary calcium intake, researchers should focus either on subjects who are below the threshold or on those whose threshold has shifted upward because of biological demands. Bucher et al did both. Numerous observers have confirmed our index report that persons with hypertension consume less calcium and thus are more likely to be below the threshold. As that evidence would predict, Bucher and colleagues identified a larger benefit of increasing calcium intake in hypertensive than in normotensive subjects. Calcium requirements vary across the life span. When calcium needs are increased, the relationship between calcium intake and biological responses may be amplified. By analyzing separately the randomized controlled trials in pregnant women, Bucher et al tested this relationship. Gestation is a transient period of increased risk of elevated arterial pressure. It is also a period in which the metabolic demand for calcium increases dramatically. In this otherwise healthy, young, normotensive population, Bucher et al established an unequivocal benefit of increasing calcium intake for both mean arterial pressure and the incidence of pregnancy-induced hypertension, which was reduced by 70%. Preeclampsia was reduced by more than 60% The observation of Bucher et al that cardiovascular benefits of sufficient calcium intake increased with the quality of the study strongly supports the validity of these findings. The fact that pregnant women 20 years of age or younger benefited more than older pregnant women is another example of increased biological needs for calcium amplifying the relationship between calcium level and blood pressure. Younger pregnant women must provide calcium for the fetus as well as their own continued skeletal growth, thus multiplying their daily requirement. While the current calcium intake recommendation for pregnant women and adolescent females is 1200 to 1500 mg/d, their reported median intake is 600 to 700 mg/d. As the analysis of Bucher et al revealed, the cardiovascular benefits of consuming sufficient calcium are greater in those whose intake is least adequate for biological demands. As noted by these authors, what remains to be confirmed are the trends for reduced maternal and fetal morbidity. Similarly, the impact of adequate calcium intake on infant and childhood blood pressure must be defined, because calcium needs are increased at this time. The anticipated release of data from the National Institutes of Health trail of Calcium for Preeclampsia Prevention (CPEP) should address these issues. For pregnant women the goal is clear, calcium intake must meet metabolic needs. Current intakes in women of childbearing age are not sufficient to assure optimal gestational blood pressure regulation. Younger women can no longer assume that the consequences of inadequate calcium intake will emerge only decades later as osteoporosis. They may occur within 9 months as serious complications for both mother and child. Optimizing calcium intake will benefit not only pregnant women but also society in general. The 1992 direct health care costs related to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and their sequelue have been estimated at $18 billion to $22 billion. Using the most conservative estimates of Bucher et al, the savings from increasing calcium intake during pregnancy might reach several billion dollars within 1 year. In virtually all age, sex, and ethnic categories of the US population, median calcium intake is equal to or less than the minimum recommendation, leaving more than 50% of individuals consuming inadequate amounts of calcium. For those groups at higher risk of hypertension (African Americans, pregnant women, the obese, and the elderly), the situation is worse. Furthermore, consuming adequate calcium is no longer simply a ``women, issue.'' After age 40 years, American men have a median calcium intake of less than 750 mg/d. For African-American men, whose risk of hypertension is two to three time that of their white counterparts, the median calcium intake is than than 600 mg/d. There are therefore many reasons, including control of arterial pressure, why every individual should be advised to consume the current recommended level of calcium as a general health measure. David A. McCarron, MD. Daniel Hatton, PhD.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to the valuable research performed by the Metro Washington Park Zoo in Portland, OR, and the other member institutions of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association [AZA]. These zoos and aquariums use the most advanced technology and some of the most dedicated of our Nation's scientists to ensure the survival of species worldwide. Research is the first step in conservation, and during April, which is Zoo and Aquarium Month, I would like to recognize the many steps toward conservation taken by AZA institutions. Zoos and aquariums were among the first institutions to recognize the threat of species extinction around the world and to make research geared to alleviating this problem one of their top priorities. Their ever-increasing expertise has since served as a valuable resource to conservation efforts throughout the world. I am proud to commend the staff of Metro Washington Park Zoo for their significant contributions to the conservation and breeding of Asian elephants. The research performed by Metro Washington Park Zoo and its AZA counterparts help ensures that our grandchildren will enjoy the same animals that we all enjoy today. The research enables us to better understand our world and, ultimately, ourselves. Our Nation has long acknowledged the value of our local zoos and aquariums. They educate as well as entertain, and have long served as playgrounds for our children's imagination. I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing April as Zoo and Aquarium Month, and I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to visit their local zoo or aquarium with their family and friends.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we make it 2 minutes for a brief outline.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let me, first of all, assure the body that the leadership of this committee will be here on the floor following the vote to engage in any colloquy required or asked for or to answer any questions. Basically, this is where we are. Seven months into the fiscal year we are completing 5 of the 13 appropriations bills, totalling $162 billion in nondefense discretionary funds. This covers the Labor-HHS, Commerce, State, Justice, HUD and related agencies, Interior, and the District of Columbia. I want to say that we have accomplished this by a very strong bipartisan effort on the part of both the House and the Senate and the White House. Leon Panetta, representing the White House, and David Obey and Chairman Livingston from the House, Senator Byrd and myself from the Senate were the five principals, with staff assisting us, and we resolved seven riders relating to environmental issues and to the other riders that were very controversial: population control, HIV, repeal of the military, and the abortion package relating to certification. We had the opportunity to engage in having the administration and executive branch help offset the add-backs that were requested by the administration. We added $4.2 billion totally offset the $8 billion that they had asked for as add-backs. We took a .00009 percent reduction across the board on all travel accounts in the executive branch of Government, which was about $350 million offset--some of those matters that we had on some of the add-backs for the administration. This is a compromise bill, and it is one that has been crafted in the best condition and under the best circumstance that we function under. I ask further, Mr. President, for the same amount of time to be allocated to the ranking minority member of the committee. Senator Byrd and his staff were an absolutely key and integral part of being able to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank him and his staff very much for that cooperation.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

Mr. HATFIELD. That was the position of the Senate, and these severe problems remain eligible for some assistance under this agreement.

Mr. HATFIELD. I believe that was the majority leader's indication of the procedure we would follow. Let me say at this point in time, I suggest that those who have statements to make that do not relate to a colloquy which requires my presence would then follow after the colloquy that does require my presence with the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison]. So that would be the procedure. And then if there are no questions for me afterward, I am going to retire and let the speeches flow on. Mr. President, returning now to the omnibus appropriations bill that just passed the Senate by an 88 to 11 vote, has passed the House of Representatives by a 399 to 25 vote, remarkable votes on a matter that has as much controversy and issues that excited people's passions as has this particular bill, I would like to acknowledge the support and the backing of the Senate and House leadership. We kept the leadership informed periodically throughout the negotiations with the White House, and we had the constant and consistent support by the leadership for the strategy that we had laid out and for the steps we were able to achieve. I also want to pay particular attention to the subcommittee chairmen who served on the Appropriations Committee and the ranking members of those subcommittees, because they were involved in the negotiations as they related to their particular issues under their jurisdiction in the subcommittees. So we had a very broad base of participation in spite of the fact that five individuals had been put together in order to achieve the agreement--Senator Byrd and myself, and Chairman Livingston and Mr. Obey of the House, and Mr. Panetta representing the White House. I also want to express our deep appreciation to the White House negotiators for their responding to short-time notices. When we were ready to meet again--and all these meetings took place in the Appropriations Committee room of the Senate side of the building--they responded within minutes of the times when we said we would like to talk to you again on this issue, or we are ready to return to the table on a package of issues. I want to also acknowledge Senator Domenici, as chairman of the Budget Committee. As you know, we function in a linked, and oftentimes in a lockstep with the Budget Committee, vis-a-vis the budget resolution and maintaining the caps and limits of spending established by that budget resolution. In this particular case we were making add- backs and offsets, but it impacted upon the scoring system of the CBO. We had constant, immediate response to needs by the Budget Committee and its staff, under the leadership of Senator Domenici, to give us an update or an immediate response to a question of scoring. We also had, for every add-back, offsets; so that it was deficit neutral in every step we took. Those offsets had to be called upon again by imaginative, creative ideas--uranium enrichment programs and other such things, again, which had a scoring implication that the Budget Committee responded to regarding our need and helping us along. In any case, there is something that comes up in the tail end that you do not anticipate and do not suspect. One such incident is illustrative of the close working relationship with the Budget Committee. In a case where $15 million was asked for nuclear safety as it related to nuclear nonproliferation, it was considered as one of those oversights for some reason, but nevertheless it had to be acted upon at the request of the sponsoring Member. Here we had to reopen, in a sense, the Energy Subcommittee that had been closed in relation to this conference on the omnibus package. Again, Senator Domenici, as chairman of that subcommittee, came with the assistance required in order to not only reopen that committee but also to, in effect, find an offset. So, I want to pay special attention to the support from the Budget Committee, particularly Senator Domenici. Mr. President, I am sure at the time the Senate acted upon these issues one by one, when we came out of our committee with a reported bill, people were very much aware of the heated debates that took place here on the floor before we were able to take that bill, having passed the Senate, with leadership support of both Senator Dole and Senator Daschle, with the overwhelming support of Republicans and Democrats--we went into that conference with that kind of vote support which was very important. But we tend to forget, after we have gone through these debates and do not relive them as those of us do who have to relive them within a smaller context of a conference. Let me tell you, those debates were just as intense, they were just as heated, they were just as divisive as they are on the floor, if not more so, because here you are sitting across a table, looking eyeball to eyeball to the adversary in the debate. Let me just say, we got into abortion. That was the Coats amendment. We got into population planning. We got into HIV, which was lifting the ban that had been done in the managers' report here on this floor. But we got into it in that situation within this very small context of basically five principals. We got into seven debates on environmental issues. I think they are equal in the intensity that people express their viewpoints and ideas as were the social issues. And we had to work through every one of those. Let me say, the White House position initially was that all seven of those environmental issues that had been put there by the Senate and the House had to be excised; it would be a veto on the entire package if any one of those amendments, riders, stayed on this package. We kept five of them. We kept five of the seven, modifying four of the five, but we kept five of those environmental riders. So, you see from that, the White House had moved. The White House had asked for $8 billion in add-backs. We agreed with offsets on $4.8 billion, about a split. We denied the White House half of what they wanted. The White House got half of what they wanted. I think, when you come to a conference, it is a matter of giving and getting, so when the conference is over, everybody can say we won. That is a successful conference. I think we spend too much of our time trying to determine who loses and who wins, and if we do not spend that time, the media do. The media likes winners and losers. It is kind of strange. It is difficult for them to comprehend and handle a situation where everybody wins. They may not have won everything, and they did not lose everything. To me that is the art of compromise. That is the art of legislation. That is recognizing the pluralism of our society. We do not all think alike. God forbid we should ever. But, nevertheless, what I am saying is these votes in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate of the United States demonstrated my thesis--everybody won, or at least they can claim victory in this or that or the other thing. We have to recognize one other thing. The Appropriations Committee, 7 months into this 1996 fiscal year, are behind already for the 1997 fiscal year. What we did in this conference was going to affect how expedited we can make the 1997 procedure. Sure, we might have won more from the House on the Senate side, but we would have done so at the expense of being able to find the kind of compromises to expedite the 1997 process. So we always, I think, have to realize that what we are doing at the moment has an impact on what we are going to have to do next. Again, we live in the moment and in a culture of instantaneous gratification: instant this, instant news, bite-size everything, and very few people in our culture are looking beyond today and this very hour. I want to say, in my view, the exception to that is the Republican determination to balance the budget by the year 2002, because we are looking ahead to what implications today's actions are going to have on our children and our grandchildren, to the year 2002. But very few things are happening in our culture total, not just the political, that gives any indication that people are looking beyond the moment. We were looking as well to resolve this issue, knowing we were going to be immediately thrust into the next fiscal year activity, of 1997. We have to always remain conscious of the fact that the President has legislative power. He cannot force us to legislate anything, but we cannot legislate independent of the President either. That is the marvelous mystery of our mixing of powers within a separation of powers organization. So when you look at the issues, the riders on the bill--and I am going to use any and every occasion that I have an opportunity to remind ourselves that, blast it all, it is the authorizers who should be doing these riders in the first place and they are dumping on to us, complicating the appropriations process unnecessarily. Why? Well, we are the only committee that has to act. A lot of people like to talk, and they do. The appropriators not only talk, they have to act. We have to pass our bills. No other committee in this Congress, except the appropriators, are required by law to pass their bills to keep the Government going. Not even the Budget Committee has to act. In fact, the Budget Committee did not give the appropriators a budget resolution until August a few years ago which, really, by that time, was a rather futile gesture because we had to move ahead before the Budget Committee even acted in order to meet the October 1 fiscal year deadline. So I want to say again, a lot of people talk about budget reductions, but it is the appropriators who have done it. We have cut the budget over $22 billion. No other committee has done it. They have talked about it. We have done the cutting, $22 billion. And sometimes we have had to do that without the benefit of anesthetic. This is a bloody surgery we are into. I am always amused by the Members who come around to the appropriating committee and say, ``Be sure and put that in. Be sure and hang on to that one,'' spend that money and then get up here and talk about the appropriators or people refusing to cut spending. We are all guilty of it. It gets a little weary at times, I must say, but, nevertheless, that is the way the system functions. It is still the best system in the world, no matter how many times we find fault with it. So I can say this to the body today that it is not the bill I would have written if I had been the only one, but it certainly is a bill of consensus. We had to deal with Democrats, Republicans, House Members, Senate Members and the White House, and to have engaged in that was, indeed, both an experience and one that took team effort. I am indebted to my colleagues in the Senate for this vote of 88 to 11 and to the superior leadership of Congressman Livingston. Let me tell you, we have sometimes divisions on this side, and we think it is hard to bridge those differences and so forth, but let me tell you, that House side-- it is an amazing, amazing accomplishment that the leadership and Chairman Livingston were able to get a 399-to-25 vote and, again, everybody won. Mr. President, I said I would yield to my friend from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and engage in a colloquy, and if there are no other questions, I will engage in that colloquy at this time in order to accommodate the Senator. If there are no questions, then I will depart.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hutchison. That is correct. In his exercise of the Executive power, the President is bound to consider the health and safety of the people and the economy in making Executive orders. This is, of course, true with the suspension provision, too. I appreciate the assistance of the Senator from Texas in bringing this issue into focus at this particular time.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Texas will yield momentarily for a unanimous-consent request. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as part of the negotiations with the White House on appropriations for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1996, we have agreed to eliminate language designed to make the so-called Salvage Rider more workable for the Administration. To my colleagues with whom I worked to fashion this language, let me say that I did not drop it willingly. I dropped it in the face of a direct and specific veto threat by the President. I continue to believe it is sound policy and makes many desirable changes to the original salvage law. This language would have given the Administration the authority, for any reason, to halt for 90 days the green tree sales released under Section 2001(k) of the law on which harvesting had not begun by March 28, 1996. During that 90 day period, the President would have been able to negotiate with contract holders to provide replacement timber or a cash buy out as a substitute for harvesting the original timber sale. Current law restricts the President's ability to enter into such agreements. The proposed language would also have lifted the completion deadline imposed by current law so that the owners of these sales would not have been rushed to harvest their timber before the deadline. By lifting that deadline, I sought to provide a longer time frame for parties to negotiate with the Administration on mutually agreeable ways to avoid operating sales that may have adverse environmental consequences. Mr. President, I have always believed that the high road for public officials is in solving legitimate policy problems, not in retaining issues for some perceived partisan gain. In negotiating improvements to the current timber salvage law, it is my view that the Administration dropped the former approach for the latter. The President determined, for reasons that puzzle me greatly, that he was unable to embrace the additional flexibility that we had offered to him under the salvage law. I can only assume that the White House has determined that retaining the issue as a political cudgel is more valuable during an election year than actually solving the problem. Recall that when the President signed this measure into law, he issued a statement praising Congress for making a number of changes that would greatly improve the provision. Soon thereafter, with the wrath of the environmental community unleashed upon it, the White House changed its tune. The new, and unflattering, message was that the President had been duped into signing the Salvage law. As someone intimately involved in much of the process, I can say with absolute confidence that the White House was aware of every letter in this provision. It was negotiated in excruciating detail over a period of 6 months. Even though I am convinced the White House was fully aware of what was included in the current salvage law, I appreciate the controversial nature of the subject matter and the need to address genuine problems with the law. For this reason, I have attempted in good faith to address the President's legitimate concerns. In fact, I share a number of the same concerns. Since December, when the White House first approached me for assistance in amending this law, my staff and I have met repeatedly with the President's staff. I have responded to the White House's concerns by proposing effective solutions that are, frankly, difficult for supporters of the Salvage Law to accept. It now appears to me that the thinking at the White House has again changed since we began our meetings last December. Only the President and his advisors know the political calculus behind his decision to reject this language. Most of the changes to the current salvage law were suggested by the White House. It would have given the President the unilateral authority to immediately halt the very timber sales he has publicly objected to. By threatening to veto the entire budget agreement over the inclusion of this single provision, the President appears to be willing to continue the budget stalemate and furlough thousands of Federal workers in order to play politics with the forests of the Northwest. I hope the President's advisors will keep this language handy. Later this summer, these sales will be rapidly harvested prior to the deadline and within weeks of the November election. I am confident the President will wish he had the substantial authority the Congress had offered to give him and which he had originally requested. He could have stopped the very sales he and the environmental community have objected to so strongly in the press. Let no one be confused about why the President lacks the authority to resolve concerns with these sales--the President rejected it. It is my belief that the White House rejected this reasonable language because of its fear of being at odds with the environmental community. The position of the environmental community is total repeal and they oppose anything less. I told the President when he was about to announce his forest plan for the Pacific Northwest that his advisors were putting him in a box in which he would have no choice but to take the extreme position. Today, the President has found himself inside that same box. The historic timber debates in the Northwest have never been about owls or old growth. I have argued for many years that the true agenda of many in the environmental community is to eliminate timber harvests on Federal lands--zero cut. Now this view is in the mainstream of the environmental movement, a movement the President is determined to satisfy. The Sierra Club voted 2-to-1 this week to back a ban on logging of any kind on all Federal land. The adoption of this single-minded preservation perspective by one of our Nation's largest environmental organizations has finally disrobed the underlying agenda of the environmental community--lock-up of our Nation's forests. We can now debate the merits of entirely eliminating timber harvest on our millions of acres of Federal lands. Today, in Oregon, the zero-cut proposition has been put squarely before the public in the form of the Enola Hill timber sale. This sale is about 40 miles outside Portland on the way to Mount Hood. The Forest Service initially prepared this sale in 1987. Since then, it has undergone a long and distinguished legal history. It has been unsuccessfully challenged in four separate lawsuits. It is now in the midst of its fifth legal action and was the focus of hundreds of protesters last week. With this kind of controversy and divisive legal history, one might imagine that the Enola Hill sale involves critical salmon habitat, various listed endangered species, miles of new forest road construction or huge clearcutting of 1,000-year-old trees. My colleagues may be surprised to learn that the Enola Hill sale involves none of these controversial things. There are no Endangered Species Act concerns with this sale. There are no spotted owls, no marbled murrelets, no endangered salmon runs to be concerned about in the area. The sale is comprised of second growth timber, not old growth. The sale is not a clearcut, but rather a 250 acre selective cut which will remove about one third of the trees. The entry will hardly be visible when the sale is completed. The sale involves no new roads to be built. How can this be? Because all logs will be removed by helicopter, a fairly expensive, but much more common practice in timber management in the Northwest today. The sale has the further attribute of addressing a very real forest health problem. Laminated root rot is killing these trees that are to be harvested. This sale is designed to slow the spread of this disease to other forest stands. So why all the controversy? The primary challenge to this sale is cultural. A number of individual Native American tribal members have argued that the Enola Hill area is sacred. However, no Tribe has objected to the sale going forward, including the largest Tribe in my State and the one in closest proximity to the sale area, the Warm Springs Tribe. The Courts and the Forest Service have weighed the questions of cultural significance of the site and the evidence has been inconclusive at best. The Forest Service continues to state its willingness to consider adjusting the sale to accommodate any identified culturally significant areas, but those individual tribal members who object to the sale refuse to identify any particular areas as being any more culturally significant than other areas in the Mount Hood National Forest. I have chosen to highlight this sale only because the environmental community has chosen to highlight it. It is the flagship sale for the Northwest environmentalists as they protest ``lawless logging.'' I have a difficult time locating any environmental issue on the Enola Hill sale that would not be present in any timber sale. We have now reached the bottom line debate: Is cutting down trees in our national forests to satisfy the public's increasing demand for wood products inherently unsound from an environmental perspective? In this debate, the environmental community's true agenda comes through loud and clear: zero cut, lock up. This position is socially and environmentally irresponsible and I reject it in the strongest possible terms. As I have said before, I do not enjoy seeing trees being cut down. I am a former tree farmer. I plant trees. Like many others, however, I enjoy having a roof over my head. I enjoy having furniture to sit on, and I imagine my colleagues enjoy these beautiful wooden desks and the wood paneling here in the Senate Chamber. The demand for wood products to fulfill our Nation's housing and other wood fibre demands is growing, Mr. President, not shrinking. Fortunately, our primary resources for meeting these demands, wood products, are renewable and are grown from free solar energy. Moreover, arguably the greatest tree growing region in the world is the Pacific Northwest. It troubles me greatly that timber harvesting in this very region has been drastically reduced and is now well below scientifically sustainable levels. With demand continuing to rise, America is now forced to look elsewhere to satisfy its needs. I have called this practice Environmental Imperialism--lock up our own forests but go to the Third World and other countries to satisfy American demand. Unfortunately, most, if not all, of these countries do not have comprehensive forest practices statutes in place like we do here. Their harvesting is most often based on satisfying economic needs without consideration for ecological concerns. I have seen the detrimental effects of this U.S.-centered policy with my own eyes. I traveled to Russia last summer, and I learned of an interesting comparison--the timber lands of Siberia are 15 times less productive than the timber lands in western Oregon. In other words, it takes 1.5 million acres of Siberian timber land to grow the same amount of timber we can grow on 100,000 acres in the Northwest. I have also recently visited the rain forests of South America and seen the impacts that the exporting of our domestic problems has caused in that area. These experiences have helped me put the global nature of our timber policies in perspective. When we reduce timber production from the great timber growing lands of the Pacific Northwest, there is an undeniable global impact. I believe that the administration wants to be sensitive to the global effects of our environmental policies in this country. I want to commend Secretary of State Christopher for his commitment to looking at environmental issues on a global basis. However, along with this view must come the recognition that not only do the practices of other nations impact us here in the United States, but that our domestic practices and policies also have a great impact on other nations. Mr. President, I have always believed that we have a responsibility to conserve our natural resources. I have authored nearly 1.5 million acres of wilderness legislation in Oregon and added 44 river segments to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. At the same time, I believe that we have a moral obligation to satisfy the demand of Americans with the wise use of American resources, not by going abroad to rape the resources of other countries. Unfortunately, Mr. President, with its latest action to oppose giving itself flexibility on the Salvage Rider, the White House has chosen political convenience over the best interests of the environment both in the Pacific Northwest and throughout the world. The provisions stricken from the Omnibus Appropriations package would have given the President significant authority to resolve problems with sales released under the current Salvage Law. I hope that in the future our negotiations will hinge on the resolution of legitimate policy issues, rather than clinging to a political issue for perceived partisan advantage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rejected language, and a letter related to the issues I have raised here be printed in the Record.