Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President I would like to indicate just for the record some wrong figures. This bill pending before the floor now does not cut 25 percent. It is cut 12 percent. The Federal education bill in this present form represents support for education comprising 67 percent of the national education expenditures. It has been cut, of course; it has been cut 12 percent as we are moving toward reductions of Government spending. Thus, the Federal cut is on a base of 6 percent of national expenditures on education. On the total national expenditures, it is a 6-percent reduction. With the additional funds in the title IV, the education cut is reduced less than 5 percent. Now, those are contingent upon agreements being reached between the President and the negotiators on the long-term balanced budget. I just want to make that correction for the record. I wish to say also that last spring when we allocated the 602(b) allocations we indicated our strong support on the Senate Appropriations Committee for education. We allocated $1.5 billion more than the House had allocated for the Labor, HHS Subcommittee 602(b). I cannot fault any of the arguments made by those advancing the amendment in terms of commitment to education, and I might say I do not take a back seat to anybody on that side of the aisle or anyplace else in this Senate Chamber on supporting education. But, nevertheless, I think we have to realize that when the proponents of this amendment say that it is offset, Mr. President, I have to correct that as well. It is not totally offset because even if you look at the uranium enrichment source to which they dip in for an offset, it does not in 1996 fully offset it. In fact, it costs money to do the uranium offset. It will in 1997 more than provide money to offset back for the additions made in 1996 and 1997. But let us understand this. We are offering here in this amendment not a total offset, which I think probably would make it subject to a point of order. Second, there is an emergency declaration used to compensate for the inability to totally dollar-for-dollar offset. Now, this is the right of the Senate. It is the right of the Congress at any time to put an emergency to any measure. I do not challenge the correctness. I am challenging the wisdom in adding an emergency declaration as a part of the offset that does not happen in a dollar- for-dollar offset. I understand that we are going to lay this amendment down according to the leader and embark upon a major debate on this issue tomorrow when the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator Specter, will be here to engage in an analysis and discussion of this amendment. Mr. President, I also understand the Senators from North Dakota are anxious, once the discussion or comments made on this amendment have been finished, to offer an amendment to the emergency supplemental that is incorporated in this vehicle relating to North Dakota which we will be very happy to accommodate in that we have accommodated Idaho, Washington, and Oregon for similar problems that North Dakota has. Amendment No. 3467 to Amendment No. 3466

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment numbered 3466 to the desk.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send the substitute amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent for the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy to hold a hearing on Social Security and future retirees on Monday, March 11, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m. in room SD-215.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let me say, first of all, they have no monetary impact. There is no budgetary problem on this matter. It is to clarify, in two instances--let me take them separately. One is on behalf of Senator Dole, Senator Hatch, Senator Gregg, and Senator Hollings. This amendment broadens the definition of ``educational expenses'' covered under the Police Corps Program in the section of the bill dealing with the Commerce appropriations bill. The second one is a Hollings-Inouye amendment to grant USIA multiyear contract authority for the Tinian Relay Station. Again, I emphasize, they have been cleared on both sides. They have no budgetary impact. They are technical in character. I urge the adoption, en bloc, of these amendments.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, yesterday I received a letter from Dr. Alice Rivlin, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, concerning the omnibus appropriations bill our Appropriations Committee reported yesterday. As our colleagues know, the Appropriations Committee reported that measure to provide funding beyond the March 15 deadline of the current resolution for the programs and activities of the Federal Government and agencies funded in the five appropriations bills not yet signed into law, to respond to the President's supplemental request for Bosnia operations and disaster relief and to respond to his request for additional funding for certain programs he believes to be of a priority nature. Dr. Rivlin's letter is disappointing to say the least. She concludes by declaring, and I quote directly from the letter: ``Regrettably, I must advise you that if the bill were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto it.'' ``Veto'' is the word. I do not think anybody needs to go to Webster to find out that veto is no, negative, cut off, closed issue. By the way, may I say parenthetically, I received this letter yesterday afternoon, within a matter of an hour or two after the committee had completed its work and during which time the committee made amendments to the so-called chairman's mark. I defy anybody to go through that complex document in a matter of an hour or two and know precisely what it means and what it says. The Appropriations Committee has gone to considerable lengths for many months to address the concerns of the administration. In the bill reported yesterday, our committee went a very long way, in my judgment, toward the administration's position on many issues. That the administration would ignore that progress and still threaten to veto before the process is even completed--because, as everyone knows we are still in the process of having the full floor consider this bill as well--indicates to me that they are more interested in the politics of the moment than the responsibility of governing. Let me be specific. The President has made the so-called COPS Program, cops on the beat, a top priority. The bill reported yesterday provides $1 billion for that purpose. Mr. President, $1 billion is significant money. The President vetoed the VA/HUD bill, in part because it did not provide funding for the National Service Program. Our reported bill carries Senator Bond's recommendation, as the subcommittee chairman, of $383 million for that program. The committee also agreed with his recommendation to add $240 million in funding for the environmental protection programs and $50 million for community development financial institutions, both priorities of the administration, identified as such in the President's veto message of the VA/HUD bill. In the Interior bill, the committee concurred with Senator Gorton's recommendation that we want to refine the language on the Tongass National Forest and the salvage timber provisions of last year's rescissions bill, both in response to the President's objections listed in his veto message. We also recommended greater funding for the Park Service. In addition, we adjusted funding levels in the Labor-HHS bill to provide for $6.5 billion for title I of that bill, compensatory education; $3.245 billion for education for the handicapped; $200 million for drug free schools. These are ample sums and all have been identified as priority programs of the administration. Mr. President, let me underscore this sentence. All of this was done within existing constraints. In other words, it was done within the constraints of the budget resolution passed by the Congress. But, in addition to these--in addition--our committee recommended $4.7 billion in additional money--add-on, increase--for an array of programs that the President had requested and that the committee believes should be funded if--if--the additional resources can be found. In total, the committee provides about $6.2 billion in response to a request of the administration for about $8 billion for programs of interest to the President. We went to $6.2 billion of the $8 billion request level, contingent upon finding additional resources. There are many different ways in which you can do that. We are not prescribing how it can be done or should be done. That is not in the Appropriations Committee's role of authority. In this context, it is utterly perplexing to me that the administration would threaten a veto when the process is just underway. I hope the President's advisers understand they cannot compel Congress to appropriate $1 of money. That is exclusively, constitutionally the jurisdiction of the Congress. I hope they realize that rejection of good-faith efforts to reach compromise and maintain the essential operations of Government will harden positions and polarize and drive some in Congress to argue for no compromise at all. The omnibus appropriations bill reported yesterday is not the only way to maintain Government operations beyond March 15. Other vehicles that may be drafted should this proposal fail or be vetoed may not be so responsive to the administration's programs. I do not wish to pursue that course. I believe the bill reported by our Appropriations Committee yesterday is the way we should proceed; to be accommodating, as we are the only authority that can appropriate money. It is the President's check and balance to either sign or veto a bill, including an appropriations bill, but we can take those rigid positions and polarized positions and continue the stalemate. Mind you, the Appropriations Committee of the Senate has made a long movement, serious movement, sincere movement to try to be accommodating, recognizing the President has a role in the legislative process and has his priorities. But we also have ours. It is not going to be the President's way or no way any more than we are suggesting it should be the Congress' way or no way. We have made our move. We have made the gesture of trying to accommodate in a very real way. I only hope the President's advisers realize this may be our last and best offer. If they are more interested in the substance of governing than the politics of the moment, I hope they will work with us toward a successful conclusion of our efforts.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have recently expressed my concern for the harm done through the 85-percent cut in international voluntary family planning programs which is now law for this fiscal year. I wish to submit for the record a body of statistics which describe what is likely to happen in the aftermath of a 35-percent cut in voluntary family planning programs. Again, the cut in this fiscal year is 85 percent. These statistics represent the most conservative estimates of what a 35-percent cut would mean. In sum, we can expect nearly 2 million more abortions, and a minimum of 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth. One need not be a professional demographer to calculate what this year's 85 percent cut will mean for families across the globe. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these estimates be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure for me to today introduce a bill to reauthorize the functions of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission on which I serve. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes. Senator Sarbanes and I have a long association with the Commission. This important organization, closely associated with the National Archives and Records Administration, has been diligently performing some of the most vital archival preservation work in the country. Realizing the importance of preserving historical works and collections, Congress established the National Historical Publications and Records Commission in 1934. Its purpose was to collect, edit, and publish the papers of the Founding Fathers, the writings of other distinguished Americans, and the documentary histories of the First Congress, the Supreme Court, and the process of the ratification of the Constitution. In 1974, Congress expanded the Commission's responsibilities to include providing advice and assistance to public and private institutions in the development and administration of archival systems. In the same year, the NHPRC established a Historical Records Advisory Board in each State to help coordinate overall preservation strategies and to ensure that the Commission would have a strong Federal-State partnership for its records programs. Today, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission has not strayed from its original mission. The NHPRC continues to screen and determine the historical works it considers appropriate for preserving or publishing. The Commission administers grants to projects dedicated to preserving annals essential for historical research, publishing historical papers, and archiving nationally significant records. Without the preservation of these invaluable records, historians have little hope of accurately analyzing our Nation's history. Another important aspect of the Commission's objective is to encourage and instruct local agencies, schools, museums, and individuals to forge ahead in their actions to preserve and publish historical works; the tasks facing archival institutions, manuscript depositories, and scholars require more than the valiant efforts of a single Federal Commission. The valuable work of the Commission is a very good example of a healthy partnership between public and private institutions, Federal and State agencies. The NHPRC pays no more than one-third of the funds of the projects that it supports. Thus, the program is one of aiding and working closely with individuals and local institutions dedicated to preserving important facets of our history. The number of records that the Commission has preserved and published is an impressive tribute to its efficient organization. To date, the NHPRC has supported 1,056 archival projects in all 50 States, three territories, and the District of Columbia. These projects have published 717 documentary volumes. Recent project grants have gone to an agency in Illinois to preserve Abraham Lincoln's legal papers and to a center in Atlanta to publish the papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. In addition, the Commission has produced 8,280 reels of microfilm as well as 1,822 microfiche. Finally, the NHPRC has supported a total of 274 documentary editing projects. As the numbers suggest, the Commission has been quite successful in its mission to preserve and publish the Nation's historical works. The bill I am introducing today seeks to extend authorization of appropriations for an additional 4 years in amounts up to $10 million annually. This appropriation would cover fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. One hundred percent of the appropriations go entirely toward project grants; the National Archives bears the administrative costs. The American public may be assured that their investment is well spent by the NHPRC. Passage of this important legislation will reassure America's community of scholars, librarians, and archivists working closely with the NHPRC that Congress is committed to the important mission of the Commission. In the past, Congress has clearly supported the work of the NHPRC and has recognized the importance of the Commission's efforts to ensure that the words, thoughts, and ideas of our Nation's historic individuals are collected from fragile or deteriorating source material and placed in books or on microfilm. Passage of this bill will ensure that present and future generations of inquisitive minds will have access to our history. Mr. President, this bill will allow the NHPRC to continue its valuable work for the next 4 years--work that will be of the utmost benefit to scholars, researchers, libraries, and the public. Our Nation's history needs to be preserved, and the future generations of Americans deserve the right to have accurate records of their past. The preservation of our historical documents will protect and enrich our Nation's wonderful history. I am proud to be a sponsor of this legislation and confident in urging my colleagues to give their support to this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure for me to today introduce a bill to reauthorize the functions of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission on which I serve. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes. Senator Sarbanes and I have a long association with the Commission. This important organization, closely associated with the National Archives and Records Administration, has been diligently performing some of the most vital archival preservation work in the country. Realizing the importance of preserving historical works and collections, Congress established the National Historical Publications and Records Commission in 1934. Its purpose was to collect, edit, and publish the papers of the Founding Fathers, the writings of other distinguished Americans, and the documentary histories of the First Congress, the Supreme Court, and the process of the ratification of the Constitution. In 1974, Congress expanded the Commission's responsibilities to include providing advice and assistance to public and private institutions in the development and administration of archival systems. In the same year, the NHPRC established a Historical Records Advisory Board in each State to help coordinate overall preservation strategies and to ensure that the Commission would have a strong Federal-State partnership for its records programs. Today, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission has not strayed from its original mission. The NHPRC continues to screen and determine the historical works it considers appropriate for preserving or publishing. The Commission administers grants to projects dedicated to preserving annals essential for historical research, publishing historical papers, and archiving nationally significant records. Without the preservation of these invaluable records, historians have little hope of accurately analyzing our Nation's history. Another important aspect of the Commission's objective is to encourage and instruct local agencies, schools, museums, and individuals to forge ahead in their actions to preserve and publish historical works; the tasks facing archival institutions, manuscript depositories, and scholars require more than the valiant efforts of a single Federal Commission. The valuable work of the Commission is a very good example of a healthy partnership between public and private institutions, Federal and State agencies. The NHPRC pays no more than one-third of the funds of the projects that it supports. Thus, the program is one of aiding and working closely with individuals and local institutions dedicated to preserving important facets of our history. The number of records that the Commission has preserved and published is an impressive tribute to its efficient organization. To date, the NHPRC has supported 1,056 archival projects in all 50 States, three territories, and the District of Columbia. These projects have published 717 documentary volumes. Recent project grants have gone to an agency in Illinois to preserve Abraham Lincoln's legal papers and to a center in Atlanta to publish the papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. In addition, the Commission has produced 8,280 reels of microfilm as well as 1,822 microfiche. Finally, the NHPRC has supported a total of 274 documentary editing projects. As the numbers suggest, the Commission has been quite successful in its mission to preserve and publish the Nation's historical works. The bill I am introducing today seeks to extend authorization of appropriations for an additional 4 years in amounts up to $10 million annually. This appropriation would cover fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. One hundred percent of the appropriations go entirely toward project grants; the National Archives bears the administrative costs. The American public may be assured that their investment is well spent by the NHPRC. Passage of this important legislation will reassure America's community of scholars, librarians, and archivists working closely with the NHPRC that Congress is committed to the important mission of the Commission. In the past, Congress has clearly supported the work of the NHPRC and has recognized the importance of the Commission's efforts to ensure that the words, thoughts, and ideas of our Nation's historic individuals are collected from fragile or deteriorating source material and placed in books or on microfilm. Passage of this bill will ensure that present and future generations of inquisitive minds will have access to our history. Mr. President, this bill will allow the NHPRC to continue its valuable work for the next 4 years--work that will be of the utmost benefit to scholars, researchers, libraries, and the public. Our Nation's history needs to be preserved, and the future generations of Americans deserve the right to have accurate records of their past. The preservation of our historical documents will protect and enrich our Nation's wonderful history. I am proud to be a sponsor of this legislation and confident in urging my colleagues to give their support to this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, Portland State University is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Although that is a relatively short life in the history of America's higher education movement, Portland State University has quickly developed into one of the Nation's premier urban universities. This remarkable university began as the Vanport Extension Center, located in one of Portland's public housing projects. It was an educational resource for many of Oregon's returning World War II veterans. Two years after the Center was established, the famous Memorial Day flood destroyed the campus, but not the college. Even the Christian Science Monitor published a national story about the Vanport's resurrection, calling it ``The College That Would Not Die.'' The college relocated to its current site in the South Park blocks area of downtown Portland in 1952. In 1955, my first term in the Oregon State Senate, the legislature officially designated it as Portland State College. At that time, the enrollment at PSC was more than 3,300 students--up from 221 Vanport students enrolled during its first term. In 1969, as the college introduced its first doctoral program, the legislature granted it university status. Today, Portland State University is a national model of the urban university. Its mission is to enhance the intellectual, social, cultural, and economic qualities of urban life, and to promote the development of community-institutional networks and collaborations to address community priorities through academic and research programs. The university offers 32 bachelor's and 398 master's degrees in the humanities, sciences, social sciences, and professions, as well as doctoral degrees in seven areas: Education, electrical and computer engineering, environmental sciences and resources, public administration and policy, social work and social research, systems science, and urban studies and planning. PSU's programs are so widely accepted in Oregon that it offers one-quarter of the State's graduate degrees annually. My wife, Antoinette, and I have been involved in this great university since its early days. Antoinette attended Vanport Extension and eventually returned to Portland State College as its counselor to women. During my tenure in state government, the institution emerged as one of the State's major educational resources. As Governor, I was proud to sign the legislation that authorized funding for Portland State University's prestigious graduate school of social work. During my service as Senator, I have been pleased to work with Portland State University on legislation that established and funded the Urban Community Services Program in the Department of Education. Portland State University was one of the first universities in the Nation to qualify for one of these grants that provides seed money to help extend academic resources to urban communities. Celebrating the 50-year milestone is important--for institutions and for individuals--but Portland State University is looking toward the future and making its mark in the national higher education movement. If the past half century is any indication, we can expect Portland State University to make significant contributions in Oregon and in the Nation as it approaches its centennial celebration. Portland State University is developing a model learning community in the heart of downtown that will include new, multifamily affordable housing, connections with public transit and the light rail system, expansion of retail and commercial businesses in the neighborhood, and the development of urban open spaces and parks. I know of no other university in the country that is working so closely with local government to link its resources to the needs of the community and revitalize its neighborhood. Portland State University has received national recognition for improving its general education curriculum. Students now take courses that are communication-intensive, interdisciplinary and team-taught, and include extensive community involvement and service learning components. This new curriculum responds to concerns expressed by business, policy leaders, and students that traditional general education programs have not served today's students well. Called the University Studies Program, this innovative approach to providing undergraduates and integrated overview of the core subject areas is a model for colleges and universities across the country. Portland State University is also a success story because of its approach to administrative reform and commitment to the principles of quality management. In recent years, the university has engaged in an extensive reorganization of its management operation. Portland State University has reduced its administrative and management staff while still maintaining a high level of service and productivity. The national consulting group, KPMG Peat Marwick has called PSU ``a national model'' for efficient management. And, the National Association of College and University Business Officers recently presented the university with a national award for its management reform efforts. Making a difference, that is what Portland State University is all about. When it began, it made a difference to those veterans returning home from World War II. It provided them the chance to get an education while working and living in Portland. And, it continues to make a difference in the lives of Oregonians. Today, Portland State University--in partnership with community organizations--makes a difference in the lives of inner-city youngsters by exposing them to higher education early in life so they can realize that a college degree is within their grasp. Portland State University makes a difference in the lives of high school students who otherwise might not be able to afford a college education away from home. Portland State University makes a difference to the working professional who needs an advanced degree in order to stay current in their field, earn a higher wage, or qualify for a promotion. In short, Portland State University is crucial to Oregon's citizens and its economic future. On the occasion of its 50th anniversary, I want to extend my sincere congratulations to the faculty, staff, and students who have contributed to PSU's success. I look forward to the exciting contributions this remarkable institution will make in the 21st century.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, yesterday, I voted for cloture on the Craig/Leahy substitute to the farm bill. I cast my vote in hopes of reaching cloture so that we could debate and discuss the 1995 farm bill. I have consistently voted in the past in favor of moving forward with debate to ensure the integrity of farm legislation which would allow our farmers to plant their crops. We were not able to obtain cloture yesterday, however, late yesterday evening, the leadership came to an agreement to complete a farm bill. Unfortunately, I am not able to be present for today's debate due to business which takes me away from the Senate. These past months I have postponed scheduled meetings and trips in order to meet the Senate schedule. The business which takes me away from the Senate today was planned many months ago with the knowledge that we would be in recess for the month of February. I am leading an important delegation from Oregon, which includes members of the Port of Portland, on a vital trade mission to Taiwan and Korea. Mr. President, I know that millions of jobs, including those of truckers, retailers, farm implement dealers, bankers and exporters, are dependent upon a healthy farm economy. Consumers are accustomed to consistently having quality, yet, inexpensive agricultural products on their grocery shelves. Yet, there is no more troubled sector in the American economy than agriculture. Agricultural surpluses, declining farm exports, failed farm and farm related businesses are constant reminders of the need to reestablish strength and stability of American agriculture. The roots of our farm crisis are many and the solutions to the problems are indeed complex. The Senate and House Agriculture Committees have labored for the past year in an attempt to bring bills to a vote in our respective Chambers. Truly, it has been a daunting year. We are now in a crisis situation where we have reverted to laws written in the 1930's and 1940's. If we do not find compromise and pass a farm bill now, we face much greater costs and exacerbate instabilities in the agricultural sector. Many of the programs of the 1930's are unpopular because they call for strict acreage allotments and marketing quotas on major crops. However, a simple extension of the current law for more than a few months will prove to be economically disastrous for both the Federal Treasury and beleaguered farmers who fall behind daily as talks continue in the Senate Chamber. I cannot say that I agree entirely with the proposed farm bill, S. 1541. The proposed 7-year contracts with the Federal Government, guaranteeing continued payments regardless of market conditions will allow farmers broad flexibility to grow crops in accordance with market conditions and not Government regulations. However, I am concerned that the bill would cut spending for the Export Enhancement Program, which subsidizes overseas sale of U.S. commodities, such as wheat. I am also concerned that the Market Promotion Program [MPP], which helps U.S. companies fund overseas promotional and advertising campaigns, would be capped. If we are to allow flexibility to meet market demands we must also tap into as well as create markets in foreign countries, especially in the Pacific rim in order to achieve the goal of independence from traditional Government assistance to farmers. Mr. President, I also offer an amendment which addresses a problem in Oregon that deals with the Oregon Public Broadcasting's [OPB] eligibility for the Public Television Demonstration Program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. OPB's eligibility for the program was held in suspension last year when it was discovered that OPB's broadcast coverage did not meet the statute's statewide requirement. OPB covers 90 percent of the State's population and 84 percent of the State's rural area. And, since all of OPB's productions are rebroadcast by one local public television station, OPB's programs are essentially available to all Oregonians. Until the definition of ``statewide'' is clarified, OPB will not be eligible for the grant program. Thus I submit my amendment to clarify the language for the eligibility criteria for the Public Television Demonstration Program. In conclusion, I find sections of this farm bill which I would like to change, as do many of my colleagues. However, we must continue to find and forge compromise in order to move toward not only a farm bill but balancing our national budget. I sincerely believe we will soon achieve that goal. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, the Senate was compelled to pass H.R. 2880, the Balanced Budget and Downpayment Act, to avert another Governmental shutdown. As I observed on the day of consideration, we did so under great duress, being forced to set aside our right and duty to amend the legislation. Of particular concern to me remains the harsh treatment given to the Agency for International Development's family planning program. Though it was known at the time that the formulation of this account was nearly calamitous, closer examination of the provision has revealed that the situation is far worse than had been imagined at that time. The provisions that passed the Senate and the House halts family planning assistance programs until July 1 of this year. Following July 1, funding may be provided at 65 percent of the fiscal year 1995 level, apportioned on a monthly basis for 15 months. What this means is that only 14 percent of what was available for obligation in fiscal year 1995 for family planning will be available for obligation this entire fiscal year--14 percent. None of us would normally tolerate a cut of this magnitude, made without the benefit of any debate, particularly on a program which enjoys such strong bipartisan support. And yet we did it. Stated differently, and more important, what we did is bar access to family planning services to approximately 17 million couples, most of them living in unimaginable poverty. We opened the door to the probability of at least 14 million unintended pregnancies every year, tens of thousands of deaths among women and nearly a million deaths among infants and young children annually. Indeed, we embrace the probability of at least 4 million more abortions that could have been averted if access to voluntary family planning services had been maintained. This is what we did. These numbers, which are calculated through statistics from organizations like UNICEF and the World Health Organization are as disturbing as they are astounding, particularly to those of us who are faithfully and assertively pro-life. To doubt these numbers may bring temporary relief to people of conscience, but doubters should consider the experience of families in the former Soviet Union where family planning services have been unavailable for decades. The abortion rate in Russia spans from a conservative estimate of 4 abortions per woman to a shocking high of 12 abortions for some women over their reproductive years. Since there have been virtually no, and I suggest that you underscore when you are listening as well as when I speak, no planning services available in Russia, abortion has become the chief method of birth control. The framers of the family planning language in H.R. 2880 ensured, perhaps unintentionally, that the gruesome experience of Russian women and families will be replicated throughout the world starting now. In each of the last two foreign operations appropriations bills, I have made sure that adequate money has been devoted to starting family planning programs in Russia. Similar programs in Hungary have shown a 60-percent reduction in the abortion rate there, 8 years after the introduction of family planning. We had hoped for such success in Russia, but now the future is uncertain. The family planning language in H.R. 2880 is not prolife, it is not prowoman, it is not prochild, it is not prohealth, and it is not profamily planning. It inflicts the harm of a profound misconception on very poor families overseas who only ask for help in spacing their children through contraception, not abortion. Some of our colleagues appear unaware that the prohibition on funding abortions with U.S. foreign aid money has been in place since 1973. AID's excellent family planning program, widely recognized as the most efficiently run in the world, has taken a strict and conservative interpretation of this prohibition, and seeks instead to prevent abortions by offering alternatives. Demand has always exceeded supply, and unmet needs continue to grow. We urgently need to correct the mistake we made in H.R. 2880. We need to restore, with rhetoric and with resources, support to AID's family planning program. For those of us who take a prolife position, this is the most effective way to reiterate our profound opposition to the practice of abortion. All the antiabortion speech this Chamber can tolerate will not reduce the number of unintended pregnancies as swiftly or as surely as our support for voluntary family planning. I intend to do what I can to rectify this situation as soon as possible, and urge my colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am not going to be quite as brief. Last week, Oregonians chose Ron Wyden as their new U.S. Senator in a special vote-by-mail election. This was a closely contested election with Ron Wyden prevailing with 48 percent of the vote. Today, Congressman Wyden becomes Senator Wyden. He brings with him almost 16 years of service to Oregon in the House of Representatives and, more important, he brings a keen intellect and an understanding of the important issues facing our State. He also possesses a very gifted and able staff, which I am confident will make the transition from the House of Representatives to the Senate swiftly and with competence. Senator Wyden has proven that he is dedicated to the people of Oregon. After spending 2 months campaigning across the State, he has now an even better understanding of the unique, independent spirit that typifies the citizens of our State. My overall goal throughout my entire tenure in the Senate is to improve the quality of life for all Oregonians. This is a goal I know is shared by Oregon's new Senator. Oregon's independent traditions have often placed our State at the cutting edge of democracy. In 1902, voters created the initiative and referendum. This process allows citizens to propose new laws or change in the State's constitution through an election-ballot measure. This change allowed a sharing of power between the State legislature and the electorate. From 1902 to 1994, voters put 272 initiatives on the ballot, of which 95 passed and became law. This was a historic change in the political process, and soon many other States followed. Ninety years later, Oregon continues to take the lead in democratic innovations. The special election for the U.S. Senate in which Ron Wyden was elected was conducted entirely by mail. From the primary to the general, Oregon became the first State to conduct a mail-only election to fill a Federal vacancy. This experiment in democracy was a dramatic success. Sixty-six percent of Oregon's 1.8 million registered voters cast ballots in the general election. By comparison, a 1993 Texas Senate race only saw a 21-percent turnout. By anybody's count, voting by mail has dramatic, positive impact on voter participation. Voter turnout has reached dismal proportions in this country. People have become disenchanted with the entire political system, and they are declining to become involved. A recent national survey by the Washington Post, Harvard University, and the Kaiser Family Foundation, found a widespread contempt for Government and political leaders. When asked how often do you trust the Government in Washington to do the right thing, only 25 percent responded that they trust the Government a majority of the time. This conclusion paints a grim picture of the democratic future of this country, and restoring public trust in Government is the greatest challenge confronting each of us who holds elected office. With politicians ranking below dog-catchers in public opinion polls, steps need to be taken to improve the public's perception of our profession. It is my commitment to restoring public confidence in the political system that undergirds my support for measures that increase voter participation. Citizens will continue to hold our institutions in ill repute as long as they remain disillusioned with the system. It is when people become a part of the process, when they have a stake in the outcome, do they begin to understand and trust their Government. Oregon's experience in voting by mail was a success because it broadened the base of political participation. The same principle undergirded our support for the national voter registration, commonly known as motor-voter. That became law during the 103d Congress, and the law provides national uniformity in access to the electoral process by allowing voter registration through the mail and at government agencies and at departments of motor vehicles throughout the country. But Oregon preceded this national law. Oregon was one of the first States to experiment with motor-voter, and the success we experienced in the laboratory of our State convinced me that our innovation was worthy of trial on the national level. Motor-voter has increased access to the voter registration process. That increased access has benefited both political parties, not one over the other. The editorial board of the Washington Post yesterday declared that Oregon's experiment in vote-by-mail elections was a success. The editorial continued stating ``a State with a longstanding reformist tradition may thus have pointed the way toward expanded political participation and at a moment when voters are so widely described as fed up with (and indifferent to) politics.'' Increasing the number of those who take part in the electoral process is critical to ensuring the vitality of democracy. The greatness of our Republic was founded on and rooted in a broad base of voter participation. We are the Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and if the people cease to participate, then our system is in danger. So I take this occasion to congratulate Ron Wyden in his victory and Oregon with experimenting with a new innovation. [Applause.]

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, real health care reform has eluded us the past several years and there are sectors of our population that are suffering. Today I speak of a particular segment of our society that, at least in discussions of health care, is too often overlooked--rural America. Rural communities face the unique challenge of obtaining health care in isolated areas. Economic depression, geographic isolation, an inability to retain qualified providers, and a lack of primary care facilities are a few of the barriers to quality health care in our rural and agricultural sectors. To meet this challenge, I have filed an amendment to support the development of rural managed care cooperatives--a small investment in the health of our farmers, their families and all those who make up the communities we call rural America. There is no dispute that the economic base and the economic vitality of a given community is directly correlated to the health of the individuals who serve it. As we discuss the farm bill, under whatever guise it may be considered, we must not forget this important fact. The health of our farm industry is of the utmost importance, but it must not be separated from the health of the men and women who support it. Cooperatives, in one form or another, have been second nature to farming communities for over a century. Whether farmers join together to form a purchasing cooperative, one of the most common types, or a marketing cooperative, the style of business has proven itself fair, efficient, and effective. Furthermore, its laws of operation translate remarkably well to sectors such as housing, service, and even rural health care. Make no mistake. This idea of a rural health care cooperative is not new. In 1929, Elk City, OK, became home to the first health maintenance organization run by the farmers cooperative. Since then, several attempts to create rural health cooperatives have failed as a result of being unable to meet the necessary startup costs. My amendment provides this startup support. It would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service, to award competitive grants to those communities which wish to form a rural managed care cooperative. The purpose of the cooperative is to establish a structure and approach that will keep rural hospitals and health care systems financially sound and competitive with urban health care systems. Especially in recent years, rural areas have found it increasingly difficult to attract the physicians and other health care providers necessary to meet even minimum community health standards. This shortage of providers results from the inability of rural communities to compete with comparatively rich urban markets. The resources of these larger markets are alluring incentives for health care providers to avoid or stray away from their rural practices. By establishing a systematic case management and reimbursement system designed to support the communities' needs, a cooperative will provide an effective framework for negotiating contracts with payers and a framework for assuring a defined level of quality. Through the combination of medical resources, streamlined managerial and reimbursement responsibilities, and shared liability, rural managed care cooperatives have proven themselves able to attract health care providers, thus improving access to and quality of rural care and enhancing the economic vitality of rural health care systems and, commensurately, the economic vitality of surrounding rural industries. Of concern to participants in such cooperatives is the threat of antitrust lawsuits. Such a threat serves to undermine the goal of rural managed care cooperatives. While the Capper-Volstead Act of 1922 recognized farmers' rights to form cooperatives without violating antitrust laws, these rights have not transferred to rural health care providers. Therefore, language in my amendment would protect those providers who participate in cooperatives from antitrust laws. This antitrust law exemption is necessary to facilitate the development of rural networks and developments. More than once, I have expressed my concern for the crisis in rural health care. Between 1989 and 1993, 141 rural community hospitals have closed. In my State alone, five rural hospitals have closed since 1986 and several others face the threat of closure. Rural health care cooperatives are not the panacea to this crisis, but it is a dose potent enough to make a difference. As we consider the health of our Nations' farm industry, I would urge us to remember the health of the rural communities which house it.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the proud tradition of American leadership in science and health care has been an important factor in our international stature and our domestic quality of life. This tradition is however vulnerable and may wither if not nurtured. The CBO predicts that national expenditures for health will reach the astonishing sum of $1,613 billion by the year 2000. This an astronomical sum for a nation who seemingly can meet its health care needs. Investments in biomedical research offer the only reasonable hope of reducing not only monetary costs, but, more importantly, human suffering. Biomedical research is commonly thought of as existing in two spheres. The first is ``basic'' research in which fundamental biological principles are studied primarily in laboratories using molecules, cells or animals. The second is ``clinical'' or patient oriented research [POR], in which the scientific principles discovered in the lab are applied to patients with disease. To determine which of several medicines is most effective in curing a cancer, careful comparison of these drugs is necessary in large groups of real people. To understand which of several different types of treatment: medical, surgical, or nutritional is best in helping patients not merely for the short run but over time, the various treatment options must be tried systematically on real people. The emphasis is on people. We must use the knowledge gained by biomedical research to help people get better. Both aspects of biomedical research are essential because they depend upon each other--without the foundation of basic research, clinical research would be impossible. For example the current successful treatment of sickle cell Anemia which so cruelly strikes young people, had its origins in basic research from the development of chicken embryos. Medications which modified chicken embryonic cells were found to also enable monkeys to manufacture certain types of hemoglobin, hemoglobin a component of blood cells necessary to combat thalassemia and sickle cell disease. The studies moved from basic research in chickens to monkeys and finally to clinical research in humans leading to a successful therapy for a previously terrible disorder. Yet despite their mutual importance clinical research has failed to receive the support necessary to permit us to fully benefit from the advances of basic research. The proposal for a national fund for health research which Senator Harkin and I have introduced goes a long way to prevent the possibility of robbing funds from Peter to pay Paul. We need more money in the system, but we also will have a better balance between basic and clinical research. The Institute of Medicine has recently published an exhaustive report which concludes that clinical research is in a state of crisis. A state which if not addressed will result in: a serious deficiency of clinical expertise; a paucity of effective clinical interventions; an increase in human suffering and disability; and ultimately an increase in the cost of medical care. Historically clinical research has resulted in marked improvements in care and costs. A $1.2 million investment in neonatal screening for subnormal thyroid has saved $206 million in treatment costs annually. A $679,000 investment in developing a treatment for recurring renal stones has resulted in an estimated savings of $300 million annually. A multicenter clinical trial of interventions in stroke prevention cost approximately $4.6 million. Its results could prevent 20 to 30,000 strokes per year with an annual savings of $200 million. All of these and many other achievements have occurred because of the ability of clinical research to take knowledge derived from basic research to the bedside, bridging the gap between the laboratory and the patient. Yet despite its clear societal and economic benefits, clinical research is in crisis. The amount and proportion of personnel and fiscal resources devoted to clinical research, particularly at the NIH has fallen to levels which place our Nation at a severe disadvantage. Unable to capitalize on new discoveries, the quality of life of our patients slowly falls as ironically our costs continue to rise. The nature of this crisis is threefold a relative lack of: people involved in clinical research; an infrastructure to adequately select and support the best clinical research; and declining fiscal investment in biomedical research overall.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the proud tradition of American leadership in science and health care has been an important factor in our international stature and our domestic quality of life. This tradition is however vulnerable and may wither if not nurtured. The CBO predicts that national expenditures for health will reach the astonishing sum of $1,613 billion by the year 2000. This an astronomical sum for a nation who seemingly can meet its health care needs. Investments in biomedical research offer the only reasonable hope of reducing not only monetary costs, but, more importantly, human suffering. Biomedical research is commonly thought of as existing in two spheres. The first is ``basic'' research in which fundamental biological principles are studied primarily in laboratories using molecules, cells or animals. The second is ``clinical'' or patient oriented research [POR], in which the scientific principles discovered in the lab are applied to patients with disease. To determine which of several medicines is most effective in curing a cancer, careful comparison of these drugs is necessary in large groups of real people. To understand which of several different types of treatment: medical, surgical, or nutritional is best in helping patients not merely for the short run but over time, the various treatment options must be tried systematically on real people. The emphasis is on people. We must use the knowledge gained by biomedical research to help people get better. Both aspects of biomedical research are essential because they depend upon each other--without the foundation of basic research, clinical research would be impossible. For example the current successful treatment of sickle cell Anemia which so cruelly strikes young people, had its origins in basic research from the development of chicken embryos. Medications which modified chicken embryonic cells were found to also enable monkeys to manufacture certain types of hemoglobin, hemoglobin a component of blood cells necessary to combat thalassemia and sickle cell disease. The studies moved from basic research in chickens to monkeys and finally to clinical research in humans leading to a successful therapy for a previously terrible disorder. Yet despite their mutual importance clinical research has failed to receive the support necessary to permit us to fully benefit from the advances of basic research. The proposal for a national fund for health research which Senator Harkin and I have introduced goes a long way to prevent the possibility of robbing funds from Peter to pay Paul. We need more money in the system, but we also will have a better balance between basic and clinical research. The Institute of Medicine has recently published an exhaustive report which concludes that clinical research is in a state of crisis. A state which if not addressed will result in: a serious deficiency of clinical expertise; a paucity of effective clinical interventions; an increase in human suffering and disability; and ultimately an increase in the cost of medical care. Historically clinical research has resulted in marked improvements in care and costs. A $1.2 million investment in neonatal screening for subnormal thyroid has saved $206 million in treatment costs annually. A $679,000 investment in developing a treatment for recurring renal stones has resulted in an estimated savings of $300 million annually. A multicenter clinical trial of interventions in stroke prevention cost approximately $4.6 million. Its results could prevent 20 to 30,000 strokes per year with an annual savings of $200 million. All of these and many other achievements have occurred because of the ability of clinical research to take knowledge derived from basic research to the bedside, bridging the gap between the laboratory and the patient. Yet despite its clear societal and economic benefits, clinical research is in crisis. The amount and proportion of personnel and fiscal resources devoted to clinical research, particularly at the NIH has fallen to levels which place our Nation at a severe disadvantage. Unable to capitalize on new discoveries, the quality of life of our patients slowly falls as ironically our costs continue to rise. The nature of this crisis is threefold a relative lack of: people involved in clinical research; an infrastructure to adequately select and support the best clinical research; and declining fiscal investment in biomedical research overall.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order so the Senator can be heard?

Mr. HATFIELD. I do not believe there is any more discussion. Senator Harkin indicated he had finished his discussion.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. The current level of budget authority exceeds that of the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. The pending amendment by the Senator from Iowa provides additional new budget authority and will result in additional outlays in that year, and its adoption will cause the aggregate levels of budget authority and outlays to be further exceeded. I therefore raise a point of order under section 311 of the Budget Act against this amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD. I have a parliamentary question. There is an opportunity for the Senator from Iowa to have further discussion if I offer a point of order. If the Chair sustained a point of order and the Senator from Iowa appeals to waive the Budget Act, then he at that point has additional debate or discussion? I do not want to cut him off.