Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. And at that point he may have further discussion?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we stand ready to do any further business on this CR. If not, I would ask for a third reading.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I know there is a lot of anguish on the part of our colleagues who would like to exercise the constitutional right of the Senate to amend a bill on revenue related matters that comes to us from the House, even though the Constitution says it must be originated from the House of Representatives. But as I said in the opening statement today, we are literally here today with a gun to our head in the parliamentary situation in which the House provided us with this product as of today and have declared that they are not in session today for legislative business. Therefore, any changes in this particular product is going to require return to the House. If they are not in session today for legislative business, we are facing a midnight curfew of whether the Government shuts down. So consequently, as much as I detest and decry this process we find ourselves in--I would like very much to offer some amendments to this myself because family planning is not satisfactory to me--as Senator Byrd, as the comanager of this bill, indicated in his opening statement, he affirmed my analysis of where we were in this particular bind and also urged his colleagues not to offer any amendments, because any change on this continuing resolution we have--any change--is required to go back to the House of Representatives. They made it very clear that they may be subject to the call of the Chair, but not for legislative business. So there we are. I want to just say to my colleagues, Senator Byrd and I have not contrived this situation. We have had absolutely nothing to do with it, except in the sense that we had given to them many of our own thoughts and hoped they would incorporate them. They incorporated some. Congressman Livingston, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, signed off on a Florida tomato problem. I signed off on a Florida tomato problem. We have another committee that is involved in this and has objected. Therefore, it was not included. We have been trying to craft this by telephoning across the great rotunda of the Capitol Building. And that is not a satisfactory way to do business either. So here we are, not just with the House alone, but with the jurisdictions, that are very legitimate jurisdictions, that have a part in these actions that are taken by the Appropriations Committee. We had a problem on timber salvage. We cannot get the White House to sign off on that one because we are trying to help the White House have more flexibility in that action taken. So there are a lot of players here involved between the House, the Senate, both sides of the aisle, authorizing committees, the White House. We are in a very complex situation made more so by the gun to the head that we have in dealing with this issue. So I urge my colleagues to refrain from offering amendments because, as much as I may agree and sympathize, understand the need, I am in a situation as a comanager of this bill. Senator Byrd urged as well, please do not offer amendments because we will have to fight every amendment, not on the merits of the case, but on the parliamentary situation we are in. I do not think anyone here wants to raise the issue or the possibility of shutting the Government down again. Nobody wins. Everybody loses on that one, I think we have all come to understand. But if the Senate, constitutional as it is--the House has to take any action on any change we make on this. And they are not in today for legislative business which has freed up their membership. We face the problem of shutting down the Government. So that is the problem we have. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Iowa raise the issue of logic. Unfortunately, neither this body or the other body has always functioned under the great label of logic. We are in a ridiculous situation. Obviously, we are, and we are having to deal with it in a very--we will attempt to do it in an orderly fashion. I would like to point out that this is the seventh CR since October 1-- six were signed into law--and the Office of Inspector General has been operating at the House level since October 1. They have not been required to furlough any employees. This is the first time this issue has been raised in six of those CR's. Consequently, they have survived, you might say, or have functioned at a reduced level, or whatever. But the point is they are functioning. I also want to add that the Senate has not been able to act on the Labor-HHS appropriation bill due to the objections raised primarily by the Democratic side of the aisle, and on a couple of occasions by the Republican side of the aisle. Those usually circulated around rider issues rather than the substance of these issues, such as the inspector general's office. We are, therefore, in a further deficient role as with the House because the House did pass a Labor-HHS, and we have not yet passed such appropriation bill here in the Senate. This is not a permanent situation because of the fact that it goes until March 15. I am very hopeful that we can find $5 billion more. Let me say, very frankly, that I have said in my leadership meeting, and in other areas of this process of trying to resolve these appropriations bills, that even if we got rid of the riders that have become a strong problem for the Labor-HHS bill, different issues and riders that reflect a problem for both sides of the aisle, we still do not have enough money to satisfy the administration's requests in order to get them to sign the bill. I have said whatever budget comprehensive agreement can be reached has to have $5 billion to get the Labor-HHS; HUD and Independent Agencies; State, Justice, and Commerce, signed by the President. I think from time-to-time we have to remind ourselves that the President has a role in the legislative process. We cannot just think of the President as someone downtown that does not have a legitimate constitutional role in the legislative process. I can say to you, in dealing with the administration, that we have that $5 billion more in nondefense discretionary funding. I believe we can resolve these problems and have no more CR's. I am not going to argue what kind of a vehicle we get that $5 billion on. But that is the real guts of the problem. Anytime that you add something back into a bill at this point, or a CR, it is subject to a point of order that I am going to have to make because it exceeds our allocation under the budget resolution. That is not a comfortable position to be in. I could not agree with the focus and the goal being sought by the Senator from Iowa any more than he has that commitment. I have the same commitment.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I do not know of any other amendments that we have to be discussed or debated on this side.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. HATFIELD. Before final passage, I would like to take the opportunity to explain further my concerns about several provisions in this bill. Restrictions on Population Planning Activities I am dismayed by the provision in this continuing resolution which restricts the funds that may be made available for our international population assistance program and the U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA]. The proponents of this language know that it is extremely unlikely that an authorization bill will pass before the July 1, 1996 deadline. Therefore, the bill provisions restricting funding to 65 percent of fiscal year 1995 levels and the obligation of funds to monthly apportionments of 6.67 percent will go into effect. When this occurs, our international family planning efforts will be devastated. The result--more unintended pregnancies and more abortions. Let me give you a present day example. The former Soviet Union has the highest abortion rates in the world. In 1991, an estimated 12 to 15 million legal and illegal abortions were performed. The average woman will have between four and six abortions during her lifetime. Some women have as many as 20 abortions. This is appalling. Why do these countries have such high abortion rates? The answer--the unavailability of modern contraceptives. Last year, in the foreign operations bill I was able to secure funding to allow the Agency for International Development to develop a comprehensive family planning program in the former Soviet Union. AID's efforts in Russia, Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine have begun to have an impact on the abortion rate. We have data from the Ukraine that shows a reduction in the number of abortions. So what are we doing today? We are drastically cutting funding to United States-supported international family planning programs, and we are reducing AID's flexibility to respond to areas, like the former Soviet Union, where the need for family planning is so great. We are ensuring that the world will return to the old ways--the old Russian model--with increases in unintended pregnancies and abortions. As a pro-life Senator who strongly opposes abortion, I am disheartened by the lack of understanding and foresight of our colleagues in the House who have been unrelenting in their insistence on these restrictions. Human Embryo Research I remain concerned about using this continuing resolution to place restrictions on research. However, I understand from the National Institutes of Health that this will not effect any current grants because the NIH is not funding research in this area at this time. It is my hope that the authorizing committees will take the time necessary to fully examine the issue of human embryo research and its ramifications before further restrictions are placed on funding. This is an important issue which deserves our full consideration. Education Funding I would like to add, Mr. President, that I regretfully oppose the amendment by my colleague from Massachusetts, to increase funding for education programs. While one of my highest personal priorities is to increase funding for these programs. I cannot in good conscience support an effort which gives us all a rhetorical win but not a substantive win. Increasing funding for these programs for 45 days has little to no practical effect. Aside from the fact that most education programs are forward funded and thus, not impacted in the next 45 days--over $13 billion or 54 percent of education moneys are, by law, not available until July 1 and another $7.5 billion or 31 percent are not obligated until the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year-- this amendment does not provide any certainty for the long term. It may also jeopardize our ability to enact legislation necessary to stabilize national education spending. The best action we can take for education is to pass this continuing resolution and then proceed as rapidly as possible to consider the fiscal year 1996 Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill. The Senate bill, reported from the committee on September 15, includes $22.3 billion indiscretionary spending for education programs, an increase of $1.5 billion more than the House-passed bill and the entire amount of increase given to the Senate Labor/HHS Subcommittee in its 602(b) allocation. Without a Senate-passed bill we are negotiating from a position of weakness with the House. Passage of this bill will provide the baseline on which true long-term planning can take place in school districts and classrooms all across this country. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have before us now the continuing resolution that the House acted upon last night, H.R. 2880. The existing continuing resolution expires today at midnight, the 26th. All of us want to avoid another shutdown of the Federal Government, and its departments' and agencies' funding in the appropriations bills not yet signed into law. Therefore, we need to act expeditiously on the measure now before us, which provides for continued operations until March 15th. For the activities funded in the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bills and the VA-HUD appropriations bill, the measure before us will provide funding at the levels established in the conference agreements on those bills generally under the terms and conditions of fiscal year 1995. The exception is made for the Department of Justice, which will operate at fiscal year 1996 funding levels, under fiscal year 1996 terms and conditions. Activities funded in the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill and the Labor-HHS, Education and related agencies appropriations bill will continue to operate until March 15 at the lower of the funding levels established in the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed bill, or the current rate. The exceptions made for activities of the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service of the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which will operate until March 15 at the levels established in the conference agreement on the Interior. Further, special provision is made for the activities funded in the foreign operations bill. My colleagues will recall that for fiscal year 1996, the foreign operations bill has been a contention between the House and the Senate for some time over the matter of population planning assistance programs. The Senate has voted three times on this matter, one during the Senate consideration of the bill reported from our committee and twice in connection with an amendment in disagreement on the conference report. Since the House returned the bill to us in November after further insisting on its position, we have found ourselves in an extraordinary parliamentary situation that requires unanimous consent--unanimous consent--to take further action. Unable to secure that consent, we have been unable to once again uphold a Senate position, or even to have the Senate consider a compromise. To break that impasse, the House has now presented us with provisions in the measure which will fund all activities in the Foreign Operations bill with the exception of population planning assistance at the level of the conference agreement for the remainder of the fiscal year 1996. There will be no funding for population planning assistance programs until July 1, unless expressly authorized. And, as you know, the authorization bill has yet to be completed. Following July 1, funding may be provided at 65 percent of the fiscal year 1995 level apportioned on a monthly basis for 15 months. Mr. President, this is a near calamitous formulation of these programs, and it may very well provoke a result entirely antiethical to the ``pro-life'' position. These programs promote family planning and birth control in the developing nations of the world. Without them, there will inevitably be more unwanted pregnancies, which will result in either more abortions or more unwanted children facing lives of disease and deprivation. I cannot for the life of me understand the action of the House. I believe it is wrong. It puts the gun to our heads, Mr. President. I speak as a pro-life Senator. I do not see any reason, any legitimate rationale, that people who stand in a pro-life position should do a thing of this kind to increase the possibilities of abortion--increase them, not diminish them. There is a substantial majority in this Senate that would reject the cuts in population planning assistance, and I am one. But if we prevail on amendment, the bill must be returned to the House for an uncertain future, and a Government shutdown could ensue. I am not sure the House is in a business position this afternoon or this evening to take further action on this. We are sort of in one of those situations where, as I say, it is a gun to our head. Otherwise, we then stand the responsibility of shutting down the Government. This predicament graphically illustrates why we should avoid continuing resolutions of any sort. As our former chairman, Senator Byrd, has told us many times, the right to debate and amend is the very essence of the Senate. We, in effect, are being deprived of this by this timetable and this kind of procedure. When we allow ourselves to get into this position, we risk losing those rights. Now, Mr. President, I do not blame our colleagues in the other body entirely. It is not their job to protect our prerogatives. But I will say that the Senate cannot and will not indefinitely forgo its right to amend. Perhaps we should consider initiating further action in this realm rather than waiting for the House to act and then hand us a document that is a fait accompli. We may not prevail, but we will not be reduced to the mere ministerial function of approving what the other body may determine and hand to us. With that off my chest, Mr. President, let me summarize briefly the other major provisions of this bill and yield the floor to Senator Byrd, our ranking member and former chairman, for any opening comments he wishes to make. The no-furlough provision of prior continuing resolutions has been dropped. A new provision is included, however, to give agency managers the flexibility to avoid immediate severe staffing reductions. Flexibility. Ten programs in the Labor-HHS bill are terminated. New grants for another two dozen are held to 75 percent of their prior monthly rate. I would like to also indicate on this one there has been communication at least from our side with the White House and the agencies involved, and even as late as last night I had further conversation with the Secretary of HHS, and it is not one of those things that is perhaps advocated or welcomed, but there is at least an indication of acquiescence to these actions on the part of the administration. Travel by Cabinet Secretaries in excess of 110 percent of the 1995 average is prohibited. A national security exemption is granted for defense, the Secretary of Defense, that is, the Secretary of State, the Director of the CIA, and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Authority is granted for the sale of a House office building. Section 128 prohibits certain embryo research. I might indicate that no such research is underway or contemplated at this time, but it is a further definition of the congressional position. Provision is made for the sale of oil from the Weeks Island facility of the strategic petroleum reserve in keeping with the conference agreement on the interior bill. Legislative provisions from the VA-HUD conference agreement that will achieve significant savings in the operation of housing programs are included. The maximum Pell grant award is established to be at least $2,440. That is a $100 increase over the previous fiscal year. Those are the issues. Those are the parts of this bill that we will be discussing and hopefully act upon in an expeditious manner. At this time, I thank also the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] for entering into a time agreement on their two amendments to further expedite this process. Mr. President, again, I wish to say this is not the kind of document I believe would have come out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Yet, we are in this situation. I wish I could be enthusiastic about this product, but I do see the fact that we live with it but until March 15. And hopefully within that period of time we can resolve these differences and have them peeled out of the CR and enacted in a regular form with the consensus of both the House and the Senate in the product rather than this being exclusively a House product. Mr. President, I now yield to my good friend and colleague and mentor and compatriot who shares the misery, as we share misery together in the many duties that we have to perform. And I thank the Senator from West Virginia again for his cooperation, for the fine cooperation between Keith Kennedy and Jim English representing our respective staffs, that represent a bipartisan approach to as many issues as possible within the context and the framework of this moment.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate and to convey my appreciation to a member of my staff, J. Keith Kennedy. Today marks the 15-year anniversary of Keith's service as the Republican staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee, serving either in the majority or in the minority as fortune permitted. Mr. Kennedy has steered the staff with a firm, but gentle hand at the helm, through the often choppy waters of legislative process. Such continuity has provided the Senate with the type of institutional memory that keeps us from remaking some of the mistakes of the past. In this capacity, Mr. Kennedy has worked to uphold the position of the Senate in negotiations with three administrations--those of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton, five OMB directors--David Stockman, James Miller, Richard Darman, Leon Panetta, and Alice Rivlin, and a House of Representatives under both Democratic and Republican majorities. During that time, he helped implement the Reagan revolution of the early 1980's when many of us were still trying to get our sea legs in a Senate with a new Republican majority. In the 1990's, he has played a key role in charting a course out of fiscal excesses of earlier years. Keith has served the Senate with distinction and honor for over 23 years. I have come to rely on him as a trusted adviser, policy expert, and friend.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am told the President intends to veto this bill, which will bring it back before us. I expect we will have an opportunity to work further on some of the finer points of this agreement. I am committed to do so. Our obligation to bettering the standard of living for those in poverty must not waiver. The Federal Government should encourage, not impede innovation and creativity in the States and private sector. Exhibit 1 Oregon, Department of Human Resources, Salem, OR, December 21, 1995. Hon. Mark O. Hatfield, U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Hatfield: I am writing to you out of concern over the most recent language in the Welfare Reform Bill, HR 4. As you may know, Oregon is a leader in Welfare Reform, and this State's Legislature, with my support, recently passed a sweeping Welfare Reform Bill that is very much in keeping with the thrust of HR 4. However, there are several technical areas of the Bill in which language should be clarified to allow States full latitude in implementation, including: maintenance of effort While I am supportive of a Maintenance of Effort provision, any State expenditure which directly supports the achievement of self-sufficiency or temporary assistance to low-income families should be counted in the calculation of that maintenance of effort. To do otherwise directly imposes a special Welfare Reform design on States that significantly impedes their flexibility. Federal Restrictions on State Spending States must be free to spend State dollars on their self- sufficiency programs as they deem appropriate. There are many provisions of HR 4 which appear to restrict not only the State expenditure of federal funds but the expenditure of State funds as well. Surely this is not the intent of Congress. work participation credit for unsubsidized employment One of the hallmarks of the Oregon program is the number of placements into unsubsidized employment that not only move families off of welfare but also move them out of poverty. What was six months of participation credit for such families in earlier versions of HR 4 appear to be deleted in the Conference version. Since employment is the best way to accomplish Welfare Reform, states should be given proper credit for helping low-income families accomplish that goal. child care necessary for participation in work programs We work very hard with our low-income families to obtain safe child care. If such care is not available, we do not require their participation in our JOBS program. However, the current wording of HR 4 suggests that if any particular type of care is not available or convenient then no participation can be required. In fact, even if the type of care that is not available is not one that the participant ordinarily uses, it remains grounds to refuse to participate in employment and training programs. Wording should indicate the participation is required if any safe (under State law) child care can be arranged. Again, while these are technical areas, they remain important to States that will be charged with implementing the most sweeping changes in welfare since the advent of the Social Security Act. With your continued help, we can produce Welfare Reform that works, allowing states to assist low- income families to escape poverty through self-sufficiency. If you or your staff members have any questions regarding our concerns in these areas, please feel free to contact Jean Thorne of the Governor's Office or Jim Neely, Assistant Administrator of Adult and Family Services Division. Thank You. Sincerely, Stephen D. Minnich, Administrator, Adult and Family Services Division, Assistant Director, Department of Human Resources.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the House and Senate conferees have reported from conference a welfare reform proposal which ends the welfare program as we know it. I agree with the Republican agenda which takes on the difficult issues in welfare reform, but I differ on some of the finer points included in this agreement. Welfare has become a terrible cycle which engulfs impoverished parents who raise children in poverty. Those children who do not have adequate access to quality education, which would break the cycle of dependency, continue to be chained in poverty, languishing there, thus continuing this vicious cycle. Mr. President, my generation grew up in era where there was no government safety net, instead there was family and community. We relied upon each other for help and we took any job we could find. We may have gone hungry for a short period of time until the next paycheck arrived, however, nobody starved. Today, that sense of community has changed, largely because of our Federal welfare efforts. All people have a smidgen of pride implanted in their being and it burns as a fire within. We are fueled by this fire to become better people. We educate ourselves, we move forward above and beyond what we are today and strive to become even better tomorrow. Unfortunately, through our welfare program, we have only succeeded in taking away incentive for people to work by dousing that fire-in-the-belly that drives us all. We must first address the root problems of poverty before we can discuss the cure for poverty; lack of education, lack of affordable and adequate child care, and access to upward social and economic mobility and stability. A successful society allows its citizens the opportunity to educate themselves, to increase their opportunities and knowledge. It is of no benefit to society to remove welfare recipients and place them into jobs with no upward mobility. Without the prospects of advancement they can only maintain the status quo at best and as history has taught us the cycle possesses a powerful habituation to welfare. This bill takes a step in the right direction by requiring those who can work to work. This is a policy goal I have long supported and advanced. I believe this will make a difference in our welfare system and that States should be rewarded for their efforts at matching individuals with jobs. My own State of Oregon has chosen to link public assistance functions with welfare-to-work services, providing a seamless link amongst the differing human resource agencies. The measurement of their success is declining welfare rolls and increasing placement of former welfare recipients into unsubsidized employment. I also support limiting welfare as an entitlement program. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee I know all too well the dire consequences of continuing our spending levels on entitlement programs that we do not and cannot control. We can no longer keep spending until all needs are met. Yet, in our effort to reform programs from entitlement spending to other forms of financing, we cannot cut indiscriminately. I am concerned that some aspects of this conference report are inconsistent with our policy goals. The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed this report and found that, over the next 7 years, funding levels would fall far short of what would be needed to cover the child care costs associated with the work requirements of the bill. In my view, adequate funding for child care is a necessity, in order for parents to work. In addition, I am concerned that the conference agreement does not reflect the Senate's position of requiring States to continue Medicaid coverage for families who would have received AFDC if it still existed on March of this year. The agreement before us repeals current law and does not require States to provide Medicaid coverage for those in AFDC families who do not otherwise qualify--those children over the age of 12 and women who are not pregnant. While I understand the conferees' attempt to delink Medicaid from welfare, to be dealt with later, I am not confident that this basic safety net will be preserved. Finally, I have received a letter from the Oregon Department of Adult and Family Services raising several concerns with this conference agreement. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President. I want to share with my colleagues the remarks made by William L. Taylor in presenting to Dr. Arthur S. Flemming the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Award. These thoughtful remarks outline the career of a man who truly represents the highest ideal of public service. Antoinette and I have enjoyed a warm personal friendship with Dr. Flemming and his wife Bernice for many years. In addition to the number of significant Federal posts held by Dr. Flemming, he served for a time as the president of the University of Oregon. As someone who has followed Dr. Flemming's professional and personal life with interest and respect, I can say that no one is more deserving of the ACLU's Human Rights Award than Dr. Flemming, as Mr. Taylor's fine remarks make amply clear. Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Taylor's remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Remarks of William L. Taylor in Presenting the ACLU's Human Rights Award to Arthur S. Flemming at the Annual Dinner of the Virginia ACLU, December 9, 1995 The American Civil Liberties Union does itself honor by honoring Arthur Flemming and it does me a great honor by asking me to introduce Arthur. Arthur is, in my view, the greatest exemplar of public service in this nation in the 20th Century. He served in the federal government over a period of more than 40 years beginning in 1939 as an appointee to the Civil Service Commission of President Roosevelt and ending in the early 1980s when he was Deputy Chair of the White House Conference on Aging, a member of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians and Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a post from which he was fired by President Reagan because Arthur believed in civil rights. But after these 40 plus years--and at the age of 77, Arthur began a new career serving the public in the private sector by heading coalitions and groups that work for the goals Arthur is most deeply committed to--preserving Social Security, extending health care to all and advancing the civil rights of all persons. But it is not simply his longevity in public service that makes Arthur Flemming's career remarkable. (although I cannot refrain from noting that Arthur was born in 1905, 15 years before the ACLU was founded--so they have been advocates for justice for about the same period of time). It is also the quality of his service that makes him a long distance runner. Everybody who knows Arthur has his own story about Arthur's readiness to travel whenever he hears the call (I can remember in 1988 getting a call from an editor of the Yale Law Journal who said he wanted to extend an invitation to Arthur to speak at a symposium on the 20th Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act. He called me because he wondered whether Dr. Flemming would be able to make the trip to New Haven. At the time I got this call, Arthur was preparing to travel, I think to 28 cities in 30 days to speak on behalf of the Republicans for Dukakis). But what is more impressive than Arthur's seeming inability to stay away from airports is the reason he travels. Other people of renown travel to participate or be seen at international conferences, to go to dinners with other famous people. Arthur travels to attend meetings and rallys where he will have the opportunity to communicate with everyday people on the issues he most cares about--health care, civil rights and civil liberties and other issues that affect the dignity and well being of the American people. And he is ready and willing to do the work in the trenches that other people may spurn once they reach a certain position. I remember in the 1980s going with him to a meeting of State civil rights officers where he had been asked to listen to the whole day's proceedings and then give a summation. By mid-afternoon, as the sessions went on (and on) most of us were flagging, but Arthur was still paying rapt attention. At 5:30, Arthur gave not only a fine analytical summary of what people had said--but he delivered an inspirational speech, rallying the troops to keep the faith during the hard times of the 80s. And that talk was characteristic of so many I have heard Arthur give during the years we have worked together at the CCR. As Elliot Richardson has observed, Arthur speaks with ``simplicity, force and deep conviction.'' He has, I might add, the gift that all of the great advocates I have known have--an ability to understand complex matters and then reduce them to their essentials so that people will understand what is at stake. And despite many years in Washington, he has never become so jaded as to lose the capacity to be angered at injustice. So, for example, when the Reagan Administration pursued its policy of denying people welfare benefits without affording them due process and then ignored court orders to rectify the situation except in the jurisdiction where they were issued--Arthur led the charge to expose and change this heartless policy. My time is growing short and I have barely scratched the surface. But I could not close without mentioning Arthur's contribution to other institutions that are fundamental to the values and aspirations of the nation. In between his periods of government service, Arthur was President of three universities--Ohio Wesleyan (his alma mater), The University of Oregon and Macalester College. In these posts among many other things he promoted public service and helped extend opportunity for minority students. Arthur's service is also rooted in his religious convictions which he has made manifest through work in the United Methodist Church and the National Conference of Christians and Jews. As for the institution of the family, Arthur and Bernice, his wife of 60+ years, have raised a family of 5 children, who have made contributions of their own--although you may not be surprised to hear (after what I've said) that in this area there are those who believe that the lion's share of the credit belongs to Bernice. So, for all these reasons and many more, Arthur has earned the title bestowed on him by Bernice in her affectionate and occasionally irreverent memoir--``Crusader At Large''. His indominatable spirit and his unflagging optimism should serve as an inspiration to all of us who think we may be suffering burnout in these meanspirited times. Arthur has richly earned this honor by the ACLU and the admiration of all who care about social justice.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Pacific Northwest has been presented with a number of significant challenges in the last decade. Most recently, heavy rains and winds in excess of 100 miles per hour ravaged the Oregon coast and the Willamette Valley. Additionally, the timber and fishing industries, which once constituted a substantial portion of Oregon's economy, have been severely restricted in recent years. Many individuals involved in those industries have been forced to find alternative sources of employment. In 1994, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] and the Pacific Northwest States initiated three programs to mitigate the financial hardship caused by the total closure of the coastal salmon fishing season. These programs were designed to assist the fishers impacted by the closing and include: a permit buyback program-- Washington State only; a habitat restoration jobs program; and a data collection and at sea research jobs program. Both jobs programs employed over 100 dislocated fishers while contributing to the improvement of fishery habitat. NOAA has approved the request of the Governors of Oregon and Washington for an additional $13 million to continue these programs for a second year. The changes in the Interjurisdicitonal Fisheries Act made by the legislation I am introducing today would allow these three programs to continue working for dislocated fishers who are severely limited in their ability to earn a living through commercial fishing. The current language restricts the number of dislocated fishers who have been eligible to participate in these programs. Additionally, fishers may lose the eligibility to participate in the programs due to the uninsured loss determination and the cap on assistance. Mr. President, this legislation does not seek additional Federal funds for these important assistance programs. However, it does attempt to find ways to spend Federal dollars in a more effective and flexible manner, with broader participation from those the funds are intended to serve. This legislation will also be beneficial for the fishing industries in the Northeast and the Gulf Coast areas. I urge my colleagues to give their full consideration to this attempt to restore economic stability to the fisherman of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Pacific Northwest has been presented with a number of significant challenges in the last decade. Most recently, heavy rains and winds in excess of 100 miles per hour ravaged the Oregon coast and the Willamette Valley. Additionally, the timber and fishing industries, which once constituted a substantial portion of Oregon's economy, have been severely restricted in recent years. Many individuals involved in those industries have been forced to find alternative sources of employment. In 1994, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] and the Pacific Northwest States initiated three programs to mitigate the financial hardship caused by the total closure of the coastal salmon fishing season. These programs were designed to assist the fishers impacted by the closing and include: a permit buyback program-- Washington State only; a habitat restoration jobs program; and a data collection and at sea research jobs program. Both jobs programs employed over 100 dislocated fishers while contributing to the improvement of fishery habitat. NOAA has approved the request of the Governors of Oregon and Washington for an additional $13 million to continue these programs for a second year. The changes in the Interjurisdicitonal Fisheries Act made by the legislation I am introducing today would allow these three programs to continue working for dislocated fishers who are severely limited in their ability to earn a living through commercial fishing. The current language restricts the number of dislocated fishers who have been eligible to participate in these programs. Additionally, fishers may lose the eligibility to participate in the programs due to the uninsured loss determination and the cap on assistance. Mr. President, this legislation does not seek additional Federal funds for these important assistance programs. However, it does attempt to find ways to spend Federal dollars in a more effective and flexible manner, with broader participation from those the funds are intended to serve. This legislation will also be beneficial for the fishing industries in the Northeast and the Gulf Coast areas. I urge my colleagues to give their full consideration to this attempt to restore economic stability to the fisherman of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, frequent staff turnover is a fact of life in the Senate. In this regard, I have always considered myself exceedingly lucky. I have had many key staff members who stayed with me far beyond the average tenure and I, and the people of Oregon, have greatly benefited from their institutional knowledge and experience. But, inevitably, the day arrives when even those diehard staffers feel it is time to move on. For Julie McGregor, that day has arrived. And so I rise to bid farewell to a longtime and valued staff member. I find it difficult to take so many years of loyalty, dedication, and friendship and wrap it into a neat one page package. Words alone simply seem inadequate to express what Julie has meant to me, to my family, and to my office. Julie came to my office 13 years ago as an eager, bright, and intelligent intern. She departs today a wise and competent sage. In that time, Julie's role evolved from that of student to mentor. No matter how busy, she always took the time to encourage and guide less experienced colleagues. Members of the Appropriations Committee staff as well as my personal staff have relied on Julie's counsel and valued her perspective as much as I did. One of Julie's greatest assets is her intuitive ability to cut to the heart of the matter. She thoughtfully and fairly examines all sides of an issue, but remains unerringly firm in her convictions. Even in the most emotional discussions or difficult issues, Julie is a calm voice of rationality and reason. In fact, those who don't know her well might be deceived by Julie's quiet manner or seemingly shy nature. They shouldn't be. She is extraordinarily tenacious. If you are staking a position or fighting a battle, you definitely want Julie on your side. Julie grew up in small southern Oregon community, and those roots have served her well here. While adapting well to the rough and tumble political world in Washington, she has always kept clearly in mind the individual human beings whom we serve. She is both politically astute and compassionate, a combination of qualities that is so rare it is almost an oxymoron. Aware of the realities and limitations of the political process, Julie is unwavering in her belief that the Government can and should use its powers to improve the human condition. This is a belief that we share and one that has guided many of our legislative efforts. While Julie, at one time or another, handled nearly every legislative issue in my office, her true calling was one that is closest to my own heart. First as a legislative assistant and later as my director of International Policy, she became an advocate for peace and a champion for humanitarian concerns. Julie's work on arms control, human rights, and nuclear proliferation issues, among others, leaves a lasting legacy in the Senate and has had an impact on us all. Julie played a key role in one of the legislative accomplishments of which I am most proud. In 1992, we were successful in enacting legislation establishing a moratorium on nuclear testing by the United States. This nuclear test ban continues today and the United States' leadership on this issue has prompted much of the rest of the world to follow suit. Julie has spent her entire professional career in public service, in service to the State of Oregon and to the U.S. Senate. I know that the people of Oregon, and my colleagues in the Senate, join me in expressing our gratitude for many years of exemplary work. While we are sad to see Julie leave us, we are also excited for her as she begins a new phase in her life. This weekend she leaves Washington to join her finance, Michael Britti, in New Mexico. There will be many wonderful opportunities and adventures as Julie moves on with her career, and as she and Mike begin to build a life together. Julie is, and always will be, a member of the Hatfield family. Antoinette and I send her off with our love and our best wishes for a future full of happiness and success.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on Thursday, the leaders of the warring parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina will formally sign a peace agreement that was initialed last month in Dayton, OH. This formal signing will pave the way for the deployment of the 60,000-strong NATO peace implementation force. Congress has a role to play in making decisions about the use of U.S. troops in hostile situations. In fact, we have an obligation to our constituents to raise questions about any mission that will lead to our troops being put in harm's way. After the Vietnam war, Congress insisted that it have a partnership role with the President in future conflicts. So the Congress passed the War Powers Act. Under this act, the President retained the power to dispatch troops when there was an emergency. But within 60 days of the deployment Congress had to take action to specifically authorize the deployment, tell the President to bring the troops home, or to continue to evaluate the situation after another 60 days extension. It was intended to force Congress to take action, to participate in the decision. Unfortunately, Congress has found ways to avoid taking action. Since 1965, Congress has voted only twice to authorize the deployment of United States troops and, in recent years, we have voted on nonbinding resolutions, in some cases, and we have allowed troops to be deployed in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti, without authorizing legislation. We are about to do so again today. During the course of this debate, the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on three different measures relating to the use of United States forces in Bosnia. We have already completed the first one. The President has requested congressional authorization, but has said that he intends to deploy U.S. troops with or without that authorization. Of course, he would like to have Congress' support. The Senate's consideration of these measures will provide us with the opportunity to participate in the debate. However, do not be misled. With the exception of the measure passed by the House that we have defeated today, the other two resolutions which we will consider, and likely pass, are not legally binding. Mr. President, I want to reflect for just a moment on some very interesting history on Vietnam. Many who can recall during that war period, Members of the Senate, particularly, would stand before the television cameras for the evening news and wring their hands about how awful this war was and why it should not continue. But at no time during that period was any Member of Congress willing to take responsibility. All they wanted to do was to criticize the President. I have a feeling that there is a reluctance over the last few years, since we passed the War Powers Act, for Congress to stand up and take responsibility. It is much easier to criticize the President, whether Republican or Democrat, than to assume a partnership role, as provided under the War Powers Act. Let me say that while I know that the President is sincere in his attempt to bring peace to Bosnia, I find it hard to believe that anyone can define a successful military mission which will ensure a lasting peace in the region. The ethnic struggles which have led to war in Bosnia and Croatia are the result of more than 800 years of hatred and mistrust. How are we going to change the course of history in one short year? In my view, this is an impossible and unrealistic military mission. I will go back to school-teaching days and say I hope that people would take the time to read one very brief synopsis of the history of this region of the world. Robert Kaplan's ``Balkan Ghosts'' is a very straightforward treatise on the history, and the impossibility of this kind of a mission I would apply to that history. Read the history. We do so little reading, we do so little reflection on how we got to where we are and what were the forces that made that possible in our own country, let alone an area of the world that is probably one of the least understood areas of the world from either political, economic, social, or cultural history. During the last 3\1/2\ years we have seen more than 50 partial and general cease-fires signed in this region with these contestants, these parties. All have been broken within several weeks of their signing. My dear colleagues, they have been doing this for 800 years, lying to one another, not meaning what they were doing, because of that deep hatred that they have. To see this happening here, even in our own day we do not seem to be taking much lesson from it. In addition, we have seen three previous peace agreements come and go. Given this history, it is impossible for the President to promise he can protect U.S. troops. No one can guarantee their safety if the peace agreement falls apart. The Dayton peace accord calls for the immediate transfer of peacekeeping control from the U.N. peacekeeping forces to the NATO peace implementation force. The approximately 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers in Bosnia will be replaced by 60,000 heavily armed troops under NATO command. Mr. President, this is not a peacekeeping force. This is an army. It proves that we are trying to solve a political dilemma, a religious dilemma, a cultural dilemma, with military troops rather than through diplomacy and negotiation. One must only look at the peace agreement to see this. The primary mission of this course will be to implement the military aspects of the peace agreement. This includes monitoring and enforcing the requirements that each entity promptly withdraws their forces behind a zone of separation which will be established on either side of the cease-fire line, and that within 120 days each entity withdraws all heavy weapons and forces to barrack areas. However, under the agreement, the current warring armies will continue to exist. Each entity is permitted to maintain their army. The NATO forces will be made up of enough firepower to, in the President's words ``respond with overwhelming force'' to any threats to their safety or violations of the military aspects of the agreement. This does not sound like a peacekeeping mission to me, and it should not be promoted to the American public as a peacekeeping mission. Furthermore, while the agreement calls for the parties to enter into negotiations before the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on future arms and heavy equipment restrictions, the agreement also contradicts that arms control goal by lifting the international arms embargo on Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia. Now, get this. We are not only sending our troops in there and letting them maintain their own troops; we are saying we are going to lift the arms embargo so that they can look forward, after 180 days, to getting into an arms race, escalating their military equipment, their arms. The agreement states that no side may import arms for 90 days after the agreement enters force. There is this 180-day restriction, I repeat, on the importation of heavy weapons, mines, military aircraft, and helicopters. After that, all bets are off. In fact, administration officials have indicated that, if necessary, the United States Government will begin rearming the Bosnian army as early as next summer in an effort to bring a balance of power between the warring factions. In other words, arms beget arms, violence begets violence. And we are going to continue this worldwide arms merchandising that we have been doing with such efficiency during and ever since the Cold War. In addition to equipping the Bosnians, the United States will also provide necessary training. The agreement sets a precedent that military arms must be maintained to achieve stability in the region. In my view, this will only lead to an unfettered arms buildup and further undermine our ability to bring lasting peace to the region. The arms embargo was not a success to begin with. At the same time we now go through that charade, to think we are going to do something to reduce the arms. We should be pushing to get the region disarming; disarming, not rearming. There is no question that the war in Bosnia has had a terrible human toll. More than 140,000 Bosnians have been killed during the conflict. Another 3.6 million refugees and internally displaced persons have been created by this action and have had to flee their homes. Although the peace agreement includes provisions allowing refugees to return to their homes, it is unclear how many will be willing or able to return. And we see in the news of the sacking, the burning of those homes that are being vacated for the transfer of population. Cases of ethnic cleansing continue to come to light as mass graves are uncovered near the so-called safe havens that have been overrun by the Bosnian Serb Army. No side to this conflict has clean hands. I can assure you that during the time that this was happening, there were some of us who were raising the question of choking off the arms, choking off the arms that were flowing down the Danube from our allies, from our friends--from Greece, from France, from Italy, from Germany. And who knows what kind of arms out of our country were in a third-party transfer? We never did try with great effort to stop the flow of arms, even under the embargo. Now we are going to lift the pretense of an embargo in order to make them much more available and accessible. In order to end this human tragedy, we must take away the means to make war. A successful peace will be one that includes a strategy to diminish the war-making capability of all sides to this conflict. It is amazing how we can orchestrate 25 countries of the world for a common purpose to fight a war for oil, but somehow we do not find our ability to orchestrate our allies for the cause of peace, or to disarm an overly armed area of the world that is a great trouble spot. During the course of congressional consideration of the war in Bosnia, we have failed to take the steps necessary to limit the war- making capability. The only votes that the Senate has taken since the war began in 1991 have been to unilaterally lift the arms embargo. I have opposed these resolutions in the past because I felt that lifting the arms embargo would only lead to more bloodshed. Those who supported the lifting of the embargo did so because they felt, if we arm the Bosnians, they would be able to defend themselves, thereby doing away the need for U.S. troops to become involved in the ground war. Rather than joining with our allies to secure and enforce the embargo against all warring parties in the region, we could only see military might as the solution to the complex problem. How many people do we have to kill in actions of war to realize the total fallacy of that thesis? We now say we are going to send more troops in. We are talking about injecting our own troops into the war--and that is what it is, because there has been no peace reached yet. As I said before, we are going into Bosnia with an army and we are going to force the peace. This is different from the traditional notion of peacekeeping missions, such as the ones we have seen in countries like Korea and others. I do not take this deployment lightly, nor do my colleagues. American soldiers will likely be killed during this mission in Bosnia. We have to accept that reality. Our brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, and children will be at risk. In Bosnia and Croatia there are nearly 6 million landmines in the ground. These hidden enemies pose the greatest risk to our troops. In fact, landmines have become the leading cause of casualties in Bosnia of peacekeeping forces. Even though the peace agreement requires all sides to participate in identifying and removing these mines, the reality is that little information exists about the layout of the minefields scattered throughout Bosnia. As we have seen in Cambodia and Afghanistan, mine removal is a tedious task which takes years. Landmines in Bosnia endanger not only our troops and peace implementation forces, but also civilians who are trying to return home and rebuild their lives. I will not support any resolution that explicitly or implicitly gives the Senate's support for United States troop involvement in Bosnia. While I will wholeheartedly support our troops once they are there, not under their own doing, under the Commander in Chief, I cannot and will not endorse this military mission. We must bring a lasting peace to Bosnia, but we must do so by limiting, not increasing, the war-making capability of all sides in the conflict. In my opinion, the mission outlined by the President fails to meet this basic requirement. I yield the floor. Order of Procedure

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I support Senate Joint Resolution 31, the Flag Protection and Free Speech Act of 1995, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. Let me compliment my friend from Utah for his steadfastness on this complex and at times emotional issue. As one who saw the Stars and Stripes go up at Iwo Jima, I can say I share the feelings of pride for our flag that have been sincerely expressed by Senators on both sides of this debate. If the flag symbolizes this Nation and the freedoms it provides, the Constitution is the living legal document under which this nation was created and pursuant to which those freedoms are guaranteed. While I have consistently supported legislative measures to protect the flag from those misguided souls who would deface it, I have been reluctant to amend the Constitution to do so. Unfortunately, it appears that passage of an amendment to the Constitution is the only avenue available to address this problem given the fairly clear decisions that have been issued by the Supreme Court on this precise legal point. In June 1989, the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision of Texas versus Johnson, in which it overturned a Texas statute punishing flag desecration on the grounds that it violated the free speech protection guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution. This holding had the effect of overturning 48 State flag desecration statutes, including the Texas statute, and one Federal statute. In October of that same year, this body passed the Flag Protection Act in direct response to the Johnson case. Legal scholars, including Harvard's Lawrence Tribe, advised Congress that the statutory approach being considered would pass constitutional muster. I supported this statutory effort and opposed the constitutional amendment voted on later that month. On June 11, 1990, the Supreme Court, in U.S. versus Eichman, struck down the flag protection statute which I had supported the prior year. On June 26, 1990, the Senate failed in its attempt to assemble the two-thirds margin necessary to pass the constitutional amendment. However, on this occasion I voted in favor of the constitutional amendment because of the direct rejection of the statutory approach by the Supreme Court. I intend to support Senate Joint Resolution 31 when it is voted on this week. While I will continue to listen to the arguments in favor of and against the amendment proposed by my friend from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, I am not convinced it would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, I am concerned that it would apply only in rare cases and thus leaves too great a loophole for those who wish to deface the flag.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Easy composure.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to support this conference report and consider it a balanced approach in meeting the funding needs of the agencies and departments contained in the bill, and considering it within the context, of course, of the parameters of the budget resolution. Senator Gregg has done an excellent job picking up on the difficult task of bringing this bill through conference. I might just remind our colleagues that Senator Gregg came into this picture sort of like a little after halftime in the game to start quarterbacking this particular bill. I think he and his staff deserve a lot of credit for the product that is before the Senate today. I also want to compliment Senator Hollings for his dedication to this bill and its programs. This has not been an easy year for any of us here on this committee or within the Senate, but I think it has been made easier by the fine leadership of this subcommittee. And I might comment at this time that Senator Hollings and his staff have served with distinction on this subcommittee for almost a quarter of a century. His knowledge and expertise was a critical factor in framing the bill and bringing it to this point in the process. As you remember, the budget resolution passed by both the House and Senate called for the elimination of the Department of Commerce. I voted for the budget resolution and continue to support its goal of a balanced budget. This conference report does not eliminate the Department of Commerce. It does cut funding Departmentwise by 14.5 percent. But it does nothing close to eliminating this Department. I should like to sort of make a sidebar comment here, which is that it is a bit ironic that the Republican Party seems to be the leading proponent of abolishing the Department of Commerce, with its headquarters being named the Herbert Hoover Department of Commerce Building, because probably the greatest Secretary of Commerce of all time, the man who really built the Department, was Secretary Herbert Hoover under the Harding-Coolidge administrations, and that Department never had a stronger leader, nor did it ever have a more important function in our Government. Having Senator Hollings in the Chamber at this time, having served with Mr. Hoover on the Commission for reorganizing the executive branch of Government, I remind my colleagues, in the wisdom of his youth, Senator Hollings was a Republican, a young Republican, and a great admirer of Mr. Hoover, as am I. And it is, as I say, a little ironic that he helped, along with others of this body, to help create a name for that Department, and there was only one name to ever consider, and that was Herbert Hoover. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, voiced his frustration this morning about the pace of authorizing legislation. This is a serious problem because the budget resolution, in our efforts to balance the budget, loses a lot of its teeth in the absence of necessary authorizing legislation needed to enact the cuts in domestic discretionary spending contained in the resolution. We are in a situation, Mr. President, as members of the Appropriations Committee, where we are getting ``Hail Columbia'' from all sides in this particular dilemma that we face in this Congress. This has been the case for many years, because we do appropriate funds to hundreds of programs that lack authorization, expired or otherwise. We appropriate funds to programs and departments the Senate has voted to eliminate. As the President and the Congress continue to negotiate a road map to a 7-year balanced budget, our trip must include stops through the authorizing committees. The Appropriations Committee cannot shoulder the whole burden in reshaping, redesigning and eliminating programs and departments without guidance from the relevant authorizing committees of jurisdiction. This conference report includes critical funding for ongoing scientific research being conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. While I would have preferred more funding for the NOAA operations, research and facilities, I am pleased that the Agency is very close to a freeze, at the level provided in 1995. For the Department of State, the operations accounts, including salaries and expenses, have been funded at a level adequate to address the many pressing demands of our Foreign Service officers. It may not mean for the programs we have committed to, and particularly peacekeeping activities, we are really underfunded. The conference report provides $348.5 million for the Economic Development Administration. This is a slight decrease from the 1995 level and would allow the EDA to continue their worthy efforts. Also, on the issue of the Legal Services Corporation, I supported Senator [[Page S 18153]] Domenici and worked with him in conference to get the funding at a higher level. While we ended up at the House level of $278 million, this important issue deserves further consideration in the second round after the expected veto of this bill. Negotiations are ongoing with the administration on this bill. This morning, we received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget which states that the President would veto this appropriations bill. I am hopeful that we can reach an accommodation with the administration on this bill and the other six appropriations bills that remain. Again, I thank Senators Gregg and Hollings and compliment the staff for their hard work.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the President recently announced the creation of a National Bioethics Advisory Commission [NBAC]. Because Congress was in recess when this announcement was made, I would like to take this opportunity to share the good news with my colleagues and to reiterate the importance of this announcement. There has long been a need for an independent forum for the discussion of bioethical policy issues. In fact, the catalyst for the President's announcement of the creation of the NBAC was the release of a report on human radiation experiments which took place during the cold war. These federally sponsored tests included releasing radioactive substances into the atmosphere near residential populations and injecting pregnant women with radioactive iron to determine its effect on the baby. In many cases, the tests were conducted without the knowledge of the participants. The NBAC will provide a forum for the reevaluation of Federal human research standards to ensure that this never happens again. [[Page S 18106]] There is no question that any experiments conducted with human subjects must be done with full disclosure and a complete examination of the ethical questions involved. But today, research scientists are experimenting with life forms on a more subtle level where the guidelines may not be as patently clear. In their quest to understand the human body and to conquer disease and disability, scientists have turned to the study of the building blocks of living organisms through genetic research and biotechnology. Genetic research has enormous potential implications for society. For here we are dealing with the very foundations of humanity and nature. Scientists are now able to identify and manipulate gene sequences, and have even begun to create genetically altered life forms. Over the past decade, it has become increasingly apparent that these dramatic advances in biotechnology have outdistanced the legal and ethical parameters that we have in place to deal with them. Society may reap great benefits from these advances, and other discoveries yet to be made by modern science. But history has taught us that new technologies often bring with them costs as well as benefits. Until now, there has been no mechanism through which to examine the moral and ethical implications of this new technology or to weigh the potential costs to society. The creation of a National Bioethics Advisory Board is the culmination of many years of efforts to establish such a mechanism. In the 103d Congress, I introduced S. 1042, legislation which would have established a national Biomedical Ethics Advisory Board located within the Department of Health and Human Services. This bill and the two hearings held on this subject last session served to stimulate public dialogue on the need for such a body and established a framework on which the newly created NBAC was based. The administration, especially Dr. Jack Gibbons, worked closely with me in developing their proposal. The NBAC will be an independent body comprised of 15 members appointed by the President and are likely to be experts from the fields of philosophy, theology, social and behavioral science, law, medicine, and biological research. They will be charged with reviewing the ethical and moral issues that arise in biomedicine including research involving human subjects, and issues in the management and use of genetic information, including human gene patenting. The addition of specific language establishing genetic information and gene patenting issues as a priority for the commission was particularly important to me, and one which I strongly encouraged the administration to make. Each year since 1987, I have introduced legislation providing for a moratorium on the patenting of living organisms. I have done so because I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of Congress to carefully consider the broad ramifications of the technologies it encourages through patenting. I believe that this newly created National Bioethics Advisory Commission will provide a suitable structure for evaluating the ethical, environmental, and economic considerations of such patents. Let me emphasize that no one should construe my vigorous support of this commission as a desire to dampen the drive to discover treatments and cures. I am firmly committed to the advancement of scientific and medical research and have been one of the leading proponents of Federal biomedical research funding in Congress. My desire is simply to ensure that the difficult social and ethical issues surrounding this research are raised and taken into account as public officials struggle to establish appropriate policies and practices relating to biomedicine. The President should be commended for responding to the critical report on human radiation testing by establishing the NBAC to ensure that the rights of human research subjects are examined and protected in the future. And, by including genetic research and patenting issues, he has ensured that Congress and the administration will be equipped to deal with the profound ethical questions relating to this rapidly advancing field as they arise. I am proud to have been a part of the effort to make the NBAC a reality and look forward to it serving as a vital link between the scientific community, the Government, and society as we face the difficult ethical questions which accompany our drive to treat and cure disease and disability through biomedical research.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate represents the best of this body. This legislation has been a long time in the works, and the final product shows the high level of commitment to this important area of policy. There are few things that touch more aspects of life in Oregon than water. From electricity, to fishing, forestry, and agriculture, no issue is more central to Oregon. And of course, the women, men, and children of my State, like all others, depend on a clean, healthy supply of water to drink. I have always supported the Safe Drinking Water Act. I voted for the original provision in 1974 and for the 1986 amendments. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the legislation introduced by a bipartisan group led by Senator Kempthorne. In 1993, I met with over 150 representatives of water systems in Oregon to discuss the approaching reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I have also received hundreds of letters in the last year from system operators and local officials. These are truly committed public servants who care deeply about the health of those in their communities. Their input has greatly assisted me in navigating through this debate. Mr. President, I believe water is our most vital resource. Water provides much of the clean electric power produced in the Northwest. Water is vital to Oregon's strong agricultural production. And where would our fisheries and forestry industries be without water? None of these is of more intimate importance to each of us than the water we consume. Our bodies cannot live without water. Many inside the beltway call Oregon the land of liquid sunshine. They say we do not tan, we rust. Well, we know that is not always true. We have recently experienced the difficulties of a 6-year drought, which taught us that water should never be taken for granted. Today Oregonians are confronting the damage that can come about due to too much rain. Heavy rains have hit the Pacific Northwest in the past several days causing significant problems, particularly in Yamhill and Tillamook Counties. Our Governor has declared a state of emergency in these counties. I ask unanimous consent that an article from today's Oregonian newspaper be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HATFIELD. The heavy rains have resulted in a landslide in Portland's renown Bull Run watershed, which has provided pure drinking water from the Portland area for generations. The slide severely damaged a bridge crossing which carries two of the three conduits which bring drinking water from the Bull Run watershed to Portland. No water is flowing through the two damaged pipes. The third pipe is underground and is still in operation. The two dams in the watershed are undamaged. City officials have two main concerns: public health and adequate supply. The Portland Water Bureau is closely monitoring both contamination levels and turbidity. At this stage, no public health problems have arisen. The second issue is adequate supply. The city's daily water usage this time of year is 90 million gallons per day. The one remaining conduit from Bull Run has a capacity of 75 million gallons per day. Any additional supply up to the 90 million gallons per day will come from the city's existing well fields in northeastern Portland near the Columbia River. In addition, over 270 million gallons is currently stored in reservoirs throughout the city. Temporary repair of the two conduits from Bull Run could take weeks. A permanent fix could take months. Engineering studies are already underway. This shows us once again the importance of our precious water resources. It shows us the importance of providing our local officials with the resources they need to respond to unpredictable challenges. These officials must have the flexibility and the resources to carry out their responsibilities. The legislation before us today meets that and many other goals. It is a significant accomplishment and I am proud to cosponsor it. Let me take a moment to review the concerns I have heard from hundreds of Oregon communities and take note of how these concerns have been addressed in the legislation before us. As my colleagues recall, last year, many months of effort were put toward crafting a bipartisan Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization bill. I was proud to work closely with Senator Kerrey in an attempt to bridge the partisan differences that had emerged on the issue. The final product passed this body with overwhelming bipartisan support. Efforts to bring the bill to a conclusion late in the session were not successful. I am pleased that many of the provisions in the bill before us today clearly emanate from last year's bill. Selection of New Contaminants One of the most frequently cited problems with the current law is that in the 1986 reauthorization, Congress required EPA to regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years, whether they need to or not. The bill before us eliminates this requirement and replaces it with a requirement that EPA take action with respect to at least five contaminants every 5 years beginning in 2001. This change will provide tremendous regulatory relief to EPA, States and water systems. Risk Assessment Citizens of Oregon want to know that the contaminants EPA decides to regulate actually pose a health risk. They feel that the process of regulation is too often divorced from sound scientific evidence of risk from a contaminant. This legislation requires EPA to use good science and assess the risk of contaminants before proceeding with regulation. The bill gives EPA authority to regulate contaminants based on their actual occurrence in drinking water and the real risks they pose. This will help EPA pursue regulations of the substances in drinking water that pose the greatest threat to human health. Cost-Benefit Analysis Nearly everyone I have spoken to in Oregon is concerned that EPA sets standards for contaminants at a level that is unrelated to the level of health protection secured for the cost. Small systems need consideration of risk even more than larger ones. The bill before us allows the Administrator the flexibility to set standards at levels [[Page S 17746]] other than those technically feasible and affordable to large systems, when it makes sense to do so in light of the risk reductions to be achieved and the compliance costs. This is a critical element of reauthorization because it will create a tighter and more explicit relationship between regulations, health protection, and the compliance costs. I strongly commend Senators Kempthorne, Chafee and Baucus for helping solve this thorny issue. Monitoring burden Oregonians have complained that they monitor for contaminants that have never been in their water. By ignoring differences among geographic areas, we force local systems to devote resources to contaminants they do not have. This takes vital resources from real problems. This bill includes provisions similar to those added by Senator Kerrey and myself to the 1994 Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization bill that will allow State drinking water programs to design monitoring programs that are appropriate to conditions faced by their State. Small System Flexibility In Oregon, I learned that small systems are particularly hard hit by many of the current Safe Drinking Water Act regulations because they do not have the economies of scale of a large city. The bill before us addresses this problem in several ways. First, there is monitoring relief for small systems. Moreover, systems serving less than 10,000 people are eligible for a streamlined variance process and a small system technology program. A number of other flexibility provisions are included in the bill for small systems. Sufficient Resources Oregonians have told me that the regulations governing drinking water are technical and expensive. In addition, GAO reported last year that State programs are underfunded. To begin to solve this problem, the bill authorizes a $1 billion annual State revolving loan fund. The bill also authorizes an additional $90 million for health effects research, a wise investment for public health. Conclusion I strongly urge the Senate to support this bill. These provisions strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, not because they make the act more rigid and stringent, but rather because they will help us--in Congress, at EPA, in the States and in every local water system--focus drinking water resources on the most pressing problems and on the biggest threats to health. Again, let me commend the managers of this legislation for their fine efforts in bringing this matter to the floor in such a sound bipartisan manner. I look forward to casting my vote in favor of this legislation. Exhibit 1 [From the Oregonian, Nov. 29, 1995] When It Rains, It Pours (By Stuart Tomlinson, David R. Anderson, and Pat Forgey) Oregonians paused to assess and clean up the damage caused by heavy rain Monday and Tuesday and braced for another, stronger storm expected to hit Wednesday. Gov. John Kitzhaber declared a state of emergency Tuesday in Tillamook and Yamhill counties because of landslides, flooding and road washouts. ``It's a mess,'' Tillamook County Commissioner Jerry Dove said after a helicopter tour Tuesday. ``I have never seen anything so devastating.'' Heavy rain falling on ground saturated during one of the wettest Novembers on record sent several coastal rivers over their banks, trapping motorists, closing schools and driving residents from their homes. By Tuesday afternoon, the rain slackened, which allowed the river levels to subside. But forecasters warned of heavier rains Wednesday, accompanied by winds that could reach 75 mph on the coast. ``The flood season has just begun,'' said Clint Stiger, a hydrologist for the National Weather Service in Portland. ``We're very concerned about the storm coming Wednesday because there is just not much more moisture the soil can contain.'' Flood alerts were posted Tuesday for rivers throughout Western Washington, and Gov. Mike Lowry declared a state of emergency in Clark County and 10 other Washington counties late Tuesday. The declaration is retroactive to Nov. 7, when heavy rains began causing flood damage in Washington. While flooding was reported on the Clackamas River, Johnson Creek and the Tualatin and Salmon rivers outside Portland, the northern Oregon coast was hardest hit. Kitzhaber's emergency declaration will allow the Oregon Department of Transportation to use highway safety money for emergency road repairs. The declaration also means the governor can use the Oregon National Guard to assist in flood cleanup or for security. More than 6 inches of rain fell in about 36 hours at Lee's Camp, a reporting station outside Tillamook. A rain gauge at a Tillamook city reservoir can measure a maximum of 7.5 inches, but it overflowed in less than 24 hours Monday night and Tuesday morning. Snow that had fallen during the weekend melted under the onslaught of record warm temperatures. With 58 degrees, Portland broke a record for the date set in 1982, while Eugene had a record-tying 60 degrees. Portland is inching toward breaking the all-time rain-fall record for November, which was 11.57 inches in 1942. By 10 p.m. Tuesday, rainfall at Portland International Airport reached 10.28 inches. Rain was the main problem Tuesday, but high winds could bring problems throughout the day Wednesday. Forcasters issued high wind warnings for the north and central Oregon coast through Wednesday, with gusts up to 75 mph on exposed headlands and gusts to 40-plus mph inland. Heavy rain also hit Eastern Oregon. The National Weather Service issued small stream advisories for portions of Umatilla County. Snow levels rose to about 8,000 feet by Tuesday, but they were expected to plummet Thursday and Friday to about 4,000 feet, with more snow forecast for the northern Oregon Cascades. A storm containing moisture from nearly 1,000 miles southwest of Hawaii brought the rain and warm temperatures to the state. It's part of a pattern of storms that rake the region during November and December. Oregon is on the edge between warm, tropical air to the south and colder air to the north. ``Where the two air masses come together, there is often a violent meeting on the boundary,'' said state climatologist George Taylor. ``The atmosphere is trying to reach equilibrium.'' So were Tillamook County residents. Crews worked all Tuesday to reach people trapped in their homes by mudslides, mostly on the Trask and Kilchis River roads. By late Tuesday, about 50 homes, with as many as 200 residents, on Trask River Road still were cut off by 15 to 18 landslides. Some routes were cleared only to be closed again by slides or flooding. Tillamook County Sheriff Thomas Dye said a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter dropped a paramedic in the area to check on a 3- year-old girl suffering from the flu. The girl checked out fine, and the paramedic left by helicopter. Jon Oshel, the county public works director, said he hoped to have Trask River Road open by dark. Kilchis River Road presented a bigger problem, although only about 10 families still were cut off. ``We lost a major piece of road there that's just flat gone into the river,'' Oshel said. Tillamook County Commissioner Ken Burdick lives up Trask River Road, where he saw what he called the worse devastation in 42 years. ``We sat there last night until 4 a.m., listening to canyons blow out,'' he said. Burdick didn't get out of his house until late Tuesday, when county road crews working their way up the Trask River reached him. During a helicopter tour, Dove said every canyon they looked at east of Tillamook had been hit with a gully-washer, blocking roads, washing out culverts and carrying trees and stumps downriver. Dove said he saw houses flooded and dairy farmers cut off from their cows. The Wilson River Highway, the main road between Tillamook and Portland, was closed between Tillamook and Glendale by landslides. The road wasn't expected to be open to through traffic until late Wednesday, traffic officials said. Mike Fredericks, who lives along the Wilson River, was forced from his trailer by rising floodwaters. When he came back Tuesday, he expected his trailer to be in Tillamook Bay. When he left the night before, his trailer was an island buffeted by what used to be the hillside across the Wilson River Highway. Because of a clear-cut last summer, he said, the culvert that drains the hill clogged Monday night. The water had to go somewhere. When he went next door to talk to his neighbor, a veteran of six years on the river, Fredericks found out where. ``As soon as we turned our heads, down came the hill,'' Fredericks said. ``The creek was hitting the trailer house and fanning around each side.'' Fredericks' cat, Cubby, was washed away. His mailbox, telephone bill and all, ended up about 50 yards from the house. The trailer, which is about five miles east of Tillamook, survived the deluge and moved not an inch toward the Wilson River. If it weren't for the mess in his yard, Fredericks would have felt fortunate. The new stream cut a 10-foot-deep gully across the lawn, halfway between his trailer home and recreational vehicle. Sheared logs, about a foot of mud and hundreds of basketball- size rocks littered his lawn. [[Page S 17747]] In Yamhill County, the Three Rivers Highway dropped about 4 feet at milepost 13.5. The highway was reopened after emergency repairs were completed. Although the rains were impressive, river levels still were below historic flood levels. During a January 1990 flood, the Nehalem River crested at 25 feet; Tuesday's peak reached 16.2 feet. In January 1972, the Wilson River crested at 16.9 feet; Tuesday's peak reached 13.2 feet. Flooding caused the aptly named Roaring River Bridge, at the confluence of the Roaring and Clackamas rivers about 17 miles southeast of Estacada, to sink two feet Tuesday morning. A large log, probably loosened from an embankment eroded by the floodwater, rammed and bent the bridge pilings, said Gary McNeel, an assistant district manage of the Oregon Department of Transportation office. The 45-year-old bridge serves about 1,100 vehicles a day. In Clackamas County, firefighters and the sheriff's deputies evacuated residents of the Eagle Creek Mobile Home Park near storm-swollen Eagle Creek for several hours early Tuesday. Worst hit were Terry and Toni Hirbeck. Their doublewide at 30773 S.E. Creekside Lane, about a mile upstream from the Clackamas River, had water up to its subflooring and no yard at all. ``I woke Terry up at 11 o'clock last night to tell him the water was coming up,'' said Toni Hirbeck, 33. ``And from 11 o'clock to midnight, the water rose so much that stuff was already floating.'' By 2:30 a.m., firefighters from the Boring Fire Department had to rig a rope across the lane as a lifeline so the lane could be forded more safely. weather woes The coast Tillamook: High water and mudslides closed dozens of roads. Many residents were stranded in homes and cars. The Wilson River Highway, the main road between Tillamook and Portland, was blocked by slides. School districts in north and central Tillamook County closed Tuesday, after officials decided it was to risky to send buses out. Multnomah County Bull Run: A mudslide smashed two of three conduits supplying Portland's water from the Bull Run watershed Tuesday, sharply reducing the Portland area's water delivery system. Officials planned to avert a water shortage my drawing on reservoirs and turning on backup wells along the Columbia River. Clackamas County Roaring River: Flooding caused Oregon 224's Roaring River Bridge, over the Roaring River at the confluence with the Clackamas River about 17 miles southeast of Estacada, to sink about the two feet Tuesday. A large log rammed into and bent the pilings of the 45-year-old bridge that serves about 1,100 vehicles a day. Workers are expected to complete a temporary plate-steel bridge in about a week. Clackamas River: The river was above flood stage at several sites, but particularly threatening at Carver. Residents of a mobile home park were bracing for possible evacuation. Eagle Creek: Crews evacuated families from 12 homes about 1:30 a.m. Tuesday but allowed them to return later in the morning. Salmon river: In the Mount Hood area, a few families were driven from their homes Monday night. Sanbag help: County officials recommend calling 655--8224 to get information about sandbags and available help. Clark County Salmon Creek: A handful of residents north of Vancouver evacuated their homes Tuesday when Salmon Creek overflowed, sending several feet of water into basements, submerging lawns and uprooting trees. Homeowners and fire District 6 personnel sandbagged six homes at 136th Way and Salmon Creek Avenue to stem the damage. Road Closures: Southeast Evergreen Highway was closed at 190th Avenue by water 3-feet deep across the pavement. Water crested above the guardrail and closed Leadbetter Road at 232nd Avenue north of Lacamas Lake. Eastern Oregon The storm caused flooding and power failures across much of Eastern Oregon. Several families on the Umatilla Indian Reservation near Pendleton wee stranded when the Umatilla river flooded rural roads. Eight inches of snow fell on the Ladd Canyon mountain pass between Baker City and La Grande, causing a massive tie-up.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, last night the U.S. Senate lost one of its greatest servants. Dr. Halverson left us in bodily presence but his spiritual legacy will remain eternal. For 14 years, Dr. Halverson provided guidance and counsel to the Senate as its Chaplain, continually reminding us of the true meaning of leadership. For Dr. Halverson a true leader was first a servant. He reminded us each and every day, as he strolled these halls, of what it means to serve the people around you. I have said before that Dr. Halverson was one of the most Christlike men I have ever known, and today that sentiment has not changed. Even in failing health, he continued his ministries right to the very end. Those of you who remember him, recall his humble spirit, his compassionate heart, and his penetrating intellect. All of these qualities were supplemented with an uncanny ability to address complex issues with an insightful simplicity that cut to the core of an issue, illuminating the vital components so that even a child could understand. Dr. Halverson will be profoundly missed. He will be missed by the Senators, but this mournful occasion will impact all who are involved in the business of Congress. Dr. Halverson was not just a pastor to the hundred men and women who serve in this body, but he was a pastor to the police officers, to the custodians, to the food servce workers, to everyone who was fortunate to cross his path. He ministered to all he encountered, indiscriminate of position, background, and stature. He genuinely loved everyone. I cannot recall him ever uttering an ill word toward anyone. I am deeply saddened by this great loss. Dr. Halverson was my close friend [[Page S 17824]] and brother. Now, Dr. Halverson is experiencing joy and happiness incomprehensible to those of us here on Earth. But until I see him again, I will miss this good and faithful servant. I will miss his warm greetings. I will miss his thoughtful prayers. I will miss his example of humility. Most of all, I will miss being his friend.