Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. That the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized to make whatever motions necessary to get the 5 minutes after we get this approved. I would have no objection.

Mr. HATFIELD. Could I include the same as I did for the Senator from Indiana?

Mr. HATFIELD. I can assure the Senator from Indiana, as we have been speaking as if in morning business, with the colloquy that was just going on which the Senator from Indiana would like to engage in, I will have no objections to whatever parliamentary request he has to make in order to speak.

Mr. HATFIELD. We do not want to cut out the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield the floor for that purpose. I would like to get the agreement first.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the majority leader and the minority leader have worked out a unanimous-consent agreement. The ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and I have gone over this. And we also concur. So, at this time, Mr. President, with Senator Byrd's presence on the floor, I would like to propound the unanimous-consent request. I ask unanimous consent that final passage of H.R. 4278, the omnibus appropriations legislation, occur no later than 6 p.m today, with the time between now and 6 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders, or their designees; and, further, that no amendments, motions, or points of order be in order.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATFIELD. If the Senator will withhold for a moment, we want to get a unanimous consent so we can adopt the appropriations bill.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I will yield the floor, but before I do so, I, again, want to personalize my remarks, Senator Byrd being on the floor, to say that this was a joint effort. And with Senator Byrd's vast background and expertise in the procedures of the Senate, the history of the Senate, the legislative role of the Senate, I, again, express my deep appreciation for his collaboration, his cooperation, his spirit of friendship, and the demonstration of that friendship day in and day out in achieving our mutual responsibilities to bring this bill to the floor, like all previous bills. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senate now has, as the Chair has indicated, under consideration the fiscal year omnibus appropriations bill which will conclude our action on the six fiscal year 1997 appropriations bills that have not been enacted into law, and they are: No. 1, Commerce, Justice, State, and related agencies; No. 2, the Defense appropriations bill; No. 3, the foreign operations appropriations bill; No. 4, the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill; No. 5, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill; and No. 6, the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. As Senators are aware, members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee and their staffs worked around the clock at the end of last week to reach a bipartisan agreement with the administration on all the outstanding issues included in these bills. Our colleagues in the House adopted this bill Saturday by an overwhelming rollcall vote of 370 to 37, and the President has indicated he will sign the bill as soon as it reaches his desk. I know that many Senators have questions and concerns about this legislation. Senator Byrd and I will be here throughout the day to address those matters as best we can. I hope and expect that when we reach a vote on final passage later today, a large majority of the Senate will vote for this legislation. Mr. President, this will be the last appropriations measure that I will manage here on the Senate floor. For the past 16 years as chairman or ranking minority member of the full committee, I have stood here with Senator Byrd, Senator Stennis, and Senator Proxmire as we have brought to the Senate the 13 annual appropriations acts, supplementals, rescissions bills and continuing resolutions. It has been an extraordinary experience. The appropriations process has been the crucible of debate on enormous range of issues, great and small. We have carried on through the revolutionary 1981 reconciliation process, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, budget summits, and Government shutdowns. Despite it all, year in and year out, this Congress has acted on appropriations bills and sent them to the President. It is our principal constitutional duty to do so. Mr. President, I cannot adequately express how honored I am to have been a part of this process. I owe an enormous debt to all of my colleagues with whom I have served, both here in the Senate and in the House. I am privileged to have enjoyed relationships across the aisle in both bodies that have immeasurably enriched my life, and I can only hope that I have managed to return those gifts in some way. All of us on the Committee on Appropriations, both here and in the House, are served by an extraordinary staff. These highly capable men and women are the best there are. Before I leave Washington for Oregon later this month--I started to say later today; that perhaps is only wishful thinking at this moment--I hope to be able to thank each one personally for their contributions. It would be impossible, Mr. President, to make a comprehensive recitation of the provisions of this legislation, and I will not try. I believe that this bill, which I hold in my hand, represents our completed product which is, obviously, a rather enormous package. I believe that various summary descriptions have been distributed. The text of the legislation is printed in the Record and copies are available here on the floor and in cloakrooms and in Senators' offices. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Alaska will respond to a request that he amend his unanimous-consent agreement to be recognized following my brief presentation in order to permit the ranking member, Senator Byrd, to make his opening statement as well.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I believe that the pending business is the omnibus appropriations bill; is that correct?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today marks the 35th anniversary of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency--the only Federal agency devoted solely to arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament. This unique Agency has played a critical role in ensuring that arms control considerations are taken into account in formulating our Nation's national security policy. Since the creation of ACDA, we have seen the realization of more than 10 major arms control treaties and significant progress on many others including the recently signed Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Before ACDA was created, only one major arms control treaty was ratified in the period between 1945 and 1961. Some of the major arms control accomplishments we have seen in the last 35 years include: The elimination by the United States and Russia of two-thirds of their strategic nuclear forces, including more than 14,000 of their strategic nuclear warheads. The ratification and permanent extension of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by more than 181 countries, making it the most widely accepted arms control agreement in history. The elimination of above ground nuclear tests through the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and the establishment of an international norm against underground testing through the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed earlier this week by the United States and the other declared nuclear weapons states. We have accomplished much over the last 35 years. However, our work is not done. The United States must ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention to stop the production and use of these dangerous weapons. We must ensure that the Russian's ratify the START II Treaty and continue their commitment to reducing their nuclear arsenal. We must continue to pressure India to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty so the treaty will enter into force. In the words of the current Director of ACDA, John Holum: [W]e have demonstrated in one hard-won agreement after another that when we control arms we control our fate . . . buttress our freedom . . . enhance our security and our prosperity. I applaud ACDA and join in celebrating its 35 years of success. I hope we can continue this success for another 35 years for the hopes and lives of future generations of Americans depend on our ability to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, each year the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) honors low- income housing and community development agencies nationwide through the NAHRO Agency Awards of Merit in Housing and Community Development. This awards program recognizes the efforts of agencies that have demonstrated a clear commitment and ability to address the unique and special needs of their communities. I would like to take a moment to recognize the three recipients of this award from the State of Oregon for their dedicated efforts. The first Oregon recipient is the Housing Authority of Washington County for their Claire Court project. Recently purchased and renovated by the Authority, Claire Court is an apartment residence that was built in 1945 with a substantial amount of war surplus materials. While the housing complex had an excellent framework, the extensive use of lead- base paint, asbestos insulation, and outdated plumbing and wiring had created a significant hazard for residents. The renovation of Claire Court not only removed and replaced hazardous materials with safe, energy-efficient products, but also maintained neighborhood architecture and adapted two of the eight units to ADA and UFAS accessible living standards. The Housing Authority of Portland, for the Fairview Oaks and Woods Interpretive Nature Trail, is the second Oregon recipient of the NAHRO Award of Merit. This 3,000-foot trail was created as a part of the new 328-unit Fairview Oaks and Fairview Woods housing complex, and utilized the cooperative efforts of high school students, apartment residents, and other local agencies. The interpretive nature trail, which features detailed markings and is handicapped accessible, serves as an excellent example of an innovative solution to balancing the growing need for affordable housing, while also preserving natural wildlife areas. The final award recipient from Oregon is the Housing Authority of the City of Salem for their Family Stabilization Program. While many agencies of this kind are successful in helping individuals in the community, the Salem Housing Authority devised this program in an attempt to bring community providers together and transfer their success with individuals into success for their families as well. The Family Stabilization Program has helped coordinate the efforts of programs dealing in drug prevention, family self-sufficiency, and parenting--among others--and has resulted in increased participation by families in all areas. The State of Oregon is truly fortunate to have such dedicated and innovative housing and community development agencies working in our communities. I am honored to recognize these groups for their efforts, and to congratulate them on receiving the NAHRO Award of Merit.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in the last few years, the Republic of China has continued to prosper and develop as a democratic model. It is our sixth largest trading partner and the world's 13th largest trading nation. Its per capita income of $12,000 is one of the highest in Asia. Alongside its economic success, Taiwan has embarked upon a course of democratization, including political pluralism, press liberalization, island-wide elections, a first ever presidential election in March 1996, and full constitutional reform. On the eve of the 85th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China, I extend my best wishes to President Lee Teng-hui, Foreign Minister John H. Chang, and Ambassador Jason Hu. May they long continue to be a shining example of democracy in Asia.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, this is probably the last act of legislation that I will perform in my long tenure in the Senate. I want to offer today, and I am very hopeful that even though this is in the closing hours that this will rise above any other kind of considerations because it offers an opportunity for all of us to correct a historic wrong. One hundred and forty-one years ago, at the request of the U.S. Government, the Tribes of Middle Oregon gathered near The Dalles on the Columbia River to negotiate and sign a treaty that would forever change the lives of their people. On June 25, 1855, after many days of extended discussions and negotiations with Joel Palmer, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Oregon Territory, the treaty between the Tribes of Middle Oregon and the United States was signed. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate March 8, 1859 and has served since that time as the primary agreement between the Warm Springs Tribes and the U.S. Government. The 1855 treaty established a reservation--referred to as the Warm Springs Reservation--some 50 miles to the south of the Columbia River, on the Deschutes River. The 1855 treaty also provided that the members of the signatory tribes settle on the newly created reservation and cede the balance of their territory to the United States. In signing the 1855 treaty, the tribes insisted upon retaining their right to hunt, fish, graze, and gather roots and berries at their usual and accustomed stations and on unclaimed lands outside the reservation. These reserved treaty rights were essential for the Tribes' life and culture. While the tribes settled on the reservation soon after the treaty signing, they maintained their accustomed practice of traveling regularly to the Columbia River to harvest its magnificent runs of salmon. The continued presence of Indian people fishing along the Columbia, however, irritated the non-Indian settlers and prompted the then-Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Oregon, J.W. Perit Huntington, to pursue efforts to keep the Tribes away from the settlers. To that end, Superintendent Huntington drew up a supplemental treaty and, on November 15, 1865, convinced the tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation to sign it. This treaty, called the Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes of November 15, 1865, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 2, 1867. According to its terms, the treaty prohibits the Indians from leaving the Warm Springs Reservation without the written permission of the Government and relinquishes all of the off- reservation rights so carefully negotiated by the tribes as part of the 1855 treaty. The Indians of the Warm Springs Reservation have never complied with the 1865 treaty and the United States has never tried to enforce it. The historical record explains why this is so. The 1865 treaty was obtained by fraud--plain and simple. The Indians, who did not speak, read, or write English, were told by the Government agent that the treaty only required them to notify the Government agent when they left the reservation to fish on the Columbia. They were never told that the treaty abrogated their cherished right to fish at Celilo Falls and other traditional places outside the reservation. How do we know this? Historical documents. Historical documents, including subsequent U.S. Justice Department affidavits taken from Warm Springs Indians present at both the 1855 and 1865 treaty signings, show that the Indian signatories understood the agreement as providing a pass system identifying Indians leaving the reservation to exercise off-reservation rights. They understood this pass system as a means of distinguishing the friendly treaty tribes from the hostile Indians who were raiding in the area. It was never understood or explained that the treaty relinquished all off- reservation rights, or that Indians could not leave the reservation without the Superintendent's written consent. According to the affidavits, Huntington secured the signatures of members of the tribes during a stay on the reservation that lasted less than 24 hours. It is difficult to conceive that the tribes, in less than 1 day, would agree to imprison themselves on their reservation and relinquish the off-reservation rights that they exhaustively negotiated in 1855, cutting themselves off from their principle source of food. As the affidavit of Albert Kuck-up states: I am sure that the Indians would have positively refused to sign any paper, for Huntington or anyone else, that would have taken from them their fishing rights or fishery. Fish is to us what bread is to the white man. Affidavits and other historic documents show that Huntington then departed for Klamath, OR, never to return. He even took with him the two wagons and teams he had promised to leave with the Indians of the Warm Springs Reservation. Almost immediately following the signing of the 1865 treaty, the Indians from the Warm Springs Reservation continued to travel to the Columbia River to fish from their historic fishing sites. Warm Springs Agency agent John Smith wrote in his June 26, 1867, report to Superintendent Huntington that ``as early as the 16th of May, 1866, the Indians began to visit the salmon fisheries in large numbers.'' Reports by Agent Smith in subsequent years further document continued fishing on a substantial scale, and in a July 1, 1869, letter from Agent Smith to Superintendent A.B. Meacham--who replaced Huntington on May 15, 1869--Smith noted ``the Indians said they did not understand the terms of the [1865] treaty'', that ``they claim that it was not properly interpreted to them'', and that ``they were led to believe the right of taking fish, hunting game, etc., would still be given them because salmon was such an essential part of their subsistence.'' That same year, in a September 18, 1869 report regarding the Warm Springs Reservation to Superintendent Meacham, U.S. Army Captain W.M. Mitchell wrote, I also have to report, for the consideration of the proper authorities, that the Indians unanimously disclaim any knowledge whatever of having sold their right to the fishery at The Dalles of the Columbia, as stated in the amended treaty of 1865, and express a desire to have a small delegation of their head men visit their Great White Father in Washington, and to him present their cause of complaint. Official U.S. Government reports in subsequent years continue to note the Warm Springs Reservation Indian's strong objection to the 1865 treaty, their continued and uninterrupted reliance on their fisheries on the Columbia River, and the fraudulent nature of the 1865 treaty signing. In the annual report, dated August 15, 1884, Warm Springs Agent Alonzo Gesner finds: on record what purports to be a supplementary treaty . . . which is beyond a doubt a forgery on the part of the Government in so far as it relates to the Indians ever relinquishing their right to the fisheries on the Columbia River; and as a matter of justice to the Indians, as well as to the Government, the matter should be made right and satisfactory to the Indians as soon as possible. . . . All the Indians say emphatically that when the treaty was read to them no mention was made of their giving up the right to fish. All that was said was that they were to agree not to leave the reservation without getting passes, . . . The fact is they were wilfully and wickedly deceived. In 1886, Warm Springs Agent Jason Wheeler reported to the Commissioner of the Indian Affairs in Washington, DC, regarding the 1865 treaty that ``if ever a fraud was villainously perpetrated on any set of people, red or white, this was, in my opinion, certainly one of the most glaring.'' In 1887, Commissioner of Indian Affairs J.D.C. Atkins, in his annual report to the Secretary of the Interior, cited a recent War Department report by Gen. John Gibbons that: called attention to the oft-repeated, and I may say very generally credited, story of fraud in the treaty of 1865, whereby the Warm Springs Indians were, it is claimed, cheated out of their fishery by the Huntington treaty. Salmon, he wrote: is material and of grave importance to them. It is their principal source of subsistence, and they never intended to part with it, but were cheated and swindled out of it by a cunning and unprincipled U.S. official. I would recommend your early attention to the matter upon the convening of Congress. Mr. President, those are the words of representatives of the American Government assessing this kind of a fraud perpetrated upon the Warm Spring Indians in the 1870's and 1880's. Mr. President, that report, along with the many others, along with appeals made by the tribes, apparently fell on deaf ears. But while the 1865 treaty remains on the books, the United States has never enforced it and the Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation have continued the uninterrupted exercise of their 1855 off-reservation fishing, hunting, gathering, and grazing rights. The 1865 treaty has been effectually rendered null, disregarded by the tribes and the United States as a fraud from virtually the time it was signed. It is doubtful that the 1865 treaty has any legal validity. Moreover, in the intervening years, the Federal courts and the U.S. Congress have repeatedly recognized the Warm Springs Tribes' rights secured under the 1855 Treaty. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today declares the fraudulent 1865 treaty to be null and void. At the request of the Warm Springs Tribes, my bill will at long last correct this historical travesty. I wish to note that, other than formally nullifying what for many years has been a nullity in practice, this legislation will not alter the recognized 1855 rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. This legislation is more of a housekeeping measure--albeit housekeeping that will help the honor of the United States and dignity of a long-wronged people. It is my understanding that both the chairman and ranking member of the Indian Affairs Committee are supportive of this proposal. The same is true for the administration. On that basis, I hope this matter can be addressed in an expeditious manner.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, this is probably the last act of legislation that I will perform in my long tenure in the Senate. I want to offer today, and I am very hopeful that even though this is in the closing hours that this will rise above any other kind of considerations because it offers an opportunity for all of us to correct a historic wrong. One hundred and forty-one years ago, at the request of the U.S. Government, the Tribes of Middle Oregon gathered near The Dalles on the Columbia River to negotiate and sign a treaty that would forever change the lives of their people. On June 25, 1855, after many days of extended discussions and negotiations with Joel Palmer, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Oregon Territory, the treaty between the Tribes of Middle Oregon and the United States was signed. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate March 8, 1859 and has served since that time as the primary agreement between the Warm Springs Tribes and the U.S. Government. The 1855 treaty established a reservation--referred to as the Warm Springs Reservation--some 50 miles to the south of the Columbia River, on the Deschutes River. The 1855 treaty also provided that the members of the signatory tribes settle on the newly created reservation and cede the balance of their territory to the United States. In signing the 1855 treaty, the tribes insisted upon retaining their right to hunt, fish, graze, and gather roots and berries at their usual and accustomed stations and on unclaimed lands outside the reservation. These reserved treaty rights were essential for the Tribes' life and culture. While the tribes settled on the reservation soon after the treaty signing, they maintained their accustomed practice of traveling regularly to the Columbia River to harvest its magnificent runs of salmon. The continued presence of Indian people fishing along the Columbia, however, irritated the non-Indian settlers and prompted the then-Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Oregon, J.W. Perit Huntington, to pursue efforts to keep the Tribes away from the settlers. To that end, Superintendent Huntington drew up a supplemental treaty and, on November 15, 1865, convinced the tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation to sign it. This treaty, called the Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes of November 15, 1865, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 2, 1867. According to its terms, the treaty prohibits the Indians from leaving the Warm Springs Reservation without the written permission of the Government and relinquishes all of the off- reservation rights so carefully negotiated by the tribes as part of the 1855 treaty. The Indians of the Warm Springs Reservation have never complied with the 1865 treaty and the United States has never tried to enforce it. The historical record explains why this is so. The 1865 treaty was obtained by fraud--plain and simple. The Indians, who did not speak, read, or write English, were told by the Government agent that the treaty only required them to notify the Government agent when they left the reservation to fish on the Columbia. They were never told that the treaty abrogated their cherished right to fish at Celilo Falls and other traditional places outside the reservation. How do we know this? Historical documents. Historical documents, including subsequent U.S. Justice Department affidavits taken from Warm Springs Indians present at both the 1855 and 1865 treaty signings, show that the Indian signatories understood the agreement as providing a pass system identifying Indians leaving the reservation to exercise off-reservation rights. They understood this pass system as a means of distinguishing the friendly treaty tribes from the hostile Indians who were raiding in the area. It was never understood or explained that the treaty relinquished all off- reservation rights, or that Indians could not leave the reservation without the Superintendent's written consent. According to the affidavits, Huntington secured the signatures of members of the tribes during a stay on the reservation that lasted less than 24 hours. It is difficult to conceive that the tribes, in less than 1 day, would agree to imprison themselves on their reservation and relinquish the off-reservation rights that they exhaustively negotiated in 1855, cutting themselves off from their principle source of food. As the affidavit of Albert Kuck-up states: I am sure that the Indians would have positively refused to sign any paper, for Huntington or anyone else, that would have taken from them their fishing rights or fishery. Fish is to us what bread is to the white man. Affidavits and other historic documents show that Huntington then departed for Klamath, OR, never to return. He even took with him the two wagons and teams he had promised to leave with the Indians of the Warm Springs Reservation. Almost immediately following the signing of the 1865 treaty, the Indians from the Warm Springs Reservation continued to travel to the Columbia River to fish from their historic fishing sites. Warm Springs Agency agent John Smith wrote in his June 26, 1867, report to Superintendent Huntington that ``as early as the 16th of May, 1866, the Indians began to visit the salmon fisheries in large numbers.'' Reports by Agent Smith in subsequent years further document continued fishing on a substantial scale, and in a July 1, 1869, letter from Agent Smith to Superintendent A.B. Meacham--who replaced Huntington on May 15, 1869--Smith noted ``the Indians said they did not understand the terms of the [1865] treaty'', that ``they claim that it was not properly interpreted to them'', and that ``they were led to believe the right of taking fish, hunting game, etc., would still be given them because salmon was such an essential part of their subsistence.'' That same year, in a September 18, 1869 report regarding the Warm Springs Reservation to Superintendent Meacham, U.S. Army Captain W.M. Mitchell wrote, I also have to report, for the consideration of the proper authorities, that the Indians unanimously disclaim any knowledge whatever of having sold their right to the fishery at The Dalles of the Columbia, as stated in the amended treaty of 1865, and express a desire to have a small delegation of their head men visit their Great White Father in Washington, and to him present their cause of complaint. Official U.S. Government reports in subsequent years continue to note the Warm Springs Reservation Indian's strong objection to the 1865 treaty, their continued and uninterrupted reliance on their fisheries on the Columbia River, and the fraudulent nature of the 1865 treaty signing. In the annual report, dated August 15, 1884, Warm Springs Agent Alonzo Gesner finds: on record what purports to be a supplementary treaty . . . which is beyond a doubt a forgery on the part of the Government in so far as it relates to the Indians ever relinquishing their right to the fisheries on the Columbia River; and as a matter of justice to the Indians, as well as to the Government, the matter should be made right and satisfactory to the Indians as soon as possible. . . . All the Indians say emphatically that when the treaty was read to them no mention was made of their giving up the right to fish. All that was said was that they were to agree not to leave the reservation without getting passes, . . . The fact is they were wilfully and wickedly deceived. In 1886, Warm Springs Agent Jason Wheeler reported to the Commissioner of the Indian Affairs in Washington, DC, regarding the 1865 treaty that ``if ever a fraud was villainously perpetrated on any set of people, red or white, this was, in my opinion, certainly one of the most glaring.'' In 1887, Commissioner of Indian Affairs J.D.C. Atkins, in his annual report to the Secretary of the Interior, cited a recent War Department report by Gen. John Gibbons that: called attention to the oft-repeated, and I may say very generally credited, story of fraud in the treaty of 1865, whereby the Warm Springs Indians were, it is claimed, cheated out of their fishery by the Huntington treaty. Salmon, he wrote: is material and of grave importance to them. It is their principal source of subsistence, and they never intended to part with it, but were cheated and swindled out of it by a cunning and unprincipled U.S. official. I would recommend your early attention to the matter upon the convening of Congress. Mr. President, those are the words of representatives of the American Government assessing this kind of a fraud perpetrated upon the Warm Spring Indians in the 1870's and 1880's. Mr. President, that report, along with the many others, along with appeals made by the tribes, apparently fell on deaf ears. But while the 1865 treaty remains on the books, the United States has never enforced it and the Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation have continued the uninterrupted exercise of their 1855 off-reservation fishing, hunting, gathering, and grazing rights. The 1865 treaty has been effectually rendered null, disregarded by the tribes and the United States as a fraud from virtually the time it was signed. It is doubtful that the 1865 treaty has any legal validity. Moreover, in the intervening years, the Federal courts and the U.S. Congress have repeatedly recognized the Warm Springs Tribes' rights secured under the 1855 Treaty. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today declares the fraudulent 1865 treaty to be null and void. At the request of the Warm Springs Tribes, my bill will at long last correct this historical travesty. I wish to note that, other than formally nullifying what for many years has been a nullity in practice, this legislation will not alter the recognized 1855 rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. This legislation is more of a housekeeping measure--albeit housekeeping that will help the honor of the United States and dignity of a long-wronged people. It is my understanding that both the chairman and ranking member of the Indian Affairs Committee are supportive of this proposal. The same is true for the administration. On that basis, I hope this matter can be addressed in an expeditious manner.

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in the last days of this session, as I reflect on the past 30 years in which I have been priviliged to serve here in the U.S. Senate, my thoughts turn time and again to the many, many individuals who not only have enriched my experience here but have been exemplars of public service. I cannot possibly name them all or thank them all. There are two gentlemen, however, who have been integral to the work of the Appropriations Committee in my time as chairman and ranking minority member these past 15 years, and I want to take a few minutes today to thank them, particularly, today. Bill Hoagland has served as the staff director of the Senate Budget Committee for 11 years. In that time, he has grappled with Gramm- Rudman-Hollings, played a significant role in the 1987, 1990, and 1995 ``budget summit'' negotiations, and fought daily battles with virtually every committee in the Senate and the House of Representatives to nurture an effective congressional budget process and keep the fiscal policy of our Government on a sound foundation. The legislative process during his tenure in the Senate has been nearly consumed with budget legislation of one sort or another, and he has been in the midst of it all. Bill Hoagland has epitomized the qualities and character of an outstanding public servant and Senate staffer. He has been unfailingly honest. He has considered opposing views of issues dispassionately. He has been a staunch defender of the budget process, and a loyal advisor to his chairman, Senator Pete Domenici. Like his chairman, he has been courageous in holding his convictions despite harsh criticism from certain quarters. The Senate is fortunate to have his able assistance, and I salute him. A sound relationship with the Office of Management and Budget is very important to the work of the Appropriations Committee, and in the past 10 years that relationship has been enhanced by the work of Chuck Kieffer, a career employee of OMB. Chuck started at OMB when Mr. David Stockman was named Director, and he has served under every Director since, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. He has been the principal OMB liaison with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees under Republican and Democratic majorities. By virtue of that experience, Chuck Kieffer has become the single person in OMB most knowledgeable about the appropriations process. He is the institutional memory of the Executive Office of the President on what we have done, and what we have left undone, in appropriations acts. More important, he is the honest broker between the Congress and the administration, faithfully characterizing the differences between us, and providing accurate information to bridge those differences. He works impossibly long hours keeping track of myriad issues, and does so with a degree of professionalism that meets the highest standard. For that, he has earned the respect and appreciation of the committee members and staff in both Houses on both sides of the aisle, and I want thank him for his service. Mr. President, there are many other people throughout our Government, at all levels, who perform demanding jobs under difficult circumstances. They do so with integrity and diligence to duty. Those of us who serve here, in the House of Representatives, and in the highest levels of the executive departments, could not do without them. All of the citizens of this Nation owe them more than we ever effectively express. By expressing my appreciation to Bill Hoagland and Chuck Kieffer, I mean to convey that appreciation to all those other public servants as well, who perform day after day these many duties staffing our committees and our personal offices. (The remarks of Mr. Hatfield pertaining to the introduction of S. 2100 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we are obliged to be responsible stewards of our environment, both here and abroad. Even in these times of fiscal restraint, it would be counterproductive to cut back on the investment we have made in our environment and indeed in our own future. Growing concern over the deterioration of our global resources and environment has forced us to examine ways in which we can redouble our efforts to protect and conserve these valuable resources. However, protection need not be at the expense of our ability to enjoy, enhance, and utilize our resources. There are few industries whose future is as directly dependent on the conservation of a resource as commercial fishing. As residents of Oregon's coastal communities recently learned, due to the closing of a commercial salmon season, when fish populations suffer that hardship is passed along to fishermen, processors, and consumers. The problem of dwindling fishery resources is not unique to the Pacific Northwest. Virtually every region of the country has experienced some form of decay in the commercial fishing industry. Therefore, it is critical that we fulfill our obligation to protect and responsibly manage our Nation's fisheries. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act has been our Nation's principal offshore fisheries conservation policy since it was enacted in 1976. I am gratified the Senate has overcome the substantial barriers that were preventing this important legislation from being considered. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed its version of this measure last year and it is my hope we will send a Magnuson reauthorization bill to the President for his signature this year. However, I recognize there are a number of outstanding issues which must be resolved before we can complete action on this important legislation. Mr. President, I would like to take a brief moment to congratulate the sponsors of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, Senators Stevens and Kerry. They have crafted a bill which enjoys support on a bipartisan basis in the Senate and is also endorsed by numerous conservation and industry groups. It has taken impressive dedication on the part of the sponsors of this bill and cooperation with many Members of the Senate to bring this measure before us today. I commend them for their leadership on this matter. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, S. 39, would extend the authorization of appropriations for the Magnuson Fishery Conservation Management Act through fiscal year 2000 and build on the policy objectives of that landmark legislation. In the 20 years since its enactment, the Magnuson Act has provided a national framework for conserving and managing U.S. marine fisheries. In addition to reauthorizing several important appropriations for marine statutes, the Sustainable Fisheries Act includes significant fishery conservation and management provisions. The bill contains language which requires fishery management plans to specify criteria for establishing when a fishery has been overfished and include methods to rebuild an overfished fishery. Additionally, the issue of bycatch, taking of nontarget fish in the process of catching marketable seafood, is also addressed by this legislation. It adds a national standard which would require measures to minimize bycatch and minimize the mortality of unavoidable bycatch. The legislation also mandates the eight regional fishery management councils to identify essential fish habitat and reduce negative effects on habitat due to fishing. As with all natural resource policy matters, effective conservation and management of fisheries must be based on sound science and accurate research. The Sustainable Fisheries Act maintains existing Magnuson Act sections dealing with data collection and fisheries research. Additionally, it includes a section which establishes guidelines for fishing vessel observers and fishing vessel registration. The legislation also incorporates the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a review of the contentious individual fishing quota and community development quota programs. Many individuals within my State have contacted me to express concern about specific provisions contained in this legislation. I recognize each issue within this bill may not be resolved to the satisfaction of all interested parties. However, the compromise package is a reasonable attempt to address these concerns and the accommodations made by the managers of the bill represent our best opportunity to see this overdue legislation enacted this year. Therefore, I will vote in favor of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Once again, I applaud the work of the sponsors of this legislation and thank them for their efforts on behalf of our Nation's fisheries and those who depend upon them. It is my hope the Senate will overwhelmingly pass this important measure and that action will be taken quickly by the White House to sign it into law.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1994 be returned to the calendar.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I understand the conference report on the Transportation Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee is now before us.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move that the Senate adopt the conference report. Mr. President, I withhold making that motion at this time. Mr. President, we are here to present the conference report, myself and Senator Frank Lautenberg, representing the State of New Jersey and the ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. We have enjoyed a marvelous working relationship, and I take another opportunity to thank Senator Lautenberg for his fine support. His contribution has been great. We have had not only a wonderful working relationship, but we enjoy a deep personal friendship as well, by which I am blessed. Also, at this time I would like to comment that Anne Miano of my staff took on this role as being the chief clerk of the Transportation Subcommittee really kind of in the winding down days of the Senate, showing her great capacity to move into the No. 1 slot upon the retirement of Pat McCann, who had held that position for many years. I thank her especially for her efficiency and her quick comprehension of all the details which she now has performed so well as the chief clerk for the majority on this subcommittee. Peter Rogoff is also a very fundamental part of our operation. As I have said frequently and I say again, Mr. President, the relationship that exists between the minority and the majority--and I have been in both--is that we hardly know a distinction, at the staff level especially, and he has filled in, provided me with information as well as Senator Lautenberg. We have no distinctions of partisanship, no labels that separate us. It is a marvelous kind of collaborative effort that Peter Rogoff and Anne Miano now--and before Pat McCann--enjoy. We have now concluded our conference for the fiscal year 1997 Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 3675. In total, this conference report contains $12 billion in new budget authority for transportation programs and projects and $35 billion in outlays. The conference report includes funds to continue the vital air traffic control operations for the Federal Aviation Administration, the search and rescue activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as many other critical functions of the department. In addition, it will provide billions of dollars for needed infrastructure projects across the Nation. I am particularly pleased to point out that this report includes $150 million for State infrastructure banks programs. This program will permit interested States to use innovative financing to stretch their transportation dollars and maximize the Federal investment in transportation. Ten States are already in the program and this appropriation will allow even more States to participate. I believe that the SIB's Program will become increasingly important in the years ahead as States work to find modern financing tools to help improve their State's transportation networks. The Essential Air Service has been funded at $25.9 million, the Senate-passed level for this Program. I have heard from many Senators in support of the EAS Program. They have told me that without the EAS program, people in communities dependent on EAS service would find themselves isolated and be forced to drive long distances to reach their destinations. I am pleased that we were able to increase the funds for this program, which had received only $10 million in the House-passed bill. In other words, we are now more than 2\1/2\ times that House figure. The conference report includes an increase for FAA operations of $254.3 million above the fiscal year 1996 level. This 5-percent increase will support the hiring of 500 new air traffic controllers, 367 new aviation safety inspectors, and other regulatory oversight personnel. It also provides a 9-percent increase in funding for field maintenance of air traffic equipment. In light of the recent TWA flight 800 tragedy, the conferees have fully funded the administration's request of $36.055 million for aviation security technology. This amount includes $27.4 million for research and development into new devices to detect explosives and weapons, and $1.3 million to harden aircraft against the effects of explosives. We have fully funded the administration's request for operational security by providing $71.9 million to fund about 780 security personnel. The conferees included $13 million for FAA research, engineering, and development in order to improve aviation safety in hazardous weather. This amount is about $6.6 million above the administration's request for weather research and will enable FAA to place a higher priority on aviation weather safety research. The conference report contains $1.46 billion for grants for the Airport Improvement Program [AIP]. This is an increase of $10 million above the fiscal year 1996 level and $110 million above the administration's request. I believe that these grants are very important for airports around the Nation and will do much to improve the quality of aviation service for the public. I would also like to underscore that we have provided an obligation limitation of $18 billion for grants to States from the highway trust fund. This amount is $450 million above the fiscal year 1996 level for the Federal-aid highway program. We have rejected the administration's request to make some previously exempt highway programs part of the overall obligation ceiling and rescind $300 million of previously authorized ISTEA projects. The conferees were not able to include an amendment that was adopted on the Senate floor to address the impact of the reporting of excise tax data on the allocation of Federal-aid highway funds. This issue and other related issues will be taken up during next year's debate on reauthorizing the ISTEA Program. A total of $760.45 million is provided for all Amtrak accounts-- including the Northeast corridor--an increase of $10.45 million above the fiscal year 1996 level. This appropriation includes $115 million for the Northeast corridor, a freeze at the current level. It also includes $80 million in high-speed rail funds for Amtrak, as well as $342 million for operations, the amount requested by the administration. Amtrak capital is funded at $223.45 million, which is close to the fiscal year 1996 level of $230 million. The conferees were mindful of Amtrak's need for more funds and added $38 million to the Transportation Subcommittee's conference allocation in order to increase Amtrak's capital account. Amtrak's long-term problems require legislative solutions that cannot be addressed by the Appropriations Committee on this bill. The conference report includes language assuring States where Amtrak has announced service cuts that they may use their CMAQ--Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--funds to preserve rail service. In addition, this conference report contains $1.9 billion for discretionary transit capital grants. This includes $380 million for bus-related projects, $760 million for new starts, and $760 million for fixed guideway modernization. The conferees also added $97 million to transit formula capital grants, and agreed to the Senate-passed level of $2.149 billion--this program includes $400 million in operating aid. Transit helps to provide affordable, efficient, and reliable transportation to get people to work, school, and to reach needed services. Moreover, transit funds help to improve air quality, mitigate highway congestion, and provide expanded mobility for elderly and disabled persons. I believe that the funds contained in this conference report will assist States in making their transportation systems more efficient. They also will enhance transportation safety throughout the Nation. Mr. President, I could go on at considerable length in identifying many of these accounts. I think these that I have identified very clearly indicate what the committee's priorities have been, both from our creating the Senate bill, as well as our defense of that Senate action in the conference with the House of Representatives. I want to say, we have had excellent support from the House of Representatives in our conference. It was a very efficient conference. It did not drag on forever. I believe we had over 170 amendments that we had to deal with in conference. As I recall, at the staff level the staff had resolved over 153 of them. Then, as the principals got together prior to the formal conference, we resolved further. This was, I would say, a harmonious, effective, cooperative conference experience. So, I really do not think we have any unresolved, vital, important issues. We have not been able to get the level of funding we would like for many of these important issues, but nevertheless I think we have covered the basic priorities of the administration, of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives. In closing, I want to say I do not believe we can overemphasize the important and vital need of addressing our national infrastructure, whether it be by water, by highway, by rail, by air, by all the modes we have employed in transportation. Urban centers are in deep need of further assistance in the infrastructure to maintain the viability of urban centers. And rural areas, which figure so much into our overall economy, have to have, certainly, consideration as well in their special needs. I always like to repeat a factor, here, that I think sometimes we forget. A lot of people think the infrastructure is sort of a local matter, a local interest, a local priority. Let us not forget, when the great President, and the great general, Dwight Eisenhower, out in Topeka, KS, in his administration, launched the Interstate Highway System, he launched it as an Interstate Defense Highway System. He said such a tying together by a complex infrastructure of transportation was as vital to our national security as were the armaments in our arsenal. He also said that about his Education Defense Act, relating to moneys for education, for health, for housing, for a productive economy. So, I hope we will see this, not as individual States, individual communities, as important as that is, but also as a national interest of high priority for the security of the Nation. Again, it was not only President Eisenhower who gave us that lesson, but we have been reminded frequently by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] of the importance of maintaining our commitment to the infrastructure, as I have sat on everything from a summit with the White House settling certain budget problems, as well as having heard his admonitions on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. His eloquence is always very commending. But I couldn't help but reflect when he goes back to Daniel Webster, that this bill has been crafted across this aisle, between Democrats and Republicans. But if we lived in that period of time, I am convinced all three of us would have been Whigs, because we have to attribute to the Whig Party, even though we sort of fluff it off as an insignificant part of our great history, that it was the Whig Party that held fast in the words of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay and others that building a national infrastructure was of the utmost priority. It was the Democrats who took issue with them on that subject, and is an interesting way of how our political labels and our political philosophies tend to evolve and flow. But I have no doubt that on this issue, the three of us would have been of one party.