Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is unfortunately true that all good things must come to an end. On November 30, 1995, one of the best members of my staff will retire. Patricia Wilbur joined the staff on October 7, 1973, and will soon be joining her husband Perry in a long- deserved respite from the clamor of Capitol Hill. Pat's career is a virtual survey of the technological revolution's impact on the Senate. As my office's systems administrator, Pat has witnessed the transition from typewriters and mimeograph machines, rotary phones and telegrams, to the world of faxes, pagers, cellular phones and computers. Pat has overseen this transformation with grace and humor as well as consummate professionalism. The contribution of a good staffer often goes beyond their technical ability. This is a especially true with Pat. Fondly known as Mrs. Wilbur to several generations of staffers, Pat has helped shaped the lives of young Oregonians who wish to serve in the U.S. service academies and helped us all to be more efficient in our jobs. Pat has added to our hearts with her generosity and expressions of concern and added to our waistlines with her delicious home-baked cakes. During her 22 years in our office, Pat has been a laudable embodiment of hard work, dedication and loyalty. She and I have grayed together-- she far more gracefully than I. Pat has many good reasons for retiring, but three--her grandchildren Stephanie, Michael, and Julie--are the best. We will miss her institutional memory, her compassion and love as well as her competence but have nothing good wishes as she ends her Senate career. I am deeply grateful for Pat Wilbur's many years of invaluable assistance and ask my colleagues to join me in offering our thanks for her service to the U.S. Senate.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I, first, would like to add my word of congratulations to our leadership, Senator Dole, Senator Daschle, the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, and others who have been very much involved. Let me just say, we now have 6 appropriations bills of the 13 signed. So this continuing resolution will cover the seven bills not signed. I think it is very important to note we have now extended until December 15. We must act upon these remaining bills in order to get agreement between the White House and the Congress. And the most important bill, in my view, is the Labor-HHS. That is the only appropriations bill the Senate has refused to consider, and we must move on that bill in order to get it covering the important programs of education, health and public services. Also, for those programs that have been terminated by either the House or the Senate, this will fund those programs at 75 percent of level until that date. Also, it restores the back pay. That may be the best news of all for some of those who are getting down to the end of their resources and need this assurance they will be paid for those days they have been furloughed. So I want to, again, say this is a great occasion to see this impasse brought to an end, and through the extraordinary bipartisan effort of both sides of the aisle and the White House, this achievement is very significant. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the National Highway System conference report does not include the Senate-passed Amtrak passenger rail provision, which provided States the flexibility to use their Federal transportation dollars for passenger rail service. This proposal would have given States the ability to decide what transportation system best meets their needs and allocate their transportation funds accordingly. In a time of severe budget constraints at all levels of government, this provision would have empowered State and local officials to make the best use of the Federal resources provided to them. Sixty-four Senators supported the Amtrak passenger rail amendment when S. 440, the National Highway System designation bill, was debated on the Senate floor. Sixty-four Senators--from both sides of the aisle, representing both very rural States and congested urban States; chairmen of the committees who oversee aviation, highways, and mass transit--supported the provision, recognizing that States need more flexibility in the use of their transportation funds. The State of Oregon is currently involved in a situation requiring ample flexibility to retain an important element of Oregon's transportation infrastructure system. Governor Kitzhaber, Secretary Pena, Amtrak president Downs and I are working together to develop a plan to keep the Cascadia train, which runs between Portland and Eugene, operating. The Cascadia has been an extremely successful passenger rail provider for Oregon and, unfortunately, it is scheduled to be terminated on December 31, 1995. Innovative proposals, such as the Amtrak passenger rail provision, would be extremely helpful in allowing Oregon and other States to meet their respective transportation needs. According to the most recently compiled U.S. Department of Transportation statistics, more than $15,800,000 in CMAQ funds were subject to lapse at the end of fiscal year 1995. It makes absolute sense to make these lapsed funds available to States for the operation of intercity passenger rail. Many other Federal programs that provide State allocations pool all unobligated funds at some point during the fiscal year and redistribute them to States who have projects cleared and awaiting funding. This would provide a solution to transportation challenges in many States and it is consistent with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding priorities. The CMAQ program, created in ISTEA, provides an incentive to focus on transportation alternatives that reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and lower fuel consumption. These funds can be used on transportation programs, projects, strategies, or methods which will contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality standard, whether through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, the reduction of fuel consumption, or other means. Amtrak passenger rail service clearly meets this definition, and should be deemed an eligible use of CMAQ funds. Mr. President, although I am disappointed that the NHS designation conference report came back without the Amtrak passenger rail provision, I do not support a potential motion to recommit this conference report. However, I do want to express my sincere regret that the conference agreement does not include this important provision that would provide my State, and many others, with the needed flexibility to use their Federal transportation dollars in the most effective way possible.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I will just say that some Senators are pro-life and some are pro-choice.

Mr. HATFIELD. I will correct the Record, as well, by saying that the Senator and I have agreement on that. We do not share that same agreement, of course, with other views here in the Senate. Consequently, what I am saying is that that issue has been a very contentious issue over the years. As a consequence, it has slowed the whole process of appropriations down. Those are the reasons that we are at this point in time relating to the appropriations process. We are hoping to strip the riders, as we have been doing, or modify them, or amend them, to make them acceptable downtown in the White House. So I just wanted to indicate again why, from the appropriations point of view, we happen to be in this situation today and are fast trying to extricate ourselves from it, as indicated by the fact that we have seven bills on the President's desk, four of them signed, and how we hope to get the others down to the President within the period between now and December 5.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. Let me further explain that the real problem we have had with appropriations in this particular year is--there are a number of reasons, but let me give you two major reasons. As the Committee on the Budget, on which the Senator serves as the ranking member, presented the budget resolution to this Congress, it called for about a $22 billion reduction in nondefense discretionary programs. Therefore, all of the nondefense programs had to make a rather serious and severe reduction, and the judgments on that have certainly varied. And so we have faced a dollar question, a reduction of dollars. I would like to have had far less in the defense spending. But somehow, the Budget Committee and the bodies, the House and the Senate, have agreed that that is not part of our great reduction scheme. But rather, it is going to be the nondefense programs--education programs, health programs, welfare programs, and so forth. So the committee had to make those judgments. The second problem we have faced--and there are not sufficient dollars to meet the needs on the level of spending that the President has requested or wants--but the other problem we have had increasingly over the years, as the Senator knows, is that nonappropriation matters have been piggybacked on appropriation bills--abortion, school prayer, striker replacement, on and on I could go about legislative matters on the appropriations bills. We could have handled a number of these bills far faster if we had not had to deal with the riders. That has been the second factor. We had an abortion issue on three separate appropriation bills, with a little different wording, a little different application, and so forth and so on. You know how hot an item that is. I happen to be pro-life. The Senator happens to be pro-choice, but nevertheless----

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a moment for me to give a little further explanation?

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as you well know, we have 13 appropriations bills. We now have 7 of those 13 bills that are in the process of being sent down to the White House that we expect to be signed. We have had three or four signed by now: transportation, energy and water, the military construction, and the agriculture bills. We have acted upon foreign operations, and we will be acting today probably on Treasury-Post Office. We have already acted on the legislative. In other words, I think we will have by, hopefully, the end of today seven of these bills on the President's desk signed into law. That means we have the remaining bills. The Defense bill we hope to have acted upon today, the conference, to reach some kind of a conclusion. HUD is meeting today. In other words, December 5 has a very specific reason; we believe that we can get the rest of these appropriations bills completed. And we have stripped things from those bills that have been unacceptable by the President, as the Istook amendment on the Treasury-Post Office, as abortion language that was on the foreign operations bill. So what I am saying is simply that by the December 5 deadline, we expect to have all of those 13 bills completed and, hopefully, signed by the President. As the Senator knows, as the President signs each one of these bills, that part of the Government drops out of this particular stalemate, because that means that money has been appropriated and approved by the President. So we are hoping to have all 13 of those bills completed by December 5. As I say, we hope to have seven signed within the hours of today, or maybe early tomorrow. That is all out of the continuing resolution, all seven of those bills. As we pass each succeeding bill, that will be removed from the continuing resolution, and that part of the Government will be back in full operation, like the energy and water, and agriculture, and so forth, that we have now assigned, and transportation. So that is the reason for the December 5.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, of which we have four of those seven now signed by the President.

Mr. HATFIELD. December 5.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate now has under consideration House Joint Resolution 122, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996. The resolution provides authority to obligate funds for programs and activities normally funded in the nine regular appropriations bills not yet signed into law. The rate of operations is to be the lowest of the current rate, the rate proposed by the Senate or the rate proposed by the House. Programs and activities terminated or significantly reduced under that formulation may be maintained at a rate not to exceed 60 percent of the current rate. And the rate of operations may be adjusted further to avoid reductions in force. The expiration date of this continuing resolution is December 5, 1995. This resolution does not include the provision relative to Medicare part B premiums that was in the measure vetoed by the President on Monday. Let me emphasize, that has been removed. That was the great focus of debate and discussion on that first continuing resolution. That is gone. Instead, there is included the following provision which I will read in its entirety. Section 301 of this continuing resolution: (a) The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002 as scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. (b) The unified balanced budget in subsection (a) shall be based on the most current economic and technical assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office. That is it. Nothing more. Simple, straightforward. Mr. President, I want to say, in adopting this resolution, we are simply recommending and recommitting ourselves to a balanced budget. That is a commitment I believe we all share. There is nothing in this resolution, Mr. President, that says we will achieve balance with tax increases or with tax cuts. There is nothing here that says whether defense spending will rise or fall. There is no mention of Medicare or COLA's or highways or education or the environment. We will have our arguments about all of those things, but we ought to be able to agree that we will balance the budget. That is all we are committing ourselves to. And in stipulating that our efforts should be measured by the Congressional Budget Office, we are only restating what we are already required to do and what the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton himself, asked us to do in his address to a joint session of Congress some time ago. We cannot bring any proposal to this floor that has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The President has agreed to that. As one of those who voted against the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, I argued that we did not need to encumber the Constitution when we could achieve balance within legislation. Members on the other side of the aisle argued the same. I still hold that position, and I ask my [[Page S 17104]] colleagues who stood with me to stand with me in voting for this continuing resolution. I am very interested to hear responses. I cannot understand how anybody can stand on this floor or before the American public and say they are against balancing the budget. We say 2002, and we only say the Congressional Budget Office shall do as is required to be done to score proposals. How can anyone oppose this continuing resolution, unless they have turned their back on the very principle of balancing the budget? Now, if that is so, so be it, but let us be honest and frank with one another. This stalemate we are in now is unnecessary, and we can end it. At the same time, we can commit ourselves to the American public that is expecting us to give some kind of a statement as to when we are going to balance the budget. So let us not get into all these byways and these sidetracks about Medicare and education and all those things. My position is well known on those social programs. I would have liked to have written perhaps a certain major reduction in military spending, but that is a personal view. I will argue that at some other time. But on this continuing resolution, let us put the Government back on track, let us end the stalemate, let us say to the American people we have a separation of powers, but at the same time we can unite ourselves, regardless of our party, regardless of the branch of Government, to a simple goal of balancing the budget by 2002. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Oh, yes. I would say that back in the 1980's we had a CR that went a whole year. We could not resolve those problems. We had other CR's. We had probably three or four in a period from 1981 to 1985, short-term CR's. We had the Government shut down for a couple of days. This is not new. It is not the way to do business.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I would just like to give the body a brief report on the process of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and where our bills are at the moment. I would like to, first of all, indicate that the Senate Appropriations Committee reported all 13 bills to the floor by September 27. The Senate has acted upon 12 of those 13 bills. I, first of all, say they were reported by September 15, and we acted upon 12 of the 13 in the body by September 27. Right at the moment, four of those bills have been signed into law by the President. We have concluded the conference on three more, and we expect to conclude our conference on VA-HUD and the District of Columbia within either hours or within the next day or two. So we can say that that is the movement. [[Page S 17148]] There is one bill that has eluded us, and that is the Labor-HHS appropriations bill upon which the Senate has not acted. I want to say further that as we consider the continuing resolution, if this one is passed and vetoed or if the next one is passed and agreed to, we have to have a benchmark in relation to how we are going to fund Labor-HHS. Up until now, the other side of the aisle has not permitted us to move to bring up the Labor-HHS to be considered here on the floor. So I think in order that we as the members of the Appropriations Committee--I speak at least for myself--I would like to be able to conclude our job on the Senate side. It has to go to conference, of course, with the House-passed bill. I would like to propound a unanimous-consent agreement at this time. I ask unanimous-consent that the majority leader, upon consultation with the minority leader, be authorized to call up H.R. 2127, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill for 1996.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate has before it what?

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, recent breakthroughs in science have brought great hopes in the area of genetics. The human genome project is proceeding with the goal of mapping and sequencing every gene in the human body. The potential of identifying disease characteristics through their genetic makeup brings great hope to those suffering from an array of diseases such as Huntington disease, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, and breast cancer. Unfortunately, these advances also raise profound ethical, legal, and social questions relating to access to genetic testing, insurability, employability, and confidentiality. While many doctors are offering genetic testing to patients with a history of a genetic-related disease to identify their own risk, many patients and physicians are not capable of dealing with the consequences of this information. For example, is the patient required to share this information with the health insurance company? How about their employer? Does the physician have an obligation to share this information? There have already been cases of discrimination as a result of an employer learning of an employee's genetic risk. In addition, cases have arisen where health insurance access was denied as a result of a genetic predisposition. This is problematic because we are only in the first stages of understanding the human genome. Genetic testing has proven effective in some cases but it can be argued that the presence of a gene or certain genetic characteristics will not always result in the onset of the particular illness. The potential for discrimination is great. Although several States, including my own State of Oregon, have begun to address the issue of genetic information and health insurance, there are currently no Federal laws governing the use of genetic information. The legislation that I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Mack, is modeled on the Genetic Privacy Act recently passed by the Oregon Legislature. It also draws on recommendations made by the NIH-sponsored ELSI Working Group and the National Action Plan on Breast Cancer. The purpose of the Genetic Privacy Act of 1995 is to establish some initial limitations with respect to the disclosure and use of genetic information with the goal of balancing the need to protect the rights of the individual against society's interests. The bill is intended as a first step--to ensure that there are some Federal standards in place in the most critical areas of concern. I see it as a working draft to be refined as the science progresses. The bill would define the rights of individuals whose genetic information is disclosed. In addition, it would protect against discrimination by an insurer or employer based upon an individual's genetic characteristics. First, the bill prohibits the disclosure of genetic information by anyone without the specific written authorization of the individual. This disclosure provision could apply to health care professionals, health care institutions, laboratories, researchers, employers insurance companies, and law enforcement officials. The written authorization must include a description of the information being disclosed, the name of the individual or entity to whom the disclosure is being made, and the purpose of the disclosure. This provision preserves the individual's ability to control the disclosure of his or her genetic information. There are several exceptions for the purposes of criminal or death investigations, specific orders of Federal or State courts for civil actions, paternity establishment, specific authorization by the individual, genetic information relating to a decedent for the medical diagnosis of blood relatives of the decedent, or identifying bodies. Second, the legislation prohibits employers from seeking to obtain or use genetic information of an employee or prospective employee in order to discriminate against that person. In March 1995, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] released official guidance on the definition of the term ``disability''. The EEOC's guidance clarifies that protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act extends to individuals who are discriminated against in employment decisions based solely on genetic information. Issuance of the EEOC's guidance is precedent setting--it is the first Federal protection against the unfair use of genetic information. The provision included in the bill is intended to reiterate the ruling of the EEOC and make it clear that this practice would be prohibited under Federal law. Third, the legislation prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to reject, deny, limit, cancel, refuse to renew, increase rates, or otherwise affect health insurance. This is in line with changes that are currently under consideration with regard to health insurance and preexisting condition exclusions. A study of genetic discrimination prepared by Paul R. Billings, M.D. and cited by the NIH-DOE ELSI Working Group in their report entitled ``Genetic Information and Health Insurance,'' indicates that there have been a number of cases of discrimination already as the result of an insurer learning of an individual's genetic predisposition. One woman who was found to carry the gene that causes cystic fibrosis was told she and her children were not insurable unless her husband was determined not to carry the cystic fibrosis gene. She went without health insurance for several months while this was determined. In another case, a man diagnosed with Huntington disease was denied health insurance on the basis that it was a preexisting condition, even though no previous diagnosis of Huntington had been made. As the prevalence of genetic testing spreads, so does the risks of discrimination. Women found to carry the gene that indicates breast cancer susceptibility, BRCA1, fear they will lose health coverage if their insurer finds out. However, having this information may provide early treatment and prevention options for the woman. The provision relating to health insurance in the bill will provide much needed assurance to individuals with genetic predispositions. This will ensure that they will not risk losing their health coverage when they need it the most. Finally, the bill requires the recently established National Bioethics Advisory Commission to submit to Congress their recommendations on further protections for the collection, storage, and use of DNA samples and genetic information obtained from those samples, and appropriate standards for the acquisition and retention of genetic information in all settings. This provision is intended to ensure that the social consequences of genome research are considered as the technology develops and not after the fact. Madam President, as I said previously, this is a first step. This bill addresses the most pressing concerns surrounding genetic testing and the disclosure of genetic information as they relate to health insurer and employer discrimination. I believe this is a good beginning and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, very shortly I am going to move to table the underlying Senate amendment, amendment No. 115, which will take with it both the original amendment by Senator Kassebaum and the House amendment by Congressmen Callahan and Smith. Madam President, I need not talk further about the crisis that we all face today and of the need to resolve the crisis. I am taking a small step to narrow the area of disagreement between the White House and the Congress. But I want to make it very clear that I speak as a deeply committed, unadulterated pro-life person, and I have cast my votes on this Senate floor scores of times on that issue. I ran a political campaign in my State for reelection when that issue was of paramount importance, and Oregon is considered the most pro-choice State in the country. So I want it clearly understood that, regardless of my personal viewpoint on this question, I have to look at the fact that we are legislating on an appropriations bill, and we do so regularly. We have three appropriations bills struggling with this issue of abortion. Not one of these amendments belongs on an appropriations bill. It violates the rules of the Senate. It violates the orderly legislative process. At the same time, this very issue and this form of the abortion question is already on the foreign relations reauthorization bill adopted by the House of Representatives, by the same authors, which will be here for consideration by the full Senate. That is where the issue should be debated. That is where the issue should be worked out, not on the foreign operations appropriation bill. I realize that when you get into the position of trying to explain procedure to the public, you are lost. But, nevertheless, this is a fundamental procedural question that we have to consider seriously. Bear in mind we could have a vote on this--and I plan to ask for the yeas and nays--so that everyone will have an opportunity to express his or her viewpoint and to cast a vote. I hope that people vote on the procedural question rather than on the abortion question. That is probably wishing against all odds, but I do feel that even as a pro-life person I will have to vote to table this amendment that was put on this appropriations bill. I have no desire to further encumber the appropriations process and to further exacerbate the contention that now exists between the White House and the Congress. We have to take some small steps to bridge and to resolve that conflict, and I think we ought to be about the business of resolving it rather than exacerbating the circumstances of conflict. So we can pass this bill. If we will adopt this tabling motion, we can pass this bill that has been approved by this Senate before with 90-some votes. It has gone through the conference with very little acrimony. So then we can get this bill down to the White House, and the President, as I understand, has signaled that he will sign this appropriations bill. We are going to get the Transportation bill down to the White House today. The President has indicated he will sign it. We have cleared up the Treasury-Post Office problem in conference. The House will send that over to us. I hope we can get it down tonight or early tomorrow. The President will probably sign it. And then legislative. We can have 7 of the 13 appropriations bills completed and signed by the President in the next 48 hours. That is going to make the job of reconciling the so-called balanced budget question--or sometimes referred to as the reconciliation, or the continuing resolution--and the debt ceiling; all these others that we must act upon. I think this will help facilitate those other tasks that we have. So now I move to table the underlying Senate amendment, amendment No. 115, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, recent breakthroughs in science have brought great hopes in the area of genetics. The human genome project is proceeding with the goal of mapping and sequencing every gene in the human body. The potential of identifying disease characteristics through their genetic makeup brings great hope to those suffering from an array of diseases such as Huntington disease, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, and breast cancer. Unfortunately, these advances also raise profound ethical, legal, and social questions relating to access to genetic testing, insurability, employability, and confidentiality. While many doctors are offering genetic testing to patients with a history of a genetic-related disease to identify their own risk, many patients and physicians are not capable of dealing with the consequences of this information. For example, is the patient required to share this information with the health insurance company? How about their employer? Does the physician have an obligation to share this information? There have already been cases of discrimination as a result of an employer learning of an employee's genetic risk. In addition, cases have arisen where health insurance access was denied as a result of a genetic predisposition. This is problematic because we are only in the first stages of understanding the human genome. Genetic testing has proven effective in some cases but it can be argued that the presence of a gene or certain genetic characteristics will not always result in the onset of the particular illness. The potential for discrimination is great. Although several States, including my own State of Oregon, have begun to address the issue of genetic information and health insurance, there are currently no Federal laws governing the use of genetic information. The legislation that I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Mack, is modeled on the Genetic Privacy Act recently passed by the Oregon Legislature. It also draws on recommendations made by the NIH-sponsored ELSI Working Group and the National Action Plan on Breast Cancer. The purpose of the Genetic Privacy Act of 1995 is to establish some initial limitations with respect to the disclosure and use of genetic information with the goal of balancing the need to protect the rights of the individual against society's interests. The bill is intended as a first step--to ensure that there are some Federal standards in place in the most critical areas of concern. I see it as a working draft to be refined as the science progresses. The bill would define the rights of individuals whose genetic information is disclosed. In addition, it would protect against discrimination by an insurer or employer based upon an individual's genetic characteristics. First, the bill prohibits the disclosure of genetic information by anyone without the specific written authorization of the individual. This disclosure provision could apply to health care professionals, health care institutions, laboratories, researchers, employers insurance companies, and law enforcement officials. The written authorization must include a description of the information being disclosed, the name of the individual or entity to whom the disclosure is being made, and the purpose of the disclosure. This provision preserves the individual's ability to control the disclosure of his or her genetic information. There are several exceptions for the purposes of criminal or death investigations, specific orders of Federal or State courts for civil actions, paternity establishment, specific authorization by the individual, genetic information relating to a decedent for the medical diagnosis of blood relatives of the decedent, or identifying bodies. Second, the legislation prohibits employers from seeking to obtain or use genetic information of an employee or prospective employee in order to discriminate against that person. In March 1995, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] released official guidance on the definition of the term ``disability''. The EEOC's guidance clarifies that protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act extends to individuals who are discriminated against in employment decisions based solely on genetic information. Issuance of the EEOC's guidance is precedent setting--it is the first Federal protection against the unfair use of genetic information. The provision included in the bill is intended to reiterate the ruling of the EEOC and make it clear that this practice would be prohibited under Federal law. Third, the legislation prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to reject, deny, limit, cancel, refuse to renew, increase rates, or otherwise affect health insurance. This is in line with changes that are currently under consideration with regard to health insurance and preexisting condition exclusions. A study of genetic discrimination prepared by Paul R. Billings, M.D. and cited by the NIH-DOE ELSI Working Group in their report entitled ``Genetic Information and Health Insurance,'' indicates that there have been a number of cases of discrimination already as the result of an insurer learning of an individual's genetic predisposition. One woman who was found to carry the gene that causes cystic fibrosis was told she and her children were not insurable unless her husband was determined not to carry the cystic fibrosis gene. She went without health insurance for several months while this was determined. In another case, a man diagnosed with Huntington disease was denied health insurance on the basis that it was a preexisting condition, even though no previous diagnosis of Huntington had been made. As the prevalence of genetic testing spreads, so does the risks of discrimination. Women found to carry the gene that indicates breast cancer susceptibility, BRCA1, fear they will lose health coverage if their insurer finds out. However, having this information may provide early treatment and prevention options for the woman. The provision relating to health insurance in the bill will provide much needed assurance to individuals with genetic predispositions. This will ensure that they will not risk losing their health coverage when they need it the most. Finally, the bill requires the recently established National Bioethics Advisory Commission to submit to Congress their recommendations on further protections for the collection, storage, and use of DNA samples and genetic information obtained from those samples, and appropriate standards for the acquisition and retention of genetic information in all settings. This provision is intended to ensure that the social consequences of genome research are considered as the technology develops and not after the fact. Madam President, as I said previously, this is a first step. This bill addresses the most pressing concerns surrounding genetic testing and the disclosure of genetic information as they relate to health insurer and employer discrimination. I believe this is a good beginning and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I move that the Senate insist on its amendment and agree to the conference requested by the House.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on a bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives. Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2491) entitled ``An Act to provide reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996'', and ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Ordered, That the following Members be the managers of the conference on the part of the House: For consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Kasich, Mr. Walker, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Bonior, and Mr. Stenholm. As additional conferees from the Committee on the Budget, for consideration of title XX of the House bill, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Shays, Mr. Hobson, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. Coyne. As additional conferees from the Committee on Agriculture, for consideration of title I of the House bill, and subtitles A-C of title I of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Roberts, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Gunderson, Mr. de la Garza, and [VACANCY]. As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, for consideration of title II of the House bill, and title III of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Leach, Mr. McCollum, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. LaFalce. As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce, for consideration of title III of the House bill, and subtitle A of title IV, subtitles A and G of title V, and section 6004 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Bliley, Mr. Schaefer, and Mr. Dingell. As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce, for consideration of title XV of the House bill, and subtitle A of title VII of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Bliley, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Pallone. As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce, for consideration of title XVI of the House bill, and subtitle B of title VII of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Bliley, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Pallone. [[Page S 16944]] As additional conferees from the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, for consideration of title IV of the House bill, and title X of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Goodling, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Clay. As additional conferees from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for consideration of title V of the House bill, and title VIII and sections 13001 an 13003 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Clinger, Mr. Schiff, and Mrs. Collins of Illinois. As additional conferees from the Committee on International Relations, for consideration of title VI of the House bill, and section 13002 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Gilman, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr. Hamilton. As additional conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of title VII of the House bill, and title IX and section 12944 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Hyde, Mr. Moorhead, and Mr. Conyers. As additional conferees from the Committee on National Security, for consideration of title VIII of the House bill, and title II of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Spence, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Dellums. As additional conferees from the Committee on Resources, for consideration of title IX of the House bill, and title V (except subtitles A and G) of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Miller of California. As additional conferees from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for consideration of title X of the House bill, and subtitles B and C of title IV and title VI (except section 6004) of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Shuster, Mr. Clinger, and Mr. Oberstar. As additional conferees from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for consideration of title XI of the House bill, and title XI of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Stump, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Montgomery. As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of titles XII, XIII, XIV, and XIX of the House bill, and subtitles H and I of title VII and title XII (except section 12944) of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Archer, Mr. Crane, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Bunning of Kentucky, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Stark: Provided, That Mr. Matsui is appointed in lieu of Mr. Stark for consideration of title XII of the House bill. As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of title XV of the House bill, and subtitle A of title VII of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Archer, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Cardin.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Gregg]. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. This procedure has been cleared with----