Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate now has under consideration House Joint Resolution 115, the second continuing resolution for fiscal year 1996. The current continuing resolution, Public Law 104-31, expires on Monday, November 13, and only 2 of our 13 appropriations bills have been signed into law, so another measure is necessary to provide executive branch authority to obligate funds for Government operations. This continuing resolution has four titles. Title I is the operative part, providing that the rate of operations for activities funded in the 11 appropriations bills not yet signed into law shall be the lowest of the rates provided by the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed bill, or the current rate. Specific provision is made for programs that might be zeroed out under that formulation; namely, such programs may be maintained at a rate of 60 percent of the current rate. The existing CR pegs this minimal level at not to exceed 90 percent of the current rate. In addition, this CR carries a provision, section 112, providing that spending rates may be adjusted to avoid any reduction in force, or RIF, at any of the affected agencies. The expiration of this measure is Friday, December 1. Title II of this measure is an internal housekeeping matter providing for hand enrollment of the reconciliation bill, the debt limit bill, and continuing resolutions. This provision will expedite transmittal of this legislation to the President once passed by both Houses. Title III is the so-called Istook amendment. I expect there will be a motion to strike this title. I will vote for that motion, and I hope it will succeed. Title IV carries two provisions within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Both pertain to the Medicare Program. Mr. President, it should be noted that this joint resolution has been brought to the floor without referral to the Appropriations Committee. I have no objection to doing so, for I recognize the need to save time. But I want to emphasize that this is not a product of the Appropriations Committee, and thus it does not necessarily represent the views of a majority of our committee. In fact, I do not believe our committee would have reported this measure in this form, and I doubt that the members of the committee will support this measure in all of its particulars. I will now yield the floor to Senator Byrd to make whatever opening remarks he may wish to make, and then we can proceed with any amendments or motions that may be offered. I wish to indicate again the pleasure and the efficiency that has been developed by the working relationship with Senator Byrd as the former chairman of our committee which I have enjoyed over a number of years, and now that I am chairman and he is the ranking member, reversed to what it was in previous years, I want to say that it has continued to be an unassailable partnership from which I have derived great pleasure. I also wish once again to thank Senator Kerrey of Nebraska for permitting us to return to this procedure at this time to introduce the resolution and to also assure the Senator, as he is now conversing with the Senator from Wyoming, we are attempting to work out some kind of a resolution of the title relating to the Istook amendment. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I would ask for a quorum call for a few moments.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator knows where my position is on this particular issue. I would like to merely say that the managers of the bill have not been able to make their opening statements at this point because a Democratic Senator arrived on the floor after it was laid down and asked for permission to go back to morning business to make 10 or 15 minutes of remarks. We had no objection to that to accommodate the Democratic Senator, and expected then to open up the issue by our opening statements--Senator Byrd and myself. I want to say to the Senator that part of that delay also has been in trying to work out some kind of an agreement on this particular point. I wonder if the Senator would yield in order to return to that procedure.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have two technical amendments that have to be offered, and they have been cleared on the other side of the aisle by Senator Byrd. They relate to a technical amendment for the U.S. Information Agency and in relation to the DC amendment. So I send these to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, this legislation would provide the flexibility and opportunity for older Americans to remain productive citizens of this Nation. I do not believe that older Americans should be penalized for their ability and willingness to remain active and productive members of society. The current earnings test arbitrarily mandates that a person retire at the age of 65 or face losing benefits. I do not believe that any person who desires to work should be dissuaded from pursuing the goal of employment due to the Tax Code. Finally, let us not forget the hazards our low income senior citizens face who do not possess a pension fund or retirement plan. Low-income seniors who are working out of necessity and face a severe tax penalty should not be penalized for no other reason than their age. For these reasons I support S. 1372 which would increase the earnings limit for seniors. Unfortunately this legislation to correct that inequity was paid for by using discretionary Federal dollars. In the last 30 years we have seen discretionary Federal outlays, as a percentage of this country's gross national product, plummet from over 14 to 8 percent in 1994. Moving money from discretionary accounts to mandatory accounts is moving us in the wrong direction. I look forward to voting to correct this inequity in the Tax Code at a latter date when discretionary spending accounts are not used to offset the cost.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, once again the Senate and the House face the prospect of holding up an important appropriations bill over the issue of abortion. I am dismayed that we find ourselves in this position especially because the bill before the Senate clearly and explicitly prohibits the use of U.S. funds to pay or lobby for abortion in our foreign aid programs. The programs at stake involve family planning--not abortion. I am strongly pro-life and do not support abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is endangered. I am also strongly pro- family planning and have long been an outspoken supporter of our domestic and international family planning efforts. I support family planning because I believe if more couples have access to contraceptives and understand the consequences of the lack of family planning, we can make abortion a moot issue. But beyond making abortion a moot issue, there are also development and environmental consequences of uncontrolled population growth. According to the United Nations, the 1990's will see the greatest increase in human numbers of any decade, as the world's population grows from 5.3 billion to 6.25 billion by the end of this century. We know that rapid population growth in the developing world can overwhelm the gains made in living standards. According to the World Bank, in sub-Saharan Africa the 3.7-percent growth in gross domestic product will not be sufficient to offset the effects of skyrocketing population growth, and the number of poor will increase. On the environment front, when we look at ozone depletion, global warming, destruction of tropical rain forests, and the elimination of species diversity, we inevitably see the connection between those phenomena and the population explosion. The international family planning programs that we fund through the U.S. Agency for International Development and the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] ensure that the United States will maintain a leadership role in addressing the population problem. The House limitations which were struck by the Senate would undermine our ability to continue to play this important role. I would like to mention in particular our support of the UNFPA. The House amendment would prohibit the United States from participating in the UNFPA unless the President certifies that the UNFPA will withdraw its program from China. No one condones China's coercive abortion policy--I certainly do not. In fact, there are specific prohibitions already in law on the use of United States funds for UNFPA's program in China. And although there have been allegations that UNFPA funds were going to support coercive abortions in China, these allegations have never been substantiated. The problem is with China's family planning program, not the UNFPA's. Despite the fact that the United States has been quite outspoken against the practices in China and has already prohibited the use of our funds there, those opposed to family planning continue to use it as a reason to withdraw all of our support for the UNFPA. This would mean that the U.S. could not participate in a program that has the ability to reach into areas where no single U.S. program can. The UNFPA currently provides voluntary family planning assistance to over 140 countries besides China; 90 of those nations have populations expected to double within the next 30 years. In addition, nearly half of UNFPA's assistance is used for family planning services and maternal and child health care in the poorest, most remote regions in the world. As a nation, we cannot afford to limit our participation in the UNFPA. Therefore, I am pleased to say that I am a cosponsor of the Leahy- Kassebaum amendment to strike the House amendment and return to current law on lobbying for or against abortion which was so carefully crafted by our colleague from Kansas. I hope that the Senate will retain the position we had when we first passed this bill. Moreover, I hope those on both sides of the issue will take a closer look at what we are doing by polarizing the issue of abortion and using it to hold up these very important funding bills. Can we not come together to try to resolve the abortion question through the authorizing process? If not, I am afraid we are relegating ourselves to years of deadlock and further polarization.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I want to thank the Senator from Delaware and your staff for your assistance in ensuring that Oregon will be able to continue its innovative experiment. I truly believe other States can learn from Oregon's experience, and you have helped to guarantee that this will happen.

Mr. HATFIELD. Will my colleague from Delaware yield for the purpose of entering into a colloquy?

Mr. HATFIELD. It is my understanding that additional funds have been made available and added to the Medicaid Program. As a result, Oregon will receive more funding during the 7 year budget period than originally expected under the Senate formula.

Mr. HATFIELD. As my colleague knows, Oregon is currently in the middle of a 5-year Medicaid demonstration project known as the Oregon Health Plan which began in 1994. This plan has had an enormous effect on improving access to basic health care to low-income Oregonians. As a result of the cuts to Medicaid funding included in the original Finance Committee proposal, Oregon's ability to carry out this innovative plan was threatened. Is it your understanding that under the new Senate Medicaid formula, Oregon will receive more money than the State estimates it will need during the years 1996 through 1999 to operate the Oregon Health Plan under its current Medicaid waiver?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the relationship of the United States Government with Native American tribes has often been plagued by broken promises and unfinished tasks. Treaties with the four Columbia River fishing tribes, the Warm Springs, Umatillas, Yakima, and the Nez Perce guarantee them the right to fish in the Columbia River. When dams flooded out their fishing sites in the 1930's, the Federal Government agreed to provide 400 acres of new sites ``in lieu of those inundated.'' Throughout the years, we have failed to make good on that commitment. About 40 acres have been provided, and these areas are in poor condition. In 1988, Congress remedied this dilemma by passing the Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites Act. The Act requires the Army Corps of Engineers to rehabilitate the existing sites and develop new sites to the full 400 acres. Once developed the Corps is to transfer the sites to the Bureau of Indian Affairs as trustee for the tribes. Since fiscal year 1994, $7.8 million has been appropriated to the Corps for this purpose. Expenditure of this money has been stalled due to a disagreement between the Corps and the BIA over which would be responsible for operation and maintenance costs after the transfer. The two agencies have reached an agreement and my amendment will provide clear legislative authority for the Corps to transfer the Operation and Maintenance funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I am pleased we have reached an agreement that is acceptable to all the parties involved and I am proud that we have fulfilled our commitment to the tribes.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank my friend for engaging in this dialog with me. kotzebue wind energy project

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Domenici. Included in the conference report to the fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Appropriations bill are provisions related to the Bonneville Power Administration. I would like to focus on these provisions for a moment. As the chairman is aware, a longer term regional review initiative was recently announced by the Bonneville Power Administration and the department of energy. It is my understanding, as a member of the conference, that the conferees were aware of and supported this reexamination of Bonneville's statutory authorities and responsibilities. However, it is my understanding that the conferees did not intend their action in this conference report to prejudice any future regional discussions regarding the comprehensive regional review of Bonneville and the electric utility industry in the Northwest. The sharing of benefits established in the Northwest Power Act of 1980 has been accomplished in large part through a provision in the act known as the residential exchange. It is my understanding that conferees believe there should continue to be a fair sharing of the benefits from the Bonneville system for all ratepayers across the region, consistent with existing law. To further this objective, the conferees provided for $145 million to maintain the residential exchange benefits at approximately the fiscal year 1996 level. It was not intended that BPA's residential exchange payment of $145 million in fiscal year 1997 be recouped from BPA's residential exchange customers in the remaining years of the 5-year rate period. The conference report now before the Senate encourages BPA and its customers to work together to phase out the residential exchange by October 1, 2001. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the conferees did not intend this encouragement to affect the current development of rates by BPA because the outcome of the regional review and settlement discussions are not known at this time. Mr. President, Let me ask the Senator from New Mexico, if this comports with his understanding?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would say to my friend, that the intent of the conferees was to continue to maintain the current eligibility criteria for the essential air service program. However, the decision on how the program should be structured with a reduced funding level should be left to the discretion of the Secretary.

Mr. HATFIELD. I would be pleased to address this issue with the Senators from California.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, that is my understanding.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator from Alaska is correct. Alaska may apply for a share of the $17 million dedicated to ferry boats and facilities. essential air service

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 is proof that this Congress is willing to make the difficult decisions that are needed to balance our Federal budget. That there is agreement between Congress and the executive branch, between Republicans and Democrats, and between the House of Representatives and the Senate, of the need to balance the budget at a date certain is a victory in and of itself. While we may not all agree on how to accomplish that feat, we are at least all proceeding toward a common goal. This legislation continues the effort that is already underway in the Appropriations Committee to balance the budget. To date the Appropriations Committee has reduced Federal spending by $24 billion. My colleagues who have worked to put this legislation together know full well that reducing spending is not an easy task. However, given the size of the national debt, all members know that we must act now and make those tough choices. The prime example that we are ready to make tough choices is proven in this bill's attempt to reign in the exponential growth in entitlement spending. Earlier this year I stated on this floor that I was sobered by the demise of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements and Tax Reform. The Commission was unable to agree on a specific set of recommendations on how to address the issue of continued entitlement growth. I am very happy that the taboo of reforming entitlements may finally be gone. Entitlement spending will continue to grow from 49 percent of the Federal budget in 1995 to 59 percent of the total budget in 2002. Based on these numbers it is clear the entitlement beast has not been slain, but at least the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 takes us in the right direction on the entitlement issue. Like many Members in this chamber, I have some disagreements with the spending decisions in this legislation ad drafted. One of those areas of disagreement relates to the $11 billion reduction in education spending over 7 years. Some members have argued that this cut is small in comparison to total spending in this area, or that the impact is painless on a per person basis. What these arguments fail to consider is the critical role education plays in the success of the Nation's children, the success of this Nation's industries, and the success of this Nation's standing in the world community. Education is an investment in the future. The Senate would be shortsighted to cut this investment short. I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that this provision can be fixed before the Senate finishes its work on this legislation. I am also concerned that this legislation deals a blow to States that have been innovative in addressing the rise in health care costs. The State of Oregon began an experiment in 1994 to expand health care coverage to more Oregonians. The Oregon Health Plan, as it is known, has increased access to basic health care to more than 120,000 low- income Oregonians. This has been accomplished by making rational choices about the effectiveness of health care services and making the delivery system more efficient. Already Oregon has seen significant results. Our costs per beneficiary are 10 percent less than the national average; hospital charity care has decreased by 30 percent; emergency room visits are down by over 5 percent; and our welfare caseloads have decreased by 8 percent in the past year. Unfortunately the legislation before the Senate would inadvertently penalize Oregon for being innovative in its delivery of medical services. I am working with the leadership to ensure that this type of creativity and effective governing is not penalized. There are a number of tough choices in this legislation and the authors should be commended for their work. However, given the fact that 15 percent of the current budget is spent to pay interest on the debt, these tough choices need to be made. We have before us a proposal that will do the job. While I would like to see some reordering of priorities in the legislation, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to assure that a balanced budget becomes a reality. Pension Reversions

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, October 8 through 14 marks the observance of National Fire Prevention Week. During this week, the Nation focuses its attention on fire safety awareness and education. These preventive efforts play an important part in the protection of our citizens from the devastation of accidental fire. While education is vital to fire prevention, the indispensable crux of our country's fire prevention efforts is the men and women who risk their lives daily to protect their community from harmful fires. These hard working individuals diligently serve the public despite the risks inherent in their profession. Sadly, these risks sometimes overtake these public servants. Some may remember the terrible tragedy that occurred near Glenwood Springs, CO last year. On Wednesday, July 6, 1994, 14 elite firefighters died when a wildfire exploded up a mountainside. The Nation grieved that loss and we continued to extend our sympathies to the families and individuals affected. I am especially saddened for the nine young men and women from Oregon who perished in the fire--Bonnie Holtby, Jon Kelso, Tami Bickett, Scott Blecha, Levi Brinkley, Kathi Beck, Rob [[Page S 15141]] Johnson, Terri Hagen, and Doug Dunbar. These fine young men and women represented nearly half of a 20-person crew based in the Central Oregon town of Prineville. But they were not alone; individuals from Idaho, Montana, Georgia, and Colorado also met a tragic fate in the line of duty. Calling themselves the Hot Shots, these elite firefighters were a special breed. The nine from Prineville came from a region especially susceptible to forest fires. But these Hot Shots were committed to fighting fires all over the country and served in States all over the west, where summer fires can be so dangerous. These young men and women came to Colorado directly from fires in California and Oregon. I know they took pride in being part of a national team and a national effort to protect our homes and communities from the terror of forest fires. We have lost tremendous potential, hope, and energy with these young fire-fighters. Nothing can replace the loss of a loved one, but each year in October the Nation pauses to recognize the volunteer and career firefighters who have died in the line of duty. The National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, MD serves as a monument to the courage and dedication of these heroic men and women. This weekend families and friends gather together to mourn the loss of these courageous individuals and to commemorate the valiant service of firefighters across the Nation. As these families collectively grieve, the Nation should share in their grief remembering the sacrifices of firefighters who have lost their lives in the line of duty. As we observe National Fire Prevention week and commemorate the actions of those no longer with us, we should also recognize the courage of our active firefighters who selflessly protect their communities day in and day out. These individuals deserve our recognition, our gratitude, and our highest admiration.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the leader. Let me just reiterate the procedure we are in at this moment on these two appropriations bills. To put it very bluntly, these are corpses, and all the prayers and all the amendments that you can pray or offer are not going to change the reality that these two bills have been clearly identified as two bills to be vetoed. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the wasted effort that is going on on the floor and for the last 48 hours in trying to revive a corpse. It just does not happen this way. It only happened once. [Laughter.] So consequently, it seems to me, if we could voice vote these two bills out, move the process with the CR, the reality is the White House and the Members of Congress, the Budget Committee people, the Appropriations Committee people, are going to have to revisit Defense; Labor-HHS; State, Justice, and Commerce; HUD and independent agencies; and possibly, although the House has now rereferred the bill back to committee, the report on the Interior. Those are veto bills. Now, we are going to have to find more money. It is not a simple proposition to satisfy the White House on those three nondefense bills. So I say, for one who cannot get a plane reservation on a moment's notice like some can--I do have to go clear to the west coast--and my colleagues like me, we cannot just find an hour and say, well, we are going to be finished in the next hour, and get a reservation. So have some consideration, please, on that basis as well, the personal basis. But I just want to say--there is no more blunt way I can put it--we are wasting our time on these two appropriations bills.

Mr. HATFIELD. I could tell you simply, in conjunction with discussions with people at the White House and people representing the White House position, we did not have enough nondefense discretionary dollars for the 602(b) allocations. We had cut too much out of our budget resolution of the program needs and the priorities of the White House, the dollars necessary to get their signature to these bills. Mr. DOLE. As I understand it now, based on conversations with people I have confidence in at the White House, the President will not sign these two bills. They are essentially dead. And I would like to remove them from the Senate Chamber for last rites. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.