Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Mr. Bumpers of Arkansas and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that modifies language relating to the essential air services offered by the Senator from Arkansas. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is an amendment relating to the ICC providing severance pay and closing costs. It has no budgetary impact. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Feinstein and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, 90 years ago, in the basement of a Portland, OR, Lutheran church, Concordia College was founded. Two years later, its founder moved the college to a 5-acre plot in Northeast Portland and erected the first building of Evangelical Lutheran Concordia College. That spring of 1907 was a very special time in the life of Concordia--a new location, a new building, a recognizable presence. The year 1995 ushers in another new era for this college. On August 26, the board of regents, faculty, staff, students and friends of Concordia will gather to celebrate Concordia College's transition to its new status as Concordia University. From 1905 through 1995, this institution has experienced a wealth of significant, laudable accomplishments. I would mention 1946, when Concordia reached junior college status, 1977 when the college was granted 4-year status and 1987 when the Board of Regents adopted a successful planning strategy known as the Keller Plan, after education expert and consultant George Keller. When the college was made up of 17 young men and an $800 budget, in 1905, it would have seemed implausible that 90 years later it would have 1,000 men and women students, a Health Care Administration program ranked among the top five in the country and the only baccalaureate degree program in Environmental Remediation and Hazardous Materials Management--an extremely important program, especially given the serious energy issues facing the Pacific Northwest. Today, Concordia College has five schools: arts and sciences, business, health and social services, teacher education, and theological studies. In the fall of 1996, these five schools will become five colleges designated under Concordia University. Throughout this transition, Concordia's mission of developing leaders for the church and leaders for society has remained constant. It has remained committed to the spiritual growth of its students and [[Page S 11798]] the rigorous academic standards of its courses. I wish to congratulate all those who have had a partnership in the growth of Concordia College, its faculty, staff, and students. I would also like to mention the outstanding leadership of Concordia's president, Charles E. Schlimpert, its Board of Regents and the Concordia College Foundation Board of Directors. The direction they are providing will lead Concordia University into a bright future. Mr. President, I ask that Concordia University's formal mission statement be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Mission Statement Concordia University, of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, is a center of higher learning that assists students in their lifelong quests for full realization of spiritual, intellectual, social, physical, relational and emotional development. Professional education, grounded in the liberal arts and enriched by relevant co-curricular activities, will strengthen the Church and world community by encouraging the development of Christian values, and an attitude of service among Concordia University students.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to a long-time staff member and close friend who has devoted almost two decades of her life to serving those in need. Her exceptional skills as a mother, wife and community leader have manifested themselves in every facet of her professional career as a caseworker and office manager on my staff. Suzanne Marie Beede has assisted more than 12,000 Oregonians over the last 17 years, reuniting families, creating new families through foreign adoptions and helping veterans and senior citizens by communicating with appropriate Federal agencies. Her compassion, humanitarianism, and respect for people all over the world have driven her to excel as a caseworker. Her desire to see difficult situations brought to a just resolution has molded her professionalism to an art. She has never wavered in her motivation to provide uncompromising assistance to those in need. Sue has demonstrated an ability to rise to any occasion, from calling American embassies at 3 a.m. to alert a consular officer of a dire emergency situation, to helping me prepare for last minute press conferences. Her accomplishments have fueled my belief that in servitude and faith lies the ability to improve the human condition. Her contributions to my family life and professional career have been innumerable and invaluable. Throughout our 17 years together, we have seen the face of my staff change several times. We have weathered personal hardships, including the loss of a very dear colleague, and we have celebrated the joys public service brings. It is with best wishes for her future success that I say goodbye to Sue as one of the most valued members of my staff. Although her role as my premier caseworker is coming to a close, her place in my heart remains permanent.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I would like to ask if this would be a convenient time for me to speak.

Mr. HATFIELD. I am trying to get ahead of the game at 10 o'clock.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the Exon amendment, the Exon-Hatfield amendment, and I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. HATFIELD. I wonder if the Senator from Nevada will yield for a question.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator and I thank Senator Exon. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to join with Senator Exon this morning. The Senator from Nebraska is perhaps one of the Senate's most knowledgeable persons on the issues involving the nuclear weapons stockpile. He has certainly demonstrated leadership in protecting the integrity of the stockpile, as well as the efforts to end nuclear proliferation. So I do not believe this is an either/or situation. I think it is a very wise approach that the Senator from Nebraska has created for us to consider. I think every Senator should be aware that the bill as reported by the Armed Services Committee contains an extremely provocative, unnecessary, and expensive provision which would allow for the preparation of hydronuclear experiments which would yield expulsions up to 20 tons. Mr. President, we got out of that nuclear explosive testing business 3 years ago by the actions of this body. Three years ago, the Congress adopted a moratorium on underground nuclear testing, and this moratorium was put in place as an acknowledgment after hundreds-- hundreds--of underground tests of our nuclear stockpile. It was in our national interest not to test. The Armed Services Committee in its report justifies this provision and the authorization for $50 million to prepare for these tests with a statement that it is concerned about the readiness of the Nevada test site. This is the wrong reason to test. In fact, this is not a reason [[Page S 11357]] at all. It is no reason. I will be interested to learn the source of concerns about the test site's readiness capabilities--who dreamed this up, and why the preparation for a hydronuclear test is the preferred option for maintaining that readiness. I think we deserve to have that kind of information and the source of it. As most Senators know, the Exon-Hatfield-Mitchell law, which initiated our testing moratorium 3 years ago, acknowledged the possibility that a resumption of testing could be necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the stockpile. Following an initial 9- month moratorium on testing, the Exon-Hatfield-Mitchell law allows for a 3-year program of limited testing and no more than five tests per year. So there is a flexibility factor already in the law. To date, the President of the United States has not certified that any weapon in the arsenal has a safety or reliability problem that would require explosive testing. So certainly the President, who has a role to play in this, and especially through the Department of Defense, has no request for this. This is pure and simple a resurrection of the cold war mentality that has dominated this Congress for too long, especially under the military industrial complex that exists all over this country that former President Eisenhower warned this country against. Yet the Armed Services Committee is recommending that the full Senate approve $50 million to prepare for the commencement of a series of tests at the Nevada test site. Why? There is no justification for these funds. There is no request for these funds--not from the Department of Defense, not from the President of the United States, not from the National Security Council, not from any body of authority that represents the major responsibility for protecting this country. The provision included in the bill must be removed. It is dangerous and provocative and threatens the goal clearly stated by a Congress when it adopted the Exon-Hatfield-Mitchell law. That goal is the successful negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Let me say that again. The goal is a comprehensive test ban treaty, not the renewal of testing to challenge the rest of the nations of the world. Mr. President, current CTB negotiations led by the United States contain a discussion about thermal nuclear tests, but the official position of the United States is that the comprehensive test ban should prohibit all nuclear tests exceeding 4 pounds. Four pounds, Mr. President, not 40,000 pounds as the Armed Services Committee is proposing. I believe that the provision in this bill and its accompanying report are fatally flawed. Let me read to my colleagues a passage from page 367 of the Armed Services report: The Committee recognizes that the administration is currently negotiating a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in an effort to preclude or make more difficult the spread of nuclear weapons. However, the committee notes that sub- kiloton hydronuclear experiments are not particularly suitable for bomb development or giving foreign military planners confidence in a nuclear weapons design. I am stunned by this passage. It is factually incorrect. Independent nuclear weapons experts have made it clear that hydronuclear tests are useful to proliferant states attempting to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. That is the very reason the United States comprehensive test ban negotiation position bars such tests over a few pounds of yield. This bill ignores these facts and argues that the United States should prepare for tests anyway. It is clear to me and should be to all of my colleagues that the provision included in the bill is at the very best a very unfortunate mistake. The President has not requested these tests. The independent group of nuclear weapons experts known as the JASON group concurs that testing because no safety or reliability problem exists. If this mistake is left unrepaired, it will result in grave consequences. American public opinion is solidly behind the effort to achieve a comprehensive test ban treaty and expect our leadership in the negotiations. If this bill is adopted with the current provision intact, we will irreparably harm our ability to negotiate a comprehensive test ban. I fully expect the American public and people around the world to react with the same astonishment and anger that it vented when France announced its decision to resume testing. The Exon-Hatfield proposed amendment must be adopted if we are to avoid a return to the Dark Ages of a nuclear arms race. Three years ago we were able to end the cycle of vague justifications for underground nuclear testing and replace them with concrete requirements which must be met before testing resumes. The provision included in this bill breaks current law and will likely lead to irreparable harm to the comprehensive test ban negotiations. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I would make one final note. The Senate has already completed action on the energy and water appropriations bill, which contains funding for weapons activities. That bill does not include funds for hydronuclear testing. Voting for this amendment would be consistent--that is, voting for our proposed amendment, Senator Exon's and mine--with current law as well as appropriations for the coming fiscal year. And I can assure the Armed Services Committee I will do all within my power as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to block any funding for this kind of foolishness if it should prevail in this final bill. Now, Mr. President, I would add one final note. For the last few days I have been asked to interview on my experience in Hiroshima a month after the bomb had been dropped, following World War II. It has only been the last few years that I would even like to talk about that kind of experience. But how--how absolutely immoral, how insensitive to begin to act for this kind of provision on the 50th anniversary of that horrible devastation that was wreaked upon Hiroshima and the people of Japan. What a monster we let loose in that situation. It saved my life. I can attest to that because we were stationed for the invasion of Japan at the time. And having been in that occupation of September 2, 1945, and seen the following MacArthur order to put a white sheet before each of the gun emplacements at the very area we were to invade it was like sailing through inland seas of checkerboards. It would have been a murderous crossfire upon which probably who knows, a million people would have lost their lives. But nevertheless--nevertheless--not trying to judge in hindsight the wisdom of that bomb, the fact is, how insensitive on the 50th anniversary of that bomb to propose something of returning to the Dark Age mentality of testing again for increasing the capacity to kill and to destroy life as this would lead us to. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. I would not want to debate that issue with the Senator, because I know that he made that with care, understanding, with great feeling. I do feel, based upon the kind of outpouring of criticism that was leveled by all parts of the world against France for its announced intention to resume testing, that it would be escalated by about a hundredfold against the United States because of our superb leadership role we play in making those policies that affect the whole world, far more than France. But nevertheless, even with France, it is a setback. I think it would be even a greater setback and perhaps lead to total impossibility of success if you resume testing. (Mr. SHELBY assumed the chair.)

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my honor to propose the designation of the Federal building in Baker City, OR, as the David J. Wheeler Federal Building. Mr. David J. Wheeler was an outstanding citizen until his life came to a tragic end on April 26, 1995. Mr. Wheeler, a U.S. Forest Service engineer working the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, was brutally murdered by two juveniles while on assignment in the Payette National Forest in Idaho. Mr. Wheeler's death has had a tremendous impact on the entire community in Baker City because he was an active civic leader involved in and committed to his hometown. A true altruist, Mr. Wheeler was a member of the Baker City Rotary Club and was the president-elect at the time of his death. Mr. Wheeler volunteered as a coach at the local YMCA. In 1994 the Baker County Chamber of Commerce selected Mr. Wheeler as the Baker County Father of the Year. These honors are a clear illustration of the model citizen Mr. Wheeler was in his community. The Federal building in Baker City is currently unnamed and houses the U.S. Post Office, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. To designate this building as the David J. Wheeler Federal Building is a tribute to an extraordinary American and will commemorate the contributions Mr. Wheeler selflessly provided to his community.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I agree that Congress should increase the minimum wage standard. I have voted for minimum wage increases in the past and I will vote for reasonable minimum wage increases in the future. The minimum wage, established in 1938 by the Fair Labor Standards Act, has been raised 17 times. From 1938 to 1974, the wage was raised from 25 cents to $2 per hour. The last two increases took place in 1990 when the wage level was set at $3.80 and then again in 1991 when it was raised to its current level. I voted both for final passage and the conference report of the wage increases of 1990 and 1991. If the minimum wage had kept pace with the Consumer Price Index, the current level would be $6.85 today. I want to work in a bipartisan fashion with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts in passing the minimum wage, but I feel the schedule of the Senate is best left in the care of the majority leader in his preparation of the schedule of the Senate.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, recent polls have shown that public approval of Congress is dismally low. The American people have tired of what they perceive as business as usual in Washington. A politician has ceased to be a word to describe a political leader, but instead it embodies a perception of Members of Congress who pander to special interest and are steeped in corruption. It saddens me to think that the greatest deliberative body in the world and the very bedrock of our democracy is held in such ill repute. While I do not think gifts necessarily translate into influence peddling by special interests, we need to avoid all appearances of impropriety if we are serious about regaining the public trust. Our business as legislators is invalid and inconsequential if we cannot command the respect of the people we serve. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Senate gift rule reforms will not wholly restore the public's confidence in the institution in which we serve, but I believe they take significant steps in the right direction. The status quo is not sufficient, and I am encouraged by the bipartisan support for these measures. I have adopted a gift ban for myself, and I welcome the extension of a similar policy to the entire Senate. The time has come for the reforms proposed in these two pieces of legislation. We must be guided by the premise that the public's trust and confidence are more important than anything else. This bill eliminates many appearances of impropriety and it enables us to make strides at restoring the people's faith in democracy.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, since its original passage in 1990, I have been a strong supporter of the Ryan White CARE Act. In the early 1980's as we saw the rapid spread of AIDS throughout our Nation, it became apparent that HIV and AIDS treatment and care services were lacking. This bill has made a significant difference in building an infrastructure of critical care services for those suffering from this horrible disease. We all know the chilling facts--AIDS is now the leading cause of death of young Americans ages 25 to 44. The prevalence of the disease among women is rising dramatically. In my own State of Oregon, we have seen more than 2,900 AIDS cases since 1981. Nearly 1,000 of these cases were reported in 1993 and 1994. In addition, there are currently an estimated 6,000 to 10,000 Oregonians infected with HIV. We can now say that nearly every Oregon county is affected. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the early 1980's, I was able to play a role in providing the first Federal AIDS funding. We were able to take these first steps in the absence of an AIDS authorization bill until the 100th Congress, when the first authorization bill was passed. Despite the dim fiscal realities we face this year in the Appropriations Committee, I remain committed to assuring that funding for health care programs and medical research, including the important HIV and AIDS programs authorized under this bill, are funded to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in considering the legislation pending before the Senate today which requires the President to unilaterally lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina, I am struck by the following question: What is our goal? My colleagues have stated that we can no longer stand by and watch the Bosnians continue to be slaughtered by the Serbian army. By lifting the embargo, we are giving the Bosnians the means to stand up and fight the Serbs on an even footing. In their minds, we are helping to prevent further killing of Bosnians. But are we really doing that or are we contributing to more bloodshed, more killing, and more ethnic cleansing? As I have said several times in the past when the Senate has been faced with this issue, lifting the arms embargo will not guarantee peace. It will only widen the war and guarantee more deaths on both sides. Lifting the arms embargo contingent on the removal of United Nations Protective Forces does not take into consideration humanitarian concerns. It will not lead to greater protection of civilians and refugees in the safe areas. Rather it will lead to further violence against them. While I agree that the international efforts of the United Nations have faltered in recent months, I do not believe that lifting the arms embargo is the appropriate response. To be honest, short of full scale military intervention, no one in the international community has a comprehensive solution to ending the conflict in Bosnia. Although some may see lifting the arms embargo as the only solution right now, it does not get us any closer to finding a comprehensive solution or to bringing the war to a close. It is still my opinion that the only way to end the war in Bosnia is to bring economic and diplomatic pressure to bear against the Serbs and their allies. We must begin by making a greater effort to cut off Serbian access to arms. Only by choking off their ability to conduct the war in Bosnia will we be able to bring them to the negotiating table. Again, I return to my original question: What is our goal in lifting the arms embargo? What are we trying to achieve? I do not believe anyone in this body truly believes that any kind of humanitarian or peace-bringing goal is accomplished by this ill-fated action. For that reason, I will once again oppose this legislation.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to table the first division of the Wellstone amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to table the second division of the Wellstone amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining votes in the voting sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous- consent request.