Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield to my colleague at this time for his opening remarks.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his kind personal remarks. I also thank him for focusing again on this vital part of our national transportation system, Amtrak. I have to say to the Senator that I can't disagree with a word he said vis-a-vis the importance of Amtrak not only to the East and Northeast corridor specifically but throughout the whole Nation. I have to say that we lost a leg of that Amtrak due to cutbacks and reductions from Portland to Boise, the Pioneer. It was a hard pill to swallow. That affected my constituency very directly. We lost a number of other legs to the Amtrak. But, Mr. President, I have to come back to some fundamentals here in which we operate, and to say not only have we at the Senate level--we came into the conference with $872 million for Amtrak. That is all the funding relating to Amtrak; and had to deal with the House of Representatives with $542 million. We came out with $760 million which is still $10 million more than the level of 1996. When I say we have to look at the context in which we in the Appropriations Committee operate, we have to go back to the budget resolution. We have to go back to the proposition that there are those who think we can balance the budget by only an 18 percent baseline; namely, the nondefense discretionary programs. Mr. President, I want to say--now from my perspective--that we will never balance the budget on that kind of a baseline. But we exempt all entitlements, we exempt all mandated spending programs, we exempt the military, or the defense programs, and then we come down to 18 percent which is the nondefense discretionary part of the budget. We say we are going to balance the budget on that. With the expansion of these others, particularly the entitlement programs, by the year 2011 or 2015--wherever you want to light on with these economic projections--we will not have a penny of money left for nondefense programs and challenging even defense programs because they will all be swallowed up by the entitlements. But, oh, we get so nervous any time we talk about touching those entitlements. When I say ``entitlements,'' I mean including Social Security. You can say, ``Well, Hatfield, it is easy for you to say that. You are on your way out. You do not have to face the consequences.'' I want you to know that I voted in 1986 for an across-the-board freeze on all entitlements. I had a reelection campaign facing me in 1990. Nevertheless, that is not the important part of it. I am making the point simply that we cut $22 billion off of Federal spending levels, and it was all in nondefense discretionary. A lot of people talk about reducing the size of Government. It is easy to talk that. But let me tell you. It has been the appropriators that have been really at the business of reducing the size of Government, but with, of course, the assistance of the Budget Committee, and many other committees as well. But I am saying we are the executioners. And we have been put into a situation, as I have said before, of performing surgery without the benefit of anesthetics. We have to face up to these. And we shoulder the burden. So I say that we are going to have to begin to really put this into context when we are dealing with the lesser amount for Amtrak--or the lesser amount for some other favorite program, or worthy program such as Amtrak--that what the appropriators ended up doing was the command of the reductions made by the body. And that command took place in many different forms--not just the Budget Committee or the budget resolution. I am happy to say that we have raised the level for Amtrak. Maybe it is a very small amount. But many other accounts went down 10 percent, or 15 percent, or 20 percent. Amtrak went up a fraction. But, nevertheless, we had what you might call a freeze level of Amtrak. I want to say, too, at this point that I am very, very impressed with Tom Downs. I am a staunch supporter of Tom Downs. He has been given a tremendous task of administering Amtrak, and he has not been given the tools really to do the job or to fulfill the mission which has been set for Amtrak. The Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, made that very clear-- about Amtrak ultimately becoming self-supporting. So, Mr. President, I join with the critics of this appropriations bill. But all I can say is we have done our very best under limited conditions of not only dollars but policies that surround us. Senator Byrd brought up the Baucus amendment. I have to say again that my State was not affected that much one way or the other. But when you get into rewriting formulas, it is very, very difficult to do that without the support or the acquiescence of the authorizing committees. I have to say that we dropped that. We receded to the House because the information we had was the House authorizing committee would not consent to those formula changes proposed by the Baucus amendment. The House operates under perhaps more structure than the Senate. Being a much larger body it is incumbent that they do operate that way. I am not being critical. But the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee brings in a statement of the chairman of the House authorizing committee that he will in no way acquiesce for the appropriators to take this kind of action, that sort of freezes in the appropriators on the House side more so than it does with us because we are a smaller body and we operate a little more informally, and we communicate quickly maybe even on the floor while we are debating an authorization action that is being offered on an appropriations bill as a rider. Not so the House. So I think there we were really in a situation where we needed a bill. We wanted a bill. We have a bill now that I am convinced the administration will sign, and we can have one less bill in the continuing resolution that we are going to face this next week. My friends, it is going to be a very, very difficult continuing resolution even with fewer bills but it certainly would be more complex with more bills. So I am only here to say that we have done our very best under the circumstances. So it is not just a decision rendered by Senator Lautenberg and myself as leaders of this appropriations subcommittee. Much of the problem we are facing here responding to critics has been imposed by the body, by the Congress, through the budget resolution process, and by their orders to exclude military spending--exclude the programs of entitlements from this commitment we have to balance the budget by the year 2002 and the reductions have to take place in Government spending. I just want to put it in that context. One last thing I want to do here today before I yield the floor. I was negligent a moment ago because I did mention Anne Miano and Peter Rogoff on their contributions as staff people. I did forget Joyce Rose because, like many people in this institution who quietly operate at staff level, in the background, we sometimes forget them, and I apologize for that. I cannot really say I have forgotten her because it was merely an oversight. She has been an integral part of our operation by which we have been able to bring this bill to the floor, and I am very grateful.

Mr. HATFIELD. I applaud the city's effort and support its proposal to proceed in the manner outlined by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. HATFIELD. The bus and bus facilities distribution table included in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report--House Report 104-785--directs funds to Hood River, OR, for buses. However, it has lately been brought to my attention that these funds can best be used for intermodal purposes. I ask my colleague if he will agree that the notation ``buses'' should be interpreted by the Federal Transit Administration to include an intermodal project at Hood River?

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator. This interpretation will enable Hood River to make the best use of these funds according to local priorities. Amtrak Privatization Study

Mr. HATFIELD. Let me thank the Senator from Washington for his thoughts on this matter. I was pleased to work with Senator Gorton on this issue because I recognize the importance of passenger rail in the Pacific Northwest, and I agree with his comments.

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

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in 1988, Congress passed and President Reagan signed in law the CORECT program. This program established a federal interagency board to coordinate renewable energy exports and has been a very successful example of how a very small program, funded at $2 million per year, can drive the tools of the U.S. Government to assist small businesses in gaining international market share. For example, the U.S. solar industry exports over 85 percent of its product and has now ribbon-cut four new automated manufacturing plants in the United States to meet the growing global markets. I am concerned that the energy and water development appropriations conference report, now before the Senate, could be interpreted as closing down the CORECT program. Let me clarify with my friend from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, that the pending legislation is not to be interpreted as terminating the CORECT program and that the Department of Energy may utilize other available funds to continue this program, even though Congress has provided no funding for the coming fiscal year.

Mr. HATFIELD. I want to thank my friend for his clarification of this important matter. Fusion

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today the Senate has before it an issue that has generated a great deal of debate across this Nation. I will support this legislation because I believe the question of State recognition of same-sex marriages must be resolved by each State individually, and not by one State on behalf of all others. While the focus of this debate is whether members of the same sex may marry, the root of the matter is the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, article IV, section 1. This clause provides that the States must recognize legislative acts, public records and judicial decisions of other states: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Marriages are commonly given full faith and credit by other States. At this time, no State allows same-sex marriages, and a number have specifically outlawed them. Hawaii now appears to be on the verge of such recognition. If Hawaii becomes the first to allow same-sex marriages, other States would be required to recognize and give full faith and credit to those marriages. The Defense of Marriage Act has been introduced in response to this possibility. The bill would restrict the effect of any state law that allows same-sex marriages to that state only. By making an exception to the full faith and credit clause, this legislation would allow each State to decide this divisive issue on its own. The issue appears to be: Which side of the argument should have the burden of proof? If Congress does not act, the burden would be on those in opposition to same-sex marriages to affirmatively block them on a State-by-State basis. If Congress passes this legislation, those in support same-sex marriages would have to win recognition of such marriages on a State-by-State basis. I believe each State should determine this volatile issue on its own, after a thorough debate. Therefore, I will cast my vote in favor of H.R. 3396.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, throughout my career in public service, amounting to over four decades now, I have fought to end discrimination and advance the ideal of equal opportunity in society. One of my first successes as a young Oregon State legislator in the early 1950's was as the sponsor of the Oregon Public Accommodations Act, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race in public accommodations. With this new law, Oregon set an example for the Nation. The Public Accommodations Act was the first of many divisive civil rights debates in which I have become involved. I have also played a role in many other civil rights advances as this Nation has attempted to stamp out the irrational and hateful scourge of discrimination. These efforts have often taken the form of extending protection from discrimination in the workplace. Over the years, we have focused on discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin, age, religion, and disability. These laws are based on a simple premise: Employees should be judged on the work they do, not on the basis of prejudice not related to workplace performance. The time has arrived to take the next logical step toward equality of opportunity in the workplace. Senate bill 2056, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act which would prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation is such a step. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act focuses on a group of citizens who have been victimized and vilified like few other minority groups in this Nation's history. Oregon has not been spared from this prejudice, and I speak here today on behalf of many Oregonians touched by it. One prominent example took place in Medford, OR, last year where two women were murdered. Their murderer confessed that he killed them because of his hate for homosexuals. While we will not be able to wash this type of deep-seeded hatred from our society merely by enacting a Federal statute, employment relations is narrowly focused and appropriate for a Federal statement of national policy, as we have demonstrated many times. This legislation now before the Senate takes a very measured approach toward addressing this difficult problem. It does not create special protections, preferences, or hiring quotas for gay people. As has been the case in prior civil rights statutes, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1991, this legislation specifically prohibits quotas on the basis of sexual orientation. This prohibition is further undergirded by a provision that prohibits an employee from bringing a disparate impact suit. Religious organizations are given a broad exemption from this proposal. The armed services are also exempt, as are small businesses with fewer than 15 employees. Moreover, no business would be required to provide benefits to an employee's same-sex partner. As this Nation turns the corner toward the 21st century, the global nature of our economy is becoming more and more apparent. If we are to compete in this marketplace, we must break down the barriers to hiring the most qualified and talented person for the job. Prejudice is such a barrier. It is intolerable and irrational for it to color decisions in the workplace. The employee manual for my office has for some time included a specific provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. A majority of the Fortune 500 companies have reached this same conclusion. It is time for this body to do the same. It is time for our laws to reflect a point of fundamental fairness: An employee should be free from discrimination at work because of personal characteristics unrelated to the successful performance of his or her job.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to bring up S. 1662, which has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, at the end of this year, I will leave the Senate and return to the inviting shores of Oregon. Oregon is the State of my birth and the State that I have labored to represent for over four decades. It has never been a mystery to me why so many have been drawn to my State. The rich pioneer spirit of Oregon's citizenry is matched only by the blessings of the State's bountiful natural treasures. I am pleased to speak today about legislation that will ensure that several of Oregon's most significant natural treasures will be protected for future generations. This legislation, the Oregon Resources Conservation Act, of which I am the proud sponsor, includes eight titles addressing a host of natural resource issues. Many of the issues within these titles have been the subject of great debate and lingered unresolved for years. The heart of this proposal is title one, which creates a 25,800-acre Opal Creek Wilderness and National Scenic Recreation Area. Opal Creek is one of the last remaining intact, low-elevation old growth forest areas in Western Oregon. The Opal Creek title of the Oregon Resources Conservation Act would create a 25,800-acre Opal Creek Wilderness and National Scenic-Recreation Area. Of the 25,800 acres, 12,800 acres would be designated as new wilderness to be managed under the Wilderness Act of 1964, and 13,000 acres would be managed as a national scenic-recreation area. A great public debate has surrounded the Opal Creek issue for decades. It is my firm hope that this is a debate we are about to resolve. Opal Creek is a very special place, and I have always believed the area merits permanent protection. I sought to include protection for the area in my 1984 Oregon wilderness bill, and again in my 1988 wild and scenic rivers bill. Both times I was forced to remove the provision at the request of Oregon's Governor. Representative Mike Kopetski made a bold effort to legislate protection in 1994, but time ran out in the 103d Congress before final action could be taken in the Senate. Today, the entire 35,000 acre watershed that includes the Opal Creek sub-basin is protected from commercial timber harvest under President Clinton's forest plan. Timber companies have indicated to me that they doubt commercial timber harvests will ever occur again in the drainage. Similarly, environmentalists have indicated to me that they believe there is no danger of harvests in the drainage in the foreseeable future. Surely this is an area fertile for agreement. It is time to show the public some small sign of reconciliation in this continuing feud over our natural resources. It was my hope that the Opal Creek Working Group, which met over a period of 6 months with the assistance of a professional mediator, would provide the agreement Oregonians of all persuasions desire so much. While the working group failed to reach a comprehensive agreement, areas of common interest and shared values were uncovered, and the group's deliberations assisted me greatly in developing this legislation. This issue has lingered unresolved for far too long, and with this legislation, we have an opportunity to settle it, once and for all. The Opal Creek title of my legislation addresses each and every one of the sub-watersheds in the Little North Fork Santiam River drainage, either through a wilderness or a National Scenic Recreation Area designation. By doing this, I have attempted to protect the outstanding resource values in each of these sub-drainages, while at the same time addressing the area comprehensively as an intact ecosystem. Significant portions of the Cedar Creek sub-watershed have been included, part in the Opal Creek Wilderness and part in the Scenic Recreation Area. This protection includes approximately three-quarters of the old growth in the sub-watershed. The five sections that comprise the center of the area include private interests. The presence of these private interests has made this area one of the most difficult to resolve. Through the cooperation of the Rosboro Lumber Co. and the Forest Service, we have provided the framework for a very directed land exchange. This exchange will allow this full section, approximately 640 acres, to be included in the Scenic Recreation Area. In exchange, Rosboro will receive sufficient parcels to accomplish an equal value exchange. The prioritized list of parcels provided in the S. 1662 represent parcels which border, many on three sides, land already owned by Rosboro. One important part of this protection is the designation of Elkhorn Creek as Oregon's newest wild and scenic river. This designation will protect nearly the full length of the Elkhorn as it moves from land managed by the Forest Service to land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM manages approximately three sections through which the Elkhorn flows. It is my intent that the full amount of these three sections be included in the wild and scenic designation. The language in the bill has been written to accomplish that result. The BLM portions are designated as ``scenic'', while the Forest Service portions are designated as ``wild''. This distinction is provided for to allow the BLM to put in a trail head and viewpoint for recreationalists to view this very special area. In addition to addressing the protection of the entire watershed, the Opal Creek title of this bill maintains recreation at existing levels and allows for growth in uses where appropriate. The bill also calls for historical, cultural, and ecological interpretation in the newly created area to be conducted in a balanced and factually accurate manner. Motorized recreation will be prohibited except on the existing road system and nonmotorized use will be permitted throughout the area, except, of course, in the wilderness. The existing road system will be analyzed and evaluated through a management planning process, which will decide which roads to close and which to leave open. No new water impoundments will be allowed in this area. No new mining claims will be allowed to be filed under the 1872 Mining Law, and no existing claims will be allowed to be patented. In addition, the bill calls for the creation of an advisory council composed of members of the local community, industry, environmental groups, locally elected officials, the Forest Service and an appointee by the Governor. Finally, the bill will not allow commercial timber harvesting of any kind in the Opal Creek area except to prevent the spread of a forest fire or to protect public health and safety. It is important to note that the lands covered by my legislation are not included now in the timber base and are not currently open to commercial harvest. The final element of the Opal Creek package, Mr. President, was an important part of the working group's discussions. I am referring to an economic development package for the Santiam Canyon, which includes the communities immediately adjacent to the Opal Creek area. This package is based, primarily, on a set of infrastructure improvements developed by these communities in conjunction with the State Economic Development Office, which are designed to improve the water quality and delivery systems of the communities in the area. It is also my intention that the funding allowed here would be available for cleanup and transportation costs related to the Amalgamated Mill site in the Opal Creek area on Battle Ax Creek. I have made the first down payment on this economic commitment package by including a $300,000 appropriation in the fiscal year 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act to help begin the cleanup of the contaminated Amalgamated Mill site. There is a continuing discussion of the best way to accomplish the cleanup of this site at the earliest possible date and in a manner that does not endanger public health or safety. This legislation is neutral on the method of cleanup, but should be read as a directive to all parties involved to move forward with deliberate speed to clean up this anomaly in an area of such profound beauty. Throughout the coming fiscal year 1997 appropriations cycle, I will work closely with Oregon's Governor, John Kitzhaber, and my colleague on the House Appropriations Committee from Oregon, Jim Bunn, to further refine this package and provide additional funding, as needed, for the Amalgamated Mill cleanup and for the critical community infrastructure projects designed to allow these former timber communities to diversify their economic bases and improve their water systems. In short, the Opal Creek title of this bill attempts to address every issue raised both in the 1994 hearings on Opal Creek and in the working group process conducted out in Oregon. This is an issue I have worked on for almost 20 years. I am extremely pleased that, with this legislation and accompanying infrastructure development package, we will finally be able to address the protection of Opal Creek and the adjacent portions of the Little North Fork Santiam Watershed, as well as improvements to the water quality and delivery systems of nearby, timber-dependent communities. Mr. President, the second and third titles of the Oregon Resources Conservation Act provide for the establishment of 5-year pilot projects for two, consensus-based natural resource planning bodies now working in Oregon's Klamath and Deschutes Basins. Both of these bodies are already in place and have been working to provide the Federal agencies with recommendations about how best to prioritize spending for ecological restoration, economic health and reducing drought impacts. I called for the creation of the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group in 1995. This group is citizen-led and includes environmentalists, irrigators, local business leaders, locally elected officials, educators, the Klamath Tribes, and Federal land management agencies in an advisory capacity. This group was charged with developing both short- and long-term recommendations for restoring ecological health in the Klamath Basin. They were successful in developing short-term funding recommendations ranging from riparian and wetland restoration, to fish passage and the coordination of geological information systems in the basin. I followed through on these recommendations and was able to obtain either funding or direction to the pertinent agencies in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations process. I am again attempting to provide funding for the consensus based projects of the Klamath Working Group in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations process. The group has also developed a long-term recommendation which includes a formal registration of the group as a State-sanctioned foundation and congressional legislation enabling them to help land management agencies set priorities for how money is spent in the basin on various ecological restoration and economic stabilization projects. Senate bill 1662 addresses the group's long-term recommendation by creating a 5-year pilot project to allow the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group/Foundation, in conjunction with the Federal land management agencies in the basin, to develop funding priorities for ecological restoration in the basin. It will authorize $1 million per year to be spent consistent with these priorities. This money will be administered by the agencies and matched by an equal amount of non- Federal dollars. Under title III of the bill, the Deschutes Basin in central Oregon would also be allowed to develop a similar regime using, as its base, a group formed by the Warm Springs Tribes, the Environmental Defense Fund, local irrigators, and locally elected officials. This group has been meeting and collaborating on projects in the basin for several years. Recently, both of these working groups have been able to make significant progress in building coalitions and consensus on natural resource management challenges that, not too long ago, many felt were insurmountable. By giving them more authority to temporarily assist Federal agencies with setting policy priorities using a finite amount of money, I hope we can begin to enter a new era of more local control and greater public input regarding resource management decisions. I also hope these groups, and others that may follow, will continue to use the consensus-based management approach to return resource management decisions to a collaborative, inclusive process rather than the divisive, litigious morass in which we find ourselves today. The fourth title provides for a land exchange in Oregon's beautiful Mt. Hood corridor. The purpose of this title is to protect the viewshed along the Highway 26 corridor on the way to Mt. Hood, the highest mountain peak in my State. The exchange between the Bureau of Land Management and the Longview Fibre timber company would withdraw lands within the viewshed of the Mt. Hood corridor from the timber base. Both parties are willing participants in this process. Longview Fibre owns approximately 3,500 acres of timber land in the scenic Mt. Hood corridor, which are interspersed with BLM lands in a checkerboard fashion. Longview would like to harvest these lands within the next 5 years, but is sensitive about the public perception regarding these clearcuts along such a heavily traveled route. I agree with Longview Fibre and feel harvesting these trees along Highway 26 would be a disaster both for the ecological and visual characteristics of the resource. Longview, to their credit, has been extremely interested in working with local planning and environmental groups to identify BLM parcels elsewhere in western Oregon that could be traded for the Longview Fibre lands in the corridor. This proposal is a unique opportunity to forge ahead with a plan that has been built at the local level over the past 5 years and which has virtually unanimous support, including the local county government, local businesses, the timber industry, and local environmental groups. Included in this title is a very limited exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act. I want to be clear that this exemption is in no way to be used as a precedent for future waivers of NEPA. This is a unique circumstance, and to counterbalance this exemption, I have included funding in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations process to undertake environmental analysis for this exchange. The fifth title of S. 1662 would establish the Coquille Forest near the town of Coos Bay, OR. During my Senate career, it has been my pleasure, and I believe my obligation, to take an active role in the restoration of Federal recognition to a number of Indian tribes in the State of Oregon. One of those tribes, the Coquille Tribe from near Coos Bay, OR, was restored in 1989. In the Coquille Restoration Act, Public Law 101-42, which I was proud to sponsor in the Senate, a requirement was included that the Secretary of the Interior and the tribe develop and submit a plan for the tribe's pursuit of economic self-sufficiency. The Coquille Tribe took that mandate to heart and developed and submitted an extraordinarily comprehensive plan. Wisely, I think, the plan encompassed self-suficiency initiatives across a diverse range of projects. The centerpiece of the plan was a proposal to establish a significant forest land for the tribe within its aboriginal territory. The overall goal of the plan and the forest are to move the standard of living for the members of the Coquille Tribe closer to that of the people of Oregon overall and to provide for the cultural restoration of the Coquille people. The Coquille Tribe's forest proposal is not, nor is this legislation, some new and novel precedent. Land bases have already been established for a number of federally recognized Oregon tribes, including the Grand Rondes, Siletz, Warm Springs, and Umatillas. These tribal land bases range from 3,600 acres to 640,000 acres. This title would establish a 5,400-acre land base for the Coquille Tribe. Hardly a precedent in either size or action. Moreover, the Coquille proposal is quite innovative and unique. The proposal originally developed by the Coquille Tribe was a cutting-edge, scientifically based plan to manage the land. The plan would have used environmentally sensitive methods of land management to benefit not only the tribe but the surrounding communities as well. This land management approach was as innovative as any I have seen during my public career, and it prompted me to lend my support to the tribe's effort. This provision is intended to provide a measure of restitution to the Coquille Tribe. This land was forcibly taken from its inhabitants, an act that I think anyone today would decry as unjust. In the past, atrocities have been heaped upon Oregon's native American tribes, including the Army's efforts to round up the southwestern Oregon tribes like cattle and march them hundreds of miles to government-created Indian reservations at Siletz and Klamath Falls. To the tribes affected by these U.S. Government policies, the act of uprooting them from their homelands and herding them to far-away reservations destroyed their culture and killed many of their people. These acts were the equivalent of the ethnic cleansing we have seen in recent years against the Muslim people in Bosnia. The restoration of 5,400 acres could never atone for the hardships imposed upon the Coquille people. It can, however, begin to help restore some semblance of culture and a tie to the land that our Federal Government attempted to destroy over 150 years ago. I have gathered as much public input on the Coquille Tribe forest proposal as on any single legislative effort throughout my entire Senate career. I held two Senate hearings on the matter, one in Salem, OR, and one in Washington, DC. I also have received many letters and phone calls carefully analyzed related public polls, and reviewed newspaper editorials. All of these factors have contributed to the 5,400-acre proposal I have developed. The forming of this title as it appears today in the substitute has been very challenging. The myriad interests of the Interior Department, the people of Coos County, the logging and environmental communities, the State of Oregon, and certainly the Coquille Tribe have brought together starkly divergent viewpoints. This title reflects many of the elements from the tribe's earlier proposal, but it is also very different. To accommodate the diversity of interests, and to do so within the parameters of the current discourse regarding the Federal lands, I have fashioned a unique and scaled-down hybrid. I must say that in so doing, the Coquille Tribe has made some very substantial concessions. First, title five creates a Coquille Forest of only approximately 5,400 acres in size. While the parcels are shown on a BLM map, referenced in the legislation, for clarity I am adding the legal descriptions in the Record. The Coquille Forest consists of the Federal portions of the following descriptions: Willamette Meridian West, Oregon

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I understand that there is a substitute amendment at the desk offered by myself and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, there are some very important people who have helped bring this day, now, to fruition. I want to mention the former Congressman from Oregon, Mike Kopetski, who made a valiant effort in 1994 to pass an Opal Creek protection bill. The bill was passed in the House. However, time ran out, in the Senate. It was not enacted. But, certainly, for years he and I had the privilege of trekking this whole area together. That is a wonderful memory I have. I want to pay tribute to his efforts as part of the overall accomplishment of this bill. I want to also make particular mention of the staff, of David Robertson and Doug Pahl of my staff, who, for years, have been involved in this and have done a great job; to Ms. Alexandra Buell of Senator Wyden's staff, who has been very meshed into the whole common effort and has an excellent background in resource management; the Energy Committee staff, Gary Ellsworth, Mark Rey and Tom Williams worked together as one staff, so to speak, even though they represent both sides of the aisle. I am very grateful, always, to each of those staff members for their real nitty-gritty and their real creative ability.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, the committee amendment be agreed to, as amended, the bill be deemed read a third time, and passed as amended. I withhold.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on the bill that we have just passed, which is the Oregon Resources Conservation Act of 1996, I would ask unanimous consent to list Senator Wyden, my colleague, as a cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, one of the most common small business complaints my constituents bring to my attention is the issue of burdensome government regulations. As we all recognize, small businesses rarely have the expertise or resources necessary to keep up to date with changing Federal requirements. Consequently, many small businesses are not in compliance with Federal regulations and face potential fines. Fines or costly compliance procedures can be devastating to small businesses which characteristically operate at a very narrow profit margin. All across this Nation conscientious small business owners are frustrated with Federal regulations simply because they cannot get concise and specific answers to their compliance questions. How can we realistically expect to increase environmental protection, work place safety or tax compliance, if these respective agency's regulations are so complex that professionals in these fields cannot determine the meanings and applications of these rules? While our regulatory reform efforts have done much to change the rulemaking process and the sheer volume of regulations, very little has been done to translate rules written by bureaucrats into easy to understand language that the owner of any small firm can implement. Mr. President, according to a 1995 study by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, 94 percent of small businesses were unsure of what they needed to do to comply with Federal regulations. The same study revealed that it is difficult, if not impossible, for small businesses to obtain concise answers to compliance questions from a Federal agency. It is no wonder that so many business owners, who have honestly believed they were in compliance, have either lost or had their businesses crippled because they were uninformed or misunderstood Federal regulations which applied to them. Congress has considered several proposals which would scale back intrusive Federal regulations. However, we must realize that Federal regulations will continue in some capacity. Consequently, it is vital to establish a mechanism which assists small businesses in complying with these regulations. The Small Business Development Centers have established themselves as a valuable resource for small businesses. They have an existing network of over 950 centers nationwide which have been providing education and technical assistance to small business owners for years. The Oregon Small Business Development Center Network has distinguished itself as a national model of how SBDC's can play an integral role in ensuring the success of small businesses. In April 1995 I conducted a field hearing in Portland, OR on a proposal to expand the responsibilities of the SBDC's to include regulatory compliance assistance. At that hearing, I heard from several Oregon small business owners who testified about their experience with the Oregon Small Business Development Center Network and the positive benefits these centers have had on small businesses in the State of Oregon. The proposal to accomplish a shift in Federal regulatory policy from enforcement to education was at a conceptual stage at the time of the Oregon field hearing. However, this idea was extremely intriguing and the small business owners who discussed this issue were impressive in conveying their vision for the future of this proposal. Since that time, I have worked with the National Association of Small Business Development Center and the Director of the Oregon SBDC Network to develop this concept into the legislation I am introducing today. The National Small Business Regulatory Relief Act provides comprehensive regulatory assistance to small firms by enlisting the nationwide network of over 950 Small Business Development Centers (SBDC's). Over 550,000 small businesses each year seek SBDC help in drafting business plans and expansion strategies, developing financing and marketing tactics, improving management and personnel skills, and addressing many other business needs. The locally controlled and managed SBDC network's long-standing confidentiality policy and its proven track record of success make it an ideal, cost- effective and user-friendly delivery system for meaningful compliance assistance. Even though SBDC's are funded by all 50 States and the Federal Government they do not have enough resources to provide the regulatory help small businesses so desperately need. Mr. President this legislation provides the resources necessary to expand SBDC assistance, creating a one-stop shop business resource that can explain how a company's marketing, finance, personnel, international trade, procurement and technology strategies comport with the regulatory requirements of EPA, OSHA, and IRS. The result will be a holistic delivery system of business assistance that will not only increase compliance with today's regulations, but will help small businesses bring about a cleaner environment, safer work place and better tax compliance. Most importantly, by utilizing the vast SBDC network, the cost of making comprehensive regulatory assistance available to all of America's small businesses is minimized for a program of this magnitude. This legislation authorizes appropriations to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service to accomplish the goals I described earlier. However, I would like to point out that similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives which directs each of these three Federal agencies to set-aside a percentage of their overall budget for SBDC compliance assistance activities. While I sympathize with the intentions of the House sponsors of this measure to use existing funds for this program, as Chairman and a longtime member of the Senate Appropriations Committee I feel the appropriations process is the proper way to distribute Federal discretionary dollars. I believe that the goals of this proposal can be accomplished using existing Federal dollars. Mr. President, America's small businesses are frustrated by the current Federal regulatory situation and have been pleading for help. The National Small Business Regulatory Relief Act is a creative approach towards balancing economic growth with regulatory compliance. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort to assist our Nation's small businesses in complying with Federal regulations. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Oregon Small Business Development Center Network in support of this legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, one of the most common small business complaints my constituents bring to my attention is the issue of burdensome government regulations. As we all recognize, small businesses rarely have the expertise or resources necessary to keep up to date with changing Federal requirements. Consequently, many small businesses are not in compliance with Federal regulations and face potential fines. Fines or costly compliance procedures can be devastating to small businesses which characteristically operate at a very narrow profit margin. All across this Nation conscientious small business owners are frustrated with Federal regulations simply because they cannot get concise and specific answers to their compliance questions. How can we realistically expect to increase environmental protection, work place safety or tax compliance, if these respective agency's regulations are so complex that professionals in these fields cannot determine the meanings and applications of these rules? While our regulatory reform efforts have done much to change the rulemaking process and the sheer volume of regulations, very little has been done to translate rules written by bureaucrats into easy to understand language that the owner of any small firm can implement. Mr. President, according to a 1995 study by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, 94 percent of small businesses were unsure of what they needed to do to comply with Federal regulations. The same study revealed that it is difficult, if not impossible, for small businesses to obtain concise answers to compliance questions from a Federal agency. It is no wonder that so many business owners, who have honestly believed they were in compliance, have either lost or had their businesses crippled because they were uninformed or misunderstood Federal regulations which applied to them. Congress has considered several proposals which would scale back intrusive Federal regulations. However, we must realize that Federal regulations will continue in some capacity. Consequently, it is vital to establish a mechanism which assists small businesses in complying with these regulations. The Small Business Development Centers have established themselves as a valuable resource for small businesses. They have an existing network of over 950 centers nationwide which have been providing education and technical assistance to small business owners for years. The Oregon Small Business Development Center Network has distinguished itself as a national model of how SBDC's can play an integral role in ensuring the success of small businesses. In April 1995 I conducted a field hearing in Portland, OR on a proposal to expand the responsibilities of the SBDC's to include regulatory compliance assistance. At that hearing, I heard from several Oregon small business owners who testified about their experience with the Oregon Small Business Development Center Network and the positive benefits these centers have had on small businesses in the State of Oregon. The proposal to accomplish a shift in Federal regulatory policy from enforcement to education was at a conceptual stage at the time of the Oregon field hearing. However, this idea was extremely intriguing and the small business owners who discussed this issue were impressive in conveying their vision for the future of this proposal. Since that time, I have worked with the National Association of Small Business Development Center and the Director of the Oregon SBDC Network to develop this concept into the legislation I am introducing today. The National Small Business Regulatory Relief Act provides comprehensive regulatory assistance to small firms by enlisting the nationwide network of over 950 Small Business Development Centers (SBDC's). Over 550,000 small businesses each year seek SBDC help in drafting business plans and expansion strategies, developing financing and marketing tactics, improving management and personnel skills, and addressing many other business needs. The locally controlled and managed SBDC network's long-standing confidentiality policy and its proven track record of success make it an ideal, cost- effective and user-friendly delivery system for meaningful compliance assistance. Even though SBDC's are funded by all 50 States and the Federal Government they do not have enough resources to provide the regulatory help small businesses so desperately need. Mr. President this legislation provides the resources necessary to expand SBDC assistance, creating a one-stop shop business resource that can explain how a company's marketing, finance, personnel, international trade, procurement and technology strategies comport with the regulatory requirements of EPA, OSHA, and IRS. The result will be a holistic delivery system of business assistance that will not only increase compliance with today's regulations, but will help small businesses bring about a cleaner environment, safer work place and better tax compliance. Most importantly, by utilizing the vast SBDC network, the cost of making comprehensive regulatory assistance available to all of America's small businesses is minimized for a program of this magnitude. This legislation authorizes appropriations to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service to accomplish the goals I described earlier. However, I would like to point out that similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives which directs each of these three Federal agencies to set-aside a percentage of their overall budget for SBDC compliance assistance activities. While I sympathize with the intentions of the House sponsors of this measure to use existing funds for this program, as Chairman and a longtime member of the Senate Appropriations Committee I feel the appropriations process is the proper way to distribute Federal discretionary dollars. I believe that the goals of this proposal can be accomplished using existing Federal dollars. Mr. President, America's small businesses are frustrated by the current Federal regulatory situation and have been pleading for help. The National Small Business Regulatory Relief Act is a creative approach towards balancing economic growth with regulatory compliance. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort to assist our Nation's small businesses in complying with Federal regulations. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Oregon Small Business Development Center Network in support of this legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 moves our Nation in a positive direction by reforming our current welfare system. Not only does it eliminate the entitlement status of welfare, but the bill requires those able-bodied recipients who can work, to work. In addition, the bill provides $4.5 billion more for child care than current law, maintains Medicaid eligibility for those citizens who qualify for assistance, and allows those States who are operating under Federal waivers to continue to do so. The child care and Medicaid provisions in this bill will allow welfare recipients to better make the transition to work. Also, the Federal Government, by allowing States to continue with their innovative welfare reform programs, will see continued successes, as in Oregon, in welfare reform. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and while currently embroiled in the appropriations process, my experience has taught me all too well the dire consequences of continuing, without change, entitlement programs that we do not, and cannot control. We can no longer keep spending until all needs are met. These entitlement programs place a great burden on the Appropriations Committee and more importantly, a burden on the many other needs of our Nation. Only through a commitment to providing better opportunities for those living in poverty will we find a solution to poverty. We can achieve a reduction in welfare spending while working to transition the impoverished, out of poverty. The recent vote in the Senate to increase the minimum wage is an indication of Congress' commitment to ensure that in the area of employment, a minimum standard is assured. However, Congress cannot eliminate poverty by merely raising the minimum wage. There is a cycle of poverty which is passed from generation to generation, and it is the root causes of this poverty that must be addressed: a lack of education and access to upward social, and economic stability. Education is the key to the success of society. Citizens without the opportunity to educate themselves, to increase knowledge and skills, will weaken in despair, maintaining the status quo at best. In my home State of Oregon, the Governor's office, county commissioners, and the Oregon Workforce Quality Council, are only a few among many who have worked towards improving job training. As a result of the efforts in Oregon, in only a few years Oregon has reduced their welfare roles by almost 25 percent. By progressing towards a seamless link amongst differing human resource agencies, Oregon has made outstanding progress in integrating education, employment, and training programs. These are key links in ending the cycle of poverty. Thus, I am pleased to see waiver language contained in this bill which will continue the welfare reform process. With this added flexibility Oregon will be able to continue its extraordinary welfare program. Mr. President, we have chosen to address welfare reform and Medicaid reform separately; a decision which I cannot fully support. Welfare reform is an integrated effort which includes: child care, effective job training and quality health care. To end welfare as we know it we must allow our citizens the opportunity to climb out of the welfare trap and become productive citizens of our Nation. Without an integrated approach the entire system is placed in jeopardy. Thus, I am dismayed that we did not reform Medicaid while reforming welfare, for they are an integrated pair. However, I am satisfied at this point to know that Medicaid will remain intact for our citizens who are fulfilling the work requirements of this bill. Furthermore, I am pleased that the State of Oregon will continue to operate its Medicaid system under the Oregon health plan. Under the Oregon health plan, my State has enrolled 114,000 more Oregonians who would otherwise not have had access to health care. The Oregon health plan required numerous Federal waivers to achieve this success, and I am hopeful that Medicaid reform, whenever enacted, will have similar success as in Oregon. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the State of Oregon endorsing this bill.

Mr. HATFIELD. In Oregon, we are reducing our welfare roles by training our workers and putting people to work. This is being accomplished through a concerted effort of local, State and Federal officials striving together towards a common goal of putting people to work. We are demonstrating that welfare reform is an integrated system of job training, child care, personal responsibility, and health care.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for 30 years I have had the pleasure of representing a State known for its emphasis on educating its citizens on the importance of understanding and preserving their surrounding environment. The Oregon Coast Aquarium serves as a wonderful example of this unique spirit of conservation. Visitors at the Oregon Coast Aquarium are able to experience the indigenous coastal habitat and view many examples of marine creatures and plant life. However, the aquarium is much more than a collection of exhibits, it is an education center. The theme chases a raindrop from the moment it drops from the sky and hits the Coast Range, until it reaches its final destination, the Pacific Ocean. By following this path through numerous interactive exhibits, theaters, and touch pools, children and adults alike are able to learn about the native Oregon coastal environment and its important function. Located just south of Newport along the scenic Oregon coastline, the Oregon Coast Aquarium has recently become the rehabilitation center for the 16-year-old orca whale Keiko, known for his role in the movie ``Free Willy.'' The aquarium was selected by the Earth Island Institute, whose job it was to find a suitable new home for the 21- foot-long and 7,000-pound killer whale, as the only facility in the country that satisfied the necessary criteria. Keiko was transported, via a UPS B-130 cargo jet, to the aquarium from an amusement park in Mexico, where his health had been rapidly deteriorating. Since his arrival in January, Keiko has steadily improved and is moving ever closer to the goal of his eventual release. I am honored today to recognize the Oregon Coast Aquarium and welcome the most recent addition to our coastal waters. On Sunday, July 28, 1996, the New York Times published a full page article on Keiko and the Oregon Coast Aquarium. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to pay tribute to a great man who has dedicated his life to helping people and families in need. John Paul Bollman has grown up in the small town of Dallas, OR. His family has made funeral service their life's work and as a result, he has helped thousands of people cope with the most difficult loss a family can experience. Over the past 4 decades he has worked tirelessly to help people in need by extending kindness and compassion to acquaintances and strangers alike, each as if they were an old friend. A man of conviction, he is deeply admired by his peers, respected for his principles, and highly regarded as a noteworthy civic leader. Throughout his life he has embodied the true sense of a Christian. He has helped all people, doing so humbly and with great adoration from his community. John has spent countless hours working for the betterment of the community and has achieved a number of significant accomplishments as a result. Serving on the boards of the local school district, the education service district, the local hospital, along with numerous civic and professional boards, John has dedicated his time to improving the community at all levels. Whether he has taken the time to offer a helping hand, a kind word, or a heartfelt gesture, he is always available for those who need him. He recognizes that people are busy today and don't always want to invest their time helping in a classroom or teaching a high school student about a business or profession, so John leads by example and hopes that his involvement will encourage others to give of their time as well. He realizes that an opportunity to explore a career path at a young age can make the difference between providing a child an incentive to stay in school and dropping out. For many young people, John has shown them the connection and the importance of receiving a good education. Over the years, many fortunate people have had a unique opportunity to learn from this man who has made helping others his life's work. Following in the steps of his father, John entered the funeral service in 1960. It was with a great deal of pride, that John welcomed his son Michael into the family business 10 years ago, to follow in the footsteps of his father and grandfather before him. I share a great fondness for the Bollman family, for it was John's grandfather, Dr. L.A. Bollman that brought me into this world 74 years ago. I have known four generations of this family and have seen the attributes of his father and grandfather in John and have seen them passed on to his children. His daughter Amy worked in my offices in Washington, DC and Oregon and I saw in her the qualities of her father. She, too, is an outstanding role model in her community. We need more people like John Bollman--people willing to give their time and their hearts to help others. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank John for his tireless service to those in need and let him know that his selfless dedication to his profession and his community does not go without recognition and appreciation. The town of Dallas, OR and all who know him are both fortunate and blessed. John Paul Bollman embodies the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson in his famous poem entitled Success: To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.