Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I heard of the passing of Chief Justice Warren Burger earlier this week. Today, I am thankful for this opportunity to reflect upon the life of a tireless public servant; he was committed to the judicial system and faithfully devoted to the Constitution. These two thematic strands permeated his public life, both during his legal career and after he had left the court. Serving as Chief Justice of the United States for 17 years, he lead the Court through a gradual, centric shift, presiding with impartiality and fairness. The Chief proved the terms liberal and conservative inadequate in characterizing his perspective on the Constitution. This pragmatism was put to the test in 1974 when he wrote the majority opinion in a unanimous decision which led to the resignation of the president who appointed him. The Court ruled that President Nixon must surrender tapes of recorded conversations, which had been subpoenaed during the Watergate investigation. Much of his life's work focused on improving the operations and administration of the courts. Unsatisfied with status quo, the Chief began raising his voice against the problems in the judicial system. He advocated improving legal education with emphasis on practical skills and ethics. The Chief was a consummate victim's advocate, sympathizing with their rage, frustration, and bitterness. He carried his dedication for efficiency into the halls of the Supreme Court. Faced with a litigation explosion, the Chief took pro- active measures to expedite the courts' handling of cases. He and he alone masterminded the consolidation of judicial services, now housed in the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judicial Building. His dedication to improving the structures of the courts was reflected in a 1986 resolution by the Conference of State Chief Justices and State Court Administrators to say that the Chief had done ``more than any other person in history to improve the operation of all our nation's courts.'' His veneration for the Constitution did not cease at the end of his judicial career. In 1978, in a speech at the National Archives, Chief Justice Burger proposed a 3-year-long observance of the bicentennial of the Constitution with the intent of reeducating citizens about the founding principles and ideals of this Nation focusing especially on young people. He wanted young minds to recognize the Constitution as a living document that continues to reflect the philosophies of its Framers and contemporary American virtues. Just 8 years later, the Chief stepped down from the position of Chief Justice to become chairman of the Bicentennial Commission. Under his direction this 5 year observance became a comprehensive program of activities, including projects in schools and colleges, major judicial gatherings, publication of books and pamphlets, massive distribution of copies of the Constitution, and the creation and preparation of television documentaries. He succeeded in giving the Nation a history and civics lesson. The legacy of the Chief's promotion of civics education can be witnessed among the thousands of high school students who participate annually in the We the People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution Program. This program culminates in a competition where students test their knowledge of the founding documents before a panel of constitutional scholars. Lincoln High School has attended the national finals as State champions from Oregon, since the program's inception in 1987. This school's winning tradition has twice led them to the national title. As I watched Warren congratulating these students from Oregon, his devotion to the Constitution and his desire to transmit this enthusiasm to the students was evident. It was as if someone had given him a shot of adrenalin. In the various tributes and salutes done in the publications around the country, the human side of Warren Burger is often overlooked. I was fortunate to share a personal relationship with the Chief. We had similar interests, from our love of history and antiquities to our mutual quest for the perfect garden. We were two green thumbs serving the public in our civic capacities. Warren was a man of many distinctions. Historians will remember him for his professional achievements, I will remember him as an admirable colleague and dear friend.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the impacts of this budget resolution on the appropriations process for the fiscal year 1996. transportation funding Mr. President, I would first like to address the impacts of this budget resolution on our Nation's transportation systems. I have the privilege of chairing not just the full Appropriations Committee, but also the Transportation Subcommittee. I took that post because I understand the critical role that transportation plays in our economy and our way of life. In Oregon, we take great pride in our balanced transportation system, and in the planning process that we use to make investments in the most effective, efficient, and environmentally sensitive manner. The State of Oregon is, I believe, a model for the country to follow. The concerns that I want to raise today are not just for the future of Federal involvement in Oregon's transportation network, but for the role that the Federal Government will play in meeting the entire Nation's transportation needs. Whether we are talking about investment in our Nation's highways and transit systems, the critical operations of the Coast Guard, or the direction of air travel through the FAA's air traffic control system, adequate funding for transportation is vital for this country to maintain and enhance its economic position. In setting our economic agenda, deficit reduction clearly is our top priority. And, transportation must play a role in achieving savings. But, my concern is that this not just become a budget-cutting exercise. Simply lowering the Federal contribution to transportation without rethinking and adjusting the Federal role is a big step in the wrong direction, and could have disastrous impacts. While the conferees agreed on transportation cuts less severe than those that passed the Senate, I continue to have serious concerns about how we achieve those cuts. I was pleased to note that Chairman Domenici raised many of these issues in the Senate Budget Committee's report, which discussed the need to restructure transportation programs and reconsider what role the Federal Government plays versus State and local governments and the private sector. The committee report assumed that savings in transportation would be achieved not just through reducing spending, but through steps such as consolidation of the Department of Transportation's agencies and programs, and by privatizing the air traffic control system. The conference report repeats those assumptions, calling for program downsizing, streamlining, and consolidation of DOT, and for ATC privatization. While these changes may be controversial, the consequences of moving forward with business as usual and just cutting funding would be destructive. It is critical that we now look at how we maintain our commitment to sound transportation at the same time that we carry through with our commitment to deficit reduction. That is going to mean doing things differently. My concern is that the changes assumed in the budget resolution are just that--assumptions. What are real are the spending cuts. I tell my colleagues that the Appropriations Committee will comply with the targets laid out by the resolution. But to do so without having the benefit of the authorizing changes assumed in the resolution will be devastating because, in the end, we will still be bound by the outlay reductions. In order to achieve those reductions, we will be forced to make severe and devastating cuts in fast-spending programs, such as: Coast Guard operations, which includes search and rescue and drug interdiction activities; FAA operations, which will have direct impacts on the viability of the air traffic control system; transit operating assistance, which will harm many of our cities; and Amtrak. Or, we will be forced to impose even more drastic cuts in capital programs, such as the highway program, transit new starts and modernization, badly needed new equipment for Amtrak, and the FAA's modernization program, which is already behind schedule and over budget. [[Page S 9398]] It is in this respect that I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenic, in a discussion. Let me first ask my colleague, who is also a valued member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, if it is correct that the assumptions in the resolution are not binding.

Mr. HATFIELD. I welcome the Senator's involvement, and suggest his continued engagement in this process will be critical to achieving the dual goals of deficit reduction and sound transportation. I appreciate the time and efforts of the chairman of the Budget Committee, and look forward to working with him. Mr. President, I would next like to comment on the impacts of the budget resolution on programs falling under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. President, President Clinton and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle support funding increases for law enforcement. The President's budget requests a 21-percent funding increase for justice and a 15-percent increase in funding for the judiciary. That translates into a 20-percent increase in funding for the Federal criminal justice system--and grants to States--for almost 60 percent of the fiscal year 1995 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. Even though the budget resolution conference report assumes drastic changes across the Government in order to balance the budget, the conferees agreed to make funding for law enforcement a top priority. The conferees' actions are consistent with the Republican crime bills in both Houses of Congress which would change priorities among violent crime reduction trust fund accounts, providing a net increase in authorized trust fund spending for law enforcement and prison construction. The budget resolution conference agreement assumes a major reorganization in the executive branch--including an overhaul of State Department elimination of the Commerce Department. It is my hope that the various authorizing committees with jurisdiction over portions of these proposals will make quick action on these reorganization proposals a top priority. A full debate on these issues would be extremely helpful to the Appropriations Committee as we attempt to find the savings assumed in the budget conference report. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I hope to avoid situations where major legislative changes are attached to appropriations bills that must be enacted before the end of the fiscal year. Last, Mr. President, I would like to speak to the budget resolution's impacts on the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. The conference agreement reduces funding for discretionary health programs in fiscal year 1996 by approximately 8 percent. For Public Health Service Act programs under the jurisdiction of the Labor, HHS and Education Subcommittee this would mean an aggregate cut of $1.5 billion. Purportedly, these reductions are to be achieved through a 1- percent cut in funding for medical research supported by the National Institutes of Health, the consolidation of numerous categorical programs into State administered block grants, a 50-percent cut in funding for the National Health Service Corps, the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and the Preventive Health Services Block Grant, and the elimination of a number of agencies and sub-agencies of the Public Health Service, such as the Agency for Health Care and Policy and Research. To date, however, no legislation to streamline Public Health Service agencies or consolidate its programs has been considered in the Senate. The end result for fiscal year 1996 is that the savings will be achieved by cuts in research, services and training, and not achieved through greater administrative efficiencies. Some of the steepest reductions in funding are reserved for education, training, employment, and social services programs. Hardest hit are the job training programs of the Department of Labor. The budget resolution conference agreement assumes a 20-percent cut in funding for job training programs as a result of consolidating over 100 Federal job training programs into block grants. Legislation reported by the Labor and Human Resources Committee, however, would not implement these changes until July 1, 1998. Thus, for fiscal year 1996, the Appropriations Committee will be confronted with substantial cuts without the benefit of a reformed job training system. Particularly vulnerable will be funding for the 1996 Summer Youth Jobs Program which had historically received advanced funding. Funds also are jeopardized for readjustment assistance and services for dislocated workers. Presently, the only funding for retraining is through Dislocated Worker Program authorized by title III of the Job Training Partnership Act. In the wake of the recent recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission and job layoffs in timber dependent communities in the Pacific Northwest, increased demand will be placed upon these services. Estimates are that an additional 34,000 workers on military bases and installations will be dislocated during the next 2 years. Absorbing increased demand for these services likely will necessitate cuts exceeding 20 percent in other training programs, such as Job Corps, School to Work, and the employment service. Nearly $10 billion currently is spent to process mandatory claims for unemployment compensation, Social Security old age and survivors benefits, disability, and Medicare claims, and yet the processing costs are part of the Appropriations Committee's discretionary outlays. As a result of increases in workload, outlays for these activities are projected to increase significantly, about $850 million in fiscal year 1996 alone. Adding to these costs is legislation reported by the Finance Committee which requires the Social Security Administration to conduct more disability reviews. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the increased requirements will cost the committee an additional $300 million in fiscal year 1996. Yet the conference report assumes a freeze in discretionary funds for both the Medicare and Social Security Programs.

Mr. HATFIELD. Let me then ask my distinguished colleague how he envisions us moving from the budget resolution to the appropriations process. My intention is to work with the authorizing committees toward enactment of the changes that the resolution assumes?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, 6 years ago the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] released a publication, the ``Curriculum Standards for School Mathematics,'' which established national standards for mathematics education. The Standards presented a vision of appropriate mathematical goals for all students. It represented a consensus view of educators, mathematicians, classroom teachers, researchers, lay persons, and leaders in business. The Standards are based on the assumption that all students are capable of learning mathematics. The Standards describe what a high- quality mathematics education for North American students, K-12, should comprise. However, since their publication, NCTM has granted permission for the Standards to be translated into the Chinese, Korean, Spanish, and Portuguese languages. The Standards are being used as a guide to mathematics education reform in many countries around the world. This publication has given the world a vision of meaningful mathematics education. NCTM's goal was to develop mathematics power for all students. Reaching this goal required more than a vision. Two years later this publication was followed by a second document, ``Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics.'' These Professional Standards are a guide for the creation of a curriculum and an environment in which teaching and learning are to occur. It is now being used by colleges and universities in their mathematics teacher preservice education programs. The goal is to develop public school teachers who are more proficient in selecting tasks to engage students in learning mathematics, providing opportunities for understanding mathematics, promoting the investigation and growth of mathematical ideas, using technology and other tools to promote investigations, and connecting mathematics to previous and developing knowledge. The Curriculum Standards contained the vision. The Professional Standards outlines teacher training methods that will enable educators to achieve this vision. Recently, NCTM has released a third publication, the ``Assessment Standards for School Mathematics.'' This publication will establish criteria for student assessment and program evaluation and elaborate the vision of assessment that was described in the previous documents. The purposes of assessment include monitoring student progress, making instructional decisions, evaluating student achievement, and evaluating programs. The assessment standards should reflect the mathematics that all students need to know and be able to do, should enhance mathematics learning, should promote equity, and should be an open process. If meaningful and long lasting change is to realized, all aspects of school mathematics--content, teaching, and assessment--need to change on a systemic basis. These three documents are tools, not solutions. They will provide the tools needed for significant mathematics reform to take place. This effort is truly exemplary in that first, the community came together on its own, and second, standards have been developed without one dollar from the Federal Government. I appreciate this opportunity to bring this publication to the attention of fellow Senators and voice my support for worthwhile education reforms. I congratulate NCTM for their efforts to this end by providing the mathematics community these valuable documents.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, of which I am a cosponsor, is not about aiding perpetrators of fraud in the financial markets or hurting small investors. This legislation is about curtailing the abuses in this country's securities litigation system and empowering defrauded investors with greater control over the class action process. This legislation would restore fairness and integrity to our securities litigation system. This legislation assists small investors by requiring lawyers to provide greater disclosure of settlement terms, including reasons why plaintiffs should accept a settlement. This is a common sense approach which is often lacking under the current system. This legislation also incorporates public auditor disclosure language. S. 240 requires that independent public accountants report to their client's management any illegal act found during the course of an audit. If the management of the company or the board of directors fail to notify the Securities and Exchange Committee of the illegal act, the auditor is required to inform the SEC or face civil penalties. This is needed reform which assists all investors who rely on accountants to act in an independent manner on their behalf. I would like to close my statement on the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 by highlighting some statistics from an article in today's issue of the Wall Street Journal. The article notes that the net legal costs of accounting firms has increased from 8 percent of their total revenue in 1990 to 12 percent of revenue in 1993. That is a 50 percent increase in net legal costs in just 3 years. In one of the cases cited in the article, it notes that an accounting firm spent $7 million defending itself in a case where the jury [[Page S 9173]] ruled in the accounting firms favor. That is $7 million spent just to prove that the firm was innocent. As these statistics show, common sense should be reintroduced to our securities litigation system, and this legislation does just that. Common sense benefits all parties in the securities litigation system, especially investors, which is fundamental to this legislation.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, throughout its colorful history, the State of Oregon has been blessed with the talents of many distinguished leaders. In my readings, I have been struck by the number of these great Oregon citizens who have received little notice from the writers of U.S. history. One such individual is Senator George Henry Williams. I was reminded of Judge Williams' important role in Oregon history by an article which recently appeared in the Oregon State Bar Bulletin. The article, excerpted from Judge Williams' obituary, was skillfully edited by Julie Hankin of the Bulletin. This excellent piece of history gives us a glimpse into the extraordinary life of a great American and I recommend it to my colleagues. A contemporary and close friend of Abraham Lincoln, Judge Williams came to Oregon following his appointment as Chief Justice of the Oregon territory in 1853. His ambition, however, was to serve in the U.S. Senate. Having worked actively as a Free Soil Democrat, he eventually left the party for that of Lincoln and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1864 on the Republican ticket. There, he quickly earned the respect of his colleagues and, later, the notice of his President, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. President Grant nominated Williams to serve as his Attorney General. Williams withdrew his name from consideration, however, following a set of intriguing circumstances, all of which are detailed in the article which I will submit for the Record following my remarks. Mr. President, in a city guided all too often by ego, I am always pleased to discover unsung heros, those who sought only to serve their countrymen, not themselves. As noted author Walter Lippman once said: ``The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind in other men the conviction and the will to carry on.'' George Henry Williams was such an inspirational figure. I ask that the article from the Oregon State Bar Bulletin appear in the Record. [From the Oregon State Bar Bulletin, May 1995] Oregon's Gentle Giant--The Life of George Henry Williams: Senator, Attorney General, and Lawyer (By C.E.S. Wood) George Henry Williams was born in a log cabin in New York state in 1823. Both of his grandfathers served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary war. He studied law, and in 1844, at the age of 21, he was admitted to the bar at Syracuse. Soon afterward he started West to seek his fortunes as a lawyer. Nationwide there were but a few miles of railroad at the time--none west of Indiana. There were no telegraph lines. Travel was by river, canal and coach. Pittsburgh and St. Louis were the Western frontier. Chicago did not exist. He made his way by the Erie Canal, the Ohio Canal, the Ohio River as far as St. Louis and then up the Mississippi to Fort Madison, Iowa. His wealth was the Statutes of New York and some bank notes of New York state banks. Unfortunately, while Williams was counting backnotes in Pittsburgh in order to exchange them for western notes, they were snatched from him in a robbery. By virtue of his honest face he procured passage on boats to St. Louis and then Fort Madison. In 1847, on the admission of Iowa as a state, he was elected a district judge. The same year he first met Abraham Lincoln at a conference in Chicago. Here began a great, lifelong friendship between these two with much background in common--born in poverty in log cabins, growing to the rugged strength and height of giants, athletic and sympathetic to the great masses. Judge Williams would later be selected as one of the escorts of honor and one of the pall bearers at Lincoln's funeral. As an anti-slavery Democrat, Judge Williams campaigned throughout Iowa for Franklin Pierce and was elected one of the presidential electors on the Democratic ticket. Shortly after Pierce's inauguration in 1853, at the suggestion of his friend, Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, Williams was appointed chief justice of Oregon Territory. He was 30 years old. The appointment was without his knowledge and contrary to his wish. He had gotten married in 1850 in Iowa to Miss Kate Van Antwerp and found his $1,000 annual salary as an Iowa district judge too small to meet the expenses of married life. He sent in his resignation, with the intention of resuming the practice of law. Lawyers of both Whig and Democrat persuasion begged him to remain on the bench. In the end, the young and romantic Mrs. Williams decided their fortunes. Oregon was the unknown land of the West, and the excitement of voyaging there appealed to her. The couple fully intended to return to Iowa as soon as Judge Williams' term in Oregon expired. The young couple made their home in Salem. President Buchanan appointed Judge Williams to a second term, but private practice still tempted him. He resigned, and in 1858 opened an office in Portland in a small frame building on the river bank between Washington and Alder streets. These were stirring times in Oregon. The admission of the territory into the Union as a state was a vital issue and necessarily involved whether it should come in as a free or as a slave state. One of the desires that induced Williams to leave the bench was not only to add to his income by practicing law, but that he might enter the active arena of politics. His ambition was to be United States senator. As a Democrat he championed the anti-slavery cause. He became a Free Soil Democrat, elected to the state constitutional convention and appointed chairman of the judiciary committee there. Apparently by the force of argument and eloquence, he greatly aided in having the free constitution adopted by the state. Judge Williams' strong anti-slavery work in Oregon had antagonized the administration in Washington, with the result that he was not appointed United States senator. Also at the first election he was defeated by the opposition. Judge Williams had joined in the call for an amalgamation of anti-slavery-war-Democrats with Republicans, to be called the Union Party, and by this transition he entered the Republican party and in 1864 was elected to the United States Senate. His long-held ambition was fulfilled. He entered the Senate at the close of the war and beginning of the reconstruction period. He was the sole author of the Reconstruction Act substantially as it was adopted. He drew the 15th Amendment essentially as it now stands. hew was a member of the Joint High Commission, which met in Washington to determine how the disputes between Great Britain and the United States should be settled. He was a leader in the Senate during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The enforcement of his Reconstruction Act also fell to Williams as Grant's attorney general at the expiration of his senatorial term: In all the troubled times following the Civil War, the responsibility of enforcement law and order by civil remedies was on Williams' shoulders. The task included confronting the Ku Klux Klan's lawlessness. Also, he had to decide between two governments in Louisiana, Alabama and Arkansas, conflicts which he resolved in favor of the Republicans in Louisiana, the Democrats in Arkansas and by a compromise in Alabama. If therefore surprised no one (except Oregonians) that General Grant sent his name to the Senate to be chief justice of the United States. Judge Williams eventually insisted on his name being withdrawn. The causes have been variously stated as political animosity in the East due to his reconstruction work and Republican partisanship; social antagonism to his second wife, then ambitious to be a leader in Washington society; and opposition in Oregon, because in the course of his Washington career, he had necessarily failed to please everyone back home. As the story goes, he went to see Grant to insist that his name be withdrawn. They drove out behind Grant's favorite pair of trotters, and the president became so absorbed in the discussion that he overdrove the horses and one of them died. I the end, Grant took Williams' suggestion of Morrison R. Waite of Ohio, saying, ``Wire him in your own name and ask him if he will take the office of chief justice of the United States.'' The result is a matter of history. It seems that Judge Williams only narrowly missed being chief justice, but he used to sum up the whole matter by saying, ``I believe I have lived longer and happier than if I had been raised to that exalted office.'' He returned to Portland and resumed the practice of law. He was a two-term mayor of the city from 1902-1905. He died in his sleep at home in Portland, April 4, 1910. What Kind of Man was he? These are the milestones in Williams' life. Taken alone, they are impressive enough. On the other hand, other men have held high office and lived long lives, busy in civic affairs on all levels. Those who knew Judge Williams want to emphasize what manner of man he was. In all that he did he was filled with common sense and the spirit of justice. As a judge he was calm, impersonal and impartial, sensible, passionless and just. As a lawyer he was forceful, eloquent, sincere and never let justice be obscured by technicalities. Although learned in the law, his ruling trait was plain, good sense. He disliked dissension or contention either in public or private life. At 87 he was still youthful in mind, belonging to the present and not the past. He was as interested in the problems of the day and as progressive in thought as a man of 25. He exhibited his own childlike simplicity of character in his fondness for children. One of the last images his partners had of him was of Williams gazing gravely at a 2- year old girl was had toddled into his office from the hallway and stood staring at him. After a moment's mutual viewing each other in silence, not knowing they were observed, the judge was heard to say solemnly to his small visitor, ``Were you looking for a lawyer?'' In a few days he was dead, and there passed one of the kindliest and most lovable of men.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, yesterday I voted against limiting debate on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster as Surgeon General of the United States. It is my intention to do so again today. I will vote against cloture today because I am disappointed by the handling of Dr. Foster's nomination and because I do not believe debate should be limited before it begins. This is a misuse of the cloture motion. Cloture should be a tool of last resort rather than a tactic employed as soon as an issue hits the Senate floor. In addition, I believe it is improper to raise a single issue and use it as the litmus test for the nomination of a Surgeon General. The President did that yesterday by stating that this vote was really a vote about abortion. I am deeply disappointed that the debate has come to this. The Surgeon General serves an important role as the national spokesperson on matters of public health. Over the years we have seen individuals serving in their capacity as Surgeon General make important statements on the health effects of smoking, the spread of AIDS, and teenage pregnancy. This person often becomes a lightening rod for controversy. In recent years, a number of individuals who have been nominated as Surgeon General have been controversial figures. Their nominations did not pass the Senate without a full debate. Dr. Foster's nomination is controversial. Much of the initial information provided to the Senate was misleading or inadequate. In addition, there are a number of issues that have been raised relating to Dr. Foster's qualifications to serve as Surgeon General and I believe that both sides should have an opportunity to fully debate these issues.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to introduce a bill that will make the U.S. Capitol more accessible to the American people. Over the past 200 years the U.S. Capitol has become more than a mere monument or museum. It is a living space, housing both Chambers of Congress, and hosting hundreds of thousands of visitors from across the globe annually. Today the U.S. Capitol Building stands as a symbol of our American ideals of liberty and freedom as much as it did on September 18, 1793, when President Washington laid the first stone into the ground. Mr. President, the Capitol Visitor Center Authorization Act of 1995 upholds our Nation's original commitment to citizen involvement in government by providing Americans with enhanced opportunities to witness their government at work. Located under the East Plaza of the U.S. Capitol, this new addition would ease visitor access to the Capitol, allowing the ever-increasing number of visitors to enter more quickly and efficiently. Visitors will also be treated to informative displays about the Capitol as they proceed underground to enter the building. And anyone who has ever visited Washington, DC in the summer or winter will greatly appreciate the importance of providing visitors with relief from the elements. In this period of scrutinizing government expenditures and balancing the budget, it is important to note that funding for the visitors center would come primarily from private gifts and donations. Contributions would be held in the U.S. Treasury under a separate account. Mr. President, above all, this historic legislation should be enacted because it fulfills the intent of the U.S. Capitol Building by further opening it up to the American people. The visitors center would be an educational facility to be enjoyed for many years to come. It is my pleasure to introduce this important legislation and I thank the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, for joining me as an original cosponsor.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to speak on the matter currently before the United States Senate which designates the National Highway System [NHS]. This legislation not only identifies the 159,000- mile NHS, but it provides greater flexibility to the States and attempts to reduce administrative burdens. I believe this is an important step forward in planning for our Nation's infrastructure development and that the Senate should act quickly in passing the National Highway System Act. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA] requires Congress to designate the NHS by September 30, 1995. The House and Senate each passed different NHS bills during the last Congress and, unfortunately, a compromise between the two could not be crafted. Without this measure all NHS and Interstate Maintenance funding, which totals approximately $6.5 billion per year through FY 1997, for the states would cease on that date. Consequently, by acting on this important measure at this early date we are helping to ensure that a bill is passed into law before repercussions are felt by the states. For Americans across the country, our emerging transportation crisis is made apparent by the increasing number of traffic jams, delays, potholes, and road erosion in rural areas. Oregonians are no less afflicted by these growing problems than those in the rest of the Nation. As frustrating as they are, these problems represent only the tip of the iceberg. Many do not realize the true importance of our tremendous network of roads and bridges to our economy, national security, and way of life. The health of our citizens, the education of our children, the movement of our perishable food and access to employment all depend upon a reliable and efficient transportation network. The National Highway System is a vital investment in our transportation infrastructure which will allow our society to continue to prosper. Mr. President, the people of Oregon have long understood the importance of land use planning that incorporates transportation needs. The residents of Portland have frequently made their resounding support for the city's light rail project abundantly clear. As with most Western States, the people of rural Oregon rely constantly on an effective highway system which allows them to access educational, economic, and health care facilities. Even though my support for this important legislation is extremely clear, there are several specific provisions of this bill which I cannot endorse and I will address these concerns through the amendment process. I continue to believe that in the aggregate this is an excellent piece of legislation and I intend to support its final passage. I commend Senators Chafee, Warner, Baucus and Moynihan for their leadership on this issue. As the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, I look forward to working with them on this measure in the future.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to recognize the longstanding service of Mr. Larry Hobart, the executive director of the American Public Power Association. Mr. Hobard joined the APPA 35 years ago. Today, he is recognized nationally as an innovator and broker of solutions to complex problems in the public power industry. I have come to know Mr. Hobart through our work together to address issues facing public power generally and Bonneville Power Administration in my home State of Oregon in particular. Mr. Hobart has never failed to bring constructive expertise to the table in our efforts to resolve differences among parties. I have valued tremendously the knowledge, creativity, and experience he contributes to the process. In addition to his work in the power industry, Mr. Hobart serves as vice president and a member of the board of directors of the Consumer Federation of America, the largest consumer organization in the United States. I was sorry to learn that Larry will be retiring from the American Public Power Association. I know I am joined by many other members of this body in expressing regret at his departure but great thanks for his many valuable contributions to the legislative process on behalf of public power. I appreciate this chance to share with my colleagues a speech Hobart gave on a recent trip to the Northwest. His remarks demonstrate a comprehensive grasp of the complex energy and natural resource issues facing the Pacific Northwest that only decades of active involvement and much thoughtful consideration can provide. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The speech follows: Update From Your Changing Nation's Capitol (By Larry Hobart) A lot of things have changed for public power in the past few years. Let me tick off six of them of importance to the Pacific Northwest: 1. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed by Congress. Now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can order any transmitting utility, including Bonneville Power Administration under certain circumstances, to provide transmission services for any entity--utility or non- utility--generating electricity for sale for resale inside or outside of the region. FERC decisions encourage network access, comparability in pricing, and creation of Regional Transmission Groups. A more competitive bulk power supply market has developed with bidding pitting utilities against independent power producers against IOU subsidiaries against federal power marketing agencies. 2. Because of federal requirements, the price of salmon protection rose to an annual rate of $500 million a year, and combined with the effects of drought and lost revenues due to releases to flush fish, shoved BPA rates up near or beyond the point of noncompetitiveness, and raised the question for some preference customers as to whether federal power is the best buy. 3. Federal court interpretations of the Endangered Species Act reinforced the rigid nature of that statute, and suggested that there is no way short of an amendment by Congress that will prevent the imposition of an open-ended expense on power users that could ultimately price BPA power right out of the market and leave taxpayers to swallow an $8 billion investment. 4. Provisions of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act passed by Congress and signed by President Carter 15 years ago began to look increasingly obsolete because regional planning has been eroded by individual utility purchases in a competitive bulk power supply market, environmental demands placed on the federal power system have escalated costs, demand-side management approaches are now focused more on cost-effectiveness and customer information, and renewable resources must meet the economic test of gas-fired generation. 5. Global competition for sales of goods and services in international markets caused industries and businesses to engage in continuing rounds of down-sizing and cost-cutting; electric bills--even for firms that are not considered energy-intensive--became important expense items, and for some utilities, the principle for structuring rates for big users became ``whatever it takes to keep the consumer.'' Retail competition became a reality across the nation. Failure to meet the challenge can now mean loss of industrial customers or even loss of the franchise. 6. And lastly, the Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The Pacific Northwest has nine new U.S. Representatives. Tom Foley is gone as Speaker of the House, but seniority still gives your region important Republican representation. Mark Hatfield is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Bob Packwood heads the Senate Finance Committee, Frank Murkowski chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Ted Stevens controls the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and Don Young leads the House Natural Resources Committee. Republicans attempted to ``nationalize'' issues in the campaign, running on a ``contract with America'' that stressed a balanced budget, tax cuts, and a build-up of national defenses. Meeting these goals will call for some form of new ``revenues,'' which currently includes sale of four federal power marketing agencies--the Alaska Power Administration, the Western Area Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Southeastern Power Administration. This morning I want to talk to you about some questions I think you must consider in the face of these facts as you plan the future of public power in the Pacific Northwest. How can we avoid flushing down the river North America's greatest renewable energy resource--the Bonneville Power Administration? Who is responsible for saving the system? What steps need to be taken now? Why should we worry about it? We face a different situation than we confronted last year. Last year, the problem was political and the answer was economic: BPA critics charged that historically low interest rates constitute a subsidy, and BPA supporters responded with a scheme to restructure repayment. This year, the problem is economic, and the answer is political: BPA rates have become noncompetitive, and turning around the situation requires congressional decisions to change the ground rules. If BPA's rates are not competitive, consumer-owned electric systems in the Pacific Northwest will increasingly turn to other less expensive sources of wholesale power. As the bulk power supply market expands with open access transmission, the opportunities for ``shopping'' the market will become greater, intensifying interest in suppliers other than BPA. Loss of load will leave BPA with the same fixed costs but fewer customers to share the burden. Even higher rates could result, giving other systems a reason to depart. The dismal reading is a ``death spiral'' in which BPA collapses like the pull of gravity into a black hole. BPA is taking the business steps that any such threatened institution is expected to initiate in similar circumstances. It has backed away from a number of deals where power costs loomed larger than market prices at the margin, including a unit at McNary Dam, a gas-fired generating plant to be built by an IPP, and purchase of power from the province of British Columbia. It is seeking to control and cut costs, it is reducing personnel, it is restructuring to streamline operations, it is scaling back transmission line construction and improvements, it is emphasizing customer relations, and it is promoting packages of power at prices it hopes will hold in place existing markets. But the job is a tough one. BPA must deal with a significant body of statutory law that dictates how it operates, including 42 pages of dense language contained in the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. BPA must follow federal personnel practices, and accept the dictates of policymakers in the Department of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the White House. It has looked at restructuring itself as a federal corporation, but the Office of Management and Budget and some members of Congress simply see such a solution as the first step toward privatization. BPA is the target of plenty of advice within the region from the regional council appointed by four governors, the press, and interest groups of all kinds. But right now, the overriding fact about BPA economics is its open-ended obligation to pay for salmon survival. While the expenditures posted or postulated have produced questionable results in terms of fish, the one sure thing is that they represent the marginal measure of BPA's economic trouble. If these costs are not capped and cut back, their continued escalation poses the federal equivalency of bankruptcy with the loss of a source of revenue to repay taxpayer investment, the elimination of monies that might be employed to preserve fish under a practical program, and the disappearance of the regional asset at a ``going out of business'' sale. What's the answer? The answer is congressional legislation, either through amendment of the Endangered Species Act or a specific statute limiting BPA's financial responsibility to an amount that allows it to price power at levels that permit a competitive response to current conditions. Is this a special subsidy for BPA? No way! What is happening is that federal fish figures, activist jurists, and environmental groups are force-feeding BPA with experimental programs and giving no consideration to the costs versus the benefits. Let's get real about this matter. Saving salmon with the methodology now in place is going to result in no money for repayment or fish. Randy Hardy said it right in testimony before a congressional committee earlier this year. ``In today's competitive utility [[Page S 8626]] marketplace, Bonneville must first succeed as a business if it is to serve its wide-ranging regional mission and meet its federal responsibilities,'' he said. ``Without revenues from the power side, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to continue to fund the region's fish, wildlife, conservation and renewables programs.'' If the situation were not serious, it might be viewed as silly. The Direct Service Industries reported recently that under the Endangered Species Act, at least 214 West Coast salmon subspecies are potential candidates for ESA listing, even though they were members of four healthy species of salmon. ``The listing of just three of those 214 subspecies has already created regional economic unrest and a greater than $500 million per year recovery price tag.'' The recently released National Marine Fisheries Service Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan suggests that doubling the 2,000 adult wild salmon now returning to the Snake to spawn could cost $300,000 a fish--assuming the plan works and that BPA can generate the money to finance the plan. Where is the money to come from? If power users decline to pay higher prices to BPA than those charged by competitors, will fish interests cough up the cash? The navigators? The irrigators? The flood control beneficiaries? Federal taxpayers? In the current federal budgetary environment, is the U.S. Treasury likely to spawn money for salmon eggs? Not likely. Power users cannot be forced to make electricity choices that are not in the interests of their consumers. The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, enacted December 5, 1980, declares ``that Congress intends that this Act not be construed to limit or restrict the ability of customers to take actions in accordance with other applicable provisions of Federal or State law, including, but not limited to, actions to plan, develop, and operate resources and to achieve conservation, without regard to this Act.'' ``Cost-effective'' is defined by the Act to mean handling of the needs ``of the consumers of the customers at an estimated incremental system cost no greater than that of the least-cost similarly reliable and available alternative measure or resource, or any combination thereof.'' Put differently, if consumers of public power systems and rural electric cooperatives would benefit from less expensive purchases made elsewhere, that would be the ``cost- effective'' decision. What is happening in the wholesale bulk power segment of the electric industry is that it is undergoing a fundamental transformation from a monopolistic segment of the economy, regulated on a cost-of-service basis, to an open access, competitively priced, commodity-oriented activity. Competition has created within regions a ``market clearing'' price--a charge that represents the lowest marginal rate within a marketing area. This can cause ``stranded investment''--that portion of the cost of a utility's facilities that is more expensive than the market price of electricity will support. Who bears the cost if customers switch? Here are the four possibilities: Write it down against utility shareholder equity Charge to remaining customers through rates Levy a ``wires charge'' by moving the investment to transmission Create a ``competitive transition'' assessment Some non-power interests are arguing that if consumer-owned electric utilities diminish their take from BPA, they must pay an ``exit fee'' to cover costs of WPPSS #2, renewable energy resources, conservation programs, and fish recovery plans. There is no requirement in law or contract that public power systems and rural electric cooperatives make payments of this type, and to do so would be detrimental to the interests of their consumers. To the extent that the charges equaled the differential between BPA prices and that of other suppliers, competition in the bulk power supply market would be diminished. A ``wires charge'' is totally inequitable because it arbitrarily moves the cost of investment in generation--the principal element of ``stranded investment''--and renames it ``transmission.'' Furthermore, doing so is tantamount to creating a tying arrangement illegal under the antitrust laws. Use of a ``competitive transition'' assessment punishes customers for a condition they did not create--the advent of a more competitive market driven by open access transmission, surplus capacity among utilities, and the development of gas turbine generation with short lead-times, high efficiencies, and low costs. The arrival of this competitive market is not a surprise--the trend has been evident for years--and where consumer-owned electric utilities choose to exercise their contractual options to switch or supplement a supplier to decrease consumer costs, they should not be penalized for doing so. As APPA told FERC recently, the imposition of stranded cost payments--be they ``wires'' or transition'' fees--would have anticompetitive effects in the marketplace because they: erect artificial restrictions on new entry for alternative suppliers and trades; discriminatorily favor individual entrenched suppliers and their shareholders; give that entrenched competitive a paid-off asset with which to punish rivals; distort relative transmission prices if charges are placed there; reduce electricity consumption to suboptimal levels and distort the investment of electricity-using industries into more labor-intensive technologies; and slow the diffusion of new technology. Exit fee proposals skirt the real issue. The real issue is maintaining a competitive price for BPA power. ``Exit fees'' are a solution advocated where monopolists wish to preserve the status quo by enforcing their will; BPA has no legal or economic power to implement this approach. Furthermore, it is completely contrary to the thrust of the National Energy Policy Act passed by Congress in 1992 and now being carried out by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The likelihood that, at this juncture, Congress would decide to circumvent that law and write into statute a special deal for BPA is virtually nil. There is no apparent authority for BPA to assess an ``exit fee.'' While BPA's rates are subject to ``confirmation and approval'' by FERC that they are sufficient to assure repayment of the Federal investment over a reasonable number of years and are based on total system costs, this authority is unlikely to mean that ``stranded investment'' can be encompassed. If the issue comes to a head at the Commission, it is perhaps more likely to result from application of the FERC's regulations dealing that transmission. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 specifies that FERC has the authority to ``order the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration to provide transmission service and establish the terms and conditions of such service.'' While provisions of ``otherwise applicable Federal laws'' continue in full force and effect, FERC is charged with determining that ``no rate for transmission of power on the system shall be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential.'' Administrative procedures for requesting transmission services from BPA are outlined in the law, and BPA cannot be required to provide transmission service ``if such order would impair the Administration's ability to provide such transmission services to the Administrator's power and transmission customers in the Pacific Northwest.'' BPA is defined under the National Energy Policy Act as a ``transmitting utility'' because it ``owns or operates electric power transmission facilities which are used for the sale of electricity at wholesale.'' It's important to understand what FERC is doing in the area of transmission. The Commission has issued a major proposed rule on this issue. Under the proposal, IOUs are required to file generic nondiscriminatory open access transmission tariffs that will assure ``comparability'' between use of transmission systems by the transmitting utility and third party transmission customers. The tariffs would functionally ``unbundle'' wholesale transmission from wholesale bulk power sales. Each utility must have a tariff for network service, and for firm point-to-point service, including the necessary ancillary services. The tariffs would include a duty to expand transmission capacity where necessary, and reassignment rights for firm point-to-point service. Firm service requests would have the same priority as new transmission service for the utility's native load. Utilities must also make available to potential transmission users the same electronic network information they use for their own transmission activities. All transmission tariffs will contain a reciprocity clause. With respect to ``stranded investment,'' FERC postulates two situations: 1. Wholesale contracts executed after July 11, 1994, would be subject to recovery only if specifically provided for under contract. 2. For existing wholesale requirements customers, IOUs may seek recovery of stranded costs through transmission rates if (a) the contracts do not explicity address such recovery, and (b) the utility can show it had ``a reasonable expectation'' of continued service to the customer beyond expiration of the contract term. There is a rebuttal presumption that if contracts contain notice provisions, the utility had no reasonable expectation of continuing to serve the customer beyond the notice period. The IOU must attempt to ``mitigate'' stranded investment, by absorbing, marketing or selling it, over a reasonable period of time, and the customer must be given advance notice of the maximum charge if no mitigation occurs. FERC's proposal provides that utilities that are not private power companies but are ``transmitting utilities'' can file a request to recover stranded investment under sections of the Federal Power Act dealing with transmission. However, they would be required to make the same evidentiary demonstration that is required of private power companies seeking extra-contractual stranded investment cost recovery. In April, Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon held a hearing on BPA problems. I think some of the material presented by public power is significant. Here are some pertinent parts: While debt of the Washington Public Power Supply System is controlled and is actually declining due to refinancing and other cost control measures, making it a predictable and certain future customer obligation, fish costs are uncontrolled and escalating. Since 1990, the annual fish cost (both capital and [[Page S 8627]] revenue expenditures) have more than doubled and continue to increase each year. Forty percent of BPA's fish and wildlife costs are for the direct cost of the program, while 60 percent of the cost of the program is attributable to the cost of power purchases to meet flow requirements and revenues foregone because of spill or altered hydro availability. Fish and wildlife costs are 19 percent of EPA's total costs. Reducing the generating capability for the Columbia River Hydro System is not a stranded investment subject to an exit fee concept. It is a change of water use by the federal government which should be subject to a recalculation of the repayment obligation. Transmission under the 1992 changes in the Energy Policy Act is a common carrier which should not be subject to external costs not related to construction and operation of transmission services. BPA's resource base is 12,000 MW of installed, renewable and low-cost hydro. The advantage of purchasing power long- term from BPA is that it gives a utility access to this federal hydroelectric system, which is insulated from changes in energy costs due to changes in fuel prices. Gas prices and the price of alternate suppliers will not stay low forever while BPA;s costs will decline as the Supply System debt is paid off. This is reason to believe that the BPA will continue to provide cost-effective electricity in the future. A long-term contract with BPA lessens the amount of decision- making on power supply that a utility needs to make. This creates a sense of ``one-stop shopping'' versus being an active participant in the market place. If BPA;s one environmental externality (fish and wildlife concerns) can be addressed in an economically sustainable fashion, this system looks very good for a very long time. BPA's future is not the only issue before Congress of interest to public power in the Pacific Northwest. For instance, Senator Slade Gorton of Washington is circulating a discussion draft of legislation to remove the public power exemption from regulation of pole attachments by the Federal Communications Commission. If his proposal were enacted into law as part of the telecommunications legislation pending in the Senate, FCC staff in Washington would decide what you could charge for use of your facilities and rights-of-way. As many of you know, earlier this month, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 309-100, approved an amendment to the Clean Water Act that affirms the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's proper role as a final arbiter over hydro-project licensing cases where Section 401 conditions conflict with FERC's responsibilities under the Federal Power Act. The people who helped make that happen include Representative Randy Tate and Representative Norm Dicks of Washington and Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho. The focus now shifts to the Senate, where we again need to explain the need for a final decision-maker to resolve federal-state disputes. But Bonneville is the big issue. I think the stakes are large and immediate. If the hemorrhaging of water and money cannot be stopped, the agency is not a viable institution. It is unlikely that federal taxpayers will subsidize the operation, and it is unreasonable to expect Northwest electricity consumers to pay more than the going price for power. If the worst happens, Congress is likely to endorse an asset sale of a failing business. That shouldn't happen, and it doesn't need to happen. But your involvement in preventing it from happening is the essential ingredient. It is important to understand a change in relationships that has taken place in the Pacific Northwest in recent years. A long-term paternalistic resource planning and acquisition role for BPA is no longer sustainable in an era where planning horizons have shortened to five years and there are literally scores of potential suppliers, some with offerings that cost only \1/2\ of Bonneville's current rates. Technology choices have changed. Gas-fired combustion turbines can be ordered and brought on-line in less than a year, supplying power with efficiencies of up to 60 percent and prices lower than new hydro. The partnership of BPA and preference customers cannot be the same when federal power costs more than purchases from IOUs. Consumer-owned utilities have made payments to BPA over five decades and have built up the significant equity in the system. They have a continuing interest in protecting and enhancing that investment, but like BPA, they must adjust to a world where competitive bidding has replaced sole source suppliers. BPA will have a more limited role in providing load growth services to its customers. In the future, this will more likely be the province of utilities, acting alone or in concert to diversify supply and reduce risk. You have your responsibility to your user-owners. BPA has its responsibility to taxpayers. But both of you benefit from working together. And that effort needs to take place now.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to share with my colleagues the thoughtful comments of National Labor Relations Board Chairman, William B. Gould IV, to graduates of the Ohio State University College of Law. In his remarks, Mr. Gould reminds us of the satisfaction one obtains through service to one's community and of the many opportunities available for us to do so. His inspiring comments make clear the value and importance of this commitment to assisting those around us. A remark by philosopher Albert Schweitzer has never failed to kindle my enthusiasm for work in the field of public service. Mr. Schweitzer once told an audience: I do not know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know: the only ones among you who will be truly happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve. I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to make Mr. Gould's remarks a part of the Record. The remarks follow: [From the National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, May 14, 1995] NLRB Chairman Gould Urges Law School Grads To Consider Public Service Careers In a commencement address on May 14 at the Ohio State University College of Law, National Labor Relations Board Chairman William B. Gould IV encouraged the graduates to consider careers in public service ``even in this period of government bashing by the 104th Congress'' and as the legal profession is under attack. ``My hope is that many of you will dedicate yourselves as lawyers or in other careers to a concern for the public good,'' Chairman Gould said in the graduation observance in Columbus, Ohio. ``Now, when Oklahoma City has made it clear that the idea of government itself as well as the law is under attack, it is useful to reflect back upon what government, frequently in conjunction with lawyers, has done for us in this century alone in moving toward a more civilized society.'' He stated:. ``What would our society look like without the trust busters of Theodore Roosevelt's era and the Federal Reserve System created by Woodrow Wilson? Regulatory approaches to food and drug administration, the securities market, the licensing of radio and television stations, labor-management relations (with which my agency is concerned) and trade practices are all part of the Roosevelt New Deal legacy which few would disavow in toto.'' Mr. Gould said ``the challenge of public service in Washington has never been more exciting or inspirational,'' as a result of ``the Clinton Administration's commitment--not only to helping the less financially able to use available educational opportunities and to provide a higher minimum wage to those who are in economic distress--but also, most particularly, through the National Service,'' He added: ``My sense is that there is a great opportunity for lawyers to serve the public good through the public service today-- even in this period of government bashing by the 104th Congress. More than three decades ago President John F. Kennedy called upon the sense of a `greater purpose' in a speech at the University of Michigan when he advocated the creation of the Peace Corps during the 1960 campaign. President Bill Clinton's National and Community Service Trust Act (AmeriCorps.), designed to allow young people tuition reimbursements for community service, echoes the same spirit of commitment set forth by President Kennedy--and at an earlier point by President Roosevelt through the Civilian Conservation Corps.'' Tracing his own interest in the law and government service, Mr. Gould said he was inspired by the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the NAACP's anti-discrimination efforts in the South, and ``[m]ore than anything else . . . the struggle in South Africa made me see the connection between the rule of law and dealing with injustice.'' He also spoke of the ``trilogy of values'' at his ``inner core'' that has guided his life and fostered his philosophical allegience to the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society. The first of these values is the idea from his upbringing in the Episcopal Church of ``our duty to live by the Comfortable Words and to help those who `travail and are heavy laden.' The second was the belief, inspired by his parents, that ``the average person needs some measure of protection against both the powerful and unexpected adversity.'' The third value, Mr. Gould continued, was ``based upon personal exposure to the indignity of racial discrimination which consigned my parents' generation to a most fundamental denial of equal opportunity.'' The NLRB Chairman, on leave as the Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, said he was proud of the agency's prominent role in the Major League Baseball dispute where ``the public was able to obtain a brief glimpse of the Board's day-to-day commitment to the rule of law in the workplace.'' On March 26, the Board voted to seek injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the Act requiring the owners to reinstate salary arbitration and free agency while the parties bargain a new contract. He said further: ``What may have been overlooked in the public view was the fact that the Board was able to proceed through a fast track approach and make the promise of spontaneous and free collection bargaining in the workplace a reality. I hope that the players and owners will now do their part and bargain a new agreement forthwith!'' ``I am particularly proud to head an agency which is celebrating its 60th anniversary this summer and which, from the very beginning of its origins in the Great Depression of the 1930s, has contributed to the public good through adherence to a statute which encourages the practice and procedures of collective bargaining. . . .''

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, during the first few days of June, one of the largest international gatherings of educators and representatives of the public and private sectors supporting civic education met in Prague, Czechoslovakia. Four hundred and twenty-five representatives from 52 nations participated. Entitled CIVITAS@PRAGUE.1995, the conference was sponsored by 36 civic education organizations from North America, Western and Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union. A declaration was adopted by CIVITAS participants that asserts the essential importance of civic education for developing the support required for the establishment and maintenance of stable democratic institutions. Constitutional democracies must ultimately rely upon citizens and leaders possessing a reasoned commitment to those fundamental values and principles which enable them to flourish. Stable democracies, in turn, are vital for economic development, national security, and for overcoming destructive religious and ethnic conflicts. The declaration also argues that civic education should have a more prominent place in the programs of all governments and international organizations. American participation in the project was organized by a steering committee composed of representatives of the Center for Civic Education, American Federation of Teachers, National Endowment for Democracy, Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe, Mershon Center at Ohio State University, and the Social Studies Development Center at Indiana University. All these groups worked in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Information Agency. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this declaration and in giving greater recognition to the need to improve civic education for students in the United States and in other nations throughout the world. The text of the CIVITAS declaration follows: Civic Education--An International Priority On June 2-6, 1995, representatives from fifty-two countries met in Prague at one of the largest international meetings on civic education ever held. The following is a declaration adopted by the participants. A list of the individual signers is available on CIVNET. The wave of change toward democracy and the open economy that swept the world at the beginning of this decade has slowed, and, in some respects, even turned around. Religious and ethnic intolerance; abuses of human rights; cynicism toward politics and government; corruption, crime and violence; ignorance, apathy and irresponsibility--all represent growing challenges to freedom, the marketplace, democratic government, and the rule of law. All this makes clear how central knowledge, skills, and democratic values are to building and sustaining democratic societies that are respectful of human rights and cultural diversity. Once again, we see the importance of education which empowers citizens to participate competently and responsibly in their society. Despite great differences in the more than fifty countries represented among us, we find many similarities in the challenges we face in our civic life. These challenges exist not only in the countries represented here; they also exist in other parts of the world, and in all aspects of social, economic, and political life. People involved in civic education have much to learn from one another. It is time again to recognize the crucial role that civic education plays in many areas of concern to the international community: Shared democratic values, and institutions that reflect these values, are the necessary foundation for national and international security and stability; The breakup of Cold War blocs, while bringing much good, has also created openings for aggressive and undemocratic movements, even in the established democracies themselves; Civic development is an essential element in--not just a side effect of--economic development. Investments and guarantees made by private enterprise, governments, and international financial institutions will fail where political and legal systems fail, and where corruption and violence flourish. The challenge of civic education is too great for educators alone. They need far greater cooperation from their own peoples, governments, and the international community. We seek increased support for civic education--formal and informal--from the widest range of institutions and governments. In particular, we urge greater involvement in civic education by international organizations such as the Council of Europe, the European Union, the North Atlantic Assembly, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United Nations, UNESCO, and the World Bank. We seek an active personal and electronic on-line-exchange (through CIVNET) of curricular concepts, teaching methods, study units, and evaluation programs for all elements of continuing education in civics, economics, and history. We pledge ourselves to create and maintain a worldwide network that will make civic education a higher priority on the international agenda.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the legislation now before the Senate attempts to bring the 1934 Communications Act up to date with our Nation's current telecommunications needs. Telecommunications reform has been the subject of a great deal of debate in previous years and it is widely acknowledged that reform is necessary. However, as with any measure addressing such a broad segment of our national economy, there are many differing opinions regarding how best to proceed. The telecommunications industry has expanded rapidly in recent years due to significant advances in technology and increasing consumer demands. A large portion of the evolution in this industry can be attributed to increased competition. Daily, millions of Americans at work, in school, and at home rely on telecommunications networks for communication, information, and entertainment. There is an enormous interest in the final outcome of this debate because enactment of a revised telecommunications law will affect virtually every American. The underlying goal of telecommunications reform must be to do what is best for consumers. There may come a time in the future when the Federal Government can remove itself from any involvement in this industry, but we have not reached that point. I believe it is necessary for government to continue to play a role in telecommunications oversight to protect the American consumer. The Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 attempts to deregulate this industry and largely allow market forces to structure the industry. I support the free market ideals of this legislation. However, we must recognize that deregulation is not always synonymous with fair competition. Due to the fact that a small group of companies control most of our nation's telecommunication networks, there are many concerns about the potential abuse of this advantage. In order to ensure the American people are the ultimate beneficiary's of these services, we must provide adequate safeguards to accompany these deregulatory efforts. There are presently a number of government entities with responsibility for the oversight and regulation of the telecommunications industry. Not only are many of these roles duplicative, but they are also extremely cumbersome for consumers and the companies providing the services. One historical example of these overlapping functions is the break-up of the AT&T telephone monopoly. The Department of Justice initiated this action by determining that AT&T was in violation of Federal anti- trust laws. The courts followed by establishing the modified final judgement which created the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies. Currently, the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, State and local governments, and the courts each oversee segments of the long distance and local telephone services in this country. The break-up of AT&T was a necessary development, but the final results continue to confuse and alienate consumers to this day. The legislation we are debating today addresses almost every aspect of the telecommunications industry in some capacity. Additionally, it allows Congress to re-establish its responsibility for setting policy in this area. For the past 6 years the Congress has attempted to address this issue. Though these efforts have largely been unsuccessful, we all recognize this area needs reform and that action is past due. The House and Senate have each crafted bills to revise current telecommunication laws this year and the congressional leadership has also made their strong commitment to passing a telecommunications reform bill very clear. This will not be an easy endeavor, but I remain hopeful that Congress will move forward on this important matter in this Congress. During this important debate, we have heard a great deal about how this legislation will impact the telecommunications industry. However, Mr. President, it is also the Federal Government's rightful role to help our citizens receive access to advanced technologies and not just reserve this privilege to those who can afford it. The provision included in this bill by Senators Snowe and Rockefeller will allow rural health care facilities, public schools, and libraries to receive telecommunication services at a discounted rate. The Snowe-Rockefeller language, which I support, will provide telecommunications access to numerous needy institutions throughout our country. For example, the Portals Project in Oregon, which electronically links several learning institutions, will be a beneficiary of this amendment. Mr. President the reform of this industry is a huge effort and I commend the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, and the panel's ranking minority member, Senator Hollings, for their leadership on this important matter. They have both worked long and hard on this contentious issue to establish a foundation for the future of our telecommunications needs. I continue to have several concerns with the Pressler-Hollings bill, which I hope will be addressed through the amendment process. However, I also believe they have crafted a bill that takes a comprehensive step toward addressing the needs of the American consumer and the telecommunications industry as we move further into the Information Age of the twenty-first century.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, it has been a difficult process, but we have now reached the conclusion of this worthy debate. I want to commend Majority Leader Dole and Minority Leader Daschle and the managers of this legislation, Chairman Hatch and [[Page S7878]] Senator Biden, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for their skill and resolve in moving this important and complex measure through the Senate. It is proper for the Senate, at the request of the President, to undertake this legislative action to put in place safeguards to ensure, to the extent we can, that terrorism does not occur in the future. It is my hope that this legislation will provide one more avenue toward the national healing that is needed in the aftermath of one of the most senseless and disturbing acts in the history of man. I have joined with all my colleagues to condemn this act in the harshest terms. However, despite my abhorrence of this horrible crime, I am unable to support this legislation. As many of my colleagues are aware, I am a long-time opponent of capital punishment. This legislation, under section 2332b, on page 7 of the bill, provides for the imposition of the death penalty in the following manner: (1) Whoever violates this section shall, in addition to the punishment provided for any other crime charged in the indictment, be punished-- (A) if death results to any person, by death, or by life imprisonment for any term of years or for life; Madam President, I could support this provision if the clause ``by death'' were excluded. Because it has not been deleted, and because the death penalty is so repugnant me, I am unable to support this legislation which has many meritorious provisions. I would like my colleagues to take note of a recent event in the country of South Africa. I am informed that the highest court in South Africa has struck down the death penalty in that country on the basis that it constitutes cruel and inhumane punishment. In his opinion, Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson said, ``Retribution cannot be accorded the same weight under our constitution as the right to life and dignity.'' He went on to make a point made by death penalty opponents on this floor many times: ``It has not been shown that the death sentence would be materially more effective to deter or prevent murder than the alternative sentence of life imprisonment.'' I believe it is time for this country to follow the lead of the South Africans. I have long held that capital punishment is a barbaric penalty, certainly one that should be abhorrent to a society such as our own. I have marveled at the strides the South Africans have made over the past decade. It was not too many years ago that the United States put great pressure on the Government of South Africa to improve their horrible human rights record. While this new decision is being met with the expected cries of opposition, it now appears to me that the South Africans are setting an example for us on human rights. I merely make note of this enlightenment in South Africa as this body continues down the road of support for capital punishment. It is my hope that some day my colleagues will realize this is a failed, primitive and sickening policy. I regret that, on that basis, I am unable to support S. 735. the comprehensive terrorism prevention act

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, during the Senate consideration of the interstate waste bill, I reminded my colleagues that 10 States have achieved great success in dealing with solid waste by implementing some form of beverage container deposit system. My home State of Oregon, for example, has had remarkable success with its own bottle bill for over 20 years. Consequently, I offered the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act as an amendment to that legislation. My amendment was ultimately withdrawn, but not before the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, agreed to hold a hearing in his committee on this issue during the 104th Congress. I am enthused by this opportunity for the bottle bill and am formally introducing this legislation today. Although it will be referred to the Commerce Committee because of precedent, the Environment Committee is also an appropriate forum to consider reducing our solid waste stream. The National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1995 is identical to the bill I introduced in the 103d Congress. As someone who grew up during the Great Depression, I am constantly reminded of the throw-away ethic that has emerged so prominently in this country. In this regard, Oregon's deposit system serves as a much greater role than merely cleaning up littered highways, saving energy and resources or reducing the waste following into our teeming landfills. The bottle bill acts as a tutor. It is a constant reminder of the conservation ethic that is an essential component of any plan to see this country out of its various crises. Each time a consumer returns a can for deposit, the conservation ethic is reaffirmed, and hopefully the consumer will then reapply this ethic in other areas. This legislation will accomplish national objectives to meet our Nation's massive waste management difficulties. A national deposit system will reduce solid waste and litter, save natural resources and energy, and create a much needed partnership between consumers, industry, and local governments for the betterment of our communities. So often, States serve as laboratories for what later emerges as successful national policies. The State of Oregon and other bottle bill States have proven that deposit programs are an effective method to deal with beverage containers, which make up the single largest component of waste systems. According to the General Accounting Office deposit law States, which account for only 18 percent of the population, recycle 65 percent of all glass and 98 percent of all PET plastic nationwide. That means 82 percent of the population is recycling less than 25 percent of our nation's beverage container waste. As many of my colleagues know, I have a 20 year history on this issue and have been greatly enthused by developments in recent years in promoting the establishment of a national bottle bill. The commitment I received earlier this year for a hearing in the Environment Although this bill has historically been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, in recent years significant actions on this measure have come in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senator Jeffords offered the bill as an amendment to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in the Environment and Public Works Committee during the 102d Congress. Even though this attempt failed by a vote of 6 to 10 it was a monumental step forward. Additionally, during the same Congress a hearing was held in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the energy conservation implications of beverage container recycling as outlined in that session's bottle bill, S. 2335. I regret that I frequently have come to the Senate floor to force the Senate to take action on this matter, but that seems to be the only effective procedure for moving forward on this bill. For example, during the 1992 Presidential campaign candidate Bill Clinton declared his support for a national bottle bill. However, once he took office he and the Congress were surprisingly silent on the issue. Consequently, I was forced to offer the Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act as an amendment on the Senate floor. Mr. President, It is widely acknowledged that recycling is the wave of the future and this legislation will facilitate the recycling of beverage containers. I firmly believe the time has come for Congress to follow the wise lead of these States and encourage deposit systems on a national level. I strongly urge my colleagues to fully examine the benefits of a national beverage container deposit system and to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support for the bottle bill amendment to the Interstate Waste bill be included in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. On rollcall vote No. 231, I voted ``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote. This has been cleared by the two leaders. (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I merely wanted to say, in conclusion of this process on the rescissions package, I am very hopeful that the President will sign this bill. If he does not sign this bill, of course, there are problems relating particularly to the supplemental appropriations that are included in this bill. We have worked long and hard on this. I want to take this occasion to thank my colleague from the Democratic side of the aisle, Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the full committee; each of subcommittee chairs and each of the subcommittee ranking members, and the extraordinary staff that we have on both sides that have worked together very carefully. Mr. President, I cannot predict what will happen. There have been discussions between the Republican leadership of the House and the Senate with the White House wondering if there might be a better way to achieve a [[Page S7406]] common goal that the President has and we have. I make no predictions. I must say, I am terribly disappointed we had so few Democrats support this measure today, because I can say one thing: If there is a revision or if there is a new package that comes down the track, we will not have enough votes on this side to pass it. I, therefore, would urge that the White House take a very careful view of the politics of getting any other package passed, even one that we might be able to agree to. I thank my colleagues on the committee, both the Republicans and Democrats, for having brought us to a conclusion at this point on the rescissions conference report.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes on this rescissions package.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to help our vital small and emerging businesses grow successfully. This bill would utilize existing research facilities, especially in our urban universities, to help enable businesses to discover what currently hinders their development. This proposal previously passed the Senate as an amendment to S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act. While this act did not become law last year, it is my hope that this measure will see quick action in this Congress. This proposal will not create a new bureaucracy. In fact, it may help to point out where local and Federal bureaucracies impede business development. It is designed to promote business research assistance by those uniquely qualified to take on these tasks: namely, our Nation's business schools in conjunction with private or nonprofit organizations. The focus of this legislation is the overall health of businesses in lower income urban communities. However, this bill does not preclude this assistance from being applied in rural areas. In fact, if a State does not contain an urban area as defined in the legislation, the SBA Administrator may designate one area in that State for this purpose. We know some of the most basic problems that businesses face, such as intrusive government regulations. Additionally, small and emerging businesses in low-income urban areas find development difficult because of the lack of access to investment capital and technical assistance. However, why do some of these businesses thrive and compete internationally while others fail? Last year's committee report on the National Competitiveness Act noted that only 6 out of 10 of our smaller manufacturers employ advanced technology, compared to 9 out of 10 for plants with more than 500 employees. Reports offer little information on exactly why businesses fail or cease to expand in certain areas. When I tried to find research on the specific problems that businesses face in Oregon, the only current source of information was a survey done by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Surveys and government statistics cannot take the place of primary research conducted by our Nation's business schools. Business schools play an important role in sustaining business development. They currently perform vital research and train our Nation's future business leaders. However, this role could be greatly enhanced by providing them with additional Federal resources to expand their much needed research and apply their findings to businesses in their communities through assistance programs. This proposal would allow the Small Business Administration to make grants to urban universities for research on, or for implementation of, technical assistance, technology transfer, or delivery of services in business creation, expansion, and human resource management. As noted above, where there is not an urban university in a State, the SBA Administrator may designate another eligible area in the State. The authorization for these demonstration grants is limited to $10 million. The grants would be dispersed geographically, and not exceed $400,000 per institution or consortium. This procedure makes use of existing talent and facilities to create the information and assistance that developing businesses need. For example, a comprehensive data base on business births, deaths, expansions, or contractions is no longer maintained. A potential benefit of this proposal could be the creation of such a data base in conjunction with assistance efforts based upon the resulting information. In this case, we would see nonprofit entities taking over functions that were previously under the direction of the SBA in order to enhance American competitiveness. Other programs such as the Small Business Development Centers [SBDC's] do an admirable job of specializing in assisting small entrepreneurial enterprises. However, the Small Business Enhancement Act is designed to offer applied research and in-depth technical assistance to small and emerging businesses that SBDCs do not have the facilities to undertake. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important business initiative. I ask unanimous consent that supporting letters from the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the American Electronics Association of Oregon, and Portland State University be placed into the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, various others. Nondefense discretionary funds, with the exclusion of the health programs and Medicare.

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield to the request of the chairman, and I withdraw my first amendment on the assumption that I will be able to debate with my time allocation on the amendment that I want to bring to a vote.

Mr. HATFIELD. Thank you. Mr. President, in closing, I thank my colleagues who joined in this effort. I say that it is, I believe, a step in the right direction. But, at the same time, I want to take a moment, once again, to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici from New Mexico. I would not trade with him for all the tea in China. I think Senator Domenici has probably one of the toughest jobs in the Senate. No matter what he does and his colleagues on that committee, it is a no-win situation. It is a very, very difficult task. I think they have carried their duties with not only great skill, great dignity and, above all, with remarkable patience. I have been in the strategy meetings, and everybody is gigging, and I am happy that everybody is taking it out on good old Pete. I want to come to his defense--not that he needs my defense--but I admire him as chairman of the committee. I admire what he does and his dedication and spirit. And I deeply admire him as one of my closest personal friends.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I share the agony. Believe me, one might think that we have cause to celebrate a victory if this amendment passes--which I expect it to do, and to survive conference, which I hope it could do--but I do not believe that it does call for a joint celebration because we have achieved one goal at a pretty heavy cost to an awful lot of other programs that I have deep interest in, as well. It is like choosing between your children. It is very difficult. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I would like to ask a question for the Record. In the report of the Budget Committee accompanying this resolution, where there were exemptions listed within the report language, if this amendment is adopted, do I understand clearly that that will then, in effect, eradicate, eliminate, excise those conditions within the report language of exemptions?