Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I require. Mr. President, the conference report before us reflects the agreement of the two Houses on H.R. 1158, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes. This conference report is a culmination of several weeks of effort on a number of different fronts. It represents a balance between our responsibility to provide additional funding when necessary to address urgent national needs, on the one hand, and our responsibility to reduce funding for lower priority programs whenever and wherever we can, on the other hand. The Senate's conferees on this measure present it to the Senate with a belief that it merits approval of this body, and I urge its adoption. The bill provides a total of $7,249,503,600 in additional appropriations, of which $6,700,000,000, equally divided between fiscal years 1995 and 1996, is for FEMA for the disaster relief programs. We have fully funded the President's request in this regard, and we concur with his designation of this funding as an emergency requirement. We also agree with the President's request for additional emergency appropriations in response to the Oklahoma City tragedy and have provided $183,798,000 for that purpose. Finally, we are recommending $365,705,600 in nonemergency supplementals for fiscal year 1995. That latter figure includes $275 million in debt relief for Jordan as requested by the President and endorsed by the joint leadership of the Senate. In addition, the conferees reached agreement on rescissions of budget authority and other funding limitations totaling $16,413,932,975, and those reductions have been the focus of the debate throughout the consideration of the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing the supplementals and rescissions recommended in the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as the lead Republican sponsor of the National Voter Registration Act, I was very interested in a recent New York Times article reporting on the progress of voter registration since the bill's implementation in January of this year. Over 2 million new voters have been registered in the first quarter of 1995 and the National Motor-Voter Coalition estimates that approximately 20 million new voters will be registered by the 1996 Presidential election. It is very gratifying to hear that this important program is being implemented successfully and that the results are exceeding our expectations. I realize there are concerns about this law being a burden to the States and its financial impact on them. However, I would remind my colleagues that many innovative States, including Oregon, led the way for the Federal Government by adopting State motor-voter laws and supported a national law. Additionally, according to the Congressional Budget Office study on the implementation costs of motor- voter, the aggregate costs for States would be 20 to 25 million annually for 5 years. Mr. President, this does not meet the requirements of the Federal unfunded mandate legislation passed earlier this year by the Senate--which I supported. It is our obligation as policy-makers to protect the voting process and, at the same time, to make it accessible. The motor-voter law effectively achieves both of these important responsibilities and, therefore, I voted against the Coverdell amendment to the budget resolution.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield at this time to Senator Specter, whatever time he needs.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. I will be very happy to. But first of all may I yield to my cosponsor, who has not had an opportunity to make an opening statement and then I will be happy to yield for questions.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from New York. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Specter of Pennsylvania and Senator Kassebaum of Kansas. There will be other cosponsors that we will add as we go along. Mr. President, fundamentally, what we are facing here is a prelude to disaster as it relates to medical research and medical science in this country. We are really, in this session of the Congress, being offered three possibilities, three options. Each one of the three options has the same ending result. We have the President's budget. The President's budget, if we vote this line--my visual aid supporting chart for 1996--the President raises the NIH appropriation budget proposal by 4.1 percent. Like so many things in politics, it is a shell game. You see it and then you do not see it. You think you have it, and then you do not have it. After the first year of 1996 of raising this up by 4.1 percent, then the President's budget says--look at that drop. By the year 2000, we will take $1 billion away from medical research in this country. This amendment is bipartisan. The President is offering to demolish our medical research infrastructure on a slow-water-drip system. Then we have the House resolution. The House resolution says, ``Well, by 1996, next year, we want to drop it 5 percent,'' and then we steady income out here whereby we again find the end result of a dramatic reduction in the budget for the NIH. Not to be outdone by the White House, not to be outdone by the House of Representatives, the Senate budget resolution that is pending before the Senate today said, ``Oh, we will make a quicker death. We are going to say take $1 billion out between 1995 and 1996.'' In fact, in excess of $1 billion. By the time we get to 2000 we will have taken $7.7 billion out of the medical research of this country that leads to cures and leads to better treatment of disease. That is it, simply straightforward. I cannot believe that the body of the U.S. Senate can ignore the fact that the only thing the American people have said is raise our taxes if necessary, and we will tell Members by a 30 percent margin that dollars expended for medical research should be the top priority of our country. This is not one politician speaking to another politician. This is the voice of the people saying, ``We want to increase medical research.'' We have had polls show they would pay another $1 per week on their medical premiums in order for it to be earmarked for medical research. We have had polls show they would take another $1 per week in their income tax if it could be earmarked for medical research. Somehow the political establishment of the executive branch, led by the President, and the congressional branches, led by the two House and Senate budget resolution committees, do not hear that. Now, I am not going to get into a lot of detail except to say we are making tremendous progress in warring against many diseases. It was only half a dozen years ago we had a handful of dollars dedicated to Alzheimer's research. I have a personal interest in Alzheimer's. I watched my father die from Alzheimer's. I can say it is as difficult for the family as it is difficult for the victim. It is difficult for all those around him or her. I will not go into the gory details because most people around here have seen that kind of deadly disease attack and destroy people. Mr. President, we could not even diagnose Alzheimer's short of an autopsy a few years ago. Now we have built it over the years to about $210 million of research money dedicated to Alzheimer's. We have made breakthrough after breakthrough, both in gene analysis and identification, as well as treatment and diagnosis. When we say to the medical structure of this country, take $1 billion out of the $11.3 billion--10 percent--in 1 year, it is like in this country when we shut down the sawmill for a lack of logs and lose our chief sawyer, that company does not reassemble that team that makes that mill work a month later when a supply is received, or 2 months later. When the company begins to build the infrastructure of medical research, and once it is there, the company does not rebuild it because maybe 2 years down the road they decided they made a mistake. We have had the decade of the brain. Mr. President, 5 years have passed and a major part of that 5 years is building 130 scientists into an infrastructure in this country. Now it at a point where the payoff comes, we are about ready to start dismantling. Now, let me get a point of contrast. We have literally thousands of diseases in this country on which no research--no research--is being conducted, thousands of diseases in which there is no disease or where they are located. No registry. They are called orphan diseases. Thousands of them. The most important factor that is missing is no hope. No hope. We have been trying to attack that gradually by serendipity, meeting a young man in a wheelchair 15 years of age with EB, epidermolysis bullosa. At that point, no registry. At that point, no research money. It is like leprosy. They lose their fingers. It is a pigmentation problem. Sores break out all over their bodies. They cannot handle even this kind of artificial light, let alone sunlight. And they die at a very early age. This young man was so impressive with his eloquence, we wheeled him right into the Committee on Appropriations and we made a line item. If I ever had a reason to fight a line item veto, the whole concept of vetoing a line item--this was to get a line item in the appropriations that year to start a registry, starting a research project for EB, and giving hope for those people. That is not the way to run it, just because I met someone like that. There are thousands of them out there all over this country. I want to also say there is a point of reference and comparison. This same budget resolution calls for a $800 million increase in research in nuclear weaponry. Yes, $800 million increase and they are calling for a $1 billion cut in medical research. Oh, we have to protect our bombs but we cannot really protect our people. I am saying this is a value of people over bombs. I would like to have included the military research dollars. The 18 months of military research in this country leading us to be more efficient--we say at defending our country, but at the same time, cluster bombs in order to increase the capacity to destroy life-- is the equivalent of 95 years of medical research in the NIH; 18 months. That is a real value. But I do not have the votes. So we still have this power of the military that says, ``Do not include us in any reductions. We only can handle increases. Reduce the medical research programs.'' All this does is to face reality that we exclude the military, that sacrosanct military. We are going to exclude it. But at the same time we are going to reshuffle all of the other accounts and say, by putting the priority on medical research, the others are going to be reduced 5 percent. I enjoyed a little personal therapy by those last few statements. Now we get back to the reality of saying we have to reach this kind of agreement. I am happy to say I think, even though I would like to have a broader base, I am willing to settle for the narrower base in order to save the medical structure, research structure of this country. I hope some of my colleagues realize we have had a colleague recently diagnosed with Parkinson's, Senator Claiborne Pell. Do you realize we are spending this year $26 million for Parkinson's research--$26 million. You say that is a lot of money--yes, it is a lot of money. We are spending over $1 billion for heart; $2 billion for AIDS; another $1 billion-plus for cancer, as we should, and I helped to fight for every one of those dollars, and I would defend every one of those dollars. All I am saying is, for Parkinson's, $26 million. Take a 16- to 20-percent decrease on $26 million for Parkinson's and you have a bigger impact than taking a 16- to 20-percent reduction, say, on cancer or heart, which is in excess--almost $2 billion each. So it is disproportionate in its impact. And I think this would then give us an opportunity to keep our commitment to the sick and those who have no hope for cure. If my friends are not interested in the humanitarian aspect of reducing suffering and putting the value on human life--and quality life, not just quantitative life--I hope we would support this because I am convinced it is the answer. If you are not impressed with that factor, then look at the cost. We have saved billions of dollars per year in what we have been able to accomplish in medical research with TB. Now we are having a revival of TB. We have Zaire and the Ebola problem over there, that is a threat to this country. Every time we used to want to get an increase in military spending we could say, ``The Russians are coming,'' and, boy, everybody would jack up another $1 million. I want to tell you, ``The viruses are coming.'' They are here. And we better get ready for that warfare because we need this kind of weaponry to fight it.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I now understand I have a 2-hour, equally divided time allocation to consider this amendment. Mr. President, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York to make a statement on this amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator D'Amato as a cosponsor on this amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the American public became well versed during last year's debate on the health care system and the need to stem rising health care costs. In the last year or so, we have seen the health care market begin to change and costs beginning to go down. Unfortunately, in the two largest Federal health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, this has not been the case. Annual costs continue to rise by nearly 10 percent. As we attempt to balance the Federal budget, we simply cannot continue to sustain this rate of growth in our Federal health programs. The pending amendment would take the savings or economic dividend expected from a balanced budget in 2002 and apply it to Medicare and Medicaid. While I am reluctant to even support a broad-based tax cut using these savings, at this time I do not believe these anticipated savings should be used to increase Medicare and Medicaid funding without addressing fundamental reforms in these two programs. After all, the savings are anticipated and may or may not be there when the budget is balanced in 2002. By using these anticipated funds to get us to a balanced budget or to sustain the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, we are kidding ourselves and reverting to budget tricks used during the 1980's. Therefore, I will oppose the Rockefeller amendment. The recent report by the Medicare trustees describes the crisis we will face as a nation if we continue to allow costs to grow at their current rate. The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be bankrupt in 2002. Yes, we have known about this for a number of years but the day of reckoning is upon us. As soon as 1997, Medicare expenditures will exceed incoming revenues. Before we begin to pour money into the trust funds, we must look at the substantive problems with the program which lead us down the road toward insolvency. Allowing Medicare expenditures to continue to grow at their current rate by applying the projected balanced budget savings to the trust funds will merely extend the insolvency date a few more years. Instead we must recognize that changes must be made to guarantee the long-term solvency of the program. That is why I have cosponsored legislation introduced recently by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Packwood, to require the Medicare trustees to provide Congress with their recommendations for solving the short-term and long-term Medicare solvency issues. Some States, including my own State of Oregon, are far down the road toward building cost efficiency into our health care system. A recent study of hospitals nationwide concluded that if the 1993 U.S. average hospital expenditures per capita had been the same as Oregon's age adjusted expenditures per capita, the United States would have saved over $66 billion of its $267 billion in hospital expenditures that year. We must continue to look at States like Oregon as we grapple with reforms in both Medicare and Medicaid. There are innovative reforms underway in our States which can provide concrete examples of how to reduce costs without adversely impacting access to quality health care services. Balancing the budget will not be easy but it is necessary. It will require a shared sacrifice by all Americans. In order to assure that this is accomplished we must be willing to address inefficiencies in programs such as Medicare which simply could not be imagined in the 1960's when the program was originally passed. I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to assure that this occurs.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for yielding for a few moments of presentation. I would like to begin today by reiterating some of the remarks that I made during the debate on the balanced budget amendment. I think the American people elected the Republican Congress with the expectation that we would show leadership and a willingness to make difficult decisions. In my view, the public shares the point of view that Government has grown bloated, ponderous, and too expensive. The programs of the New Deal and the Great Society put safety nets in place for those who are in the greatest need, but those nets now strangle the Federal Government by tying up precious funding in a knot of regulations and poor management. I believe that a balanced budget can come only through leadership and compromise. This compromise must come from each one of us. More importantly, it must come from those we represent. In the end, there is no easy answer. If there is a political will to create a balanced budget, we will create one, and if there is will to avoid one, we will avoid it. Senator Domenici, the chairman, and the Senate Budget Committee members have proven that this Congress is willing to make difficult decisions and that there is a political will to balance our Federal budget. It was an enormous task to construct this budget resolution and I congratulate the Senator from New Mexico and the committee for its work, and the work of the extraordinarily competent staff that they have assisting them. Like others, I think that the budget resolution cuts in the wrong places, targeting programs which are an investment in our future, such as medical research and educational assistance related to the National Institutes of Health, particularly, we have convincing evidence that every Federal dollar invested in biomedical research yields $13 in cost savings and productivity to society. Few other Federal programs can claim a similar track record. Mr. President, at the same time that we see substantial cuts in investment programs, we continue to see other portions of the budget continue to grow at alarming rates. In comparing spending in 1995 with the proposed spending in 2002, we see that nondefense discretionary spending will decrease almost 11 percent, defense spending will remain flat--and I will believe that when it happens--and entitlement spending will grow 45 percent. These numbers show that Congress must continue to review the entitlement programs of this country to ensure the long-term solvency of the Federal Government. Let me spend just a moment on the issue of our national investments. This budget presents us with a tragedy in the making regarding our ability to provide a high quality of life to all Americans. The Senate budget resolution represents the worst of three terrible options for the future of the National Institutes of Health. Option No. 1--the President's budget request calls for reduction in the NIH funding by 10 percent, beginning in the year 2000. I call this death by water torture. Option No. 2-- the House budget resolution calls for an immediate 5 percent reduction from 1995 levels for the NIH for the next year and then level funding for the next 5 years. This is death by the hangman's noose. Finally, option No. 3--the Senate budget resolution calls for a 10 percent reduction in 1995 levels for NIH for the next 7 years, a total reduction of nearly $8 billion, $1 billion in 1996 to begin with. In addition, the Senate resolution protects certain agencies from budget cuts. In other words, they have seen to it to exempt within NIH certain programs, the Centers for Disease Control, the Indian Health Service, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, and all AIDS-related programs. These exemptions mean the actual cuts to all other NIH programs will be around 16 to 20 percent, not 10 percent. This is death by the firing squad, and it means the end of our growing medical research enterprise as we know it. Let me give you a couple of examples. We are now halfway through on the decade of the brain. Mr. President, we have in the first 5 years of that commitment spent a proportion of that time necessary to bring together over 130 great and tested scientists in this common, integrated, and united effort. It did not happen overnight. And as a consequence, if you start taking a 15- to 16- or 20-percent reduction in that kind of neurological and brain-related disease, you are not only reducing the funding levels, you are destroying the infrastructure. Let me analyze that. The Presiding Officer at this moment is my colleague from the State of Washington. We both have a very major timber economy in our States. You take a small sawmill, or any sawmill, and if there is an interim of no supply of timber resource, that sawmill closes. You lose the chief sawer, you lose the greenchain people, you lose all these technological people necessary to make a sawmill function, and then you get a supply a month later. It will take an inordinate amount of time to reconfigure that team of technology that is required to operate a sawmill. Now look at what it means in terms of high technology, the high specialization of a brain strategy to conquer the diseases of the brain. You lose that team, you lose that kind of an infrastructure and you do not rebuild it 6 months later or the next budget period. Bear in mind, I believe that every dollar we have appropriated for AIDS is fundamentally required, but we cannot afford to get into this business of playing one disease against another disease and which one has the greatest political clout gets the most money. And that is what we are embarked upon. Why exempt AIDS? What about cancer? What about heart disease? What about Alzheimer's? What about all the other diseases that we are concerned about in our overall strategy of war on disease? It is a dangerous precedent to make that exemption and start playing these advocate groups one against the other. I think as we move to balance the budget, we should not randomly cut programs in our midst. We must cut judiciously, but at the same time safeguard our long-term investment programs. Through the promise of medical research we will find the treatments and cures we need to eradicate disease and disability. Let me take another example. I think it is very interesting that Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been exempt. These are the services coming out of the mental health programs and commitments. Mr. President, at the same time that we are going to continue these services at presently $2.1 billion, we are cutting $630 million of fiscal year 1995 out of mental research. Now how can you sustain a service program delivering the best quality of mental health services if you have cut off the research part of it or you have crippled it or you have brought it to such a place where they lose their personnel, and so forth? I think we know that only through the promise of medical research will we find the treatments and cures to eradicate disease and disability and reduce our health care costs. Medical research is a central mechanism for controlling the costs of health care in this country. That is, a cure and better treatment. After all, a cure is the ultimate in cost control. We found that fluoridation saves the country approximately $4.5 billion each year in preventing dental cavities; psychoactive drugs which actively reduce hospitalization for mental illness saves us $7 billion a year and allows patients to return to productive lives; a $20 million investment in influenza B vaccine resulted in a savings of over $400 million a year by preventing cases of childhood meningitis. In other words, Mr. President, all of these things concern me so much that I intend to offer an amendment during the course of debate on the budget resolution to restore the cuts, at least in major part, for the National Institutes of Health. I expect to be joined by a bipartisan group of colleagues, all of whom believe that severe cuts in this area are shortsighted at best. We are not alone in this task. Public opinion polls have shown massive public support for making health research the No. 1 Federal science priority. At the same time, I think it is interesting that we have frozen at current levels the research in the energy budget, and that has a major focus on nuclear matters of research. Mr. President, this gets us down to a priorities problem again, and a value problem. I believe it is more important to protect people from disease by finding the solutions and the preventive actions to take rather than to protect our bombs. That may not be the value system that others hold but, in my view, I would hate to go home and explain to my constituents how we are going to cripple the research for spinal meningitis or for Parkinson's disease or for many of the other diseases that everybody, agewise, will face one way or the other and say, ``Oh, but we have sustained our commitment to the research requirements to protect our bombs.'' I want to make sure that I add this point: That any type of restoration of $1 to this budget resolution has to be offset, and we are working on a bipartisan level now, working with the chairman of the authorization committee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Labor- HHS of the Appropriations Committee, we are working with our Democratic colleagues to try to come up with the offsets to deal with the restoration that we seek for the NIH budget. I wanted to also say, I know of no person in this body who has a greater commitment to medical and health problems that we face in this country than Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee. I imagine that he has probably lost more sleep than any of us at this point in crafting this budget resolution. So lest anybody attempt to make a personal matter out of this disagreement, I want to certainly disabuse them of that. We want to work with Senator Domenici's staff, this amendment, but I have to say, we are determined--we are determined--to save the future of this Nation's medical research and its infrastructure that is required to find the solutions to these diseases. As we continue with this debate, it is important that we remember that long-term fiscal responsibility should not only depend upon cuts in spending. It demands a radical transformation in the way we do business as a government. I know as an appropriator I will focus on how the American people can get more out of fewer federal dollars. That is the goal of the private sector of our society, and it should be the same of the Federal Government as well. I hope that the authorizers will also look to the innovators at the State and local level to see how they are making limited resources go further. I think each one of us can look to the local governments and advocates to glean ideas of how to make success government's goal, as opposed to an obsession with paperwork and feeding the bureaucracy. I hope this Congress takes the fact of fewer Federal dollars and turns it into an impetus to allow the innovators to rise to the top as shining examples of Government at its finest. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to join in this effort in eliminating the budget deficit. We have all come to the floor time after time to discuss the impact that continuing budget deficits have on the economy and the allocation of Federal revenue. In 1995, 15 percent of all Federal revenue will go to paying the interest on the debt, and that amount will continue to grow if this problem is not addressed. I think many Americans will be surprised that even if we balance the budget in the year 2002, the Federal Government will still spend $279 billion in that year to pay interest on the debt. Imagine what that amount will be if we do not make those tough decisions now. As a Member of the Senate that believes that the Federal Government can still play a vital role in addressing societies' needs, I can think of a number of ways to allocate that $279 billion in the year 2002, rather than simply paying interest on the national debt. Our Federal budget deficit is a national problem which deserves bipartisan attention. Bipartisan negotiation, leadership and compromise have been the cornerstones upon which we have built all effective decisions on tough issues since the formation of our government. I hope the Congress does not miss this opportunity to address the real issue of balancing the budget, and that is the issue which is before us in this Budget Resolution. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I just would like to express my gratitude to the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski]. I suppose Mr. Murkowski's diligence and perseverance again proves the old adage that, if you stick with a problem or an issue, you get it resolved with patience and forbearance. Certainly, the Senator has demonstrated both those qualities. I also want to express my appreciation for the staff. I do not know an issue I have dealt with for a period of time that has not incorporated more staff than this one, and they have all been most cooperative. Staff of committee, personal office staff people, staff of my colleagues, like the Senator from Washington State--all of the staff--really, again, demonstrated the superiority of our professional staff people, both in the offices and on the committees as well. So I would like to thank the Senator for his cooperation in resolving one of my problems.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering an amendment to provide for payment of a certain sum generated by this legislation to retire the debt incurred by citizens of the city of Portland, OR, to construct the largest floating drydock on the west coast. On June 1, 1977, Portland taxpayers financed this investment based in large part on the commitment made to keep this Alaska North Slope oil supply for domestic production oil only. Alaska oil exploration and the congressional commitment to the prohibition on the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil were crucial factors in Portland's decision to expand its publicly owned maritime repair facility. No drydocks on the west coast were large enough to handle the new Alaskan oil ships either in operation or under construction. Unless this infrastructure deficiency was remedied, these vessels would have had to be repaired in foreign shipyards and U.S. jobs would be lost. Based on the Federal assurances that this oil was for domestic use only and the encouragement by Federal officials for Portland to step forward to be part of the infrastructure team required to move this oil from the end of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline to the lower 48 States, local voters in Portland strongly supported the expansion of the Portland Ship Repair Yard to accommodate these very large oil carrying vessels and approved an $84 million bond measure. My amendment is intended to cover the remaining debt on these bonds dated June 1, 1977. After that significant investment, drydock 4 came on line, adding a vital component to the stated Federal plan for transporting Alaskan oil to domestic markets. Maintaining a ban on the export of this production was an integral part of the agreement to allow construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and the citizens of Portland reasonably relied upon this agreement. The bill before us today would reverse this 22-year-old commitment, to the great detriment of the substantial investments made by the citizens of Portland, OR. If the damaging impact on the Portland Ship Repair Yard of exporting Trans-Alaska Pipeline crude oil has not been made perfectly clear prior to this date, I would like to share with my colleagues an article that appeared in the Portland Oregonian today. The article reports that Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. has withdrawn its application to become the sole contractor at the Portland Ship Repair Yard. One of the primary concerns noted by Todd in announcing its withdrawal was congressional action to lift the Alaska oil export ban. My amendment seeks to address the unfairness lifting the ban would impose on the taxpayers of Portland. The amendment would require payments from the naval petroleum reserve, a primary beneficiary of the increased revenues that the Congressional Budget Office has judged will result from this legislation. These payments would go toward retirement of the $50 million in outstanding bonded debt incurred by the taxpayers of Portland to acquire Drydock No. 4. An additional $10 million would be made available to improve the shipyard to meet the new market conditions in the maritime industry that will result from the repeal of this longstanding export ban. This amendment is consistent with the pay-as-you-go budget rules currently in force. This amendment will keep faith with the citizens of Portland in the face of this dramatic change in Federal policy to allow Alaskan oil exports. I thank the Senator from Alaska and others for working with me to achieve this important provision to ensure the taxpayers of Portland are treated fairly.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, during the last several years, Americans have heard a lot about the need to reform our health care system. Health care costs are soaring out of control--far outpacing the rate of inflation--and nearly 38 million Americans are without health care insurance. Solutions for reform are complex and will go through much debate and consensus building before implemented on a national level. While local and regional health care systems have rushed to consolidate and integrate their services and resources over the last decade, rural entities, due to their shortage of physicians, the vulnerability of their hospitals, their geographical and technical isolation, and the demographics of their patient populations, have been largely unable to adjust in a similar way. As public concern over the national health care crisis grows and legislative bodies and policymaking agencies scramble to devise and implement far-reaching health care reform, the special health care needs of rural America must not be neglected. Today I am reintroducing the Rural Health Improvement Act because I feel, given the current direction of the health care reform debate, that it provides an essential transition into comprehensive health care reform. Now, more than ever, health providers in rural communities are joining with their urban counterparts to create networks to assure that health care is accessible in rural areas. There are a number of obstacles, however, that create a disincentive for providers to participate in these efforts. I believe that the legislation that I am introducing today will remove these obstacles and help rural communities position themselves for comprehensive health care reform. Mr. President, the Rural Health Improvement Act will help our rural communities in the following ways. First, this legislation provides grants to allow rural and urban providers to develop rural health extension networks to facilitate the delivery of health care in rural communities. It allows existing networks such as area health education centers to compete for these grants in order to prevent needless duplication and to assure that successful programs will have the ability to expand their capabilities. The goal of the rural health extension networks grant is to facilitate resource sharing within the network by providing education and training for health care providers in rural areas, creating linkages between rural and urban providers through the use of telecommunications and other consultative projects, and assisting rural providers in developing cooperative approaches to health care delivery. Second, my bill provides grants for the creation of rural managed care cooperatives which will enhance the economic viability of health care providers in rural areas. The idea of health cooperatives in rural areas is not new. In 1929, the first health maintenance organization in the United States was developed in rural Elk City, OK, by the Farmers' Cooperative. Since 1929, there have been several attempts to create rural health cooperatives, however, they have suffered because they lacked sufficient startup support. My bill provides this startup support. These cooperatives will be made up of health providers of all types including, but not limited to, hospitals, physicians, rural health clinics, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and public health departments. By establishing an effective case management and reimbursement system designed to support the financial needs of rural hospitals and health care systems, cooperatives will provide an effective framework for negotiating contracts with payers and assuring a defined level of quality. The cooperatives will also help rural practitioners with a portion of their payments on malpractice premiums. Due to the concerns about possible antitrust problems that might arise in the formation of the rural health extension networks and the rural managed care cooperatives, the bill includes language which would protect providers who participate in these entities from antitrust law. This exemption from antitrust law should facilitate the development of network and cooperatives in rural areas. Third, the bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award competitive grants to develop and implement mental health outreach programs in rural areas. The bill emphasizes the needs of the elderly and children in rural areas. Grant recipients are encouraged to form relationships with rural managed care cooperatives to enhance the delivery of these services. Fourth, my bill provides stipend grants under the Area Health Education Centers [AHEC] Program to health care providers and trainees in rural communities as an incentive to provide health care services in those areas. While the stipends envisioned in this legislation will not completely relieve the financial burden young providers face, especially physicians, it is my hope that they will provide enough of an incentive to attract and retain health care providers in rural areas. It has been 20 years since the AHEC Program was enacted and we now have a network of 48 AHEC Programs in 38 States. In my own State of Oregon, we have an excellent statewide AHEC program with five centers now operating to meet the challenges of both rural and urban areas. State studies have shown that AHEC's have an excellent record in addressing the primary health care profession needs of underserved areas. In fact, since AHEC's inception more than 1.5 million students, residents, and preceptors have been trained in medicine, allied health, dentistry, nursing, and pharmacy. Finally, this year I have included a nonrefundable tax credit for qualified providers in rural and underserved areas. This tax credit is similar to the tax credit proposed in health care reform legislation last session. Under this provision qualified providers will be eligible for a tax credit if they serve in rural or underserved areas for 5 years. A similar tax credit program in Oregon has enjoyed great success. In a recent survey by the Oregon Office of Rural Health, rural providers indicated that the Oregon Tax Credit Program is the most important program offered that keeps them practicing in rural areas. Mr. President, our rural communities are facing a crisis in health care delivery. Nationwide, 141 rural community hospitals closed between 1989 and 1993. In Oregon, five rural hospitals have closed since 1986 and several other rural facilities are threatened with imminent closure. These hospitals simply cannot compete with their urban counterparts. I believe my legislation will give rural health care providers the tools to build rural health care delivery systems which meet the health needs of their communities. This is the first step in developing an infrastructure of providers who will support and sustain comprehensive health care reform and provide health care access for all Americans. Health Care Association, the Oregon Office of Rural Health, the Oregon Association of Hospitals, the Oregon Medical Association, the Oregon Nurses Association, and the Oregon AHEC Program Office for their support in developing this innovative legislation. I urge my colleagues to take a careful look at this bill and consider it as a transition into comprehensive health care reform that can help our rural communities now.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say we have collaborated on this as between Washington State and Oregon, on the basis of the impact it has on the Northwest, outside of Alaska. I am happy to say, too, that we have been working with Senator Murkowski's staff and we are hoping that we can resolve the problem we have as it impacts upon the Port of Portland. I will address that at a later moment. First of all, I would like to distinguish between title I of this bill and title II. Title I of this bill provides for the sale of the Alaska Power Administration. I support the sale of the Alaska Power Administration, but I do have strong objections to provisions in this bill which seek to alter, in a fundamental way, a longstanding agreement relating to the Alaskan North Slope crude oil. Mr. President, for over 20 years, Congress has maintained a ban on the export of crude oil from the North Slope of Alaska transported via the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. This agreement, which is based primarily on national energy security, has given rise to many investments and business expectations. The legislation now before the Senate, sponsored by my good friend from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would lift this export limitation, thus allowing unlimited export of oil from Alaska. While I understand and respect the motives of the Senator from Alaska, I must oppose his efforts in this case. I believe it is indisputably in the national interest to maintain our precious remaining supplies of crude oil for domestic use only. To export our Alaska reserves, which account for a quarter of current U.S. consumption, at a time when our reliance on unstable supplies of foreign oil is again in excess of 50 percent, would be damaging to the already fragile energy security situation of the United States. Again, I want to emphasize that over 50 percent of our consumption is dependent upon foreign imports, and from a very fragile part of the world, geopolitically speaking--the Mideast. I have long supported the restricting of Alaska North Slope production for domestic use only. Beginning in 1979, I sponsored legislation in several sessions of Congress to extend these restrictions. Each time this issue has come before Congress, these restrictions have been extended with strong bipartisan support. In fact, each time Congress has strengthened the restrictions with respect to Alaska and has added similar restrictions to the export of oil produced in any part of the United States, including offshore oil and oil contained in the strategic petroleum reserve. I am also aware that sectors of the refining and maritime industries have made substantial investments based on the assurances of Congress that this ban would remain in effect. It would be manifestly unfair to upset these reasonable expectations at this stage. I should also point out, in order to complete the legislative picture, that Senate bill 414, which I have sponsored with Senator Murray, is currently pending before the Banking Committee. Our bill would extend the current export restrictions and is therefore directly contrary to the provisions in the bill presently before the Senate. The Senator from Alaska also has a bill, Senate bill 70, which would also lift the export restriction, and it is also pending before the Banking Committee. I am troubled that the Senator from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, is not present to express his views on these matters before his committee. In 1973, shortly after the beginning of the Arab-Israeli war and the first oil embargo, Congress adopted the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. And this legislation authorized a construction of a pipeline to move oil from lands belonging to the State of Alaska on the North Slope to a Port at Valdez. The act also amended the Mineral Leasing Act to put in place an export restriction on all oil carried over Federal rights-of-way. Under this provision, exports were only if the President determined exports would be in the national interest, would not diminish the total quantity or quality of oil in the United States and would be done under the licensing provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1969. A second major oil shock took place in 1979. At that time, in section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act, Congress effectively banned oil exports from the Alaskan North Slope. Congress further tightened section 7(d) in 1985. No rollcall votes have taken place in the Senate since 1984, when this body tabled an amendment offered by my friend from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, which would have allowed a limited amount of exports at 200,000 barrels per day on U.S. vessels, and the amendment was tabled on a vote of 70-20. Since the first Alaska oil export restrictions were enacted in 1973, they have provided enduring benefits for our Nation. I speak as someone who has been in the Senate since this ban was put in place and has watched it function. As a result of this policy, we now have an efficient transportation infrastructure to move crude oil from Alaska to the lower 48 States and Hawaii. In addition, these restrictions have helped limit our reliance on OPEC and unstable Persian Gulf oil supplies. They have also allowed us to enhance our domestic merchant marine that continues to help supply the essential oil requirements of our domestic economy and our military. I have also been in this body long enough to learn quite a few history lessons. And it troubles me that despite two major oil crises and the Persian Gulf war, we continue to senselessly rely on foreign oil as a major energy [[Page S6673]] source. U.S. oil imports now exceed half of our daily oil requirement. Government and private estimates now predict that by the year 2010, foreign oil imports will exceed 60 percent. I consider these levels to be worthy of serious concern. The Clinton administration appears to be aware of the gravity of the situation, but I have not been impressed with the administration's proposals designed to address this growing problem. It is my belief that permitting the export of any Alaskan North Slope crude would only exacerbate our already serious problem of reliance on foreign oil. By allowing the export of Alaskan oil to Japan and other Pacific rim countries, we would further increase our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, something I strongly believe--and history supports my belief--puts the lives of United States troops at risk. Exporting this oil could have the effect of increasing consumer petroleum costs on the west cost and threatening the vitality of our domestic tanker fleet. Moreover, Alaskan oil exports would cause job losses in the maritime and related ship-supply industries on the west coast. I see no sound policy reason for the Nation to accept these costs. Our ability to withstand future energy crises will certainly be tested if we fail to take the appropriate steps now to protect our own energy resources. Keeping this important domestic energy source for domestic use only will affirm the policy of keeping this country on the right path toward energy security. During the 1973 trans-Alaska pipeline authorization debate, and during the numerous debates on exports since the ban was originally put in place, a fundamental issue for me and a majority of Senators has been this Nation's energy security. The Senate spent weeks debating the merits of allowing the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline and one of the primary concerns and points of debate was how this precious domestic supply was to be used to improve the energy security of the United States.. Remarks at the time by Senator Taft give a sense of the direction of the debate. It has been stated several times that oil from the Alaskan North Slope will not be shipped to the Midwest. It has also been stated--and feared by many--that a surplus of crude oil on our west coast will result in the export of this fuel to other countries. It is understandable that Americans would question this action when we are so desperately in need of oil in this country. It is also essential that we not be forced to rely too heavily upon oil from Middle Eastern nations who have stated their intentions to play politics with oil to influence foreign politics. Recall that in 1973, we were in the midst of an oil embargo and our heavy reliance on foreign oil turned very quickly into an economic crisis and a national security emergency. So I think it is fair to say that the Members of the Senate at that time were very much aware of the dangers of too great a reliance on foreign sources of oil. The Members of the Senate at that time knew, better than probably any other class of Senators since the attack on Pearl Harbor, that oil is an important national, as well as natural, resource. Because of its ability to influence the events of nations, oil differs fundamentally from more benign, local commodities. In 1973, the Senate was very much divided over whether to allow the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline, and I recall Vice President Agnew casting the tie-breaking vote on final passage. However, the Senate was very clear about one thing: If approval was to be given for the pipeline, any oil transported through that pipeline was to be for domestic consumption only. The oil was not to be sold to foreign countries. The oil was to enhance the energy security of this Nation by reducing our reliance on foreign imports. It is clear that we have yet to learn our lesson. This fact is illustrated well by the national oil consumption and supply figures released each year by the American Petroleum Institute. API's reports over the past decade show that domestic oil production has continued to decline, while domestic oil demand has continued to increase by thousands of barrels of oil a day. In 1970, U.S. crude oil production hit its all time peak of 9.6 million barrels per day. By 1973, the year of the Arab oil embargo, United States production had fallen to 9.2 million barrels per day. Today, the United States produces about 6.6 million barrels per day, a 28-percent decline since 1973 and a 31-percent decline since 1970. Less crude oil is produced by the United States today than was produced 40 years ago in 1955. According to projections by DOE's Energy Information Administration, U.S. crude production will continue to decline over the next decade, to 5.4 million barrels per day by the year 2000, 5.2 million barrels per day by the year 2005. The Department of Energy reports that the United States produced 5.2 million barrels per day in 1950. To add some perspective to that number, in 1950, there were 40 million cars on America's highways; today there are 143 million. This widening gap between domestic production and demand is being filled by an increasing stream of foreign oil imports. In fact, in 1991, the same year this Nation sent its young men and women to war in the Persian Gulf to protect an unstable supply of foreign oil, imports accounted to approximately 45.6 percent of America's domestic oil consumption. That event should have shaken this Nation into a renewed commitment to energy conservation and convinced us to reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign oil. However, our reliance on foreign oil imports has increased from 45.6 percent at the time of the Persian Gulf war to approximately 54 percent today. Experts predict a steady increase, approaching 60 percent, in the coming years. This significant reliance on foreign sources of oil merits our serious concern and our most thoughtful judgment. Shipping domestic supplies to foreign markets in order to stimulate otherwise marginal U.S. production is not, in my view, a prudent way for us to address the long-term energy security of this Nation. Promoters of the trans-Alaska pipeline disavowed any desire to ever export oil from the pipeline, and if my memory serves me correctly, the senior Senator from Alaska sponsored an amendment to outlaw exports. In 1973, those arguing that we should export our domestic oil supplies did not prevail because exporting our domestic supplies was not in the national interest. Those arguing for exports are no more persuasive today. Exporting our finite domestic oil supplies is not a prudent method of decreasing our reliance on foreign oil. It was not prudent in 1973. It is not prudent today. It is reverse logic of a very dangerous sort. By the passage of the 1992 National Energy Act, we now have many of the tools necessary to establish a sound national energy policy. But make no mistake: We have a long way to go to achieve energy independence and energy security in this country. We must commit ourselves to partnership, to consensus and to cooperation if we are to move our Nation into the role of world leader on numerous energy fronts, including in reducing fossil fuel use and increasing renewable energy technology. Maintaining the current requirement that Alaskan North Slope crude oil is to be used for domestic purposes only is a vital part a rational energy policy for this country. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have tried to outline my position in a general sense and then, in the historic context, the development of this legislation. I would like to turn now from the general to the specific. The Senator from California, a while ago on the floor, was raising the questions about the impact upon jobs and upon the local economy--in California and other west coast cities. I would like to further that discourse by referring to my own State of Oregon, and its relationship to Washington State, because the Port of Portland serves both sides of the Columbia River and the employees of the Port of Portland, many of them, traverse the bridge between the two States and their full-time employment [[Page S6674]] is in the State of Oregon. We have a lot of exchange between Vancouver, WA, and Oregon, the city of Portland. Based upon the export restriction policy established by Congress in 1973, an infrastructure has been developed to transport, refine, and deliver massive amounts of domestic crude oil to American consumers. In the State of Washington, refineries were built by integrated oil companies and independent refiners to process Alaskan crude. The infrastructure required to receive this type of crude oil and deliver it to marketers was also developed. In my own State of Oregon, facilities were built or expanded to repair the dozens of Jones Act tankers that carry this oil. In the State of California, refineries were built or expanded, a new pipeline from Long Beach to Texas was built, and shipyards were expanded to build and repair tankers in the Alaskan trade. A pipeline was built across Panama to provide for the more efficient transportation to gulf coast ports of Alaskan crude that could not be consumed on the west coast. Jones Act oil tankers were built to transport the oil to end-use markets. Each of these infrastructure investments was encouraged by Congress as part of its central policy objective: increased energy security through the domestic use of this important oil supply. This relates to another point that I mentioned earlier in my remarks, and upon which I shall now expand. This point is less related to energy policy and more related to fairness. In direct reliance on this act of Congress that put the export restriction in place, and on the enthusiastic encouragement of the Federal Government, the citizens of Portland, OR, undertook a major investment. They voted to tax themselves $84 million to fund a major expansion of the Portland Ship Repair Yard. This expansion program included acquisition of the largest floating dry dock on the west coast. This dry dock is specially designed for the large oil tankers that haul oil from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. These vessels are known as the Alaskan North Slope very large crude carriers [VLCC's]. Of the $84 million initially borrowed to complete the facility, $50 million remains to be paid. It is very likely that this facility, which accounts for 500 to 800 family wage jobs, will not continue to be viable if the bill currently before the Senate passes and the export ban is lifted. Exports will provide ship owners with a greater economic incentive to have ships repaired in the low-cost East Asian shipyards. Mr. President, $84 million is a great deal of money to taxpayers in Portland. This was not an investment based on a Federal handout, but rather, it was a city of moderate means putting up its own credit and ingenuity on the line to invest in a facility of integral importance to a stated Federal objective. It took a great deal of courage for Portlanders to make that investment. But it was not a blind venture. It was based on a great deal of encouragement by Federal officials that such a facility was a necessary part of the long-term plan for the Alaska Pipeline trade. Let me share some of the rhetoric of the time. I believe it is helpful in understanding why the citizens of Portland made this significant investment and why it would be highly unfair to abruptly change the rules at this point. After it became apparent that the oil would be used for domestic purposes only, proponents of constructing the pipeline made a very strong case for the benefits such a pipeline would have for the U.S. maritime industry, and in particular their expectation that the various components of the maritime industry would play a vital role in accomplishing the broad national objectives that construction of a trans-Alaska pipeline was designed to achieve. Commerce Secretary Maurice H. Stans was in the forefront of Nixon administration officials in advocating approval of the pipeline. In addressing the Seafarers International Union of North America in June 1973, Secretary Stans said the pipeline would help revive U.S. maritime strength. A trans-Canada pipeline was an option being seriously considered at that time, and Secretary Stans argued to the group that a pipeline across Canada would ``eliminate all the great maritime opportunities that the Alaska line would provide.'' The Seafarers agreed and approved resolutions endorsing the trans-Alaska route and another resolution re-endorsing the Jones Act. Andrew Gibson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Maritime Affairs, visited Portland, OR, in May 1973, and made the following remarks to the Propeller Club, a group of maritime interests: We have estimated that with the completion of the Alaska Pipeline, a fleet of approximately 30 new U.S. tankers would be added to the American merchant marine to transport the oil from southern Alaska to the West Coast. The construction of these vessels at an estimated cost of $1 billion would give an added stimulus to our shipbuilding industry and would provide approximately 48,000 man-years of work in the U.S. shipyards and allied industries. Manning and maintaining these vessels would create many additional permanent maritime jobs, while the estimated annual operating and maintenance cost of $30 million would provide added employment in the related service industries. The debates in Congress added further substance to the understanding that the maritime industry was being called upon to play an important role in the success of the trans-Alaska pipeline. The assumption that this supply was for domestic use only is pervasive. Congressman Young made the case in the House: In the maritime industry, 35 tankers will be employed in the fleet required for transporting the oil to the west coast ports. Twenty-seven of these ships remain to be constructed. It has been estimated by the Maritime Administration that the construction of these ships will create 73,500 man-years of labor in shipyards and supporting industries. Maintenance of the fleet will generate 770 permanent jobs in the Nation's shipyards. In the Senate, Senator Stevens made a similar statement: The trans-Alaska pipeline will particularly aid several vital American industries which are currently depressed. For example, the American maritime and shipbuilding industry will be helped greatly. Alaskan oil must be carried in American- bottom ships under the Jones Act. At least 27 new tankers must be constructed; 73,480 man-years of shipyard employment will be created; 3,800 permanent jobs will be created to run and maintain this new, modern tanker fleet. This will result in more than $1.0 billion for America's shipbuilding industry. This is an industry that has, for some time, been at a competitive disadvantage because of lower costs from foreign competition. As I read these statements, I can well understand why the citizens of Portland believed they were being given assurances that there would be continuity if they stepped forward to participate in this new venture of national importance. To now lift the export restriction and ask the taxpayers of Portland to take a $50 million loss on a shipyard that is now of questionable utility is imposing a great unfairness. This is an unfairness that I cannot allow. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as Congress begins the difficult task of confronting our Federal deficit and addressing the needs of our less- developed communities, we must focus on innovative ideas to meet these needs. Bureaucracy has often failed to provide successful solutions, making the formation of public-private partnerships necessary to jointly aid neighborhoods. Successful community development must be locally specialized. Attempts by Congress to write a Federal prescription for our Nation's underdeveloped communities will not succeed unless these strategies are sensitive to the diverse needs of those localities. One organization is making a difference in developing communities by providing localized, market-guided assistance. The Social Compact is a coalition of hundreds of leaders from the financial services and community development industries who have combined their forces to strengthen America's at-risk neighborhoods, both urban and rural. Firmly grounded in John Locke's thesis of a covenant between members of society and the community from which one has prospered, emphasizing commonalities rather than accentuating differences, the Social Compact advocates a voluntary call to action, mobilizing institutions to invest their unique capabilities in neighborhood self-empowerment partnerships. The Social Compact each year recognizes participating partnerships for their achievements in community development. I am pleased to announce that two partnerships in Oregon, the Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives partnered with the U.S. Bank of Oregon, and the Northeast Community Development Corp. partnered with First Interstate Bank of Oregon, each received the Social Compact's 1995 Outstanding Community Investment Award. Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives and U.S. Bank of Oregon were recognized for their efforts in reclaiming 350 properties located in some of Portland's most vulnerable areas. This pioneering response to an unprecedented affordable housing crisis in northeast Portland has given residents the opportunity to become homeowners and improve the supply of quality, affordable rental properties as a permanent community asset. Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives was created by the city of Portland in an effort to provide a long-term remedy for large scale foreclosures facing northeast Portland. U.S. Bank of Oregon stepped forward with a pioneering financing solution. The outcome of this teamwork resulted in one-third of the homes being purchased by lower-income families and the remaining units are being rehabilitated into affordable rentals. The Northeast Community Development Corp. and First Interstate Bank of Oregon were recognized for developing a comprehensive program to provide the opportunity for homeownership for 250 Portland families, reclaiming 4 vulnerable inner northeast Portland neighborhoods. Initially funded by a Federal Nehemiah Housing Opportunity grant, the Northeast Community Development Corp. original aim was to construct and renovate 250 single-family homes that would later provide first-time home ownership opportunities for lower and moderate-income families. First Interstate took the lead in the project by providing construction financing, grant funding, and a line of credit for the development of the first five demonstration homes. First Interstate provided additional assistance by organizing a consortium of six local leaders to commit $1.9 million in construction financing and first-time homebuyer programs for potential borrowers. As a result of this private-public teamwork, property values are rising in targeted areas, crime is decreasing, and residents have a renewed sense of pride in their neighborhood. The ethic of civic responsibility and the spirit of community are fundamental principles which have guided our country's evolution. The award recipients from Oregon are stellar examples of these virtues in our modern times. They should serve as reminders of what can be accomplished when government acts locally in a creative alliance with the private sector.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this was a valid issue, as the Senator described it in his State. However, concerns expressed by other States that there is competition between deposits and other recycling programs have been shown to be overstated. We have had studies, and I will be very happy to produce the records of those studies, indicating that this is not a valid concern, and that instead of being a possible deterrent to the ongoing efforts of recycling, it has become an incentive. So there should not be this sense of competition between a bill of this kind, in which an individual can return a beverage container to the grocery store and get a refund, or other programs where container are returned to recycling centers. We have recycling centers in our State, as well as this deposit law. I would be happy to refer to those studies in more detail at a hearing. Mr. President, with that assurance, I see the Senator from Massachusetts. I do not know if he wants to get the floor on this issue. If not, Mr. President, I will not call up my amendment on the desk. I thank the Senator for his assurance and look forward to a hearing on this subject.

Mr. HATFIELD. I appreciate the Senator's commitment and that satisfies my request.

Mr. HATFIELD. Right.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk I would like to make a few remarks about. For over two decades, my State of Oregon, and about the same period of time the State of Vermont, have had on the books and in practice what we call the bottle bill. When you buy soft drinks and beer in my State, whether they are in the can or the bottle, you pay a deposit. That deposit becomes an incentive for people to return those bottles and cans rather than dumping them in the garbage and adding to the problem of trash and refuse in this country. We have found it to be highly successful. At first there was a great deal of concern expressed by merchants about the additional costs of administering this program. There was a great deal of discussion about the possibility of labor being impacted. We have demonstrated, along with a modification or variation on a theme in a few other States, an effective measure to reduce litter and to recycle the glass from the bottles and the metal from the cans. I have offered this at a national level for over 20 years and it is very interesting that the beer industry opposes it very strongly. My good friend, the former Senator from Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson, was the founder of Earth Day. However, every time I introduced the bottle bill, this great environmentalist would be the first to stand and oppose it because it was the beer industry that opposed it in his State. We had the same thing from the soft drink industry; they opposed it. Now we find there is no longer solid opposition. Joe Coors, of the Coors Breweries, has swung around. I think Hamm's beer--of course Blitz-Weinhard, in our State--is supportive of the proposal. Now one of the largest growing beer producers in the State of Oregon are microbreweries. There is no longer the solid phalanx of opposition. I have asked, I suppose 100 times, for a hearing. And I have not been able to get a hearing on this bill. We had a sponsor at one time many years ago, not the Senator from Massachusetts but a Congressman from Massachusetts, and he was urged and persuaded to get off the bill because of the opposition of organized labor in his State. That has been true across this country. There is a lot of misunderstanding on the part of organized labor and others, that this is somehow going to add to their costs or, that it is a beautification issue, not a recycling, refuse, or trash issue. It is all of them. I had intended to raise the bottle bill as an amendment to this bill from the floor. I rarely raise amendments that have not had hearings. I am a traditionalist, and believe that issues of this kind should go through a hearing process through the committees of jurisdiction. However, I have had private conversation with the chairman of this committee, Senator Chafee. I wanted to say to Senator Chafee I am not trying to hold up this bill. I support it and I would like to see it enacted into law. Nevertheless, I feel just as strongly about trying to get some kind of a hearing to move the bottle bill through the Congress at some point during my lifetime. So I would yield to the chairman of the committee at this moment, if he would like to make any comment or give me some assurance of a hearing?