Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as the Senate discusses the difficult issue of solid waste management, I would like to point out to my colleagues that 10 States have achieved great success 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 am offering the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act as an amendment to the interstate waste bill. 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. The amendment I have placed before the Senate today 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. 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 flowing 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. 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 amendment I filed today is identical to the legislation I introduced last Congress. 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 that 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 continually 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 a Democratic-controlled Congress were surprisingly silent on the issue in the 103d Congress. Consequently, here I am again offering the Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act as an amendment on the Senate floor. with solid waste before it becomes waste. It is widely acknowledged that recycling is the wave of the future and this amendment 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 adopt this amendment. bottle bill

Mr. HATFIELD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have come to the floor this morning to shed some light on proposals to sell off the Federal power marketing administrations. I continue to oppose such proposals, not only as they relate to the Bonneville Power Administration, but also as they relate to the other power marketing administrations. Power Marketing Administrations are entities that have been created to market the power generated by Federal hydropower projects operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. PMA's are part of the Department of Energy's Federal power marketing program. One of the central features of this program is the preference clause, which allows consumer-owned, nonprofit local utility systems to have the preferential access to the power produced by Federal dams. The five PMA's are as follows: The Southeastern Power Administration the Western Area Power Administration [WAPA], the Bonnville Power Administration [BPA], and the Alaska Power Administration [APA]. The President's budget includes provisions for the sale of each of these PMA's except BPA. Proposals are pending in the House to either sell all or some of the PMA's or require them to sell their power at market rates, the definition of which appears to this Senator to lead to highly inflated and unrealistic prices. My opposition to the sale of the PMA's is based on my view that it is shortsighted public policy to sell one of the few revenue generating assets of the Federal Government. It is important to remember that BPA is repaying, with interest, the capital investments in the Federal hydropower projects in the Columbia Basin. The other PMA's are making similar payments. When the repayment is completed, the Federal Government will be the owners of these projects. The PMA's pay their way and then some. I ask unanimous consent that a table showing project investments and repayment by PMA's be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the five PMA's carry out a distinctive mission, including both power and nonpower functions. For example, the Bonneville Power Administration's primary function is to market power generated by the Corps of Engineers dams in the Columbia River Basin. They also have significant involvement in implementing regional conservation measures, regional fishery recovery and conservation measures, and regional renewable energy programs. It is unlikely that the private sector would be willing to fulfill these public duties in the absence of PMA's. This is of particular interest to the Northwest, where BPA is, under current plans, expected to shoulder the vast majority of the costs of salmon recovery. While many in the Northwest have argued that BPA should not be required to bear the entire burden of these recovery costs, to remove BPA from the picture leaves a void that would be difficult if not impossible to fill. A number of economists have questioned the true fiscal benefit of selling Federal assets such as the PMA's. Not only would such a sale require the budget scoring rules of the Senate and the House to be fundamentally altered in order to show any positive deficit impact, it would also be of questionable benefit to the deficit problems we face. As Harvard Prof. Martin Feldstein has pointed out: Although Government accounting methods would make it look as if Federal spending and receipts are in better balance, these asset sales would do nothing to lessen the burden of the deficit. That burden occurs because Government borrowing to finance the deficit preempts savings that would otherwise be available for private investment in plant and equipment and in housing construction. The administration's proposed assets sales would preempt private savings every bit as much as a Federal sales of new debt of the same value. Mr. President, over the last decade, I have seen many shortsighted proposals by successive administrations to sell off or alter substantially the power marketing administrations. I have had to fight these proposals each time and will continue to do so. As budget deficits grew, a cash-starved Federal Government looked to all sources of revenue generation to produce more dollars. The power marketing administrations, which produce large sums of annual revenues, became easy targets for those who look only at the bottom line. Little or no consideration was given to the impacts on local economies or the overall impact on Federal revenues. successful, each created a cost for the economies which depend on PMA electric power. Electricity is the cornerstone of much of the Nation's economy, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. The high reliability and low cost of electric power provides the United States, and especially the Pacific Northwest, with a global competitive advantage which benefits the entire Nation. As each of these proposals were made, uncertainty over the future cost of electricity was created. In the Pacific Northwest, where over half the electric power consumed is marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration, these proposals cast a cloud of uncertainty over future electric power prices. Rate increases of the magnitude contemplated by the proposals would devastate the economy of the region by discouraging investment in infrastructure, including modernization of new plants and equipment, and close factories and businesses which operate on the margin, many of which were attracted to the availability of low cost hydroelectric power in the region. The benefit of these proposals has overstated by every administration because the potential for lost tax revenue as a result of business failure or lack of investment was never taken into account. In conclusion, Mr. President, proposals to sell off these revenue generating entities that are such fundamental importance to the local and regional economies they serve are misguided and will be opposed by this Senator. I am pleased to join with my colleagues to reinforce the importance of this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 137 I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues today in remembering a man who embodied the U.S. Senate perhaps better than anyone, Senator John C. Stennis. Known as a Senator's Senator and the conscience of the institution, his presence for 41 years in the Senate was formidable, yet comforting and reassuring. While his departure represents the passing of an era and is cause for our grief, it is also certainly cause to rejoice, for our friend is no doubt experiencing the rewards of a faithful heart and humble service. The legacy he leaves is one defined by his strength, integrity, and compassion. Growing up in rural Mississippi, John Cornelius Stennis learned the lessons that would last him a lifetime. Such lessons molded a man whose southern courtesy would become a mark of dignity and distinction. After receiving a law degree from the University of Virginia in 1927, young John Stennis spent 19 full years serving first as a State representative, then district prosecuting attorney and finally a circuit judge before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1947. Much in the same manner Senator Stennis took so many of us under his wing, upon his arrival in the Senate, it was Senator Richard B. Russell who mentored the like-minded Mississippian. Soon, Senator Stennis' sharp mind and unmatched work ethic earned him seats on the powerful Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. As chairman of the new Armed Services Preparedness Subcommittee, Senator Stennis became a watchdog for the Department of Defense and the armed services. His fair investigations and scrutiny of these organizations quickly secured him a reputation which would never be tarnished: He was analytical, critical, and he held unwavering convictions. The impact John Stennis had over his 41 years in the U.S. Senate surpasses description. Early in his Senate career he courageously spoke against McCarthyism. While assuring America would have the strongest and most capable military on the planet, he demanded accountability for each defense dollar spent. While always standing by his commitment to a strong military, he also began to see the growing danger of our Federal deficit and supported necessary defense budget cutbacks. A consummate professional, Chairman Stennis commented more than once that his work was his play. Indeed, the joy with which he carried out our Nation's business was contagious--our Senator's Senator was humorous and likeable, a role model to Members on both sides of the aisle. The trials Senator Stennis experienced during his sunset years in the U.S. Senate are almost unthinkable. He was shot twice by a burglar in 1973, but he returned to the work of the Senate; he lost his wife of 50 years in 1983, but he returned to the work of the Senate; and he lost a leg to cancer in 1984, but again he returned to the work of the Senate. Through all this, Senator Stennis remained a commanding presence. As the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia once put it, Senator Stennis `` . . . had a great spiritual reservoir that came to his rescue and served as a solid, strong, foundation for him.'' Well, the spiritual reservoir overflowed and served as a solid and strong foundation for the rest of us as well. To more than one Senator, John C. Stennis was more than a colleague, even more than a mentor. Indeed, I am not the only Senator still in this body who would call Senator Stennis a father figure--a figure worthy of our respect and deserving of our love. As long as he was in the Senate, I was his student--especially on the Appropriations Committee. Even when serving as chairman it was his counsel and leadership, his spirit and presence which guided me through the many hours of committee sessions and floor deliberations. To Senator John C. Stennis I owe a debt of gratitude that is both professional and personal. Seeing his patient and humble years presiding as chairman and as President pro tempore brought me peace of mind as I struggled through the difficult periods of my own service. And what would Senator Stennis' response to this tribute be? Well, about 7 years ago, upon his retirement, he remarked that he ``* * * was just trying to do what looked like to be the duty and keep it up the best he could.'' He certainly did, and much, much more. In the Book of Ezekiel, the third chapter, God declares the Prophet to be a watchman over the house of Israel. Ezekiel is commanded to warn the rebellious Israelities of God's impending judgment. Well, for the past several decades, John Cornelius Stennis has been our watchman. He has always cared for, and often admonished, a dignified yet sometimes unruly body of U.S. Senators. He has and will continue to represent the history of this body, to represent the integrity of this body and to represent the stature of this body. For his years of service, leadership, and friendship, I am eternally grateful.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today, Ms. Nellie Bradwell and Ms. Joyce Adams are in Washington, DC, on behalf of SAFEHAVEN of Portland, OR, to accept a 1995 Presidential Service Award which will be presented by President Clinton. I would like to take a moment of the Senate's time to congratulate the volunteers of SAFEHAVEN, a latchkey program serving at-risk youth ages 5 to 12 in Portland's inner-city. The Points of Light Foundation, which selects annual award winners, is dedicated to promoting voluntarism, increasing the activity of local volunteer centers and assuring the public knows that volunteers are key components of a healthy and happy community. This year, 18 individuals and organizations have been selected to receive the prestigious President's Service Award out of over 3,000 nominations. Ms. Bradwell, Ms. Adams and all of SAFEHAVEN's volunteers provide a safe and nurturing environment for at-risk youth after school and on Saturdays. The area they serve in the inner-northeast part of Portland has one of the city's highest juvenile crime rates, and SAFEHAVEN is attempting to make a positive change. While helping to meet the material needs of its participants, their program offers recreational activities, educational development and church services. SAFEHAVEN is already making plans to continue their services through participants' high school years and provide a summer youth camp. I am deeply grateful to all of SAFEHAVEN's volunteers. Serving as teachers, mentors and friends they are having a positive impact on Portland's youth and community; an impact which is sure to be lasting.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the sense of the Senate resolution offered by the Senators from Oklahoma and the majority leader and minority leader reflects the desire of the U.S. Senate to voice its outrage at the horrible bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City as well as our desire to see swift punishment for those responsible. The resolution also offers the Senate an opportunity to express concern and sympathy for the lives tragically affected by this crime. To the families of those injured or lost in the bombing, I offer my deepest sympathies. We all offer our thanks to the rescue workers, volunteers and law enforcement officials who have responded to the crisis with bravery, compassion, and extraordinary professionalism. Out of the depths of the despair caused by this criminal act, Americans are finding renewed unity and strength as we face together this adversity. Right after the blast I was asked if this type of attack is the price our Nation must pay for a free and open society. I do not accept the thesis that we must live in fear--for our lives, for the safety of our children, or for our own ability to express ourselves. After all, our Nation is founded on the principles of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of these precepts was honored by the terrorists who ended or forever altered the lives of the victims of the Oklahoma City blast. I personally rely upon my faith to help understand this tragedy and gain a sense that justice will be served. As a Senator, I will join every other government official in the effort to ensure that the hunt for the perpetrators of this crime is successful and swift. And although I cannot support the imposition of the death penalty because of my longtime conscientious objection to it, I nonetheless condemn the crime in the harshest terms and am eager to know that the criminals are behind bars.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, since the introduction of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research, Education, and Assistance Act, S. 684, on April 6, 1995, I have received subsequent letters of support from many groups and individuals around the country. I ask that a list of these groups and individuals be printed in the Record following a letter of support from the chairman of the National Parkinson Foundation, Inc. The material follows: National Parkinson Foundation, Inc., Miami, FL, March 27, 1995. Hon. Mark Hatfield, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Hatfield: The National Parkinson Foundation was founded with a dual purpose. Firstly, to find the cause and cure of Parkinson's Disease and secondly, to improve the quality of care for Parkinson patients and their caregivers. Our fifty thousand square foot headquarters building, located in Miami, Florida, comprises clinical offices, research facilities, therapeutic departments and a Parkinson day care center. In addition, our dedication has caused us to create and to support twenty additional medical schools in the United States as well as to create seven more such centers world wide. Thus, it is evident how all encompassing our representation is in and for the Parkinson community. I assure you of the utmost support of the entire National Parkinson Foundation organization on behalf of the ``Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research, Assistance, and Education Act of 1995''. I also wish to assure you that I personally am available in any manner you see fit to assist you in support of the bill. Sincerely, Nathan Slewett, Chairman.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt will live forever in the hearts and minds of Americans. This memorable leader helped to lead this country through both a worldwide depression and a world war, and when he died he left the country positioned to take its place as the leader of the free world. Fifty years ago April 12, the people of our great country lost a President, a statesman, and a leader. Since 1971 I have had the honor to have served on the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, the past 5 years of this time serving as the cochairman with my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. This Commission was formally established by Public Law 372 in 1955 with the responsibility of constructing an appropriate memorial to the 32d President of the United States. That memorial, which is to be unveiled in 1997, is a tribute not only to Roosevelt the President, but also to an era. I was 10 years old when Franklin Roosevelt was elected President, I was a 20-year-old naval officer in the waters off Okinawa when I heard the news that the President had died. Millions of Americans, like myself, had grown up with the Roosevelts. To many it seemed that he would be President forever. Suddenly, while the United States are still engaged in war, our Commander in Chief was gone. The feeling was one of loss and uncertainty, Roosevelt was to many Americans the only President we had known, to millions he was a hero and a friend. The future suddenly became uncertain for those at home and overseas. That uncertainty soon turned to confidence as the war was won and the United States took its place not only as the champion of freedom and peace but as the most prosperous nation the world has ever known. Roosevelt had ensured the future of the country by preparing it for the demands of the 20th century. It was Roosevelt's dedication to the future of this country which instigated such universally accepted successes as the GI bill of rights and the Social Security Act. The GI bill assisted over 50 percent of the returning soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, guaranteed for the United States an educated and skilled populace unrivaled in the world. While the GI bill provided for those upon whose backs the future lay, the Social Security Act helped those who had already carried the burden. As is now well known, Franklin Roosevelt fought a constant battle with the crippling effects of polio even as he waged war against the Great Depression and the forces of fascism. His accomplishments as President serve as the greatest testament to his personal victories, and he survives still as an example of the human ability to challenge and overcome even the greatest of obstacles. Mr. President, the life and Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt serves as a reminder to each of us, to my colleagues in the Senate and to the people all across this country, of the ability of the American people to face up to and overcome any and all challenges. To look the uncertainties of the future in the face and to move forward with confidence and an unshakable faith. This is indeed Roosevelt's longest and best lived legacy, his eternal challenge to each and every one of us. For as he wrote soon before his death, ``The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.''

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, during the 1989 and 1991 legislative sessions, Oregon's Legislature passed a comprehensive health care reform proposal known as the Oregon Health Plan. The Oregon Health Plan consists of four major reform packages. First, the Medicaid expansion which received a Federal waiver and has provided an additional 100,000 Oregonians with basic health care since it was implemented in February 1994. Second, the high-risk insurance pool which covers Oregonians who are unable to obtain insurance coverage due to preexisting conditions or the exhaustion of their current benefits. Third, the small employer basic health plan which provides for a low- cost insurance plan for small businesses of 25 or fewer employees. And finally, the employer mandate which by 1998 will require all employers in Oregon to provide health benefits for their employees or to pay into a State pool which will then purchase insurance for uninsured employees. When fully implemented the Oregon Health Plan will provide near universal access to health care for all Oregonians. As my colleagues know, I have spoken many times on this floor about the need to allow States to proceed with innovative health care reform proposals. That is why I have joined with the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] in introducing the Health Partnership Act of 1995. The Congress' failure to act on comprehensive national health care reform should not prevent innovative States like Oregon, Florida, Washington, Minnesota, and others from enacting their own health care reform proposals. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has stymied these efforts in several ways. It took Oregon two administrations and almost 3 years to get the approval necessary to move forward with the Oregon Medicaid expansion. The current waiver process at the Health Care Financing Administration is burdensome and at times overregulatory. Another major roadblock to State reform is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, otherwise known as ERISA. Due to the broad interpretation courts have given to the so-called ERISA preemption clause contained in section 514(a) of the act, which states that ERISA ``shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee comprehensive reforms that attempt to provide universal access to all their State's citizens and to control costs throughout the entire insurance market. Mr. President, once again I find myself before this body asking for another waiver of Federal law to permit Oregon to go forward with reform that has been advanced by my State. This time it is to allow Oregon to implement the last part of the Oregon Health Plan--the employer mandate. Oregon's employer mandate is a pay-or-play mandate--in other words, the State will tax employers who choose not to provide health benefits which will be defined by the State for their employees, and then provide health insurance to those uninsured employees through a State insurance pool. While the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled that this kind of access mechanism violates the ERISA preemption clause, it is certainly subject to an ERISA challenge based on the premise that Oregon is trying to regulate self-insured plans in a way that relates to employee benefit plans. Under the current ERISA statute, only Congress may statutorily grant ERISA waivers to States. At this time, only one State, Hawaii, has an ERISA exemption and that is only because Hawaii enacted its law before ERISA was enacted. Hawaii's waiver has not been updated since it was granted 20 years ago. While Senator Graham and I have proposed a mechanism for broad ERISA changes in our health care reform bill which will begin to address the ERISA roadblocks States face, I feel it is necessary to introduce legislation which provides for a specific waiver of ERISA for the State of Oregon. I introduce it as a separate vehicle to underscore the point that one way or another, Oregon needs a green light from the Federal Government in order to fully implement the Oregon Health Plan. Of course, I understand the concern multi-State employers have about the prospect of administering fifty different health plans across the Nation. This is a valid concern which I hope we can accommodate as we continue to debate the issue of ERISA reform further. Let me conclude by saying that I hope my colleagues will make note of this problem. Oregon is not the only State that is attempting to enact comprehensive health care reform and if the Supreme Court continues its broad application of ERISA, it is likely that the voices of other States will soon be heard. Comprehensive national reform may be dead for now, but let us not give up on the States to help us find the right answers and make health care available to all Americans.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I want to make sure, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, that the Senator understands we are not trying to make policy in our committee when the policy committee that he chairs is in that position.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator from South Dakota is correct. The bill, in its current form, provides $1.9 billion to FEMA for disaster relief functions including expenses resulting from disasters in 39 States. Report language accompanying this bill acknowledges that these funds may be used to ensure unforeseen expenses associated with the recent disaster in California resulting from winter storms.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend this debate for 10 minutes, to be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. HATFIELD. And I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 2 minutes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the 10 minutes has been agreed to, 5 on a side?

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order.

Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent to make a technical correction to an amendment previously offered by Senator Gorton and adopted by the Senate. It is a technical correction because the amendment is flawed.

Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, I would like to have the attention of the body. Mr. President, this is the last act for this bill except final passage, and this is referred to as a managers' wrap-up. What we have done is incorporate into this one action amendments that have been agreed to on both sides. If there is any additional money, it is fully offset. So it is totally deficit neutral. And instead of having them offered one at a time, we are offering them en bloc. Let me enumerate them because those of you who have such amendments make certain that we have incorporated them. The following list: Hatfield has three, Lautenberg, Burns, McCain, Jeffords, Pell, Kennedy, Akaka, Kempthorne, Inouye, and Wellstone. Now, that is our listing of all of the amendments that have been agreed to, cleared. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc and that motions to reconsider votes by which these amendments were agreed to be laid upon the table en bloc and any statements with regard to the amendments be placed in the Record at the appropriate place. And I yield to the ranking member of the committee.