Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to express my deep appreciation to the ranking member of the full committee. As is traditional in our committee, we have worked in a very bipartisan spirit. It has been with the as well as our own Republican colleagues, that have made this product possible today. Amendment No. 420

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate now has under consideration legislation to provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency with an additional $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1995 and $4.8 billion for fiscal year 1996 for emergency disaster relief and to make savings in prior year appropriations through rescissions and other actions by a total of approximately $13.5 billion. The supplemental appropriation is recommended in response to the President's request of February 6, 1995. The President requested a FEMA supplemental of $6.7 billion for disaster relief efforts in California and 40 other States. The House has recommended a reduced amount of $5.3 billion, all in fiscal year 1995 supplementals. Our Senate committee recommends $1.9 billion for fiscal year 1995, which is the amount most immediately required, and an advance appropriation for fiscal year 1996 of the balance of the $4.8 billion. The committee makes this recommendation as a first step in establishing a new procedure for the provision of disaster relief. As noted in our committee report, Mr. President, funds appropriated for FEMA disaster relief have escalated sharply in recent years. Between 1990 and 1994, 195 disasters were declared by the President and nearly $15 billion was appropriated in emergency supplements for disaster relief. We should not abandon Federal disaster assistance for people and communities in need, but we cannot afford to continue this level of spending. Senators Bond and Mikulski are making a good start in the right direction, and they are to be commended. They are the chair and the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on HUD and Independent Agencies, under which FEMA comes for its funding. Most of the attention given this measure has been directed at the rescissions we are recommending. I think there has been a considerable degree of overreaction to our proposals. We are not engaged in a barn- burning exercise. In the main, the rescissions and other savings we recommend on the Senate side are reductions in the rate of increase, rather than a true cut. Let me underscore that. We read in the media, see on the television, and we hear from many voices that the House or the Senate Appropriations Committee has cut these funds; we are putting the poor out in the street; we are doing all these things because we have cut funds, making it appear as though we have excised the account dealing with that particular human need. We have also undertaken to take the unobligated balances which have languished for years after their initial appropriation. We call that the pipeline money and we have taken them as rescissions. So let us get our nomenclature clarified that the cuts are reducing the rate of growth. We are not, in effect, dislocating people or ignoring the needs of people. So what we bring to the Senate today, Mr. President, represents the committee's considered reevaluation of prior year funding levels, based on a renewed commitment to thoroughly scrutinize every spending proposal. This is not to say that scrutiny did not exist before. It did. But we should always be willing to take a second look, and that is what the Senate is doing. Some of those unobligated funds we found in the pipeline were unobligated transportation funds from 1982, 13 years ago. It was our feeling it was better to take those unobligated funds out of the pipeline for our rescissions and, at the same time, to recognize, as an example, low-income energy assistance for people of need in particularly cold weather. It is not unusual for us to do this type of thing. Our committee has recommended rescissions and the Congress has enacted rescissions in every year for the past 20 years. Rescissions are not an innovation of the Executive. Since the rescission process entered and the Budget Act was created--now that is 1974--Congress has enacted into law a grand total of $92,940,296,915 in rescissions in that period of time, which is $20 billion more than we have been asked to rescind by Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. I want to focus on that again. In the parlance of today's communications, it is the Congress that is the big spenders; it is the Congress that has to be brought under control. And yet, at the same time, in this 20-year period, we have rescinded $20 billion more than these Presidents, five Presidents, have asked for. Nor is the size of the package we bring to the floor today unprecedented. In 1981, when I was first honored to be chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we brought to the Senate a $15 billion rescission package. There may be others who find this a novel experience, but I do not. that, as noted in our report, we have amendments to offer today to change the committee's recommendations. We expect those and we welcome them. We welcome them up to a degree, not an unlimited welcome. Some will want to restore funding. Some will want to cut more. We will engage in those debates and invite those amendments. But I hope there will not be an effort to unduly delay this legislation. I believe we all share a desire to reduce Federal spending. We know very significant reductions are coming in fiscal year 1996 and the years beyond, and every dollar we are able to save today will make tomorrow's task easier. It is time we begin, and this is the beginning. To honor the request I have made to move this bill along expeditiously, I am very happy to say that two Senators, who are on the floor, have indicated that they will agree to a time limit; some more and some less. But, nevertheless, we are starting out right by trying to get time agreements and not to have open-ended affairs that can drag this bill on and on ad infinitum. So I wish to thank the Senators who have indicated they would consider a time agreement. When we get ready for those amendments, we hope to have that agreement. Mr. President, at this time, I yield to the ranking member of our Committee on Appropriations and former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, of West Virginia, for any opening statement that he wishes to make. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. 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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the time left?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 29, 1995, in executive session, to consider certain pending military nominations.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment be granted permission to meet Wednesday, March 29, at 9 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA].

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, March 29, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on tactical aviation issues in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 1996 and the future years defense program.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, development of the water resources of the United States have been a vital factor in the growth and prosperity of this country. Our water resources have brought us a strong agricultural base, power generation, navigation, and domestic and industrial water supplies. However, the gains we have made in terms of productivity and efficiency have in many cases exacted a toll on our water resources. Despite a concerted effort to improve the quality of our waterways, recent estimates indicate that 38 percent of our rivers, 44 percent of our lakes, and 97 percent of the Great Lakes remain degraded. This is a continuing problem worthy of the earnest efforts of each of us. The Clean Water Act has made great improvements in the quality of the Nation's waterways. The goals of the Clean Water Act reauthorization legislation now pending on the Senate calendar certainly focus much needed attention on the continuing dilemma we face with respect to our water resources. Today, I am proud to join with Senator Thad Cochran, to introduce the Waterways Restoration Act in the hope of providing additional tools to improve the waterways of the United States. The legislation I introduce today is the companion to legislation introduced in the House by Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse of Oregon. I compliment Congresswoman Furse for her fine leadership in this area and I am proud to introduce the Senate version of this fine proposal. The Waterways Restoration Act would establish a technical assistance and grant program for waterway restoration programs within the Soil and Conservation Service [SCS] at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. No new money would be required to fund this program. Rather, the program would draw on existing funds by redirecting 20 percent of the SCS's existing Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program budget to fund nonstructural, community-based projects. Waterway restoration is a cost effective way to control flooding, erosion and pollution runoff. This legislation would fund local projects to establish riparian zones, stabilize stream banks, and restore areas polluted by urban runoff. Both urban and rural areas would be eligible for project funding. The bill also contains an environmental justice provision that would place a priority on projects in historically disadvantaged communities overlooked by Federal cleanup efforts. Mr. President, this is sound, progressive legislation. It addresses in an effective way the pressing water resource problems continuing to face this Nation. As we search for ways to reinvent our Government to make it more responsive to the citizens of this country, we should look more and more to proposals--like this one--that draw on the initiative and ingenuity bubbling over in our communities rather than one-size- fits-all, top-down Federal programs. As Congresswoman Furse has noted, this is a funded Federal nonmandate, which allows communities to design and implement the restoration projects they want for the streams, creeks, and rivers in their neighborhoods. I look forward to working with members of the Senate Agriculture Committee to advance this meritorious proposal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I regard the eight National Education Goals we codified in the Goals 2000 legislation as very important challenges; challenges we must make every effort to meet in order to ensure the future of the Nation. All of these goals are interconnected. We cannot afford to lag behind in any and expect to attain the rest. At this time, it appears that U.S. students continue to lag dangerously behind in mathematics and science achievement. With the passage of Goals 2000 and the ESEA reauthorization, we hope to reduce that gap. Yet, there are still glaring holes in our math and science educational programs. The bill I am introducing today is designed to fill one of those holes. It is that, unfortunately, many currently funded Federal programs for children, especially preschool youngsters, such as Head Start do not usually include any special emphasis on math or science education. Even when math and science are included as part of the curriculum, they are often the weakest areas of emphasis. Ask any parent to list the character traits of preschoolers and high on the list will be curiosity and a desire to learn ``why.'' These children are naturally curious and eager to understand the world around them. I believe that we, as a nation of educators, are missing a tremendous opportunity when we provide these rich experiences. Federal programs intended to provide additional support for low income children such as Head Start and chapter I should include activities rich in early math and science investigations. It is the very nature of science to answer the question ``why.'' Early exposure to age-appropriate, inquiry-based science and mathematics experiences will provide the foundation on which later understanding rests. Why, with rare exception, are educational programs rich in math and science missing from preschool curriculum? I believe that the major reason is that most preschool teachers have little experience with simple science and mathematics activities, feel uncomfortable with teaching science and mathematics, and are not prepared to teach age- appropriate and inquiry-based science and mathematics. This is an area of greatest need. While I do not underestimate the importance of language development and social experiences that are a large part of preschool programs, I feel that we can no longer minimize the importance of early science and math investigations. This is particularly true of the target group of Head Start as preschoolers from low-income families often have very limited opportunities to be exposed to science activities. It is possible to provide these experiences to preschoolers? The answer is provided by a program conducted at Marylhurst College in Portland, OR. This wonderful program, now in its third year, is training Head Start teachers to use exciting, age-appropriate math and science activities in their classes. Picture the effect these activities have on disadvantaged and minority youth. In all likelihood, this is the first chance these children have to relate math and science to their lives. The teacher training program has been conducted for the past three years, and the results have been phenomenal. Consider what two teachers, Sherry Wright and Debi Coffey, from the Albina Head Start program in Oregon had to say. ``After two years of using the knowledge we gained from the Marylhurst College instructors, we truly feel confident in using science everyday. Our children have learned how to predict and discover the possible results to a problem. Our children will take the science experience that they learned in Head Start with them throughout the rest of their lives.'' Andrey Sylvia, who had no science classes at all prior to the Marylhurst College Head Start Summer Institute, expressed the result excitedly and succinctly. ``Now I am a science whiz!'' My legislation provides for a competitive grant program to establish demonstration sites to acquaint preschool teachers with the stimulating processes involved in the inquiry approach. The teachers themselves must experience the excitement of hands-on activities in order to communicate that excitement to children. No more than 25 percent of the funds can be used for the purchase of supplies necessary to carry out the activities. A second part of the legislation provides funds to enable Head Start teachers to participate in professional development programs in science and mathematics teaching methods. We simply cannot afford to miss the opportunity to replicate this concept throughout the preschool and Head Start programs nationwide. These programs are a positive investment in the lives of these disadvantaged children and will create a lifelong interest in math and science. That interest is critical to the future of the children and equally critical to the future of the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters from the president of Marylhurst College and Sarah Greene, chief executive officer of National Head Start Association, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate so far on the line-item veto, the proposal which is before the Senate, and I have read the compromise language offered by the majority leader. I would like to commend the majority leader and those who worked with him, long-time supporters of the proposal, and the sponsors. This proposal, as is my assessment at least, is much improved over the previous proposals. This improvement comes from the inclusion of new entitlements and targeted tax breaks along with appropriations spending items. As I have stated in the past, if the Congress is serious about attacking our annual deficits, it must expand its view beyond discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, Mr. President, accounts in 1995 for 36 percent of the total spending of our Government. The Congress cannot balance the budget, let alone reduce the national debt, by focusing on 36 percent of the total budget. The proposal before us makes great strides by also including in its purview new entitlements and direct spending. Entitlement spending will make up 49 percent of the budget in 1995. This proposal also includes targeted tax benefits as being subjected to a Presidential line-item veto. According to the Senate Budget Committee, it was projected that the Treasury will lose $453 billion in revenue through tax expenditures in 1995 alone. That number is twice the size of the projected budget deficit. At a time when our country is fast approaching the debt ceiling limit of $4.9 trillion, which could occur as early as August, according to the Treasury Department, it is important to send the message that, to attack the deficit, there must be a shared commitment from all sectors of the Federal budget including entitlement spending and tax preferences. I commend the authors of this proposal for this improvement over earlier versions. Now, while this proposal is greatly improved in some respects, it causes me grave concern in other areas. The point which causes me the greatest concern is the impact of the massive shift of power from the Congress to the executive branch which could occur under this bill. I might say, Mr. President, it is totally contrary to historic Republicanism. This is some strange new doctrine, to suggest that we have to abdicate responsibility to the Chief Executive of this country. I do not care whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. While many supporters of this legislation have attempted to address this concern during the debate, I must raise this issue again as I believe it should be of grave concern to all the Members of the Congress, the House, the Senate, Republican and Democrat. Mr. President, the legislation would actually allow the President of the United States, with the support of only one-third of either body, to eliminate funding for myriad Federal spending, departments, and programs authorized and enacted by the Congress. Supporters of this proposal continually highlight it as a way to get at the so-called pet projects of interest to individual Members or to individual States. I will point out, as I have done in the past, Members can exercise their rights under the rules to raise objections, offer amendments, and round up votes to defeat such proposals. Members should identify provisions of appropriations bills and reports that they find objectionable and craft amendments to resolve those objections. Members should also encourage the President to come forward with a rescission proposal pursuant to title X of the Budget Act to strip that funding. We have that power. We have those tools. It must also be highlighted that the line-item veto can also be used to reduce funding or even eliminate completely, funding for projects and agencies that I doubt few would call congressional pork. Let me remind you, a President with one-third of either Chamber-- hardly a majority--could effectively eliminate funding for an entire agency such as HUD, the Interior Department, the Education Department, the EPA--any Department. While some Members may argue in favor of such a move, I doubt that many of us would call these agencies pet projects. Do not forget, we have had Presidents offer and express a desire to abolish such departments. This is not a hypothetical situation-- entire departments. President Reagan wanted to absolutely eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and others. And we have heard that from other Presidents. That could happen. With a one-third vote of the House and the Senate, the President would prevail to eliminate entire departments. So do not get this idea that somehow what has been identified as pork here or pork there is the only target we have to worry about. Now, while these examples may be extreme, a similar scenario was described by a Member during this debate. It was mentioned that on an issue such as ground-based missile defenses, a President may disagree on the line of funding, and this line-item veto would allow the President, with one-third of either Chamber, to simply line out all the funding for such a program. At a time when many Members have raised concerns about funding levels of the military, are those same Members willing to defer to the judgment of whichever President occupies the White House regarding defense spending levels? The same point can be made regarding housing policy, nutrition programs, or spending to combat crime. That is an awesome shift of power which some may be willing to relinquish to the executive branch of Government, but I am not. I am not as willing to bestow that type of power on the executive branch. The Framers of the Constitution were very concerned about the abuses of an Executive which possesses too much power. That is why the power to spend was placed in the branch of Government which is most accountable to and representative of each citizen, the Congress of the United States. The purse strings are placed here. In my opinion, the Framers were right on target. There are no sound reasons why the legislative branch should shift such an important constitutionally created responsibility to the Chief Executive. Perhaps I am burdened by history, either by generation or by being a history buff, but I recall when a President of the United States wanted to usurp the power of the Supreme Court, a third coequal branch of Government. It was not just a little line item in an appropriations bill or a tax bill. He wanted to dominate the Supreme Court. That was called the Court-packing plan of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Thank God, there were enough Democrats at that time to join with the corpus guard of 17 Republicans to block that. Nevertheless, it is illustrative of the kind of power that is a desire of the Chief Executive that has taken place in our history. Now we are going to say the President of the United States and one-third of the membership of this Congress, you make these vital, and important decisions. And let us not forget when you had 17 Republicans here at one time in the Senate, and they called it the Cherokee Strip because the Democrats could not all sit on that side. They had a whole row, two rows of Democrats on this side, and the Republicans were huddled down here under Senator Charles McNary from Oregon trying to survive. You can imagine the kind of domination that Franklin Roosevelt had of the Congress that first term and part of the second term. Thank God, we had a Supreme Court. It was the only check and balance we had in our governmental system. That is just history, but it also makes me a little leery about ever handing too much power to any branch of Government. I would also like to take a moment to explain what separate enrollments of bills would entail. While I understand that many Americans support the concept of a line-item veto, I think it is important to explain what that means in the context of separate enrollment. Separate enrollment would take individual appropriations bills, as passed into thousands of individual bills for the President to sign or to veto. Apart from a reference to a bill number, these new individual bills would bear no resemblance to the original bill which was voted on by the Congress. I question the soundness of this approach based on practical as well as on constitutional grounds. According to the Constitution, article I, section 7: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated. . . . I assume that the supporters of separate enrollment are confident that the courts will uphold the constitutionality of this approach, I however have not yet been convinced that will be the courts' conclusion. I would also like to mention that while the vast majority of States do have some version of a line-item veto, none of the versions include the separate enrollment language contained in the bill before us. Passage of this bill will send the Federal Government into uncharted legislative waters. Mr. President, I shall vote ``no'' on the final passage of the line- item veto.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, with the recent changes in Congress, we are presented with an important opportunity to take a fresh look at many aspects of our Federal legal and regulatory system. A return to federalism is underway including a movement to allow greater flexibility in administering Federal programs. I support a full review of the Federal regulatory straitjacket we have helped create and believe that greater flexibility should be extended to both the public and private sectors of this Nation. As my colleagues know, it is difficult to have a conversation these days with a business leader or a local government official without the topic turning to the increasingly onerous burden of Federal regulations--particularly environmental regulations. It is now clear the many of our laws and regulations designed to ensure a safer environment are now having the unfortunate effect of discouraging sound environmental practices. The legislation I will introduce today makes the point that the Federal Government should encourage responsible actions by businesses with incentives and flexibility, rather than through threats and penalties. Given the limited resources available for environmental enforcement and monitoring, it is vital that companies self-police and be willing partners in the implementation of the Nation's environmental programs. There is no other way to protect our people, our communities, and our environment. In an effort to advance this idea, I am introducing the Environmental Audit Privilege Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend from Colorado, Senator Hank Brown. This legislation will create new incentives for companies to police their own environmental actions by establishing a limited legal privilege for businesses that voluntarily audit their compliance with environmental laws and promptly proceed to correct any violations discovered. In 1993, Oregon became the first State to codify a privilege for environmental audits. Under the Oregon law, an internal environmental audit, undertaken voluntarily, cannot be used against the company in a trial or administrative action, unless efforts to comply were not promptly initiated and pursued with reasonable diligence or the privilege was invoked for fraudulent purposes. The Oregon law garnered support not only from the business community, but also from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the State attorney general. These supporters have told me of the positive effects this law has had in Oregon. Six other States have created a similar privilege, including Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, Illinois, and Wyoming. Nearly two dozen other States are considering bills to create an environmental audit privilege. Supporters of these State provisions argue that their efforts are undermined by the absence of a Federal counterpart. To avoid the State privilege, a litigant must simply file suit in Federal court, where it is possible the State privilege will not be recognized. The legislation I put forward today is an extension of legislation I introduced in the 103d Congress which was based solely on the Oregon law. A new section has been added to this bill as a result of the very constructive efforts of Senator Brown. This new section is based on a worthy idea pioneered by the State of Colorado. The audit privilege portion of my bill strikes an equitable balance between protecting a company's right to self-police and ensuring that businesses comply with environmental regulations. There are clear limits on the privilege, however. The privilege would cease to exist if used for fraudulent activities or if waived by a company. Furthermore, the privilege is moot if the company does not promptly act to achieve compliance when a violation is discovered in an audit. This factor ensures a strong incentive for companies to immediately correct any potential or real problem in their activities. Even if the company proceeds immediately to correct a violation, the privilege is not absolute. The privilege only extends to information in the audit report, not to the violation itself. It would not bar enforcement action for environmental violations; no environmental law is decriminalized nor are enforcement agencies barred from pursuing action. This protection does not prevent an agency or an injured party from pursuing legal action against a violator on the basis of independent evidence of the violation. Oregon's law has expanded employee involvement, which has made audits more complete and accurate, and it has helped employees connect their daily jobs with environmental compliance. It has also created new incentives for companies to independently pursue compliance while encouraging businesses to adopt more systematic approaches to examining and correcting their environmental activities. Last, but by no means least, lawyers are no longer needed in Oregon to shield audit documents under the attorney-client privilege. Companies can now feel secure in keeping records, and they have had much greater success in dealing with chronic problems. Removing lawyers from audits substantially reduces the cost of auditing and improves the frankness of information flowing within companies. The legislation I am introducing today also includes a very important section which I will refer to as voluntary disclosure. This section provides protection for companies that wish to step forward and voluntarily disclose inadvertent violations of environmental laws that come to light through the conduct of a voluntary environmental audit. Again, these provisions are based on a law first passed in the State of Colorado. It has been a pleasure to have worked with Senator Brown and his fine staff over the past several months to reach agreement on this important section of the bill. Under this section, if an audit reveals a previously unknown environmental violation, the company will be immune from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties if it: First, promptly and voluntarily discloses the violation to the regulatory agency; second, takes prompt steps to correct the problem; and, third, fully cooperates with the protection does not prevent an agency or an injured party from pursuing legal action against a violator on the basis of independent evidence of the violation. While Oregon did not include such provisions in its law, I believe providing protections for voluntary disclosures is a meritorious idea, and one certainly worthy of the full consideration of the Senate. As one of my colleagues recently noted, sunlight is an excellent disinfectant. Thus, while the privilege portions of this bill allow an environmental audit to remain secret, the voluntary disclosure provisions would give the public access to this important information and would require any violations be addressed promptly. Last week, President Clinton announced his plans to encourage environmental audits as part of a package of regulatory reform measures. I want to commend the President and those at EPA who have recognized the benefits of encouraging companies to engage in this type of self-analysis. I believe both business profitability and the environment will benefit from these efforts, and I look forward to working with the administration on the legislative side of this effort. I am aware the administration has serious misgivings about codifying and audit privilege and has raised questions about the voluntary disclosure protection in this bill. I admit this is an issue that excludes great common sense appeal upon first glance, but which certainly grows more complex with each level of further analysis. While I am not a lawyer, my further analysis leads me to the conclusion that this idea is sound and that the Nation would benefit from the debate this legislative proposal will inevitably generate. Self-enforcement by responsible companies is vital to the success of our environmental objectives. It is a fact that most companies want to police themselves. Not only is it morally correct, it is also consistent with a total quality management approach to business management, for companies to take a proactive approach to environmental safety. It makes business sense and is less costly for a company to find and rectify a violation than it is to face regulatory, civil, or criminal action. Incentives for self-enforcement will help free up the very limited resources of Federal and State environmental and enforcement agencies, allowing them to pursue the most severe, egregious, and dangerous violations of our environmental laws. Federal policy must promote the delicate balance between protecting our environment and allowing business to flourish. The Environmental Audit Privilege Act will provide companies with greater flexibility and with incentives for compliance with environmental protection regulations. Such protections will signal an important step toward ensuring the success of our businesses and of our environmental programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move the Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator from Georgia is correct in regard to our agreement. If this situation has not been resolved by the time the Senate considers the next supplemental appropriations bill, I will support the amendment of the Senator of Georgia.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I am unable to say that, based upon the fact that on two amendments 20 minutes to half an hour has been requested for discussion--the Brown amendment and the Specter amendment. I am sure they will not require a great length of time. But I hope that perhaps in the next hour we will be able to reach final passage. I would be hesitant to set a time certain.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to indicate that in the next sequence of amendments, we will have the Leahy-Jeffords amendment, which will take perhaps a minute, and that will then be followed by a Roth-Glenn amendment which, again, will not call for a rollcall, according to the authors of the bill. We are now down to about two amendments left. We understand agreements have been worked out on the Republican side and we have about the same number--three amendments--on the Democratic side. I understand that those have been worked out. So we should be at a point where we will be wrapping up the long list of amendments and moving toward final passage. I just want to indicate that any Member who has an amendment to be handled in any form here on the floor, please contact us. We have about five or six that have been cleared on both sides. At an appropriate moment, we will use as a wrap- up those agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to substitute the word ``item'' for the word ``time'' in amendment No. 329 agreed to on Wednesday, March 8. It corrects a typographical error. This has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. HATFIELD

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