Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as we now proceed, I would seek unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered, and agreed to, en bloc; that the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment; and, that no points of order be waived thereon by reason of this agreement. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Gramm and Hollings, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators McConnell and Leahy and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate now turns to consideration of H.R. 889, making fiscal year 1995 supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense, and rescinding appropriations for defense and nondefense programs. The Committee on Appropriations met last Thursday on this measure, and reported it with amendments by a unanimous vote of 28-0. The bill recommended by the committee contains two titles. The first title provides a total of $1,935,400,000 in supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense. These appropriations are recommended in response to a request from the President for $2,538,700,000 to replenish accounts depleted by unbudgeted operations in and around Haiti, Cuba, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, and Korea. Guided by the recommendations of our defense subcommittee, the committee proposes a reduction from the President's request for defense. We believe that we have addressed the immediate concerns of the Department of Defense regarding operational readiness, and are prepared to consider the other readiness issues raised by the Department in connection with the fiscal year 1996 defense appropriations bill. The committee has also recommended rescissions in prior appropriations for defense in order to offset the additional spending recommended. The President requested appropriations with an emergency designation under the terms of the Budget Enforcement Act. With this designation, funds provided would have been in addition to those set by the domestic discretionary caps. The committee believes it is preferable to offset spending wherever and whenever possible, so that the deficit is not increased. Senator Stevens, the chairman of our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and the ranking Member of that committee, former chairman Daniel Inouye, will discuss the specifics of the supplemental appropriations and rescissions in title I as we proceed with the debate on this measure. The second title of the bill as recommended would rescind a total of $1,535,966,450 in appropriations for nondefense programs. The other body recommended rescissions of slightly more than $1.4 billion in nondefense programs in order to partially offset the costs of their recommended supplementals for defense. Our committee fully offset defense supplementals with rescissions in lower priority defense programs. Our nondefense rescissions are solely intended to achieve reductions in Federal spending this fiscal year. Mr. President, I believe, as we have researched this, that this is the first time in the history of the Appropriations Committee where a rescission package was identified as an offset and as a deduction from the current deficit. I think that is worthy to take note. Mr. President, that summarizes the recommendations of the committee. They are discussed in greater detail in our report which is Senate report 104-12 which was received last Friday and available to all Members. I am now prepared to yield the floor for any opening remarks that the ranking member, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, wishes to make. Then we will seek to adopt the committee amendments, and proceed with consideration of the bill and entertaining any amendments that Members may wish to offer at this time. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, recently, the State of Oregon and several Federal agencies signed a memorandum of understanding to create a new partnership which will test unique methods of delivering Government services in a better and more efficient manner. When this revolutionary partnership, called the Oregon option, is fully implemented, Federal grants or transfers to State and local governments in Oregon will be based on results rather than compliance with procedures. I believe that this project has the potential to vastly improve intergovernmental service delivery in my State and may well prove to be a national model for future governmental partnerships. For this reason, I am pleased the managers of the pending legislation, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, have included in their bill my sense-of-the- Senate resolution urging the Federal Government to continue to be an active partner in this effort. Mr. President, I would specifically like to thank Senators Roth and Glenn for their assistance and would also like to thank Senator Nunn for his help in including my amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on February 15, 1995, this body considered an amendment by Senator Feingold, the effect of which would have been to nullify Judiciary Committee report language pertaining to the impact of the balanced budget constitutional amendment on the legal status of the Tennessee Valley Authority. I opposed the motion to table the Feingold amendment because I believe the Judiciary Committee report language related to TVA goes beyond the plain meaning of the language of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Section 7 of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Report No. 104-5 indicates that total receipts under section 5 of the proposed constitutional amendment are intended to include all moneys received by the Treasury either directly or indirectly, except for the proceeds of Federal borrowing. The report states that ``total outlays'' under section 5 of the proposed constitutional amendment are intended to include all disbursements from the Treasury, either directly or indirectly through Federal or quasi-Federal agencies created by the Congress, whether they are total outlays do not include the repayment of debt principal. In the case of TVA or the Bonneville Power Administration, this means that their borrowing would not count as a receipt and their debt principal repayment would not count as an outlay. This is correct and entirely consistent with existing budget law. It is the following statement in the Senate Judiciary Committee report language that is troubling to me: ``Among the Federal programs that would not be covered by Senate Joint Resolution 1 is the electric power program of the Tennessee Valley Authority.'' The text of the proposed constitutional amendment is clear: There are to be no exemptions to the amendment unless the Congress would later waive the provisions of the article under the Declaration of War provision in section 4. The above TVA report language attempts to go beyond the stated language in the proposed constitutional amendment. I do not believe this report language can overcome the plain meaning of the text of the proposed constitutional amendment. Congress has recognized that the power programs of TVA, BPA, and the other power marketing administrations are unique and that ratepayer revenues should not be traded off against taxpayer appropriations. Under our current budget rules, the TVA and BPA power programs are on budget, direct spending authority programs. These programs possess borrowing authority which is subject neither to sequestration nor reduction. This sequestration protection has been provided because the funds that would be reduced are derived from electric ratepayers and not taxpayers and such reduction would not reduce the Federal district. We should not return to the time when the Congress was involved in detailed power system decision making for the TVA and the BPA. These programs must remain direct spending and exempt from sequestration and budget reduction. Reduction of the expenditure of ratepayer revenues would not help reduce the Federal deficit. At the same time, the proposed constitutional amendment as currently written clearly applies to TVA and BPA. The Senate Judiciary report language cannot overcome the clear language of the proposed constitutional amendment. The Senate tabled the Feingold amendment on a vote of 63 to 33. I voted against tabling because of my belief that the TVA report language would have no effect because it exceeds the language of the constitutional amendment. It is my view that the tabling of this amendment did the disservice of reinforcing the TVA report language and further complicating the ability of courts or this body to clearly understand the legislative intent behind this part of the balanced budget amendment. Senator Feingold has now offered another amendment to force the issue of whether this report language overcomes the plain meaning of the balanced budget amendment. The point is made in a counterintuitive way by seeking to exempt TVA in the legislative language, rather than the report language, of the balanced budget amendment. Because I oppose exempting TVA from the balanced budget amendment, just as I would oppose exempting BPA, I will vote to table the Feingold amendment. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I continue to believe that, to the extent it is inconsistent with the text of the balanced budget amendment, the underlying report language related to TVA should be without effect. I yield the floor. the balanced budget constitutional amendment

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Again, I thank her on behalf of all Members of the Senate for her presence here the remainder of this week, filling in until the elected Chaplain arrives to serve on March 8. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to thank our chaplain for the day, the Reverend Barbara Henry, who has opened the Senate with prayer. We are very honored to have Reverend Henry in this role. She is a person of great distinction and background in her educational experience--Boston University and the University of Pittsburgh in music, and also a graduate of the General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church of America in New York. Reverend Henry has not only served as a pastor in a parish, two of them here in Washington, DC--St. John's Episcopal Church in Georgetown and as assistant rector at St. Stephen and the Incarnation Episcopal Church in Washington--she has divided her ministry between the parish and in music education and in music library work, especially. She is now serving at Catholic University of America here in Washington, where she is the head music librarian and is carrying out her other ministry within the region of Washington. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed resume of her outstanding ministry be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Patty Murray in introducing legislation to extend the current restrictions on exports of Alaskan North Slope crude oil contained in section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act. In previous years, Congress has expressed strong bipartisan support for these restrictions. I am confident that Congress will again affirm its commitment to promoting national energy security by passing this important legislation. Since the Alaskan oil export restrictions were first exacted by Congress in 1973, they have provided enduring benefits for our Nation. 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. Furthermore, we have been able to enhance a domestic merchant marine that continues to help supply the essential oil requirements of our domestic economy and our military. Despite the lessons of two major oil crises and the Persian Gulf War, we foolishly continue to rely on foreign oil as a major energy source. U.S. oil imports now exceed half of our daily oil requirement. Government and private estimates now predict that by the year 2010, imports will equal 59 percent. Permitting the export of any Alaskan North Slope crude would only exacerbate this already serious problem. By allowing the export of Alaskan oil to Japan and other Pacific rim countries, we would further increase our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, increase consumer petroleum costs on the west coast, threaten the vitality of our domestic tanker fleet, and cause net Federal revenue losses. Moreover, Alaskan oil exports would cause job losses in the maritime and related ship-supply industries on the west coast. Mr. President, these are costs which this Nation simply cannot afford. 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. By extending indefinitely the current export restrictions on Alaskan crude oil in section 7(d) of the act, we will reaffirm the policy of keeping this country on the right path toward energy security. I commend Senator Murray for her leadership. I look forward to working with her, members of the Senate Banking Committee, and other interested Senators, as this proposal moves forward.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, removing Social Security from the provisions of the balanced budget constitutional amendment misleads the American public and the current and future beneficiaries of the Social Security system. While removing Social Security from the balanced budget amendment is purported to protect its beneficiaries, in effect that action would threaten the long-term viability of the system. As noted in the report to the President from the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, benefit payments under the Social Security system will exceed dedicated revenues for the program by the year 2013. This cash- flow shortfall will result in the Social Security trust fund becoming insolvent by the year 2029. Given these projections, removing Social Security from the table as we debate our Nation's fiscal problems would be irresponsible. The Congress owes it to the current and future beneficiaries of Social Security to address this long-term problem. Removing Social Security from the balanced budget amendment addresses a short-term politically sensitive issue; however, it does not address the long-term facts that reform is needed for this program to remain solvent.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today, it is my distinct honor to reflect on the accomplishments of Rabbi Joshua O. Haberman, who has been serving as our guest Chaplain for this week. Rabbi Haberman's credentials and accomplishments are numerous, but let me take a minute to highlight some of his achievements. Rabbi Haberman is the founder and president of the Foundation for Jewish Studies which sponsors a large variety of Jewish Study programs for the Greater Washington community. He is rabbi emeritus of the Washington Hebrew Congregation, the largest and oldest congregation in the District of Columbia and a past-president of the Washington Board of Rabbis. Cincinnati, he was ordained as rabbi at the Hebrew Union College-- Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, OH, where he also earned the degree of doctor of Hebrew letters. Also of interest regarding his academic background is the fact that he is the last Austrian to be enrolled for rabbinic studies at the Jewish Theological Institute of Vienna and he later left the institute following the Nazi invasion in 1938 and continued his studies in the United States. He is a member of the board of alumni overseers of the HUC-JIR and he has served on the executive board of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. In addition he was the cochairman of the North American board of the World Union for Progressive Judaism. Rabbi Haberman's academic accomplishments include authoring a book titled, ``The God I Believe In,'' which is conversations about Judaism with 14 prominent Jews in our society. He has also authored an academic work titled, ``Philosopher of Revelation: The Life and Thought of S.L. Steinheim.'' In addition to being an author, Rabbi Haberman has served as an adjunct professor at many institutions including: Georgetown, Wesley Theological Seminary, American University, and Rutgers. Rabbi Haberman was also instrumental in developing a very important religious dialog with the Roman Catholic diocese of Washington, DC, and evangelical Christian leaders as well. In addition to his ecumenical work, he initiated a Moslem-Jewish dialog with Imam Wallace D. Muhammad of the World Community of Islam in the West. The two above-mentioned accomplishments demonstrate Rabbi Haberman's dedication to working across religious and cultural barriers. They demonstrate the rabbi's willingness to leave his comfort zone and build bridges with those of different religious and cultural affiliations. It is evident by these accomplishments that he is a man who is truly driven by his religious convictions rather than ideological associations. He has demonstrated that his life is wholly affected by his religious commitments. It is an honor to share the floor with him.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the American people elected the Republican Congress with the expectation that we show leadership and a willingness to make difficult decisions. In my view, the public shares the point of view that Government has grown too expensive. It has become bloated and ponderous. I believe that the programs of the New Deal and the Great Society put safety nets in place for those who are in greatest need, but those nets now strangle the Federal Government by tying up precious funding in a knot of regulations and poor management. As I explain my thoughts on the balanced budget amendment, I want to make it very clear that I believe the deficit must be reduced and that a balanced budget is worth achieving. It is possible that I will be the lone Republican to vote against the balanced budget amendment, but I say now to my colleagues that I share my party's goals, but happen to disagree on the means. The debate on the balanced budget amendment is not about reducing the budget deficit, it is about amending the Constitution of the United States with a procedural gimmick. This amendment that is before Members now puts new Senate and House rules regarding voting procedures into the Constitution. It does not balance the budget and gives no indication of how this might be done. Furthermore, it will not force Congress to budget responsibly. If indeed this is an amendment requiring a balanced budget, then how can we allow Congress to essentially suspend the Constitution with a three-fifths vote? This was a dangerous idea last year, and it is a dangerous idea this year as well. What other constitutional requirements would we like to waive with a three-fifths vote? Freedom of religion? Free speech? What other civil liberties shall we waive? A balanced budget amendment would allow the Congress to ignore the requirement for a balanced budget and to ignore the Constitution. This idea of Congress suspending a constitutional requirement cuts against the separation of powers principle so crucial to the foundation of the Constitution. Given the make-up of the 104th Congress, passage of the balanced budget amendment may seem inevitable to some. Many people attribute this increased likelihood to the elections which occurred in November of last year. The election has been interpreted by some as proving that the American people are demanding that Congress balance our Federal budget. Or it may be interpreted by some who say that the Congress now has the political will to make the hard choices to make Federal revenues match Federal outlays. This is an important point, because tackle the budget deficit, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is nothing more than an empty promise. As optimistic as I am about the opportunities this Republican Congress has before it, I am sobered by a recent event. I want to underscore this because I believe many have lost sight of it; that is, the demise of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements and Tax Reform. The Commission set out to tackle an enormous task. That task was to address the Federal Government's long-term spending commitments and to determine what the fiscal impact would be if this spending were left unchecked. According to the Commission's report, the Commission was created, * * * to frame the long-term issue, educate the American people and policy leaders about the problem and potential choices, and to make specific recommendations on how to bring our future entitlement commitments and revenues into balance. Now, Mr. President, the Commission, despite the dedication of all of its participants, was unable to agree on a specific set of recommendations on how to address these issues. In explaining the inability of the Commission to come to a consensus on this issue, a letter signed by the chairman, Senator Kerrey, and the vice-chairman, Senator Danforth, states, * * * this result should not be surprising in an environment where political leaders in both parties are focusing more on short-term initiatives than on long-term, politically sensitive economic and social issues that sit on the horizon. I submit that the inability of the Commission to reach a consensus on these very important issues is proof that the Congress still does not yet have the political will to tackle the tough issues which it will need to balance the budget. Mr. President, that statement attributed to the Commission was made after the November elections. It is also important to note some statistics which are contained in the budget just submitted by the President which relate to the proposal to exempt certain Federal programs from being covered by this amendment. According to the President's budget, interest on the debt, defense, and mandatory spending combined make up 82 percent of the Federal budget in 1995, and this percentage will grow to 85 percent of the budget by the year 2000. Unless reform of all aspects of Federal expenditures occurs, projected outlays for entitlements and interest on the debt will consume all revenues of the Federal Government by the year 2012. That is only 17 years away. With those facts looming before us, how can the Congress decide today what should and should not be taken off the table during the debate on balancing the budget. The Congress must look at every aspect of the budget, politically sensitive items included. A balanced budget can come only through leadership and compromise. This compromise must come from each one of us. But, more importantly, it must come from those we represent--those who do not want their taxes raised any more than we want to raise them--those who do not want their benefits cut any more than we want to cut them. In the end there is no easy answer, and there never will be. Regardless of the procedural restraint in place, where there is political will to create a balanced budget we will create one, where there is will to avoid one, we will avoid it. The finding of the Bipartisan Commission I mentioned earlier indicates that the Congress still does not have the will to address the tough issues. As I stated during the debate on a balanced budget amendment last year, a vote for this balanced budget constitutional amendment is not a vote for a balanced budget, it is a vote for a fig leaf. If I am skeptical about the ability of a gimmick to fix our budget, I am not skeptical about the ability of the people to demand and keep demanding that we respond to the budget challenge with real action. Real action is not a vote for an amendment to the Constitution which calls for a balanced budget by the year 2002. Real action is rolling up our sleeves and getting our fiscal house in order. Real action is working together, in a bipartisan fashion, to create a balanced budget, not to simply promise one. Real action means ending some programs-- programs with popular appeal and vocal constituencies. Balancing the budget will result in an impact on each and every one of us--do we have the will to do that? 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. Compromises are difficult to reach, but they are not impossible to reach. We have all just received the President's budget. The ensuing debate on the budget will provide the chance for the Congress to work together to balance the Federal programs of this budget. I hope the Congress does not miss this opportunity to debate the real issue of balancing the budget. Voting for a balanced budget amendment is easy, working to balance the budget will not be. Although I will not support the legislation put before the Senate promoting a balanced budget amendment, I stand ready to get to the necessary work of crafting a long-term, sound fiscal policy which addresses the need to balance the budget. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee I am committed to a thorough review of Federal programs to determine if they are wisely spending the taxpayers' money and whether or not programs have outlived their usefulness. Some programs are undoubtedly in need of reduction, and a few should be abolished. But successful, long-term fiscal responsibility will not only depend upon program cuts. It demands a radical transformation in the way we do business as a government. My home State of Oregon has embarked upon a truly exciting effort to end the obsession with program compliance--and all the paperwork and bureaucracy which comes with that obsession--and instead making success government's goal. Success in training workers for new jobs. Success in getting families off public assistance. Success in reducing teen pregnancies. Government can and should do more with less. It is my hope that Congress will lead the way in making this a reality. The Congress should not promise to the people that it will balance the Federal budget through a procedural gimmick. If the Congress has the political will to balance the budget, it should simply use the power that it already has and do so. There is no substitute for political will and there never will be. I yield the floor. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank Rabbi Joshua Haberman for his willingness to come this week and open our Senate with a prayer. He is the rabbi of one of the largest congregations here in the Washington, DC, district. I am very grateful, and I know on behalf of the leadership of both sides we wish to express our deep gratitude to the rabbi.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, a little more than a year ago I was approached by citizens who share my concern about conventional weapons transfers. They told me of an international effort to curb the arms trade by limiting transfers only to nations which adhere to principles of human rights, democracy, and peace. This initiative, called the Code of Conduct, appeared to be a common-sense approach to decisions regarding weapons transfers and I agreed to introduce it as legislation in the Senate. Last year on this day Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and I held a press conference to announce our intent to push the Code of Conduct through Congress. Both of us have spent a great deal of time over these past months promoting the bill and contributing to the public's education about the glut of conventional weapons. It is with great pleasure that I reintroduce this bill today and that I am again joined by Representative McKinney, who is introducing its companion in the House of Representatives. The legislation alters U.S. arms transfer policy by significantly increasing the conditions upon which a nation may receive U.S.-built weapons. By stating as a basic requirement that U.S. arms should not go to nations which have poor human rights records, are undemocratic or are engaged in illegal acts of war, our policy allows arms transfers only to nations which are unlikely to emerge as security threats to their neighbors or to the United States themselves. I have spoken to groups around the country about this bill and the response has been very strong. Americans agree that no arms should go to dictators. Many citizens are beginning to question why millions of their tax dollars are going to subsidize weapons manufacturers who seek to export fighter jets, tanks, and other armaments. And many individuals have shared with me their concern that we will have repeats of Panama, Somalia, Iraq, and Haiti, where United States own Government. Despite the fact that the safety of our troops has been threatened by arms exports, the administration seems intent upon broadening the justification for arms sales approval to also include considerations of U.S. economic interests. In other words, the administration wants to allow jobs to dictate whether or not lethal weaponry should go to nations, many of which have poor human rights records and are not democratic. The escalating global arsenal must be reduced and nonproliferation must start with the United States. I believe that the only hope for fundamental change in policy is Congress and I will ask the Senate to vote on the Code of Conduct this year because I believe it is time for Congress to assume a greater responsibility for our arms export policies. I hope that my colleagues will take time to review this proposal, join me as a cosponsor and support this bill when it comes to the floor.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on the first day of the 104th Congress, I introduced a package of five bills--my legislative priorities for the coming session. At that time, I stated that one of my main priorities during the 104th Congress will be to look for ways to redefine Federal programs to enhance the efforts toward reform already underway in the States. The three bills I introduced on that first day are designed to decrease the burden of Federal compliance and oversight measures in key policy areas. In exchange for loosening the Federal regulatory straitjacket, we will transform accountability from paperwork requirements to performance-based results. I call this the flexibility factor in Government and it entails finding a path through every Federal agency where innovation at the State and local levels is nurtured and rewarded. It is in that context today that I join my good friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Graham, in introducing the Health Partnership Act of 1995. This bill is very similar to the legislation we introduced at the end of the 103d Congress when it became apparent that efforts to pass comprehensive reform would fail. Rather than federalizing health care, this bill would encourage the States to innovate and help build the best approaches to addressing our health care problems--a return to the true essence of federalism. To date, six States have enacted comprehensive health care reform proposals--Hawaii, Massachusetts, Oregon, Minnesota, Florida, and Washington. In addition, 44 States have enacted small group insurance reform; 44 have enacted data collection systems, and 41 have Medicaid managed care experiments underway. Although many reforms are underway, States have often had to struggle with the Federal Government to move forward with their reform plans. Securing the necessary waivers from the Federal Government has become an increasingly burdensome process. For example, it took nearly 3 years and two administrations for Oregon to obtain the Medicaid waivers it needed to implement its Medicaid expansion. This expansion has provided health care for nearly 100,000 additional Oregonians since its implementation in February 1994. And although there have been problems that came with implementation, the overwhelming majority of Oregonians continue to support the Oregon health plan. Mr. President, I am fortunate to come from a State which is willing to look at new and innovative approaches to reform in the public and private sectors. Recently, Oregon was granted a welfare waiver to implement their Jobs Plus Program. Oregon has also recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the administration to move forward with the Oregon Option, a partnership designed to deliver Government services in a better and more efficient manner. We are also hopeful that our State will be designed an ``ed-flex partnership State'' by Secretary Riley as soon as the Goals 2000 process is in place. This designation will allow our State to waive Federal law in certain areas in which the State has already demonstrated a commitment to change. Frankly, it seems like I am spending much of my time these days pursuing waivers of Federal law for my State--nearly all of the innovation that has come forth from my State in recent years has required a Federal waiver for implementation. Oregon is willing to persevere--but not all States are. Due to the arduous process a State must go through to obtain Federal waivers to enact comprehensive health care reform, many States have held off in attempting comprehensive reform. In addition, one of the biggest barriers to State reform is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. This Federal law is one of the broadest Federal laws on the books, and it has effectively prevented States from enacting reform that achieves universal coverage. ERISA waivers can only be granted by the Congress and have been few and far between--only Hawaii has one and it was granted 20 years ago. The issue of ERISA reform is a sensitive one. On one hand, States feel that ERISA preemption is a major roadblock to their reform efforts. States argue that ERISA prevents them from reaching a significant percentage of the insurance market in order to fully implement reform proposals that increase access to health care and control costs. On the other hand, business, especially employers with businesses in many different States, argue that they need uniformity in the administration of their employee health benefit plans. They argue that their ability to manage their health care costs and assure that all employees are getting equal benefits will be undermined by State health care reform if the ERISA preemption is lifted. Both sides raise compelling arguments, but where does that leave us? In the absence of comprehensive national reform, the status quo is not acceptable. Thus, in the bill we are introducing today, we have included a mechanism which will hopefully lead to a fair and equitable resolution of this problem. In order to allow States to move forward with meaningful comprehensive health care reform, while fully recognizing the needs of employers in administering self-funded plans across State lines, an ERISA Review Commission is established to find common ground, clarify what is permissible under ERISA and ensure the interest of self-insured plans are addressed. This limited duration Commission will be charged with making recommendations on ERISA reform to the Secretary of Labor, and will be composed of representatives from State and local government, business, labor, and the Federal Government. We consider this piece of our bill as work in progress. We firmly believe that the dialog between the two sides must begin. And we look forward to finding ways to improve and expand upon the proposal we put forward in today's legislation. I have long advocated that we look to the States to help develop the database we need to determine the appropriate Federal role in health care reform. In my opinion, this is the essence of the federalism on which our country was founded. With no consensus on comprehensive reform in Congress, we should turn to the States to lay the foundation for reform. All of the ideas that we debated last session--from insurance reform to universal coverage to malpractice reform--are being tested in our States. We should then distill the information and data obtained from these innovations and use it to reach consensus on national reform. says to the States, we believe in you. Put together a plan to expand access to health care, control costs, to improve quality and health outcomes in your State and we will give you the waivers you need to implement your innovative ideas. We believe this should be a partnership and so we will even provide you with some Federal funds to help you achieve your goals. Then at the end of 5 years, we will evaluate what you have done. Has it been successful? Have you met your goals? How can we use this information to put together a plan that works for the rest of the Nation? And if a State wants to develop a more limited plan, the bill will allow that State to apply for a limited project waiver. This will encourage more of the limited reforms that are already proceeding so successfully in many States, on a much more rapid basis. In addition, the bill includes provisions to improve public health services and access to health care in rural and underserved areas. This will spur the development of our health care delivery infrastructure and will lead to better health outcomes. This bill also includes a proposal I have long-championed with Senator Harkin of Iowa--the National Fund for Health Research. While I intend to introduce this piece of the bill as free-standing legislation later in the year, I feel it is important to have at least one option on the table for increasing our commitment to medical research. Therefore, a minimum of $6 billion will be provided over 5 years to supplement the annual appropriations to the National Institutes of Health. Medical research is the sole hope we can provide to millions of Americans who will face disease and disability either in their own lives or in their families. We can care for them in our hospitals and clinics but we cannot alleviate their pain or end their suffering without cures and preventative treatments. Cures are the direct result of our investment in medical research. Mr. President, our Nation spends about $1 trillion each year on health care, but only 2 to 3 percent on medical research. I submit to the proponents of cost containment, that the cornerstone of cost containment is the cures and improved treatments arising from medical research. I want to cite two examples of the tremendous strides taken in medical research that have totally reversed the prognostic indications for certain diseases. In 1960, we had a U.S. Senator, Richard L. Neuberger, die of testicular cancer. At that point in time, this diagnosis carried a death sentence. Today, because of the advances in medical research, 95 percent of testicular cancer is curable. That is but one example of the strides we have made in the eradication of disease. Research in other fields such as heart and lung disease, stroke, and juvenile leukemia have increased the quality of life and lifespans of many afflicted individuals. The other day, I was amused by the current commercials on treatments for upset stomachs and more specifically, petic ulcers. A research study at the Michigan Research Center concluded that petic ulcers are not caused by stress or diet, but by simple bacteria. The causative bacteria is treatable with common antibiotics and, therefore, ulcers are curable. That one singular research project was responsible for altering our treatment of a common ailment, and alleviating the constant pain of its sufferers. Additionally, I want to emphasize that medical research has a broad base of public support. One recent poll indicated that 77 percent of the American people supported a health care premium increase of $1 per week, if it were earmarked for medical research. Another 75 percent of the American people said they would accept a $1 increase per week on their income tax bill, if it were earmarked for medical research. The American public realizes that there is a direct link between medical research and improved health care, cost containment, and discovery of disease cures. I cannot emphasize enough the necessity of undergirding the National Institutes of Health with better funding mechanisms than what exists in the annual appropriations process. Finally, we have added a title to our bill to address the enormous problem of fraud and abuse in our health care system. The focus of this title is on Federal, State, and private sector coordination to combat fraud and abuse. Much of the language in the title tracks the legislation recently introduced by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] in the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act of 1995. Beginning the process to reforming our health care system does not come without cost. Currently, we are witnessing increasing doubts about the dependability of funding for our medical research initiatives. With the squeeze on discretionary nonmilitary funding, we are going to have even greater pressure put upon our ability to find innovative financial support. Thus, our proposal will be fully funded by a $1 tax on tobacco products. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that a $1 increase will result in $65 billion in revenues. As a long-time advocate of increased tobacco taxes, I believe this is an appropriate revenue source not only because of the revenue that is gained through the tax, but more importantly, because of the health benefits that result from such a tax. This tax will save lives and will have a great effect on the number of teens who smoke. As my colleagues know, the number of teenage smokers is rising significantly despite our efforts to educate teens about the health dangers of tobacco use. We must redouble our efforts to halt this increase in young smokers. Mr. President, I strongly believe that the approach we are putting forward today is a positive first step toward the foundation of national reform. There will be those who argue that a State approach will lead to a fragmented health care system. I disagree. We will likely not achieve comprehensive national health care reform this year. Let us not make the mistake of missing an opportunity to gather data from the States that will help us in the years ahead. Ours should be a partnership with the States to facilitate the development of health care reform--we should invite them into the process as our partners, not fight their innovative efforts.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXVI(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask that the rules of the Appropriations Committee for the 104th Congress be printed in the Congressional Record. These rules were adopted by the full committee membership on January 11, 1995.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to withdraw my amendment No. 181.

Mr. HATFIELD

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