Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act is designed to create a new spirit of cooperation among Federal, State, and local governments. It is important to remember that the solution to the problems in our intergovernmental system is a recognition that all of our bodies of government--Federal, State, local, and school districts--are interdependent. Each part of our system brings special talents, special skills, and special needs to the service of the people of the United States. It is time to transform the Federal-State-local relationship. This transformation must build on the strengths of all of the different governments in our country and must be based on trust, cooperation, and flexibility. The Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act will lead to strategic and realistic decentralization and deconcentration of power throughout the Government. The idea behind this legislation has four key aspects. First, different governments of this Nation have different strengths. The Federal Government does two things well: Effectively establishing broad goals that tie us together as a Nation; and achieving certain economies of scale which cannot be attained at the local level. The Federal Government often forgets that local governments bring a great deal of resources to the table. Perhaps the greatest strength is that States and local governments are innovators. Local and State governments have demonstrated again and again that they find the most creative ways to tackle problems in solutions the fundamental interdependence of governments and builds on the strengths of all governments that deliver services. I might note that many of our national laws that we feel today perhaps even originated at the national level did not do so. They were tried. They were experimented with. They were created by local governments at the State level, particularly Social Security, unemployment compensation, industrial accident compensation, and civil rights. Many of these things were tried at the local level as part of the creative nature of our federalism, our whole idea of federalism. Second, the Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act will not only permit variation in how local governments meet national goals, but will encourage solutions that best fit the local context. Federal laws and regulations have tended to treat every area of the country the same. Universal requirements force Congress to legislate to the lowest common denominator, and consequently, few governments perform to their full capability. We are penalizing the progressive States like my own State in order to find that common denominator. We all strive to meet the average instead of to excel. Politically, socially, structurally, local and State governments are very different from one another. Why should the Federal Government declare that citizens in Oregon have the same needs as people in Florida, Kansas, or Maine? Adding flexibility to the Federal-State relationship will encourage local governments to find solutions that fit the local context. In addition, providing flexibility will eliminate regulations that force local governments to solve problems that they do not have. Third, this legislation will create a new system of accountability. Currently, the Federal Government holds State and local governments accountable through regulation, procedures, and paperwork. The existing accountability structure is very good at determining where Federal money is spent, but it tells us very little about whether we are actually achieving results. Hundreds of hours and dollars are invested in complying with these regulations, and the investment in bureaucratic processes does nothing to improve the quality of services that we deliver to citizens. Moreover, our current structure of accountability has made us very responsive to each other. That is, we are responsive bureaucrat to bureaucrat at all levels of our government, rather than to the people who we serve. We need to reorient our system of government and to view taxpayers as investors and our citizens as customers. Fourth, we must help retool all new governments for this new relationship. We need to reequip our Nation's governments to function in a new, cooperative environment. The Federal bureaucracies need to recreate the ability to listen to local governments. In the 1980's, we witnessed the destruction of the intergovernmental affairs offices at most Federal agencies. They were supposed to be the focal point of cooperation, of listening. The Federal Government must actively solicit and use the ideas and experience of State and local governments. I believe these two bills, Senate bills No. 1 and No. 88, strive to accomplish many of the same goals, including better informing the legislative process in Congress, stressing the need for flexibility for State and local governments to better meet the needs of the people they serve in an efficient and effective manner, and making it a goal that the Federal Government actively seek out and consult with State and local governments through the legislative process. Mr. President, I commend those who have worked so diligently in bringing this legislation before us, especially the author, Senator Kempthorne of Idaho. It is important that the balance contained in this legislation I alluded to earlier be kept intact. It is equally important that we pass this legislation. As it is not my intention to bog down this important bill, I want to indicate that at a particular moment in time I will withdraw my amendment. I will, however, pursue action on Senate bill No. 88 at the earliest opportunity. I am very hopeful that I can get the ear and the attention of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I will personally visit with Senator Roth, the chairman of that committee, and the ranking member, in order to get some assurance that this proposal, which has had its experience proven by the experience in my State of Oregon. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President. I am speaking today as a supporter and original cosponsor of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. I feel very strongly that this legislation before us strikes a balance between the Federal Government's responsibilities: First, to acknowledge the burden that unfunded mandates have on State and local governments, and, second, to ensure the rights of all persons contained in the U.S. Constitution are protected. The Federal Government has imposed over 170 unfunded laws on State and local governments which have resulted in thousands of unfunded Federal regulations. The Federal Government has not viewed itself as dependent on State and local governments in the past two decades. I want to underscore that point, Mr. President, because we have been talking about dollar obligations that are involved in these unfunded mandates. But much of that is because of the thousands of regulations that follow these mandates. In fact, it has been estimated that perhaps as much as $500 billion is expended each year to administer at the Federal, State, and local levels mandates initiated and adopted by the Federal Government. The major policies of the Federal Government have reflected a Washington D.C.-based arrogance; ``we''--``we'' the Federal legislators and ``we'' the bureaucrats--know best how to solve the problems of the country. In many respects, the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds in its relationship with State and local governments, and the intergovernmental system has ceased to function. This problem became very clear over the recent debate over health care. Washington believed it could prescribe a solution with a single piece of legislation. This approach was not the answer to health care problems and it is not the answer to any issue that requires intergovernmental cooperation. I have received numerous letters from national organizations praising this legislation for making the decisionmaking process for future Federal proposals and regulations more open, accountable, and informed. The number of letters and the diversity of groups which have written in support of this legislation speak to its importance to our Nation. More importantly, this national support is joined by hundreds of letters of endorsement from local governments throughout the State of Oregon. In the past few years, officials from local governments have written to me about the problems that unfunded mandates pose for Oregon communities. While the letters ask for support of mandate relief, they also note the need for Congress to make more informed decisions related to mandates for State and local governments. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 addresses both of those issues. My support for this legislation does not mean I will turn my back on my responsibility to uphold the Constitution to ensure all persons are treated equally in this country or protected from health and safety risks, and, of course, civil rights. We must not forget what good the Congress has done for people throughout history, including passing civil rights laws, voting rights laws, and ensuring the rights of the disabled through the Americans With Disabilities Act. Some--and I would say probably most--may view these bills as unfunded mandates, technically. I view them as the Federal Government playing its proper role in ensuring persons that their rights, their constitutional rights and their civil rights, as guaranteed under the Constitution prevail. We must also remember that the same Federal Government which has mandated certain actions in the past, is also ready to help citizens who have suffered enormous loses in the recent flooding in the State of California and earthquakes in California. It was not so long ago that my State was hit with an earthquake which caused severe damage--and that same Federal Government provided relief and assistance to literally thousands of people in need. The Federal Government does have an important role to play in this country, and we should not dismiss it lightly. Mr. President, while the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act looks into the future at new unfunded mandates, it does not look back at the current regulatory burdens that are imposed on State and local governments in addressing the needs of their citizens. We must look back as well as forward, and that is why I introduced S. 88, the Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1995, on the first day of this Congress. The need to provide flexibility to local and State governments is enormous, and that is why I submit S. 88 as an amendment to the unfunded mandates bill before us. Amendment No. 181 (Purpose: To increase the overall economy and efficiency of Government operations and enable more efficient use of Federal funding, by enabling local governments and private, nonprofit organizations to use amounts available under certain Federal assistance programs in accordance with approved local flexibility plans)

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, with the passing of Bill Smullin, Oregon has lost another of its pioneers. Bill was for over 50 years a legendary figure in broadcasting and was, in the words of a National Association of Broadcasters chairman, ``a great standard-bearer for all broadcasters.'' Growing up in the shadow of Mt. Hood as the son of homesteaders, Bill Smullin was one of the first newspapermen to make the transition to broadcasting. Acquiring first radio, then television and cable operations, Bill built his California Oregon Broadcasting Co. into a sophisticated, cutting-edge system which featured the best technology had to offer. Bill's interest in serving rural areas was avid. In an effort to ensure that smaller television markets had access to films, he helped form Television Station, Inc., in the 1960's, which bought and distributed films to rural stations. About the same time, Bill brought rural residents television programming from stations located hundreds of miles away. His contributions to the broadcasting profession's development were also numerous. He helped found and organize associations of broadcasting awards from both organizations. Five years ago he was named recipient of the National Association of Broadcaster's highest honor, the Distinguished Service Award. At a ceremony held during the NAB's annual convention, Bill was given the award commemorating his then-57 years of service to the industry. True to form, Bill used this forum not to reflect upon his personal successes and the advances of the broadcasting industry. Instead, Bill took the opportunity to share his concerns about congressional oversight actions were underway at that time. Bill Smullin was never one to rest on his many laurels. He gave much to the southern Oregon community where he made his home, to several educational institutions in Oregon and California, and to community hospitals. He was a legendary figure and a friend, and I send my sympathies to his family and friends as we mourn our loss.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the acting majority leader. Mr. President, I would like to take this occasion, again, to thank the Reverend Mark Edward Dever who has very faithfully presided over the opening of this session as the chaplain from Monday through Friday of this week. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent at this time to place in the Record a resume of the very distinguished career of this young pastor of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church, who has his baccalaureate degree from Duke University; his master of divinity from Gordon-Conwell in Massachusetts; his master of theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville; and his doctor of philosophy from Cambridge University in England; and other materials relating to his distinguished and very young career, including publications, honors, and recognitions. I thank the acting majority leader.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on occasions of this kind, we are prone to look back and think historically as well as to absorb the magnitude of the statement of the moment given by my good friend, Senator Bennett Johnston, from Louisiana. [[Page S612]] When I came to the Senate, I had the privilege of serving with Allen Ellender and Senator Russell Long, who represented the State of Louisiana at that particular time in 1967. Mr. President, I must say that the strength of those two leaders at that time certainly has been carried on in the tradition of Louisiana voters and the subsequent Senators, including Senator Bennett Johnston and his colleague today who serves with him from Louisiana, John Breaux. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Johnston on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee now for all the years that he has been in the Senate. It was then called the Interior Committee of the Senate and Insular Affairs, and then its name was changed and, of course, all that time he has been chairman of that committee. In addition to that, both Senator Johnston and I serve on the Appropriations Committee, and we begin this year the 18th year we have served in partnership either as chairman or the ranking member, as Senator Johnston has occupied that seat, or as I now occupy that seat as chairman of that subcommittee and he the ranking member, as I say, for 18 years. I think on both the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee, we get a very, very intimate relationship of the total legislative process. I want to say it has not only been an honor and a personal pleasure, but I have marveled at the way Senator Johnston has carried his duties and responsibilities in both of those committees, demonstrating competence, demonstrating brilliance of understanding of the issues. He gets up and starts talking about the nuclear power facilities, and so forth and so on, and I am always happy to defer to him, whether I am chairman or ranking member, any time that subject comes up because there is no one on this floor that has greater intimate knowledge of that complexity of nuclear energy than Senator Johnston. I also want to say that Senator Johnston's Christmas cards, when he first came here, showed this beautiful family--beautiful Mary, his wife, and his children. I watched that Christmas card expand over the years. I think it is very significant that sitting next to him on the floor of the Senate today is a very distinguished congressman from the State of Indiana, who happens to be his son-in-law, Tim Roemer. I am very, very pleased to know that he is leaving more than just a legacy of record. He is leaving in the Congress of the United States a legacy of leadership that will continue. Mr. President, there are so many things that come to my mind. I am flooded with memories of the thousands of miles that he and I have traveled with our spouses and other members of the committee from China, Thailand, Indonesia, throughout the whole Pacific region. I want to say even though he is noted as perhaps the expert here of energy, among his other expertise, whenever he has chaired a Codel and is called upon to respond to the head of state, to the prime minister or the president or the foreign minister--whoever might be hosting us at the moment--on any foreign policy, he can respond with grace and with, again, a manner in which we all take pride of being Americans and being his associate and colleague on these Codels. So he is a Renaissance man with great capacity for many, many subjects. He does everything with fairness and with objectivity. I often say some of his problems on the committees have been that he has supported Republican causes that have not always been supported by the majority of his own Democratic Party on that committee. He has been that kind of broad-based, Renaissance person. This is a decision he has to make. I have regrets in hearing this decision. They are selfish and personal because I have 2 years yet as well and it also causes me to have to reflect on what my future is. But if I should run for reelection and get reelected, I would be very, very much lesser a person because I would miss the expertise and counsel of Bennett Johnston. But, Bennett, being very informal at this moment on the floor, I want to say, as a long-time fan and supporter of yours and personal friend, I greet this news with great mixed emotions. I am happy for you and your family in many ways, yet I am regretful for what you are going to deny the Senate as far as the future. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, last October, I was distressed as I confronted two painful losses: the death of a very dear friend of mine, Eric Lopez, and the demise of my legislation to create an Office for Rare Disease Research at the National Institutes of Health. It was devastating yet apt that both were lost at the same time, because it was Eric and his rare debilitating disease, Epidermolysis bullosa, that originally inspired me to introduce this legislation. I am proud to announce that the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases will rename the National Registry of Epidermolysis bullosa in honor of Eric Lopez. His courage and perseverance helped to raise the public's awareness of this disease through the establishment of the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association, known as DEBRA. Eric personalized the plight of a large group of Americans afflicted by rare diseases. Last session, my legislation passed the Senate but ran out of time in the House. We were so close to enacting this bill that we cannot justify its dissolution now. In the memory of Eric and many others like him, let us endorse this legislation with unanimous consent. Diseases are labeled as rare when less than 200,000 people are afflicted; however, grouped together, these diseases affect over 10 to 20 million Americans. Collectively, the term ``rare'' appears to be a misnomer. A large portion of our population is battling diseases that are not only extremely difficult to diagnose but also difficult to treat and almost impossible to cure. These individuals exist as islands without answers, without support systems, and paramount, without hope. Ambiguous symptoms involving multiple organ systems lead to years of frustration in testing and misdiagnosis for the sufferers. The medical profession also shares in this frustration as the information to aid in diagnosis is nonexistent or scarce at best. There are currently no centers of research, information, or support for the patient or the physician. In today's environment of progressive health care, this is a travesty. Research is the most vital aspect of medicine, as we look to discovering cures. NIH has 20 Institutes of research that are centered around groups of diseases or organ systems. Rarely do these separate organizations communicate and coordinate research initiatives. Obviously, such a fragmented approach further worsens the status of research on multisystemic diseases, such as the rare diseases, and lends itself to repetition and duplication of [[Page S678]] projects. Unlike the larger, more visible diseases such as heart and kidney disease, oftentimes the rare diseases are lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. My legislation avoids the establishment of yet another bureaucratic center by delineating and defining the duties of the already existing Office of the Director of NIH. Foremost, the Office will formulate a strategic plan for rare disease research which will support research, award grants and contracts, and coordinate efforts among Institutes and other Federal agencies. Identification of present research projects, both private and Federal, and of opportunities and needs for future research will assist in preventing unnecessary duplication. Coordination among the Institutes will facilitate research efforts and thereby increase the effectiveness of every Federal dollar expended. In addition, the bill establishes a National Advisory Council on Rare Disease Research, which will be composed of individuals appointed by the Director of the NIH. The Council will review and assess research needs, priorities, and funding to advise the NIH on the development and implementation of the strategic research plan. Finally, my legislation establishes a national research database, accessible to both medical professionals and the public. This will connect researchers with patients for clinical trials, provide physicians and individuals with information on trials, and connect patients with support groups. This database will provide the necessary information to cohesively plan an attack on these diseases. In these times of tightening fiscal resources, Federal expenditures need to be stringently examined for worthiness and applicability to the majority of population. Despite the inability to put a dollar value on human suffering, it is still our duty as legislators to address and hopefully diminish it. The legislation I reintroduce today has the merits of assisting many Americans in desperate need and, not necessity by requiring further expenditure of Federal dollars. The funding for this program was included in the appropriations bill for NIH in fiscal year 1995 and, therefore, is already available. This is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that humanitarianism can coexist with financial acumen. Let us open this congressional session with a bipartisan triumph and enact this legislation as soon as possible. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with a letter from the National Organization of Rare Disorders be placed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the acting majority leader. Mr. President, I want to use this occasion to give a statement of appreciation to the Reverend Mark Dever, who has opened the Senate today with prayer and will do so each day this week, as our Chaplain Halverson is on a week's vacation. Mr. President, Reverend Dever is one of the younger breed of ministers that has blessed our spiritual world in providing not only leadership in the pulpit, but he also has an extraordinary educational background, a Ph.D. from Cambridge, and has recently come to the Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which is the church of my membership, to take over as pastor. It is an old church here in the city and one which has, like many cities, found an older population and is in the process of rebuilding that church with younger people. He has already attracted the interest of many people because of his extraordinary, expository preaching. So I am happy and proud to be able to ask him, on behalf of the majority leader, to fill this role here in the Senate each day for this coming week. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, last October, I was distressed as I confronted two painful losses: the death of a very dear friend of mine, Eric Lopez, and the demise of my legislation to create an Office for Rare Disease Research at the National Institutes of Health. It was devastating yet apt that both were lost at the same time, because it was Eric and his rare debilitating disease, Epidermolysis bullosa, that originally inspired me to introduce this legislation. I am proud to announce that the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases will rename the National Registry of Epidermolysis bullosa in honor of Eric Lopez. His courage and perseverance helped to raise the public's awareness of this disease through the establishment of the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association, known as DEBRA. Eric personalized the plight of a large group of Americans afflicted by rare diseases. Last session, my legislation passed the Senate but ran out of time in the House. We were so close to enacting this bill that we cannot justify its dissolution now. In the memory of Eric and many others like him, let us endorse this legislation with unanimous consent. Diseases are labeled as rare when less than 200,000 people are afflicted; however, grouped together, these diseases affect over 10 to 20 million Americans. Collectively, the term ``rare'' appears to be a misnomer. A large portion of our population is battling diseases that are not only extremely difficult to diagnose but also difficult to treat and almost impossible to cure. These individuals exist as islands without answers, without support systems, and paramount, without hope. Ambiguous symptoms involving multiple organ systems lead to years of frustration in testing and misdiagnosis for the sufferers. The medical profession also shares in this frustration as the information to aid in diagnosis is nonexistent or scarce at best. There are currently no centers of research, information, or support for the patient or the physician. In today's environment of progressive health care, this is a travesty. Research is the most vital aspect of medicine, as we look to discovering cures. NIH has 20 Institutes of research that are centered around groups of diseases or organ systems. Rarely do these separate organizations communicate and coordinate research initiatives. Obviously, such a fragmented approach further worsens the status of research on multisystemic diseases, such as the rare diseases, and lends itself to repetition and duplication of [[Page S678]] projects. Unlike the larger, more visible diseases such as heart and kidney disease, oftentimes the rare diseases are lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. My legislation avoids the establishment of yet another bureaucratic center by delineating and defining the duties of the already existing Office of the Director of NIH. Foremost, the Office will formulate a strategic plan for rare disease research which will support research, award grants and contracts, and coordinate efforts among Institutes and other Federal agencies. Identification of present research projects, both private and Federal, and of opportunities and needs for future research will assist in preventing unnecessary duplication. Coordination among the Institutes will facilitate research efforts and thereby increase the effectiveness of every Federal dollar expended. In addition, the bill establishes a National Advisory Council on Rare Disease Research, which will be composed of individuals appointed by the Director of the NIH. The Council will review and assess research needs, priorities, and funding to advise the NIH on the development and implementation of the strategic research plan. Finally, my legislation establishes a national research database, accessible to both medical professionals and the public. This will connect researchers with patients for clinical trials, provide physicians and individuals with information on trials, and connect patients with support groups. This database will provide the necessary information to cohesively plan an attack on these diseases. In these times of tightening fiscal resources, Federal expenditures need to be stringently examined for worthiness and applicability to the majority of population. Despite the inability to put a dollar value on human suffering, it is still our duty as legislators to address and hopefully diminish it. The legislation I reintroduce today has the merits of assisting many Americans in desperate need and, not necessity by requiring further expenditure of Federal dollars. The funding for this program was included in the appropriations bill for NIH in fiscal year 1995 and, therefore, is already available. This is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that humanitarianism can coexist with financial acumen. Let us open this congressional session with a bipartisan triumph and enact this legislation as soon as possible. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with a letter from the National Organization of Rare Disorders be placed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this country has crossed many thresholds of change in the past two hundred years. As we being the 104th Congress today, we face another set of challenges. The opportunity to change direction in our national domestic policy is again offered to us, facilitated by the recent change in leadership. The Republican call to return to the essence of democracy-- federalism--is especially exciting. I intend to dedicate myself this Congress to redefining Federal programs to enhance the efforts already underway in the States. I am convinced, as are many of my colleagues, that the best policy making in this country is bubbling forth from laboratories commonly known as our United States. To inaugurate the new year and the new Congress, I am introducing five of my key legislative priorities today. First, in what I intend to be a series of proposals, are three bills designed to decrease the burden of Federal compliance and oversight measures in key policy areas. In exchange for loosening the Federal regulatory straightjacket, 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 level is nurtured and rewarded. We have already had some success in this area in the Department of Education--Secretary Riley and his staff have worked with Congress to capitalize on being more responsive and flexible with States which are on the cutting edge of educational reform. This example will help guide us through the same land mines in other Federal agencies. Second, I am introducing today two bills which focus on some of the major issues in the Northwest. The first deals with stabilizing the longterm outlook for the major provider of power supply in the Northwest, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the second considers the future of natural resource management. Mr. President, this is not an exclusive list of my priorities for the 104th Congress. I will have other proposals-- youth violence prevention, international arms transfers, and recycling, to enumerate just a few. Yet the initiatives I have put forth today define two of the major themes I have exercised throughout my political career and will continue to advance in the current Congress--enhancing the innovation in our State laboratories by removing Federal restraints to reform, and wise utilization and management of our Nation's natural resources. The bills I submit for consideration by the Senate are the following: I. The Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1995 (Local- Flex) Flexibility, accountability, and efficiency are qualities we, as consumers, expect from private industry. Americans expect and deserve to have those same qualities present in their government as well, whether at the Federal, State, or local level. As the Congress plans its Federal government reforms, it should use these qualities as its measures of success. We have already witnessed some substantive steps in addressing these goals. This reform oriented approach is apparent in the unfunded mandate legislation and in the Administration's proposal to restructure and consolidate Federal agencies and programs. While these proposals have merit, I believe that rash reform decisions can lead to the omission of a reservoir of great ideas. This reservoir of ideas is located throughout the country in our State, local, and community governments. In order to tap into this stock of ideas and innovation I am introducing The Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1995. I introduced a similar bill in the 103d Congress which was passed in the Senate by a vote of 97-0 as an amendment to the National Competitiveness Act. The Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1995 is premised on two ideas. First, Federal regulation treats all communities alike despite their inherent differences. Local governments are eligible for hundreds of separate Federal categorical grants to provide services and implement Federal programs. To be effective those programs must recognize the differences among communities and permit variation in spending and enforcement based on local needs. Second, regulatory red tape has stifled the very resources designed to provide services and address problems. Many programs are too narrow, and this regulatory rigidity translates into funding spent wastefully in audits and record- keeping rather than directed to meet community needs. The Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1995 would establish a framework for local governments to prepare ``Local Flexibility Plans'' including a road map for integrating Federal funds at the local level to meet local needs. The local government would identify all Federal, State, local and private resources they would use, and any Federal, State and local regulations which would need to be waived. This would enable local governments and non-profit organizations to adapt Federal funds and related programs to their local area by drawing on appropriations from more than one Federal program and integrating funds across existing Federal categories. By involving the community in developing these ``Local Flexibility Plans'', efficiency of Federal, State, and local resources would be greatly increased. Mr. President, at a time when the our Federal treasury is being squeezed from all sides for funding priorities, it is imperative that funds are allocated in the most efficient and effective manner possible. I know this legislation would assist the Federal, State, and local governments in the accomplishment of that goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with a section-by-section analysis be included in the Record, following my remarks. II. The Worker Retraining Flexibility Act of 1995 (Labor Flex) It is no secret, Mr. President, that dislocation of the labor force has been a significant issue in my State and in the entire Northwest-- an area heavily impacted by the Endangered Species Act. The Northern Spotted Owl was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of transition to new employment for many of the natural resources workers in my State. In fact, we have lost over 15,000 jobs in the forest products industry in my State since the owls listing in 1990. Most of these jobs have been in rural areas built up around saw mills which are dependent on Federal timber supply. Our State, with its growing high tech industry, has been able to cushion this blow in terms of total employment, but the rural areas dependent on Federal timber are continuing to be devastated. For example, just before Christmas in the Eastern Oregon town of Burns, with a population of 2,880, Snow Mountain Pine announced that, due to the lack of Federal timber supply, it would be permanently closing its doors on 184 workers in early 1995. This work force reduction and others are coming as a direct result of the forest protection policies of this Administration and more are anticipated in the future. Retraining of our labor force, particularly those dislocated due to Federal policy, continues to be one of my highest priorities. For the last 3 years I have introduced various forms of legislation in this area, specifically the Endangered Species Employment Transition Assistance Act and the Environmental Employment Transition Assistance Act. The premise of these bills has been that if workers lose their jobs due to Federal environmental laws or regulation, the Federal government has a responsibility to see that their basic needs are met while they participate in worker retaining programs. The objective of these bills was to create a new set aside under our national retraining programs that would have provided dislocated workers easier access to needs-based related payments after their 26 weeks of unemployment insurance ended so that they could complete their long-term retraining programs. Congress has created similar set asides over the years for workers dislocated due to Federal efforts to clean the air and promote or increase trade. But the sands have shifted in the last year. In 1994, the Government Accounting Office reported to me that the Federal government has an inventory of 154 Federal vocational educational and retraining programs which, collectively, create an enormous potential for duplication of effort, raising questions concerning administrative costs at all levels of government. For this, as well as other reasons, I believe that a review and consolidation of these programs is in order. Rather than adding further to this current administrative burden, I have redrafted my legislation to improve the existing Job Training Partnership Act without creating a new program. The Worker Retraining Flexibility Act of 1995 which I am introducing today will make three important changes to the existing JTPA statute in order to provide a great deal more flexibility in addressing the long- term needs of dislocated workers. Specifically, the bill would: remove the limitation in the statute which prohibits States from using more than 25 percent of the funds on needs-related payments and supportive services while still maintaining the 15 percent ceiling on administrative costs; modify the State waiver which permits a governor to reduce to 30 percent the requirement that not less than 50 percent of the funds be used for retraining services; and finally, permit needs-related payments to those who have enrolled in retraining programs after the sixth week of a discretionary grant award rather than after the 13th week of being laid-off. Finally, the bill will create a new section requiring the Secretary of Labor to expend the Administration's commitment of $12 million from the discretionary reserve based on need, to provide retraining funding to dislocated workers in the Pacific Northwest. These provisions will eliminate major impediments that dislocated workers face while participating in long-term retraining programs and will enable communities to provide both the training and income support these workers need to re-enter the work force. It is an example of retooling a traditional federal program, based on advice and counsel from a State which has been managing a great deal of JTPA funds over the past several years. I included most of these provisions in the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations bill for the Department of Labor. However, these changes will only last for a single program year under the Job Training Partnership Act. I think which is why I am offering this legislation. Until we streamline and consolidate our current retraining programs, I am committed to operating them in as flexible a manner as possible so States like Oregon can better assist our dislocated workers as they make the transition to new high skill family wage jobs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with a letter of support from the Oregon Economic Development Department, be included in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD. Finally Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of where we ended the 103d Congress--on an issue near and dear to all of us,--health care. At the end of last session, when it became apparent that comprehensive health care reform would not pass, I joined my colleague Senator Graham of Florida in introducing a health care reform proposal with a different approach--the Health Innovation Partnership Act. 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 federalism. The purpose of this bill is to give States incentives to innovate in the area of health care by simplifying and expediting the waiver process and providing limited Federal funding to assist them in meeting three Federal goals. These goals are: expanding access, controlling costs, and maintaining quality health care. I mention this today because I see the Health Innovation Partnership Act as the cornerstone of my flexibility agenda and I intend to join Senator Graham in introducing this bill again by the end of the month. Also included within this bill is another of my major priorities which I will reintroduce--the national fund for health research. With the focus now on other issues, the problems of our health care system have fallen from attention. However, the problems have not gone away. Now more than ever, it is critical for us to lift the roadblocks to State reform and allow States to continue to build the database for appropriate national reform. I will continue to push for reform at every possible opportunity. Mr. President, let me close my remarks with simple note--anything worth achieving is worth working for. Meaningful policy change is difficult and yet, once accomplished, well worth every ounce of effort. I hope this Congress will nurture a reasoned dialogue about the many policy challenges which face our country. I come from a State with a long tradition of involving its citizens in their Government--as long as I continue to stand as their representative, I will do all that I can to insure that this Congress is one of the most productive in history. And that is building from the people up rather than trying to impose the will of Congress and the Federal Government down on the people.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the last proposal I will introduce today relates to the ecosystem management for a new generation of land management philosophies and techniques. A number of federal land management agencies are now working to implement ecosystem management on a landscape levels, including the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. In 1992 the BLM released its Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon which developed the first comprehensive strategy for management of forest ecosystems and watersheds in the nation. Since that time, the Forest Service and Interior Department joined in the act with the development of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team report, better known as Option 9, for the forest ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. In addition, Interior is continually working on Ecosystem management plans for other areas of the nation, such as the Florida Everglades and the area inhabited by the Southern California gnatcatcher. While this work is admirable and perhaps necessary in the evolution of land management policy, a great deal of apprehension and concern still surrounds this method of managing our water, air, land and fish and wildlife resources on a comprehensive scale. As keepers of the taxpayers' purse strings, Congress is required to provide the funding to allow the agencies to engage in this type of management. Unfortunately, we as legislators and appropriators understand little about this new and innovative land management technique. Each federal government agency, state agency, interest group and Congress-person has his or her own idea of what ecosystem management means for the people and ecology of their particular state or region. As appropriators, we are required to fund these actions with little more than faith that the agencies' recommendations are based on sound science and a firm understanding of the needs of ecosystems and the people who live there. Numerous additional questions surround not only the integrity but the functionality of the ecosystem management boat we have already launched. For example, what is ecosystem management, how should it be implemented and who should be implementing it? How does the ecosystem oriented work of the federal agencies, states, municipalities, counties, and interest groups mesh? And is the existing structure of our government agencies adequate to meet the requirements of managing land across which state and county lines have been drawn? Finally, with a decreasing resource production receipt base, how shall we pay for ecosystem management? Direct federal appropriations? Consolidation of federal, state, local and private funds? And if we determine how to pay for ecosystem management, who coordinates collection of these funds and how are they distributed? I do not disagree with the theory that holistic, coordinated management of our natural resources is necessary. On the contrary, I and many of my Senate colleagues are prepared to move in that direction. It makes eminent sense to manage resources by the natural evolution of river basins and watersheds rather than according to the artificial boundaries established by counties, states and nations. Nevertheless, as our nation's funding resources become more scarce and our government agencies, states, localities and private interests seek to coordinate their ecosystem restoration efforts, Congress and the Executive Branch need to avail themselves of the best information in order to make educated, informed decisions about how ecosystem management will affect our nation's people environment and federal budget. To help answer these questions, I am introducing legislation today to create an Ecosystem Management Study Commission. This bipartisan Commission will be composed of the Chairman and Ranking Minority members of following Senate committees: Energy and Natural Resources; Appropriations; Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee of Appropriations; and the Public Lands, National Parks and Forests Subcommittee of Energy and Natural Resources. In addition, Chairman and Ranking Members from the following House committees will also serve: Committee on Resources; Appropriations; Interior Subcommittee of Appropriations; and the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee of the Committee on Resources. The Commission will submit a report to Congress 1 year after enactment which: Defines ecosystem management; Identifies constraints and opportunities for coordinated ecosystem planning; examines existing laws and Federal agency budgets to determine whether any changes are necessary to facilitate ecosystem management; Identifies incentives, such as trust funds, to encourage parties to engage in the development of ecosystem management strategies; and identifies, through case studies representing different regions of the United States, opportunities for and constraints on ecosystem management. To assist the Ecosystem Study Commission with its report, a 13-member Advisory Committee will be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, and would include 2 tribal nominees, 3 nominees from the Western Governors Association, 2 members of conservation groups, 2 members from industry, 2 members from professional societies familiar with ecosystem management, and 2 members of the legal community. I expect this Commission and its Advisory Committee to build the base of knowledge and data surrounding ecosystem management that we in Congress so desperately need in order to make intelligent, informed decisions on legislative and funding issues relating to ecosystem management. At the very least, this exercise will bring people and groups together who often find themselves in adversarial positions on natural resource management issues, much as the Northwest Salmon Summit did back in 1990 with environmental, State, and industry interests. It is time to look beyond the polarized positions of ``economic growth'' and ``environmental protection'' which have crippled our system of land management planning and implementation in recent years. Instead we must work toward the creation of cooperative, regionally- based, incentive-driven planning for the management of our water, air, land and fish and wildlife resources in perpetuity. The quest for ecosystem management becomes even more urgent as we realize that the world's population will double from 5.5 to 11 billion people over the next 40 years, and the resources to support those people will come under increasing demand, especially as they become more scarce. We have learned since childhood that food, water, shelter, and clothing are basic to human survival on this planet. Equally important is a clean environment, healthy ecosystems and an understanding of their interdependence and integrated nature. This knowledge is crucial for the de-polarization of our current land management framework and to the re-empowerment of our citizens with the task of preserving the health and welfare of the river basins and watersheds in which the future generations of their families will live and work. I urge my colleagues to join me in paving the way for a greater understanding of ecosystems, their dependent parts and the tools necessary to implement true, on-the-ground ecosystem management for the good of both our human and our natural resources. I am not wedded to this particular approach of accomplishing a greater understanding of ecosystems. My purpose in introducing this legislation today is to underscore the importance of this issue and to foster much needed debate in relation to it. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress, the Administration, and private groups on constructive proposals to enhance our understanding of ecosystem management. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which will end the decade-long battle to increase the electric power rates of the Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] in the Pacific Northwest. This legislation is a realistic, sensible, achievable, and scoreable deficit reduction alternative to the recently discussed absurdity of selling the Bonneville Power Administration. The legislation will resolve, once and for all, the perception by some that electric rates in the Pacific Northwest are subsidized by the Federal Government, and will discourage future proposals to raise electric rates to levels which would injure the region's economy. The legislation is comprised of two primary elements: First, it provides for the refinancing of approximately $6.7 billion of Bonneville's low interest, appropriated debt, and replaces it with new debt that carries current market interest rates. Second, it provides an additional $100 million to the Federal Treasury, money that will be raised by BPA from its electrical customers. In return for this arrangement, the Northwest's electrical ratepayers seek a permanent guarantee that the costs of repaying the Federal investment in the Columbia River hydroelectric system will not be altered further in the future. This is a proposal which is fair to both taxpayers and ratepayers and should be considered favorably by the Senate. This legislation has its roots in a decade of proposals made by successive administrations to alter the repayment of the Federal investment in the nation's hydroelectric system. 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. As each of these proposals was 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. I have vigorously opposed each and every one of these proposals over the years, and believe that they were, at best, misguided, if not hypocritical. Water projects throughout this country have been built with no expectation of payback by the users of the facilities. Unlike these other situations, however, in the case of hydroelectric generation, the users are paying back the investment, with interest, based on the terms agreed to at the time the investment was made. Accordingly, there is no subsidy associated with the federal power marketing program. This situation is often compared to a home mortgage. Attempting to alter unilaterally the terms of these financial arrangements years after the investment was made, based on current financial conditions, is predatory and unfair. But, Mr./Madam President, this is politics and not business. The lure of short-term fixes to generate cash during periods of huge budget deficits will not vanish in the night. It is time, therefore, to resolve this matter and put it behind us. A significant opportunity to ensure the stability of BPA occurred with the release of Vice-President Gore's ``National Performance Review'' [NPR]. To the Vice President's credit, the Department of Energy and others in the administration recognized that a new and realistic approach to repayment reform could be formulated. The NPR took the dramatic step of recommending the BPA debt refinancing proposal originally identified in the study developed by Bonneville and its customers. The NPR, however, also included a $100 million premium as an additional cost the BPA ratepayers would be required to pay--over and above the annual principal and interest payments on the appropriated debt. While this premium is distasteful, it will, over the long-term, benefit the Pacific Northwest ratepayers, and is a price worth paying. In my opinion, however, the $100 million price tag is analogous to the costs a business might experience when settling litigation. But, this transfer of wealth from Pacific Northwest ratepayers to U.S. taxpayers is supportable only if it is accompanied by a long-term guarantee that there will be no future increases in the cost of repaying the federal investment in the Northwest hydroelectric system. The NPR initiative included such a guarantee. Let me take a moment to describe the specifics of the proposal I am introducing today. The legislation will require that BPA's outstanding repayment obligations on appropriations be reconstituted by re-setting outstanding principal at the present value of the current principal and annual interest that BPA would owe to the Federal Treasury, plus $100 million. Enactment of the bill will represent agreement between Northwest ratepayers and the U.S. Government that the subsidy criticisms are resolved permanently. Interest rates on the new principal will be reassigned by using the Treasury Department's yield curve calculation. Interest rates on new investments financed by appropriations, which are now administratively set equivalent to long-term Treasury financing costs, will be required by law. The legislation also proposes that certain credits be granted to BPA's cash transfers to the Treasury in connection with payments BPA will make under the recently enacted Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Grand Coulee Settlement Act of 1994--Public Law 103-436. The United States and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation have settled the power production revenues of the Grand Coulee Dam. It is my understanding that it is the administration's view that these credits, taken together with the one-time Judgment Fund payment, represent an equitable allocation of the costs of litigation settlement between BPA ratepayers and federal taxpayers. Section 9 of the legislation Public Law 103-436. This new legislation contains repayment credit provisions that are different in timing than Public Law 103-436 but would achieve the same results in terms of the present value cost to ratepayers and taxpayers. This new timing was proposed by the administration at the end of the 103d Congress. Mr. President, the administration was exceptionally helpful in developing this legislation, and I especially appreciate the assistance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy. I ask unanimous consent that a letter, dated September 15, 1994, through which Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary officially communicated this legislation to the Senate after months of negotiations, be placed in the Record along with the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, recently the State of Oregon and several federal agencies signed a unique memorandum of understanding to create a new partnership designed to deliver 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 regulatory procedures. Because I believe that this project has the potential to vastly improve the delivery of government services in my state and may well prove to be a national model for future partnerships between state and federal agencies, I am today introducing a sense of the Senate resolution highlighting the Federal Government's partnership in this effort. As we all know, a great deal of time and energy is spent by our local and State agencies trying to comply with regulations set forth by all levels of government. Billions of dollars are spent on compliance rather than on providing better services to improve people's lives. The new partnership set forth in the Oregon Option will dramatically streamline and coordinate Federal, State and local regulations so that local and State governments can respond to specific problems flexibly. This flexibility will be exchanged for a transformed measurement of accountability--progress towards meeting performance goals. In 1991, the Oregon legislature endorsed various performance goals which had been developed over several years and have become known as the Oregon Benchmarks. Benchmarks do not measure progress by such standards as the number of programs created, money expended or people served, rather, Oregon's benchmarks focus on the outcomes and goals in literally dozens of specific areas. For example, one benchmark is to increase the immunization rate for 2-year-olds in Oregon from 47 percent in 1992 to 100 percent by the year 2000. Our state agencies are judged on their ability to move towards this goal and their budget submissions reflect targeting towards this as one of the ``key'' benchmarks identified as a state priority. Under the Oregon Option project, Federal departments will coordinate and streamline the Administration of their programs, develop an expedited waiver process with a single point of application and response, support state and local efforts to measure outcomes, provide technical assistance and develop a data system necessary to assess progress toward benchmarks. The State's role will be to deliver Federal, State, and local services in a coordinated way, in tandem with local governments. Services will be delivered at the local level, and progress towards achieving the benchmarks will be measured locally. The initial work of the Oregon Option will focus on three clusters of human investment benchmarks: family stability, early childhood development, and workforce preparation. Immediate focuses will be reducing childhood poverty, improving access to prenatal care and increasing employment and employability of Oregonians through a statewide community based model. The Oregon Option builds on the strengths of Federal, State, and local government. The Federal Government plays an important role in setting national goals and protecting our Nation's most needy people. However, States and local governments, I believe, are better at knowing how to develop programs to meet these goals that fit their local situation. By using policy goals and shifting success from compliance to results, the Oregon Option creates a good balance between protecting the intent and goals of Federal policy and allowing States the freedom and flexibility to find appropriate solutions to their own community problems. My resolution is a simple endorsement of this project, for I believe it has the potential to redefine how the federal government interacts with the states. I urge my colleagues to become familiar with this model. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, as well as the memorandum of understanding and letters of support, be included in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hatfield pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry. What is the parliamentary situation as relates to time?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of the original staff members of the Congressional Budget Office, C.G. Nuckols. Mr. Nuckols has served the Congress at CBO for almost 20 years, most recently as Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. He is retiring today to begin a new career in the private sector. C.G. Nuckols began his Federal service in 1963 as an operations research analyst for the Department of the Navy. From there he moved to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he became Director of the Program Cost Analysis Division. In recognition of his efforts, he was awarded the Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Medal. Soon after CBO started operations in 1975, Alice Rivlin and James Blum persuaded Mr. Nuckols to leave the Defense Department to help establish CBO's Budget Analysis Division. Every Member and every committee of the Congress relies on the work of the Budget Analysis Division. We on the Appropriations Committee expect our appropriation bills to be scored overnight--or sooner. The Budget Committee depends on the division for help in preparing the functional totals and committee spending allocations for the budget resolution. And the authorizing committees routinely receive timely CBO cost estimates for virtually all reported bills. Although the Congress now takes all of these things for granted, it was not always so. In 1975, CBO was a blank slate. Together with James Blum, C.G. Nuckols established the rules, formats, and procedures for preparing budget projections and bill cost estimates. He made sure that work was completed on time, that analyses were carefully justified, and that precedents were scrupulously followed--whether the estimate was for a freshman or a powerful chairman. Yet if there is one item above all for which we have C.G. Nuckols to thank, it is for the quality of the budget analysis staff at CBO. From 1975 to today, Mr. Nuckols has personally interviewed almost everyone hired by the Budget Analysis Division. Only those who meet his high standards of integrity, intellect, and training pass muster. Then, having hired the best, he has worked to ensure that they had the resources and support necessary to perform at their best. Mr. President, the appreciation we feel for the work of the Congressional Budget Office is due in no small part to the efforts of C.G. Nuckols. During his 20 years at CBO, Mr. Nuckols has served the Congress with quiet, tireless, nonpartisan professionalism. I wish him well in his new venture, knowing that he leaves behind at CBO a staff that will continue the tradition he did so much to establish.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum of understanding and a letter regarding the Oregon Option be printed in the Record.