Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this amendment offsets $4.1 million for the Federal Rail Administration. There is a loan program where $4.1 million can, in effect, leverage $75 million in guaranteed loans. This is basically geared for some of the rail problems in the smaller areas, or the less populated areas. It has been cleared on both sides. It is budget neutral. As I say, it has been offset for that transfer of moneys.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HATFIELD. I ask that we temporarily set aside Senator Pressler's amendment, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I now call up again the Pressler amendment and ask unanimous consent that Senators Wyden, Exon, Harkin, and Boxer be added as cosponsors.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. Therefore, I urge its adoption.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5137

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send on behalf of Senator Kempthorne an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is an amendment, too, that has been cleared on both sides. It is an instruction, in effect, to the Coast Guard that as it continues its work on regulations of toxic materials, it make a differentiation between shipments of edible oilseeds and shipments of toxic oils, such as petroleum. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5139

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this provides for definition of emergency funding that can be used to relieve the situation in both Montana and Washington State. It has been cleared on both sides. It is budget neutral. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. I apologize. I was told that it was cleared on both sides, I say to my comanager. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Montana. My answer is that, ``yes'', all projects incurring the same impacts from the Federal water releases associated with fish and wildlife mitigation should be treated the same. That provision in the report urges BPA to enter into equitable energy exchange agreements. Moreover, such agreements should not increase costs for BPA.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think we are in sight of the goal line on this bill. If Members have amendments yet pending or have registered in their respective Cloakrooms an intention to offer an amendment by the terms relevant or whatever else, we would like to have them come now because we are down to the last handful of amendments and then final passage. I do not anticipate any votes on the remaining amendments. I do not think they are that controversial, but I am just making a judgment. We are inquiring as to the leadership's view about putting the final passage vote over until tomorrow to relieve other Senators who are not involved in the amendment process. As soon as we get that information, I will relay it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think we are down now to the last three or four amendments. I hope the Senators who have those amendments--I could enumerate the Senators by name, but I do not think I want to do that at this point--at least will have the courtesy to call the floor and tell us whether they are going to offer their amendments or not. Is that asking too much? Please, please, make it a little easier to complete our business here. To the Senators who put a place hold on amendments to the respective cloakrooms, at least let us know whether you plan to do it or not. We have contacted some Senators. They say, ``Oh, I'm not going to offer that after all,'' but we have not been informed. I think everybody's mother taught them better manners. So much for my lecture. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have the following unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared with the two leaders, Republican Senator Trent Lott and Democratic leader Tom Daschle. I ask unanimous consent that, during the Senate's consideration of the transportation appropriations bill, the following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order, subject to second-degree amendments which must be relevant to the first-degree they propose to amend, with the exception of the antiterrorism amendments, on which there will be 1-hour notification of the two leaders prior to the offering of any amendment regarding terrorism, and they be subject to second-degree amendments which must deal with the subject of terrorism. The amendments are follows: Two relevant amendments by Senator Lott; one relevant amendment by Senator McCain; Cohen-Snowe, truck weight limitations; Gramm, highways; Lott, six amendments regarding terrorism; McConnell, bridge amendment for Kentucky; Hatfield, relevant amendment. For the information of all Senators, any votes ordered this evening will be stacked in a sequence beginning immediately following passage of S. 1936, with the first vote and all remaining votes in the voting sequence limited to 10 minutes only, and those votes will be ordered on a case-by-case basis. In light of this agreement on behalf of the majority leader, there will be no further votes this evening. Mr. President, I want to amend what I said. I forgot to read the Democratic list of amendments that will be relevant and in order. A Baucus amendment on highway obligation; five antiterrorism amendments by Senator Biden; a Bradley amendment on rail safety/ newborns; Byrd, two relevant amendments; Daschle, two relevant amendments; Dodd, an FMLA2 amendment; Dorgan, runaway plants and a relevant amendment; Lautenberg, two relevant amendments; Reid, one relevant amendment; Wyden, one relevant amendment, and Wellstone, one relevant amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I believe we have run the limit of our activity for the evening. As I indicated, by a leadership agreement, there will be no further votes this evening. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee was good enough to consult with me in the development of the report language he has just read, and I concur wholeheartedly in the direction given to the Library in that language. Our Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, is an extraordinary individual of numerous talents and many achievements, but no one individual can possibly personally direct all the Library's activities. When the position of Deputy Librarian is filled, the Librarian should delegate to him the responsibility and the authority to deal with the day-to-day administration of the Library's operations. The Librarian has written to me to indicate he intends to do exactly that, and I look forward to the beneficial effects of that delegation of responsibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for 8 minutes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think it is very obvious I have a problem of laryngitis. I thank my good friend, Senator Dorgan, for taking leadership on this particular amendment. I feel strongly enough about it to be here to do two things; one, to support the amendment, but the other is to apologize to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, Mr. McConnell, for offering a rider to an appropriations bill, which I ask everybody to refrain from doing. So I guess there is no virtue of consistency in this particular environment we work in. Let me associate myself with the eloquent statement made by Senator Dorgan to explain this bill. I would only try to add perhaps one or two perspectives. First of all, I think we have to recognize that we are not locking the President out of an action that he might have to take if he has a problem in an emergency situation. In other words, the President would have the power to make a waiver, a waiver of the criteria we have set up in this amendment in case he feels that our national interest is at stake and to make a waiver that is in the interest of our national need and our national security. So it is flexible in that sense. Let me pick up on Senator Dorgan's examples of how this expands the vulnerability of our own troops when they are sent abroad for peacekeeping activities after we have delivered arms. Let me take a specific. From 1981 to 1991, $154 million of arms were delivered to Somalia from the United States. Then when you begin to look at how that stimulated the arms race and endangered our national security, ultimately the total cost of arms to Somalia was $1.2 billion--25,800 United States troops were deployed, 23 were killed in action, 143 were wounded. That is the kind of return we had on that one example, of sending troops. Also, today we are building more F-16's in Ankara, Turkey, than we are in Fort Worth, TX. It does not help American workers, as some may say, and we, indeed, need to help employment in this country. We find that 88,000 jobs could be created in the United States in offsetting some of this extraordinary subsidy of arms. In other words, we do not lose jobs by cutting down the export of arms. We are creating them in other sectors of our economy, where there is great need. Mr. President, I was reared in a generation where among our required reading in high school was a book called ``Merchants of Death.'' It was a story of how the Krupp Works and other manufacturers of arms in Central Europe sent their arms out to both sides. In fact, they were sometimes guilty of stimulating conflict in order to sell their arms. We were reared in a manner of saying that is immoral; surely our Nation would never be guilty of such a crime against humanity. Yet I have to say, since the Soviet Union has become unraveled, we are now unquestionably the No. 1 merchants of death in this world by our export of arms. We not only export them as a market, we go around promoting it. We go around ballyhooing the arms that we have, the arms that are exhibited in the Paris Air Show and many international conferences that supposedly are for some international benefit. It is an arms peddling activity. We even let our Embassies be instructed to facilitate arms transfers as part of their duty in the country in which they are representing the United States. I cannot understand how people around this country will tolerate much further this kind of export that we have engaged in. It started with, perhaps, Charles de Gaulle. That is the way he funded his military budget, was to sell arms abroad. Unfortunately, back in 1962, that was the policy of the United States of America. That became the policy in 1962, when the President decided in order to help fund some of our own military budgets, we would export arms. This idea of funding a domestic need by exporting our arms is, to me, immoral and is counterproductive. So I am very hopeful we will support this particular amendment. It is flexible. It takes into consideration emergencies unforeseen. And it does not lock the President out. In fact, all it does is to say the Congress has some joint responsibility in that kind of policy that was recommended by the President's review commission on arms, that the Congress should have some kind of role in assessing this from time to time. We have not had a debate on this floor for 20 years on this subject, a comprehensive debate. I am not sure in 1 hour we are going to have it today. But at least it is a small step, I think, in raising this issue so the American public will understand our failure to uphold our responsibilities in governing some of this export of death.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Am I correct, then, in assuming that an applicant that meets the statutory eligibility criteria of the program as it was amended by the act would be considered eligible for the program upon the date of the act's enactment?

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture appropriations report references a Grants to Broadcasting Systems Program that I would like to discuss with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Lugar, and with the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, who was the original sponsor of the program when it was authorized in the 1989 Rural Development Partnership Act. It is my understanding that the program statutorily restricts eligibility for the program to statewide, private, nonprofit public television systems whose coverage is predominantly rural. In order to further clarify the statute, a new provision was added at my request to the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 [FAIR] Act that defined statewide as having a coverage area of not less than 90 percent of the population of a State and not less than 80 percent of the rural land area of the State. Is my understanding of the statute correct?