Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on Wednesday, September 25, 1996, one of my favorite Oregon institutions was honored by the President of the United States. Saturday Academy of Oregon received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring. The award was presented to Kathryn Gail Whitney, executive director of the academy since 1983, in a ceremony in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building. I am pleased to add my congratulations to this deserving organization. This award includes a $10,000 grant and a Presidential commemorative certificate. It is given to individuals and institutions which have encouraged minorities, women, and persons with disabilities to earn degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering; 10 individuals and 6 institutions were honored this year, the first year in which these awards were presented. Saturday Academy is a private, nonprofit precollege educational program established in 1983, and based at the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science & Technology in the Portland, OR, metropolitan area. Four other Saturday Academy centers are located in Oregon. The academy enlists accomplished professionals from industry, higher education, and community agencies to create hands-on classes and apprenticeships for motivated 6th-through 12th-grade students. While the program focuses on science, math, and technology, instruction includes arts and humanities as well. The academy began in 1983 with three classes: Materials science, electronics, and large computer systems. Even while growing rapidly, Saturday Academy has worked for inclusiveness. This is an important goal in science and math education--we need strategies to encourage greater participation of women and minorities. Saturday Academy has worked diligently to increase the enrollment of young women--it now has an even enrollment of both sexes. Gail Whitney's arrival as executive director when the program was only months old, brought a change in recruitment strategy. Academy press releases began to stress the search for motivated students rather than gifted ones. The change has been significant. Experience shows that students who may not fit a school system's gifted criteria are designing electrical components or operating a business. A child who is quiet or reserved in the larger classroom may thrive in the hands-on environment of eight peers. In 1983, the academy's roster listed 9 classes and 71 students. The following February, the figures increased to 19 classes and 200 students. The 10th anniversary year of the program, 1993, found 40 classes per term being offered. During the 1995-96 school year there were 7,692 participants for a total of 214,000 instructional hours; 800 professionals were involved as instructors or mentors. Mr. President, Gail Whitney and the founders of Saturday Academy represent one of the best models I have seen for cooperative private- public efforts to enhance science and math education. Meaningful reform in science and math education has been at the top of my priority list for many of my years in Congress. I am thrilled to see this deserving recognition for one of Oregon's finest efforts.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for two decades, I have worked to resolve the fishery and irrigation conflicts in the Umatilla River Basin in the northeastern region of my State of Oregon. In 1988, with the passage of the Umatilla Basin Project Act, we brought all interests together behind a project which advanced the goal of restoring anadromous fish runs in the Umatilla River. The act authorized pumping facilities to allow three irrigation districts, which previously withdrew their water from the Umatilla River, to receive an equal volume of water from the adjacent Columbia River to irrigate their crops and, in return, leave their water in the river for fish. The project, which has had no negative impact on the Columbia River, enabled the reintroduction of salmon stocks in the Umatilla River that had been lost since the 1960's. Benefits of the project have been felt by both the fish and the irrigators in the basin, whose water supply is much more stable today than it was in the 1980's. The Umatilla Basin Project has been a product of years of debate and grassroots consensus building. I had hoped to build on that spirit this year and reach an agreement which would have allowed the fourth, and final, Umatilla Basin irrigation district, the Westland Irrigation District, to also exchange Umatilla River for Columbia River water. The potential for such an agreement to finally solve a number of remaining and long-standing water issues in the basin was very promising, and, last July, I introduced a bill to complete the project, address the Federal Government's treaty fishery obligations to the Umatilla Tribes, adjust the boundaries of the four irrigation districts to formally incorporate lands that had long been irrigated with project water, and resolve water supply concerns jointly held by the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the City of Pendleton, OR. I commend the Umatilla Tribes, Umatilla Basin Irrigation Districts, the State of Oregon, Water Watch of Oregon and the City of Pendleton for their diligent efforts to attempt to resolve this complex and difficult array of issues. Since last April, my staff has worked virtually nonstop with all of these local interests, Congressman Cooley, the House Resources Committee staff, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee staff, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Clinton administration in an effort to forge a consensus agreement. Unfortunately, the consensus I had hoped for was not achieved. While the parties agreed on the need to construct facilities to allow the final Columbia River exchange, referred to as Phase III, and other efforts to improve the Umatilla fishery, they could not agree on the terms and timing of the irrigation district boundary adjustment. The four irrigation districts agreed to an environmental review of their boundary adjustment proposal. They also agreed to provide significant mitigation water for fish until the year 2003, or until a substantial portion of the Phase III exchange was on line, whichever came first. They could not agree, however, to give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to act on the information obtained in connection with a National Environmental Policy Act review, which was a condition of the boundary adjustment decision. Unfortunately, this discretion was, in the eyes of the Clinton administration, an essential element of any agreement. In addition, the irrigation districts insisted that the authorization of the Columbia River exchange facilities and other facilities intended to improve the fishery be conditioned upon the satisfaction of their boundary adjustment request. At this late date in the congressional session, these differences of opinion proved to be insurmountable. Though my desire to complete the Umatilla Basin Project is great, I could not allow myself or others to forget the overriding objective of the 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act. That act states that the decision to adjust the irrigation districts' boundaries ``shall be considered as secondary to the purpose of providing water for fishery purposes.'' While it is understood that the Umatilla Basin Project should not necessarily disadvantage irrigation districts, restoration of the anadromous fish runs must continue to be its predominant mission. I regret that the parties failed to reach consensus on this most important issue, and I hope that the Oregon Delegation will work together with the affected parties in the 105th Congress to reach consensus on the issues that remain.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in the waning days of any Congress, the full range of emotions are not far from the surface in each one of us. We feel the thrill of success as we see our legislative initiatives become law and the disappointment of knowing that some of our priorities must await a new year. As I leave the Senate after thirty years of service, I leave next year's challenges to others. Among the bills that did not become law this year is S.1897, a bill to revitalize the National Institutes of Health. This bill is the fine work of my friend and colleague Senator Nancy Kassebaum. Once the Senate passed the bill last Thursday, Senator Kassebaum worked tirelessly to try to achieve an agreement with the House to pass the bill. Unfortunately, an accommodation could not be reached and as a result, many fine legislative provisions that would dramatically improve the work of the NIH, fall to the wayside this year. This is all the more frustrating given the fact that the House hasn't held one hearing on NIH this year and essentially stopped the bill because they hadn't had a chance to give input. Mr. President, I have a passion for medical research. It provides the sole hope for an improved quality of life for so many who suffer. Congress has recognized the importance of biomedical research by providing a 6.5-percent increase for the National Institutes of Health this year. We provided a 5.7-percent increase last year--all told an increase of 12.2 percent over a 2 year period. I can think of few domestic discretionary programs which have received this kind of attention in this Congress and none with greater merit. In terms of return on our Federal investment, there is no program which brings greater return in terms of improving quality of life in this country. I have four pieces of my own legislation attached to S. 1897, all of which I believe will be enacted over time. While not accomplished on my watch, I am hopeful that others in the Senate will take on these initiatives and insure their passage. Senate bill 184 codifies the Office for Rare Disease Research at the NIH. This office has been created in the appropriations process to coordinate the research on over 5,000 rare diseases--diseases that affect only a small portion of the population and frequently have no research project or registry. I have been attempting for 2 years to have the office codified in law and while the Senate has passed this bill twice, it has not become law. The NIH bill also includes S.684, the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Assistance and Education Act of 1995. Mr. President, this bill has over 62 cosponsors in the Senate and over 100 in the House. It establishes Parkinson's Disease research centers across this country and signals the NIH that Congress is not satisfied with the $30 million. that NIH currently spends on this disease--my bill calls for an $80 million investment to cure this disease. I would like to compliment that Parkinson's community, and particularly Joan Samuelson of the Parkinson's Action Network, for the work they did to propel this bill forward. The Parkinson's community has my deepest respect for their advocacy. The bill also includes S. 1251, a bill that Senator Harkin and I have long championed to establish a National Fund for Health Research. The version included in Senator Kassebaum's bill established the shell of the fund, and left the financing mechanism to a future Congress. My preference is a tobacco tax and a Federal income tax kickoff, but a range of options exist. The important point is that a trust fund recognizes the fact that the appropriations process will never yield adequate resources to fund the promise of scientific research which exists today. We need to do more and the American public, in opinion poll after opinion poll, has indicated they support us doing so. Finally, the NIH bill includes a new initiative of mine, the Clinical Research Enhancement Act, S. 1534. This bill will increase funding for clinical research, improve training for persons planning clinical research careers, and modify the focus of the NIH to make it more receptive to clinical research proposals. There is no question that NIH needs more resources to fund all research. However, as we seek to find these funds, we must also look within NIH to ensure that the environment is supportive for clinical research applications. A recent report from the Institute of Medicine presents some alarming trends: the number of young investigators applying for grants dropped by 54 percent between 1985 and 1993, the number of federally funded grants awarded to persons under the age of 36 has decreased 70 percent in this period, and at the same time, young investigators are racking up average debt loads of $63,000. If not rectified, these trends will result in a stunning lack of human infrastructure to deliver a knowledge base that has applicability to or utility for the benefit of patients. It is not an understatement to assert that clinical research is in a state of crisis. Such a crisis may lead to a serious deficiency of clinical expertise, a paucity of effective clinical interventions, an increase in human suffering, and ultimately, an increase in the cost of medical care. All of these initiatives deserve our support. I am pleased that the Senate has endorsed them and I hope that the new Congress will begin where we ended this year and include these provisions as a starting point on the new version of the NIH revitalization bill. Before I conclude Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a report by Washington Fax of a hearing that I chaired with Senator Cohen on September 26, 1996. This was a significant hearing and I hope my colleagues will take the opportunity to review its content. The report follows: Extraordinary Hearing Grips Senators, Witnesses, and Observers No one noticed when, but at some point ego and arrogance got up and left the Senate hearing room. It may have been when the witnesses began to talk: Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, relating a sad commentary on the American male acting like an ostrich when it comes to prostrate cancer and other maladies; Joan Samuelson, a 46-year-old lawyer diagnosed with Parkinson's disease nine years ago, relating how almost immediately things dear to her--playing the piano, running, backpacking--were taken from her, and then essential functions began to be stripped away; Rod Carew, a Baseball Hall of Famer introducing us to his daughter, Michelle, via video tape--recalling her smile in the final days of her 18-year life. And then there was Travis Roy of Yarmouth, ME, a 21-year- old quadriplegic who recalled his life's dream lasting 20 seconds on the hockey ice, and now he must wants to hug his mother and his girlfriend. Then, at first haltingly, almost embarrassingly, the room began to fill with emotion--honest straight-from-the-heart emotion, rising from the experience of one human being listening to another and hearing. The scene was a special joint hearing Thursday by the Senate Committees on Appropriations and Aging called to gather testimony on the benefits of biomedical research and the human cost of injury and disease. As the first panel of witnesses spoke, the hubbub and noise of self-importance and pressing tasks, always a part of a congressional hearing, slowly stopped. The audience breathed ever so lightly; the door from the room stood unused. Distances began to disappear. None remained between the dias, where Sens. Connie Mack, R-FL; Robert Bennett, R--UT; Conrad Burns, R-MT; William Cohen, R-ME; Mark Hatfield, R-OR; David Pryor, D-AR; John Glenn, D-OH; and Herb Kohl, D-WI, were seated, and the witness table. The trappings of a hearing were dropped. It was like sitting around a supper table, where friends who know each other warts and all open themselves, trusting their companions to share thoughts, to understand, to help, to reach out and touch where it hurts. Carew, Samuelson and Roy with great dignity opened their souls, because they want to help stop the pain--not only theirs--but the pain of others too. Hatfield and Cohen, the good hosts, allowed the mood to reign. At one point, Mack, at Hatfield's gentle nudge, began to speak, but knowing he couldn't trust his voice, sat quietly waiting. There was no embarrassment for him, only great feelings of empathy. The wave of emotion passed, and he talked of the death from cancer of the brother he loved so much. There was a path of empathy from Mack to Carew. Pryor spoke up. ``Talking about one's personal hurts is hard,'' he said frankly. But he went on to relate how his son, a lawyer, thought he had injured an Achilles tendon playing racket ball. When the surgeon got inside my son's leg, they discovered a rare form of malignant tumor on the tendon, said Pryor. If it had been only a few years earlier, my son would have lost his whole leg, and a short time before that, he would have been doomed, he said. When Hatfield called upon Bennett, the Utah Senator didn't respond. He obviously wanted to speak, but his grief was so cutting that it took a bit to pass. He directed his remarks to a young researcher who was on one of the witness panels. She had described in her testimony watching the president of Brigham Young University, Rex Lee, loose his battle with cancer. Bennett revealed that Lee was his best friend. There was a lull in the conversation, and someone recalled the discussion earlier, when Samuelson described how her day goes. ``From the moment I am awake, I wonder, `how will my body react today?' '' she said. ``Initially it is always stiff and sluggish and unpredictable until it adjusts to medication. For the first hour or two, I cope with a sudden sharp tremor in one or both hands, or one leg suddenly freezing up or contorting in a way that prevents walking. Crawling around the house is sometimes the only way to keep getting ready as I wait for the drugs to begin to work.'' Then Mack, with an edge to his voice, questioned aloud, ``When are we going to do something about this? To provide what is needed?'' Hatfield warned that funding for biomedical research is not going to continue to increase and may not even hold stable, because in 1999, 2000 and through 2002 there isn't the money to carry out deficit reductions. ``We are trying to balance the budget by taking money from only 18% of the budget,'' he emphasized. ``And that isn't enough to do the job.'' This was the last hearing that will be chaired jointly by Cohen and Hatfield. It was probably the most honest hearing on the Hill in a lot of years. Senators came face to face with why research is important. The witnesses now know these Senators as kindred souls who hurt as they do, a new reason to fight on through the pain and the grief. Egos and arrogance left the room and honesty, caring and empathy remained. No heros, just folks trying to figure out how to help each other.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to be an original cosponsor of S. 2141 introduced Friday by Senator Feinstein. This legislation will expand charitable giving by families and businesses by permitting the tax-free liquidation of closely-held corporations into tax-exempt charities and foundations. Voluntarism and charity are concepts deeply imbedded in my personal philosophy. At a time of shrinking Federal discretionary dollars, governments on all levels, Federal, State, and local, are forced to reduce spending throughout their budgets. With the general decline in Federal services, an increasing burden is being shouldered by nonprofit organizations and private citizens. During this critical stage in restructuring Government and returning flexibility to our local communities, Congress should do all that it can to encourage private philanthropic efforts. By supporting legislation like S. 2141, Government can assist charities in helping those in need without increasing Federal spending and contributing further to our enormous deficit. It is also important to note that many organizations from the State of Oregon and across the country are supporters of the concept of this legislation. In the State of Oregon alone, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Portland, the Portland Art Museum, the Oregon Health Sciences University, the Meyer Memorial Trust, and the Catholic Charities of Portland have all promoted this type of legislation.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, throughout the 104th session, Congress and the American people sought new ways to enhance the training, health care, and retirement security of the Nation's workforce. Statistics tell us that our economy is healthy, stronger than it has been for years, yet, our sense of personal economic security has been shaken. News articles of corporate downsizing and consolidations have disturbed the confidence in the American economy. Under a much harsher economic umbrella, Congress, 64 years ago, intent on sustaining a construction industry already ravaged by the economic instability of the Great Depression, reasoned that the destructive practices of the Southern contractors would be best resolved by requiring that Federal contracted labor be paid the locally prevailing wage, thereby halting the tendency of Government contractors to drive down workers' wages in order to win lucrative projects. Thus, I believe today, more than ever, we need the Davis-Bacon Act to enhance the training, health care, and retirement security of the Nation's work force. The dividends of the Davis-Bacon Act are pervasive: a ready pool of trained and highly skilled construction workers, decreased construction accidents and the injuries and fatalities that are caused thereby, and the contributions to local, State, and Federal tax revenues that can only be made by working men and women. As Governor of Oregon, I signed that State's little Davis-Bacon Act into law 37 years ago, and I have supported the intelligent use of the prevailing wage standard in Government contracts since. Mr. President, Davis-Bacon has been debated year after year, and I do agree with opponents of Davis-Bacon that it needs revision. I emphasize that we need reform of Davis-Bacon and not repeal, as my colleagues agreed on May 22 of this year when 99 Senators voted in support of Davis-Bacon reform and not repeal. As my colleagues well know, it has been my objective during the 104th Congress to enact several long overdue changes to the 65-year-old Davis-Bacon Act, which enforces a prevailing wage standard on Federal construction projects. In the final hours of the 104th Congress, I ask the Members of the 105th Congress to reflect on the progress that was made under my Davis-Bacon reform bill, S. 1183. For example, 7 Republican cosponsors and 19 Democrats cosponsoring S. 1183 for a total of 26 cosponsors serves as a simple illustration of the progress that was made under the 104th Congress toward Davis-Bacon reform and not repeal. Mr. President, I ask those who adamantly support Davis-Bacon repeal to harken to the cry of Davis-Bacon reform. The Davis-Bacon Act as it now stands, indeed deserves some of the criticism that has been levied against it by some of my distinguished colleagues. Nevertheless, its purpose of protecting the jobs of our Nation's construction workers must persuade us to reform, rather than repeal, the act. I ask my colleagues who support repeal, do we continue to live under a Davis-Bacon law, which we agree needs reform, or continue on under current law which will not be repealed now or in the foreseeable future. The logical answer is to support and vote for sensible reform, as in my bill S. 1183. The Davis-Bacon reform bill which I sponsored is supported by the building trades unions and several coalitions of contractors groups whose 21,000 members across the Nation perform major construction projects covered by Davis-Bacon. I urge my colleagues who will remain in this great body and the new Members who will arrive in the Senate and House in January to continue this bi-partisan, management-labor compromise for it provides us with a rare window of opportunity to pass the reforms that Davis-Bacon urgently requires. Such broad-based support for Davis-Bacon reform was and is extraordinary on Capitol Hill and I hope that it can be recreated in the next Congress.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Monday, September 30, 1996, at 6 p.m.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, September 30, 1996, at 3 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, this is my understanding.

Mr. HATFIELD. As the Senator knows, we cannot amend the report or statement of managers at this point, however, I speak for this side of the aisle in requesting that the EDA evaluate the Conway project in the same manner along with those listed in the report. Like the committee recommended projects, the Conway proposal should be given every consideration by the Economic Development Administration.

Mr. HATFIELD. It is, and it certainly appears to meet the same criteria for inclusion in the report.

Mr. HATFIELD. That is correct. The committee listed nine such proposals on page 58 of the report.

Mr. HATFIELD. I agree, Senator Murray. We need a united front to reduce methamphetamine use and eradicate clandestine manufacturing facilities. The managers support a comprehensive, interagency strategy in which the Federal agencies work in partnership with State and local law enforcement to solve this problem.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes.

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that it be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like at this time to take a few moments to reflect on my leaving the Senate, and to comment upon the extraordinary staff that I have enjoyed over the years, the tremendous work that they do every day, and the staffs for all of the Senators I am sure would mete some of the same comments and earn some of the same accolades that I would like to extend to my staff. I have always said that I believed that the soul of my office is really the casework where you can make a difference in the life of some individual--it may be a Social Security check that is fouled up; it may be an immigration problem in which a family can be reunited. We all have similar work in this category. But I really think that has probably more bridge-building impact upon people thinking and knowing that their Government does care and that they have compassion. I would like to thank particularly Melanie Curtis, Chris Tye, Chris Brown, and Lisa White. They have served the people of my State in an extraordinarily capable and compassionate fashion. My Washington office has been kept running by a dedicated group of administrative professionals led by my office manager, Lynn Baker, who, like many in this Senate, is raising a family as a single parent and juggling her workload in order to meet both her duties to the office and, more especially, to her young son. She is assisted by a dedicated group of Senate professionals as well. I am sure that no Senator fully knows all the details that go into the creating of a daily schedule. We all carry these little cards around. We all know, too, that situations change during the day. Brenda Hart has been, for the last 5 years, my chief scheduler. She has been a confidant, she has been a political operative, and she has been the cheerleader of our office by her extraordinary talent of baking. She keeps that bakery going at her home and brings the results to the office to share, whether it is late at night or whether it is during the day. I think she is the first to arrive in my office in the morning and the last to leave. I can't believe that an office could run more smoothly than she directs. One of the newsmen the other day dubbed her the den mother for all the people in my office. I refer to her as mother superior, as she takes a very direct role by not just handing me a card, but she helps direct me. Of course, the reason we are here is to pass legislation, and there is no legislative staff I feel that is as skilled mine. I take great pride in all parts of my office, especially the legislative staff. For some 6 years a young lady by the name of Sue Hildick has been my legislative director. She became my legislative director at the age of 26. I doubt that history will show that a legislative director of an office has started that undertaking being so young, but she has done it as a mature professional with great judgment, along with all of her directing and coordinating of legislative staff. Of the 14 members of my policy team, 11 started in my office as interns, including my chief of staff, Steve Nousen. Mr. President, we all know that offices have to have a tight hand. They have to have an understanding hand, and I believe that Steve Nousen has performed that duty in such an extraordinary way in terms of efficiency and keeping a happy, well-run operation. I suppose I would say that Steve had a very good beginning. He had professional training as a school-teacher and as a civics teacher in a high school in a small community in my State. There in small communities you know everyone. Everyone knows you. They know your strengths. They know your weaknesses and yet you have to be a good neighbor especially in school because parents in that type of school take a very active interest. As a consequence, they are watching you as well to inspire, teach, and to set the example before their children. Steve Nousen, as I say, has a great and wonderful record as my chief of staff, has my total confidence. There are three members of my staff as part of my legislative team: Doug Pahl, Karen Matson, and Kristi Gaines. They earned their law degree while going to night school and carrying a full load during the day as staff members. I am proud of that record. Ken Hart, my current press secretary, started as an intern and finished his master's degree program at American University while serving as a staff assistant. I come from an academia background, and, of course, there is nothing that gives me more satisfaction than watching my staff grow in maturity and academic accomplishment. We have been supportive of their efforts. These are a few of them that I refer to, not every single person, because that would take us into a time beyond my allocation at this moment. I have praised my staff on the Appropriations Committee many times because each bill we have keyed in upon the performance of the staff in charge, but let me again refer to the chief of staff of the Appropriations Committee. I have to say that he came as an intern from the divinity school at Duke University. He was headed for the Methodist ministry. I feel sort of a guilt complex here at the moment because in coming as an intern he never left. So the Methodists have suffered as a result. I have always said, being ecumenical, my previous staff director came from the Princeton seminary and never returned. I think they are doing the Lord's work when they are involved in public service, and I think we will know they affected the kingdom in a very special way at some point in the future. Keith Kennedy came, as I say, as an intern and almost 25 years later we have reached this point of our relationship. Again, I would have to have volumes to describe the history, the experiences we have shared together. But I like to think that because we have really a comparatively low turnover, probably the least turnover--I know a few years ago there was a survey done, and we had the least turnover of any staff in the Senate. I would think the longevity of that staff adds to their abilities and the quality of their service to the citizens of this country. I just have to say I have been blessed by the quality of the people who have served and are the working relationships that I have enjoyed. I have learned a great deal from my staff. I have learned that young people are so enthusiastic. They have so much trust and faith in the system, this great political system of ours and they are determined to make it work, and so individually and corporately I take my hat off to one of the great reasons why I have been able to stay here for 30 years and have achieved a certain degree of success in a certain number of fields. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to add to the remarks that I just made to further commend the excellent staff that we are fortunate to have here in Congress. Over the course of the last week, I have had the opportunity to see the Appropriations process at work like few others do. Working around the clock, our negotiations with the House of Representatives and the White House was an all consuming task. Mr. Panetta and OMB Director Raines ably represented the priorities of the White House while Congressmen Livingston and Obey did the same for the House. I wish to highlight the efforts of three people who are the mechanics of this effort. The people who ensure that the decisions that are made are translated into words that are properly included in the bill and report and do what is intended they do. John Mikel and Dennis Kedzior of the House Appropriations Committee and Jack Conway of the Senate Appropriations Committee are the mechanics that have so developed the confidence of both bodies that we can confidently vote on this large piece of legislation knowing that it is technically correct and properly drafted. With over 60 years of combined service to the Federal Government, their commitment to the process and making government a better place serves as an example for all who work here. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to be--first of all, Mr. President, what is the time factor remaining?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota and 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Another 5 minutes for Senator Pryor and 5 minutes for Senator Hollings.

Mr. HATFIELD. That would be then 10 minutes for Senator McCain, 5 minutes for Senator Kennedy, and 5 minutes for Senator Coats.

Mr. HATFIELD. I would be very happy to incorporate 5 minutes to the Senator from Indiana. Would the Senator like to include 5 minutes for the Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. HATFIELD. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that of the time allocated to Senator Lott, 10 minutes be allocated to Senator McCain.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the vote on H.R. 4278, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the DOD appropriations conference report, all without further action, and that all points of order be waived.