[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2302-S2309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, II

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for yielding the 
floor at this time.
  Mr. President, we are about ready to wind this up. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                Amendment No. 3554 to Amendment No. 3553

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment in the form of a 
second-degree amendment at the desk. I call it up at this time.

[[Page S2303]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3554.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 13, line 5 of Amdt. No. 3553, strike ``shall'' and 
     insert ``may.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is not earmarked, and I oppose it. I 
urge action on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Amendment No. 
3554.
  The amendment (No. 3554) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3553

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the underlying 
managers' amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3553) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the managers' package was adopted.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3523

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment to 
prohibit funding under the District of Columbia provisions of H.R. 3019 
which would directly or indirectly serve to implement or enforce the 
lifting of taxicab reciprocity agreements--which have served well for 
50 years--in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan area.
  I am pleased to report that that legislative action, at this time, is 
no longer necessary, and that my Amendment No. 3523 therefore has been 
withdrawn.
  As a result of direct negotiations which have been taking place 
between myself and officials of the District government, I today 
received an assurance that hopefully will be in the best interests of 
northern Virginia consumers and businesses. The longstanding taxicab 
reciprocity agreements between the District, Virginia, and Maryland 
have been preserved for a period of 90 days, during which time there 
will be an opportunity for continued negotiations.
  It had been my grave concern, and that of my constituents, that the 
February 6 decision of the D.C. Taxicab Commission to unilaterally 
terminate reciprocity agreements of nearly 50 years standing would have 
been highly disruptive to local commerce and transportation services in 
Metropolitan Washington. We must approach all forms of transportation 
among Virginia, the District, and Maryland as regional. Metrorail is a 
prime example.
  Working with my northern Virginia colleague, Congressman Tom Davis, 
and our valued constituents, Charles King of Arlington Red Top Cab, 
Robert Werth of Alexandria Yellow Cab, and Bob Woods of Alexandria 
Diamond Cab, we have secured from the District government a firm 
commitment that the status-quo in taxicab reciprocity will be preserved 
for 90 days.
  Furthermore, during this time period, the District has pledged to 
work with its partners in the Metropolitan Washington Council of 
Governments [COG] to pursue an equitable and fair new reciprocity 
agreement to replace the one of 50 years.
  Assuming this can be done, this is a far more preferable and 
reasonable process that either unilateral action by one party --the 
District, or by Congressional action at this time.
  The possibility of taxicab reciprocity termination has been a serious 
issue for my constituents in northern Virginia. Taxicab services in 
Arlington and Alexandria estimate that at least 10 percent of their 
business is conducted under the nearly 50-year-old taxicab reciprocity 
agreement.
  On the other side of the issue, I understand that District taxi 
services have complaints that suburban companies may not be complying 
with the letter of the reciprocity agreement. Those issues also need to 
be addressed. We should not, ``however, throw the baby out with the 
bath water.''
  In closing, I would just like to add a few words about the countless 
visitors we have each year coming to the Metropolitan Washington 
region. They expect and deserve public transportation services of the 
highest quality and safety.
  Furthermore, I believe the District is taking the correct steps in 
modernizing their fare systems with meters, as in other major American 
cities. As a part of modernization, however, it is essential that 
reciprocal taxicab agreements be maintained.
  I welcome the news that the District government will preserve the 
current taxicab reciprocity agreement for 3 months while this matter is 
considered among the members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of 
Governments.
  I thank all of my colleagues for their kind cooperation in this 
matter.


                           Amendment No. 3494

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern with 
Amendment No. 3494 which was accepted on March 14 after it was offered 
by my friend from Idaho, Senator Craig. Amendment No. 3494 earmarks, 
from Legal Services Corporation funds, a payment of $250,000 to an 
Idaho family, Leeland and Karla Swenson, for attorneys fees and 
expenses they encountered when their adoption of a Lakota Sioux Indian 
child ran afoul of the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
  First, let me say, I understand the difficulty the Swenson family had 
with that case, and I understand why Senator Craig wants to try to help 
them. But I oppose this kind of earmark of funds for the private relief 
of certain individuals because it bestows Federal funds without any 
legislative record, without any reliable accounting of costs, and 
without any reasonable factual inquiry.
  My colleagues should note that the Idaho State courts twice refused 
to award the Swensons their attorneys fees and expenses in this case. 
In their sworn affidavit filed with the court seeking fees and 
expenses, the Swenson attorneys sought $103,000, not the $250,000 
provided by Amendment No. 3494. The $103,000 figure was based on an 
hourly rate of $150. Even the $103,000 figure is a mystery, as it is 
based on an hourly rate that is nearly double the hourly rate these 
same lawyers sought from the court 2 years earlier in the same case.
  I don't know the Idaho courts' reasons for denying these attorneys' 
claims for fees and expenses, but I know the U.S. Senate has absolutely 
no reasons on the record for awarding $250,000 in fees and expenses to 
these attorneys. We don't know what they did. We don't know what is a 
reasonable hourly fee. And we don't know how much the lawyers have 
already received in payment.
  News accounts report that a local group raised, through a benefit 
auction, $60,000 to help pay the lawyer fees and expenses. The same 
accounts report that the lawyers have agreed to reduce their fees to 
the amounts raised.
  Much has also been made of the fact that the Swenson family auctioned 
off their dairy farm equipment in order to pay back money they borrowed 
to pay legal expenses. But it appears that passion may have exaggerated 
some of the story told about this case. Rather than being forced to 
sell their family farm, the Swenson family held a public auction 
earlier this month to sell off farm equipment and animals they had used 
in their dairy operations. Leeland Swenson continues, with his father, 
to own and operate their family farm and maintain a substantial cattle 
and crop operation. The Senate has been told the Swenson family is 
bankrupt, but there has been no evidence offered that they have filed 
for bankruptcy.
  Now, Mr. President, let me be clear. I respect the motivation behind 
the effort made by my friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, even as I 
believe it to be a seriously misguided earmark of Federal funds without 
reliable justification and documentation.
  I do not seek to debate or examine the facts of the Indian child 
welfare case that gave rise to this amendment. That case took 6 years 
to resolve.
  Mr. President, my point is that the earmark in this amendment appears 
to be without sound basis in fact. The earmark is actually a private 
relief bill in

[[Page S2304]]

the nature of an appropriations amendment, but it has escaped even the 
minimal scrutiny the Senate gives to private relief bills. There are 
more than 45 private relief bills pending before the Senate today. No 
private relief bills have been passed in the 104th Congress. So I must 
ask the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, why has this matter been 
leapfrogged in front of all the others? And with neither a committee 
referral nor review to ensure against undue enrichment?
  Mr. President, I do not think this earmark for lawyers fees can or 
should survive careful scrutiny. I understand from discussions with 
Senator Craig that in his view the language of the amendment does not 
provide for an automatic payment of $250,000 but instead would pay up 
to $250,000 of actual legal fees and expenses related to this case.
  If our colleagues on the conference committee do not recede to the 
House and drop this amendment altogether, Mr. President, at the very 
least I would hope that they clarify the bill language so that it only 
pays ``up to'' $250,000 for actual legal fees and expenses. Even then I 
am unclear who will decide what is actual. I ask unanimous consent that 
a copy of an article from the Idaho Press-Tribune dated February 23, 
1996 as well as a copy of an Associated Press article dated March 15, 
1996 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Rapid City Journal, Mar. 15, 1996]

                Senate Votes To Pay Couple's Legal Bills

       Washington.--The government may pay the legal bills of a 
     couple who lost their farm after a child custody battle with 
     the Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
       The Senate voted Thursday to take $250,000 from the Legal 
     Services Corp.'s 1996 budget to pay the couple's legal fees 
     and expenses. Legal Services subsidizes the Idaho legal-aid 
     agency that represented the South Dakota tribe in the long 
     court fight.
       The Leland Swenson family of Nampa, Idaho, adopted the 
     half-Indian child six years ago, but the tribe sued to gain 
     custody under a law that allows tribes to intervene in 
     adoption cases involving their members. The Idaho Supreme 
     Court ruled against the tribe, and the adoption was made 
     final last month.
       The family sold its dairy farm and equipment to pay back 
     family, friends and banks who lent them money during the 
     legal wrangling.
       ``They bankrupted this family in an attempt to gain custody 
     of this child,'' said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho. ``The family 
     won, the happy ending is here, but the family is bankrupt.''
       Attorneys with Idaho Legal Aid Services which represented 
     the tribe, said the couple's legal fees did not exceed 
     $100,000, and half of that was paid from a benefit auction 
     last year. Aides to Craig said the $250,000 figure was based 
     on a request by Nampa's mayor.
       ``The tribe was eligible for our services. We get special 
     money to handle that kind of case,'' said Ernesto Sanchez, 
     executive director of Idaho Legal Aid. ``We were doing what 
     we thought we were supposed to be doing.''
       The Swenson family's compensation was added to a $160 
     billion bill that would fund government operations through 
     next September. The House does not have a similar provision 
     in its version of the bill.
       The custody battle stems from passage of the 1978 Indian 
     Child Welfare Act, which was intended to stop the practice of 
     taking Indian children off reservations. At one time, an 
     estimated one in four Indian children was adopted or living 
     in an institution or foster care.
       Adoption advocates complain that tribes are now using the 
     law to seize children with Indian ancestry or connections to 
     a reservation.
       Casey Swenson was born in September 1989 to a non-Indian 
     mother and a father who is an Oglala Sioux. Court records 
     said the father refused to acknowledge the child, wouldn't 
     pay support and has taken no part in the court proceedings.
       The tribe should have used its own attorneys on the case, 
     Craig said.
       ``I think this sends a clear message to legal services. Do 
     what the law intended you to do,'' Craig said.
                                                                    ____


             [From the Idaho Press--Tribune, Feb. 23, 1996]

                      Casey's Adoption Final Today

                          (By Sherry Squires)

       Nampa.--A six-year drama ended today for the Swenson family 
     and the community that supported them.
       The last of countless court hearings was held at 11 a.m., 
     finalizing Leland and Karla Swenson's adoption of Casey.
       The biological son of an Oglala Sioux Indian father and 
     white mother, Casey has lived with adoptive parents Leland 
     and Karla Swenson since the day after he was born.
       The Oglala Sioux tribe fought for six years to move Casey 
     to the Pine Ridge, S.D., reservation where they live.
       But the Idaho Supreme Court ruled in September that Casey 
     would stay with his adoptive parents. The court required one 
     final hearing to take place. Casey's birth mother had to 
     appear today before a judge and voice her wishes to allow the 
     Swensons to adopt Casey.
       The Oglala Sioux Tribe did not appeal the Supreme Court 
     ruling. The deadline passed in late * * *
       ``The worth of Casey's life is infinite to us.'' Leland 
     said ``We'd do it all again in a second. I wouldn't even 
     hesitate.''
       The Swensons are parents to Casey and 15-month-old Anna 
     Lee, whom they also adopted.
       It was from Casey that the Swensons said they mustered the 
     courage to adopt again.
       ``We had prayed about it a lot,'' Karla said. ``We believed 
     Casey would stay with us no matter what.''
       ``He's always talked about a little sister.'' Leland said. 
     ``We decided he shouldn't suffer because of the 
     circumstances. Now he talks about a little brother, and it 
     scares me to death.''
       Before Anna Lee's adoption when the Swensons were still 
     searching for a daughter to adopt, they were notified that a 
     little girl had been found for them.
       ``It was very, very scary with Anna Lee,'' Karla said.
       But her adoption went smoothly and has been finalized.
       Adoption rules generally only allow a family to adopt two 
     children. But occasionally some families can adopt another.
       The Swensons said they'd adopt again if given the chance.
       With Casey's ordeal behind them, the Swensons plan to 
     continue to tell their story and work for reform of the 
     Indian Child Welfare Act at the national level.
       ``We would like to see adoption laws changed so they 
     protect the child and not the birth parents,'' Karla said.
       They have tried to settle into the security that Casey will 
     stay with them. The worry still comes and goes. But it never 
     goes away.
       ``After living with that so long, it becomes a way of 
     life,'' Leland said. ``I don't know how long it will take. 
     We're always going to be looking over our shoulder.''
       But Casey has stopped looking over his, his parents said.
       They believe that is partly because he was diagnosed with 
     Attention Deficit Disorder two years ago.
       The disorder often causes learning and behavioral problems 
     in children. The children are at or above average 
     intelligence levels, but they sometimes suffer from poor 
     memory, a short attention span and hyperactivity.
       The Swensons believe the disorder has sheltered Casey. 
     Without it his understanding may have been better, and his 
     fears greater.
       He was hesitant to go to court again today.
       ``He doesn't understand why he has to do this again,'' 
     Karla said. ``I told him he has to adopt us this time.''
       The Swensons' personal future is somewhat uncertain.
       The family will sell all of their dairy equipment at a 
     March 2 auction. They sold their dairy Thursday.
       Leland will help farm 61 acres that his father owns, but he 
     also is looking for full-time work.
       They hope the proceeds from the auction will allow them to 
     pay the nearly $100,000 they owe to family, friends and banks 
     who helped them pay legal expenses.
       The Swensons' attorney, Carolyn Steele of Boise, accepted 
     what they could pay as full payment for legal fees.
       ``She has been a very good friend to us,'' Leland said. ``I 
     want people to know there are some good attorneys out there. 
     In our eyes, she's the best. She wasn't in it for the money. 
     She sacrificed a lot to see this to the end.''
       and the Swensons said they owe a lot to a community that 
     supported them to the end.
       An auction held a year ago also helped them pay legal 
     expenses.
       ``A lot of the people who came couldn't afford to be 
     there,'' Leland said. ``With all the garbage that goes in 
     this world, there's a lot of wonderful people still out 
     there.''
       ``Everyone in Nampa was in our boat with us,'' Karla said, 
     ``and probably Caldwell, too.''
       The couple said this week they now just want a new start.
       ``We appreciate that people are concerned,'' Leland said. 
     ``But I want them to know we're going to be OK.''
       ``We feel like we still have the most important thing of 
     all. That's our precious family. That's all that matters.''
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote against H.R. 3019, the omnibus 
consolidated rescissions and appropriations bill, because it fails on 
three counts.
  First, it provides too little for critical national priorities, 
especially education, anticrime efforts, and environmental protection;
  Second, it contains dangerous and misguided legislative riders that 
threaten our Nation's environment and natural resources; and
  Third, it undermines a woman's constitutional right to choose.


                         underfunded priorities

  Though some funds for environmental protection were added to the 
Republican bill by the Bond-Mikulski

[[Page S2305]]

amendment, the bill still leaves critical programs underfunded and 
unable to meet current needs. Superfund cleanup grants, Safe Drinking 
Water revolving fund, EPA enforcement budget, Clean Water revolving 
fund, national parks budget--all will receive less than they need, and 
most will receive less in real terms in fiscal year 1996 than in 1995, 
even though needs are greater.
  For education, again, even though funds were restored to the bill by 
the Specter-Harkin amendment, the bill still underfunds critical 
elementary and secondary education programs, including Title 1 for 
disadvantaged children, Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools, and Summer Jobs for Youth.
  The bill proposes to dismantle one of the most effective 
crimefighting programs Congress has ever passed--the Community Policing 
Services [COPS] Program, established in the 1994 Violent Crime Control 
Act. This program was intended to give local police forces 100,000 more 
cops on the beat. Thirty-three thousand has already been dispatched in 
local communities across the Nation, and the crime rate in many cities 
is dropping. H.R. 3019 would replace COPS with a block grant program 
that force police officers on the beat to compete with other law 
enforcement programs for limited funds.


                            dangerous riders

  H.R. 3019 contains many legislative riders that President Clinton has 
vetoed in the past because they threaten the environment and our 
Nation's precious natural resources.
  These provisions would: Block new drinking water standards; prohibit 
the EPA from enforcing a rule on reformulated gasoline; boost logging 
levels in the Tongass National Forest; prohibit the listing of new 
endangered species; undermine wetland protection; prohibit the issuance 
of new energy efficiency standards; limit the listing of new Superfund 
sites, and prohibit the Park Service from fully implementing the 
California Desert Protection Act regarding the Mojave Preserve.
  The bill also urges the EPA to consider relaxing toxic air standards 
for certain industries, exempt some industries from requirements for 
risk management plans, including measures to prevent accidental 
chemical releases, and urges EPA not to expand the Toxic Release 
Inventory, one of the Nation's most successful nonregulatory public 
disclosure initiatives ensuring community right-to-know about toxic 
chemicals that are being released into the environment.


                         limits right to choose

  The bill continues the ban on the use of the District of Columbia's 
locally raised funds to pay for abortions. There are over 3,000 
counties and 19,000 cities in the United States, but only the District 
of Columbia is forced to submit to such a cruel and arbitrary 
restriction.
  The bill also allows ob-gyn residency programs that lose their 
accreditation because of failure to provide abortion training to 
continue to receive Federal funds as if they were accredited. This is a 
terrible setback for women's health. This amendment invites protesters 
to target hospitals and pressure them to stop training doctors in 
procedures that may be vitally needed to preserve the health of female 
patients.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for 
the Senate version of H.R. 3019. I do not make this decision lightly, 
nor do I make it with great comfort. Rather, I support this bill 
grudgingly, because it is in the interest of my constituents that 
Congress act to complete the fiscal year 1996 budget process.
  I am voting in favor of H.R. 3019 for three reasons. First, this bill 
contains critical Federal relief for flood victims throughout the 
Northwest; the Government has made promises to help people recover from 
the damage, and this bill delivers on that promise. Second, the Senate 
took the high road on funding for several critical programs emphasizing 
education and the Environmental Protection Agency; I'm pleased we were 
able to add back $2.7 billion in funding for the Department of 
Education, and over $700 million for EPA. Third, and finally, this 
Congress has an obligation to complete the people's business. We are 
now 6 months into fiscal year 1996, and five appropriations bills 
remain unsigned. By passing this bill today, we are finally able to 
move the process forward and see a light at the end of the tunnel on 
this year's budget.
  I want to be very clear about the merits of this bill: while it was 
improved in some respects during the floor debate, it still has many 
serious problems. The salvage timber provisions are inadequate. The 
restrictive language on reproductive freedom is a serious problem for 
women everywhere. The funding levels in general do not even meet fiscal 
year 1995 levels for critical programs in education and other important 
children's services. There are riders on fisheries management, tribal 
appropriations, and endangered species protection that need serious 
revisions. And, the Columbia Basin ecosystem assessment language, while 
favorably revised since the original Interior appropriations bill, 
still must be strengthened.
  In short, Mr. President, there are still a lot of problems with this 
bill, and I will continue to attempt to address them as we move in a 
conference committee. And I want to make one thing very clear right 
now: I cannot support a conference report that moves significantly 
toward the House bill. That version of H.R. 3019 is laden with riders 
that I believe are not remotely in the public interest. In addition, 
the funding levels on education and other programs are simply 
unacceptable. If the conference report does not substantially reflect 
the Senate numbers on education, it will be very difficult for me to 
support it.
  In general, Mr. President, I have been deeply concerned about the way 
this Congress has handled the fiscal year 1996 appropriations process. 
We have seen too many riders, too many cuts poorly thought out, and too 
much delay in finishing what should have been done last September. This 
hasn't been the case with every bill to be sure. But the remaining five 
bills have been the unfortunate victims of too much politicking. I 
sincerely hope we can come together in conference, smooth out the 
remaining rough edges, and finish the people's business.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the omnibus 
appropriations bill. I particularly want to thank Senators Hatfield and 
Gorton for their leadership and assistance in meeting the critical 
needs of Idaho as a result of the floods. I have always voted on the 
Senate floor to provide disaster aid to other regions of the country in 
times of need. I now ask my colleagues to support the Northwest victims 
with the same compassion. This is not a partisan issue, quite the 
contrary. This is an American issue of restoring hope to families who, 
in some cases, have lost everything they own.


                     flood damage to infrastructure

  I was in my home State of Idaho during this disaster and I saw first 
hand its devastation. I witnessed flood-damaged homes and churches 
which had to be destroyed before they were swept downstream and knocked 
out bridges. I watched entire communities having their heart and soul 
taken from them. I know other communities in the Northwest suffered 
through the same anguish that Idaho towns did.
  In fact, for some communities the pain and suffering continues. The 
town of St. Maries, home to 2,500, still has portions of the city under 
more than 2 feet of water. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
estimates that the Idaho clean up costs will exceed $13 million but 
complete surveys cannot be done until the water recedes. These folks 
need help, and they need it now. That is why we must pass this 
appropriation bill as quickly as possible. I want to thank Senator 
Hatfield for including my language in this bill that will provide 
funding to rebuild damaged levees in towns like St. Maries.
  We must repair and strengthen these levees now so we can avoid 
similar flood events when the spring run-off occurs.


             environmental damage as a result of the Floods

  It will be some time before we know the full impact from the 
disaster. Although we all rightfully focus on the human impacts of acts 
of nature, there is another impact which deserves our attention. The 
environmental impact of the flood should not be neglected.
  In our region, we have spent considerable sums to preserve anadromous 
fish, protect wildlife and conserve the environment. The natural 
resources of the Pacific Northwest are our heritage and legacy to 
future generations. If

[[Page S2306]]

that investment has been compromised by the floods we should be 
informed of it at the earliest opportunity.
  While streams remain swollen and snowpack continues on the ground, we 
may not have had sufficient opportunity to discern the true impact of 
the environmental damage of the flood. The several Federal agencies 
charged with assessing the damage need our support. That's why I have 
asked to have included in this emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill the inclusion of $1,600,000 for the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
implement fish and wildlife restoration activities and provide 
technical assistance to FEMA, NCRS, the Corps of Engineers and the 
States.
  I want to thank Senators Hatfield and Gorton for agreeing with me 
that wise stewardship of the land is our responsibility. Although the 
majority of the funds available under this bill are for human needs as 
a result of the flood the environmental needs are not being ignored.


              safe drinking water act--revolving loan fund

  This budget bill contains the second critical element of our effort 
to reauthorize and improve the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Last November, the Senate unanimously passed legislation to overhaul 
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. That legislation included 
authorization, for the first time, of a State revolving loan fund for 
drinking water infrastructure. Today, by voting to support this budget, 
we will effectively set aside up to $900 million in 1996 to make that 
State revolving loan fund a reality. If the Safe Drinking Water Act is 
reauthorized before June 1 of this year, these funds will be available 
to States and local drinking water systems to construct or upgrade 
their treatment and water distribution systems.
  States and local governments have a significant responsibility under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide safe and affordable drinking 
water every day. This revolving loan fund will help communities, 
particularly small and rural communities, across the country meet this 
responsibility.


                          hornocker institute

  Among other things, this omnibus budget bill includes approximately 
$500 million in funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service for fiscal 
year 1996. Of this amount, almost $35 million has been appropriated for 
recovery activities under the Endangered Species Act. In conducting 
these very important activities, I strongly urge the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to fund two ongoing research projects on gray wolves that are 
being conducted by the Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute at the 
University of Idaho.
  As part of its recovery effort for the endangered gray wolf, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service has been artificially introducing gray wolves into 
Yellowstone National Park in Montana, Wyoming, and portions of central 
Idaho. Early studies, however, have shown that introducing the gray 
wolves is having an impact on the existing mountain lion population. 
The studies indicate that the wolf and the mountain lion are direct 
competitors, with the wolf emerging as the dominant predator, 
jeopardizing the mountain lion young and forcing the mountain lion into 
areas occupied by humans. This is obviously an issue of significant 
concern for the citizens of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, whose lives and 
livelihoods may be threatened by displaced mountain lions.
  The Hornocker Institute has been doing research on the interaction 
between the gray wolf and the mountain lion for the past several years 
and has been cited as the world authority on mountain lions. The 
Institute's early research on mountain lions played a critical role in 
shaping the policy on how mountain lions should be managed in the West. 
To continue its important research that will guide future policy on the 
management of the gray wolf and mountain lion populations, the 
Hornocker Institute needs $300,000 annually over the next 5 years. The 
Senate Appropriations Committee recognized the value of the institute's 
efforts and urged the Fish and Wildlife Service to support the 
institute's research.
  I am disappointed that the bill does not earmark funds specifically 
for this important research, but it is my strong hope that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service will be guided by the Appropriations Committee's 
recommendations and provide much-needed funds for the Hornocker 
Institute to continue its research efforts.


                             timber salvage

  I also joined my colleagues in support of wise, balanced management 
of our national forests. The issue at stake--managing for healthy, 
productive forests. The Murray amendment would have eliminated the one 
tool that is working; the one tool that is helping Idaho's economy and 
Idaho's environment recover from devastating fires which burned nearly 
589,000 acres--919 square miles--of forest land in Idaho 2 years ago. 
That's a charred area that would cover three-fourths of the entire 
State of Rhode Island.
  This amendment would leave that dead and dying timber to rot --adding 
fuel to future devastating fires and denying Idaho's struggling rural 
communities from accessing those resources.
  Have we come to a point where it is no longer politically correct to 
harvest a tree? Gifford Pinchot, the father of the Forest Service and 
advisor to the creator of our National Park and Forest System, Teddy 
Roosevelt, was adamant that our Federal forests not be ``preserves'', 
but ``reserves'' managed for the best good of the public. He 
specifically viewed timber harvest as a central part of forest 
management.
  A century of fire suppression activities has left our Nation's 
forests primed for massive, catastrophic fires. It is not a question of 
if, but when, our forests will burn again. And unsalvaged, unthinned 
burned areas are one of the tinderboxes we can point to. We have so 
many tall, dry, match sticks covering the hillsides, waiting for 
another lightning strike. Without restoration, those trees will burn 
again, and without replanted cover, these watersheds are vulnerable to 
massive soil erosion.
  This amendment would have been a huge setback in this Congress' 
attempt, and the need to correct Federal timber policy. At some point 
we have to decide if we are going to let the folks we hired to manage 
our forests do their job. I supported the salvage provision last year 
because it did exactly that--it brought management decisions back to 
the local level, and gave local managers the flexibility to meet 
federal environmental policy goals within the timeframe dictated by 
emergency salvage conditions.


                        endangered species act.

  As chairman of the Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife 
subcommittee I have held a number of field hearings as well as hearings 
here in the Nation's Capital to look at the current Endangered Species 
Act and to identify ways to improve the act.
  It is clear, from the testimony we gathered, that the Endangered 
Species Act has not accomplished what Congress intended when it was 
written more than 20 years ago. And, it's clear that it is possible to 
achieve better results for species by improving the ESA.
  The Endangered Species Act needs to be carefully reviewed, debated, 
and rewritten so that it accomplishes its fundamental purpose--to 
conserve species. We can't wait any longer.
  The original reasons for the moratorium remain valid. Until the 
Endangered Species Act is reformed to accomplish what it was intended 
to do, there is no reason to add more species to it.
  Last month, the President was in Idaho addressing the needs of flood 
victims in the northern part of my State. And during the course of his 
visit we had a good discussion about the need to reform the Endangered 
Species Act. Working off of the cooperation between Federal, State and 
local governments who were working together to help flood victims, the 
President acknowledged that we need to establish the same sort of 
partnership to reform the Endangered Species Act.
  I want to take this opportunity to complement Senator Reid, the 
ranking member of our Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife, who has 
not only acknowledged the need to work together to reform the 
Endangered Species Act, but has committed the time to make that reform 
happen. Working together, we may find a solution to the problems of the 
act by restoring the promise of the act. But others need to participate 
in true bipartisan discussions if they are serious about reform; they 
need to come to the table.

[[Page S2307]]

  I want to move forward this year with the kind of a bipartisan bill 
that will incorporate the very real changes that everyone agrees are 
needed. Until then it only seems appropriate that the time-out 
represented by the moratorium is the best way to encourage everyone to 
stay at the table.
  Perhaps the administration agrees. The moratorium was not in force 
during certain periods between continuing resolutions during 1995. The 
Secretary announced that he was not going to rush through various 
listing packages or critical habitat designations during that time. 
Instead, he honored the intent of the moratorium. Why honor the intent 
of the moratorium when it did not apply, and now seek to overturn it 
during an emergency bill?
  There is an emergency in America concerning the Endangered Species 
Act. And from the view of my State, that need must be addressed by 
reform, not just adding more species to the list. If there is an 
emergency with regards to a particular species as a result of this 
moratorium, let's address that, but let's not simply bring more species 
under the umbrella of this Act, which is not recovering species in the 
first place.
  It is evident to me that if we are to move forward to a safer, 
cleaner, healthier future, we have to change the way Washington 
regulates laws like the Endangered Species Act. States and communities 
must be allowed, even encouraged, to take a greater role in 
environmental regulations and oversight. After all, who knows better 
about what each community needs, a local leader or someone hundreds of 
miles away in Washington, DC?
  There are national environmental standards that must be set in the 
Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Government must make that 
determination, but Federal resources must be targeted and allocated 
more effectively, and that's why we must have a greater involvement by 
State and local officials.
  The improvements we need in Washington go beyond State and local 
involvement. We need to plan for the future of our children, not just 
for today. Science and technology are constantly changing and 
improving. In the case of the Endangered Species Act, the Federal 
Government hasn't kept up with these improvements, and old regulations 
have become outdated and don't do the best job they can. That is why I 
want to reform the Endangered Species Act.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, I think the moratorium on listings is 
the best tool we have to ensure that we continue to work toward 
meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act.


                    the clean water act 404(c) rider

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about 
one of the environmental provisions in the Hatfield Substitute to H.R. 
3019, the Omnibus Appropriations and Rescissions Bill. I applaud the 
good work of Chairman Hatfield and Ranking Member Byrd and the other 
members of the Appropriations Committee in negotiating this 
comprehensive measure.
  I am deeply troubled, however, by the committee's decision to 
maintain the rider that bars the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 
from using any of its fiscal year 1996 funds to implement Section 
404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
  Since its enactment in 1972, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has 
played a key role in the progress we have made toward achieving the 
act's purpose, which is ``to maintain the chemical, physical, and 
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' Section 404(c) 
authorizes the EPA to prohibit the disposal of dredged or fill material 
into the Nation's waters, including wetlands, if doing so would harm 
especially significant resources.
  The proponents of this rider assert that it would eliminate the 
confusion caused by the ``duplicative roles'' of EPA and the Army Corps 
of Engineers in administering the Federal Wetlands Program. The problem 
with this logic is that, every year, the Corps of Engineers itself 
sponsors water resource projects that require the disposal of hundreds 
of millions of cubic yards of dredge and fill material. Without EPA 
oversight, the corps would have no check on the environmental impact of 
these activities. In other words if the rider barring EPA oversight is 
enacted into law, who oversees what the corps does?
  Moreover, the Corps of Engineers supports EPA's role in the veto of 
its wetlands permit decisions. I would like to quote a statement made 
in a letter written March 13, 1996, by Secretary of the Army Togo West 
and EPA Administrator Carol Browner. The letter states: ``We want to 
emphasize unequivocally that Section 404(c) provides an essential link 
between our agencies in the implementation of the Section 404 program 
and contributes significantly to our effective protection of the 
Nation's human health and environment.'' I could not have said it 
better myself. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter 
written by Administrator Browner and Secretary West be printed in the 
Record following this statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, EPA has used its 404(c) authority only 12 
times in the history of the Clean Water Act. It is hardly a waste of 
Government resources. Moreover, these veto actions, although 
infrequent, have protected almost 7,300 acres of wetlands, including 
some of the Nation's most valuable wetlands in the Florida Everglades 
and near the lower Platte River.
  Aside from the fact that this rider is unsound policy, the 
appropriations process simply is not the proper context to raise 
complex legislative issues such as EPA's role in the Federal Wetlands 
Program. Rather, the appropriate forum for such issues is the ongoing 
Clean Water reauthorization process. The Committee on Environment and 
Public Works has held four hearings on section 404, and two additional 
hearings on Clean Water Act reauthorization. In fact, the committee 
conducted a hearing on wetlands mitigation banking just last week. I 
have been working closely with Senator Faircloth, who is chairman of 
the relevant subcommittee, and other members of the committee, to 
achieve meaningful reform of the Federal Wetland Program.
  Although I do not intend to offer an amendment, I strongly urge the 
committee members to drop this controversial provision from the 
appropriations bill. The removal of this provision would increase the 
likelihood that Congress will bring closure to the precarious budgetary 
situation for fiscal year 1996.

                               Exhibit 1

         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the 
           Army,
                                                   March 13, 1996.
     Mr. Robert G. Szabo,
     The National Wetlands Coalition,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Szabo: We read with concern your January 22, 1996, 
     letter to President Clinton regarding his veto of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) appropriations bill, 
     in part, because the bill would have eliminated EPA's 
     authority under Clean Water Section 404(c). As the 
     President's veto message stated, this provision would 
     preclude EPA ``from exercising its authority under the Clean 
     Water Act to prevent wetlands losses.'' As the national 
     program managers of the agencies charged with the 
     administration of Clean Water Act Section 404, we appreciate 
     the opportunity to respond to your letter on behalf of the 
     Clinton Administration.
       We want to emphasize unequivocally that Section 404(c) 
     provides an essential link between our agencies in the 
     implementation of the Section 404 program and contributes 
     significantly to our capacity to ensure effective protection 
     for the nation's human health and environment. The decision 
     of Congress in 1972 to establish joint administration of 
     Section 404 explicitly recognized the advantages of 
     integrating the Corps of Engineers historical role in 
     protecting the navigational integrity of the nation's waters 
     with EPA's responsibilities for achieving the broader 
     environmental goals of the Clean Water Act. The value and 
     logic in this decision remains valid today and we, therefore, 
     cannot agree with the conclusion in your letter that EPA's 
     authority under Section 404(c) is not justified.
       We strongly agree that implementation of Section 404(c), 
     like the Section 404 program itself, requires a balance to 
     ensure protection of the nation's waters while effectively 
     guarding the property rights of private landowners. The 
     President's Wetlands Plan, developed in 1993, reflects this 
     commitment to make the Section 404 program more fair and 
     flexible. Many of the constructive improvements identified in 
     the President's Wetlands Plan have been implemented, and 
     tangible benefits of these actions are being realized. 
     Moreover, information collected as part of a recent Corps of 
     Engineers survey of their field offices demonstrates that 
     EPA's Section 404(c) authority is not being used in a 
     threatening way, but constructively and with considerable 
     discretion. Repeal of

[[Page S2308]]

     EPA's Section 404(c) authority is unnecessary to make the 
     Section 404 program more fair and flexible but would 
     invariably erode its ability to protect human health and the 
     environment. We cannot support this result.
       The organizations which, with you, signed the letter to the 
     President represent an important cross section of the nation, 
     and we appreciate your vital interest in this issue. Our 
     challenge is to identify improvements to the Section 404 
     program that address legitimate concerns without weakening 
     its environmental protections. We look forward to working 
     with you as we meet that challenge.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner,
                                                    Administrator.
                                                Togo D. West, Jr.,
                                            Secretary of the Army.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to say at the outset that 
hostage taking and legislative blackmail is not the way to arrive at 
the kind of solution we need to solve our budget problems. While I 
support this bill's goal to provide funding for Federal agencies for 
the remainder of the fiscal year 1996, I have several reservations 
about the bill.
  I am a firm believer in tightening our Government's fiscal policies 
and will continue to work toward that end. I am convinced that 
restoring budget discipline will help ensure that our children--and 
future generations--will be able to achieve the American Dream. We have 
an obligation to our children to protect their future opportunities, 
and not to leave them a legacy of debt. But this bill does not do 
enough to protect American priorities.
  The President reviewed this bill and found that it was lacking $8 
billion in funding for priorities important to Americans: Efforts to 
protect the environment, efforts to help educate our children, and 
initiatives that will help keep our streets safe. Rather than working 
in a bipartisan manner toward a bill that the President could sign, 
however, this bill is designed to draw a Presidential veto. This is 
unfair to our students who want to pursue educational opportunities. It 
is unfair to all Americans who want to live in a clean and safe 
community. It is unfair to Government employees who want to work. And 
it is unfair to all others who depend upon the appropriations contained 
in these bills.
  We made some strides to add funding for education by passing a 
bipartisan amendment last week, but we have not done enough to restore 
funding for other priorities such as environmental cleanup. The bill 
does contain a contingency fund of $4.8 billion in additional funding, 
but this is an illusory commitment because it is contingent on budget 
agreements not yet achieved. The contingency plan holds American 
priorities hostage.
  The American people sent us a clear message after the last budget 
crisis--do not risk shutting the Federal Government by promoting an 
extreme set of budget priorities. This message has apparently gone 
unheard. The continuing resolution before us does not seek balance, or 
moderation, and it does not even pretend to resolve the important 
appropriation issues we should have resolved months ago.
  Of the 13 appropriations bills Congress is supposed to pass every 
year, 5 are still undone even though the fiscal year is almost half 
over. Several Federal Cabinet departments have been without fully 
approved spending plans. Now, nearly 6 months into the fiscal year, we 
are considering a 10th extension.
  The activities financed by these uncompleted appropriation bills, or 
what is also known as domestic discretionary spending, is but a part of 
Federal spending that underlie our Government's budget problems. 
Domestic discretionary spending has not grown as a percentage of the 
GDP since 1969, the last time we had a balanced budget. Domestic 
discretionary spending comprises only one-sixth of the $1.5 trillion 
Federal budget, and it is steadily declining.

  Every dollar of Federal spending must be examined to see what can be 
done better, and what we no longer need to do. However, the budget 
cannot be balanced simply by whacking away at domestic discretionary 
spending. To suggest to the American people that by cutting 
discretionary spending we will achieve budgetary integrity is to 
perpetuate a fraud.
  The budget proposed by the majority party calls for $349 billion in 
savings from discretionary spending, but that comes from a portion of 
the budget that constitutes only 18 percent of the overall Federal 
budget--the part of spending that is not growing and the part of the 
budget that funds education and police and basic services we all count 
on. This part of the budget is not the major source of our deficit 
problem. We need to focus our savings on those areas of the budget that 
don't conflict with our priorities and values.
  How we bring back fiscal discipline makes a real difference. If we 
care about our children, if we care about our future, if we care about 
our Nation and ensuring an opportunity for every American to achieve 
the American Dream, we cannot abandon our commitment to education, 
access to health care, and to creating economic opportunity.
  Mr. President, we need to move to a balanced budget. And we need to 
do it in a way that does not sacrifice the long-term goals of the 
American people to achieve illusory short-term cuts. We need a budget 
that restores fiscal discipline to the Federal Government. We need a 
budget based on the realities facing Americans. Most importantly, we 
need a budget for our future.
  As this bill makes disproportionate cuts in programs important to the 
American people, I will vote against this bill. I urge my colleagues to 
work together to develop the kind of overall permanent budget agreement 
that the American people want and deserve.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am sorry that I cannot vote for this 
appropriations bill today. We must move quickly to resolve the issues 
that still remain from last year's prolonged, confrontational, and, in 
the end, fruitless budget debates. But this bill will not advance that 
cause.
  This bill, despite the best efforts of the distinguished leaders of 
the Appropriations Committee, still falls short. I am heartened that a 
majority of the Senate was moved to approve more adequate funding for 
our Nation's educational system. There is certainly no higher priority 
for us than preparing our country's young people for the future.
  But that is not the only priority our country has, Mr. President, nor 
is it our only responsibility here in Congress. And, I am sorry to say, 
I find that this bill does not fulfill those responsibilities.
  Our attempts to provide more support for the infrastructure 
investments we need for cleaner air and water were an inadequate step 
in the right direction. And we failed to meet our responsibility to 
maintain our country's hard-won superiority in high-technology research 
and development.
  It is surely a false economy if we claim that we must sacrifice clean 
air and clean water, that we must roll back the progress we have made 
in advanced technologies, to balance the budget.
  That is simply not the case. Amendments that provided more adequate 
support for those key national priorities at the same time specified 
the savings from other parts of the budget needed to neutralize their 
impact on the deficit.
  Mr. President, we could have met those responsibilities and still 
kept within the tight spending limits set by this bill. But we chose 
not to, Mr. President. And if the Senate bill falls short, Mr. 
President, the version of this legislation passed by the House, I fear 
is even worse.
  But, Mr. President, I must oppose this omnibus appropriations bill 
for one overriding reason--this bill slashes the effort to add 100,000 
more police to our Nation's streets. This is the single-most-important 
crime-fighting initiative the Federal Government has undertaken in 
decades and I will not be party to any effort to go back on our word to 
add 100,000 police officers to the streets and neighborhoods all across 
America.
  I have spoken with the White House and the President agrees that the 
only course to take on the 100,000 cops program is unequivocal and 
unwavering support for adding 100,000 cops to our streets--all 
dedicated to community policing. This program is working--more than 
33,000 police have already been funded.
  What is more, the results of community policing speak for 
themselves--more cops mean less crime.

  To cite just one specific example--look what has happened in New York 
City. More police devoted to community policing has proven to mean less

[[Page S2309]]

crime--in the first 6 months of 1995 compared to the first 6 months of 
1994: murder is down by 30 percent; robbery is down by 22 percent; 
burglary is down by 18 percent; and car theft is down by 25 percent.
  In the face of that success in fighting America's crime epidemic, it 
would be folly to go back on our commitment to adding 100,000 cops. 
``If it ain't broke, don't fix it''--as a former President used to say.
  That, unfortunately, is exactly what the latest continuing resolution 
proposes to do--instead of fully funding the President's request for 
the 100,000 cops program, this latest proposal would slash the 1996 
request for the cops program to $975 million--about one-half the $1.9 
billion request.
  Not only is the 100,000 cops program subject to extreme cuts--but the 
latest continuing resolution also takes nearly $813 million that was 
supposed to go to the 100,000 cops program to fund a so-called law 
enforcement block grant program.
  What is wrong with this approach?
  First, this so-called law enforcement block grant is written so 
broadly that the money could be spent on everything from prosecutors to 
probation officers to traffic lights or parking meters--and not a 
single new cop.
  Second, this block grant has never been authorized by the Senate. So, 
let's be clear on what is being done here. What this continuing 
resolution does is take a crime bill that has been passed only by the 
House, whose funds have been authorized only by the House, whose block 
grant idea has already been rejected by the Senate, and incorporate it 
into an appropriations bill so it is passed and funded--all in one fell 
swoop.
  Mr. President, if we are going to legislate by fiat like this, then 
we might as well do away with committees, with hearings, with 
subcommittee markups, with full committee markups, and with careful 
consideration of authorizing legislation. We could simply do all the 
Senate's business on appropriations bills or continuing resolutions.
  I, for one, happen to believe that's a terrible way to proceed and I 
believe that's reason enough to oppose this bill.
  If the Republicans want to change the crime bill, they have the right 
to try--but let's do it the right way and then let's vote on it. Wiping 
out major pieces of the most significant anti-crime legislation ever 
passed by the Congress on an appropriations bill makes a mockery of our 
Senate process. The importance of the programs we are considering, not 
to mention the perception of our institution, demands better.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 3466, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the 
substitute amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 3466), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to reconsider the vote by which the substitute 
was adopted. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the passage of H.R. 3019, the Senate proceed to vote passage of the 
small business regulation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Boxer
     Brown
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Smith
     Thomas
     Warner
  So the bill (H.R. 3019), as amended, was passed.
  (The text of the bill was not available for printing. It will appear 
in the Record of March 20, 1996.)
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  The Senate will please come to order so the Senator from Oregon may 
proceed.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist upon its 
amendments and request a conference with the House of Representatives 
on the disagreeing votes thereon of the two Houses, and that the Chair 
be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Abraham) 
appointed Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Mack, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Byrd, 
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, 
Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, conferees on the part of the Senate.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to take a very brief moment 
to acknowledge the input of many people to make this possible. I need 
not, Mr. President, indicate further this has been a very difficult and 
intricate package to craft; and this could not have happened without 
the cooperation of Senator Byrd, the ranking member, and the ranking 
members of our committee, as well as our own Republican members. I want 
to commend particularly the leadership that has been so important in 
getting us to this particular point. I hope that all of you will say 
your prayers, and include the Appropriations Committee, as it now goes 
to conference with the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________