John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the majority leader has outlined or stated clearly what the situation is. We are going to now proceed with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998. I have a statement. I suspect that the distinguished ranking member will have a statement. Then we want to get on with amendments. The amendments that are available to consider today, tomorrow, and early next week will be amendments that are not relative to funding or financing. Funding and financing matters are now being worked out between various participants in that matter. So we will not touch on allotments or matters like that. But there is a whole series of amendments. There are some 200 amendments that have been filed, and a whole series of them have nothing to do with either financing or funding. So I hope that the authors of those amendments will bring them over, and let's debate them. If we can get a time agreement, three cheers, and get the vote. We have a lot of work to do. I just hate to have matters pile up toward the end. The majority leader has indicated he is very anxious to complete this legislation. I join in that desire. Mr. President, at long last, the Senate will begin its consideration of the ``Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998,'' which will be referred to constantly on this floor as ISTEA or ISTEA II. This legislation is the product of more than a year of hard work and careful negotiations in the face of tremendous obstacles. At this time last year, the Committee on Environment and Public Works had before us three different very good proposals. But they were different. We were able to integrate them into one unified plan that I believe is deserving of the entire Congress' support. I might say, Mr. President, that this bill was reported out of the committee unanimously--18 to nothing. Democrats and Republicans all supported it. When ISTEA was enacted in 1991--that is, ISTEA I, the original bill-- it transformed national transportation policy. What was once simply a highway program is now a surface transportation program. That is the name of the bill. It is the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. That is what it is. It isn't just a highway bill; it is a surface transportation bill. We recognize that transportation touches every facet of our lives. The transition from the old policies and practices to those embodied in ISTEA I wasn't easy, and as for S. 1173, ISTEA II, it will carry forward the strengths of ISTEA I. But it also corrects some weaknesses that were in that legislation. And it will provide a responsive and, I believe, responsibly financed transportation program. ISTEA II preserves and builds upon the worthy objectives of intermodalism. That is a big word that we will be using around here. Intermodalism means in conjunction with and cooperation of a series of methods of transportation--it might be railroad, it might be aircraft, it might be automobiles and trucks--all working together to the greater strength of all. ISTEA II provides $145 billion. That is what we have as of now. Perhaps that will be increased as the result of the negotiations that are taking place. That is for over 6 years. It provides it for our Federal highway system, for highway safety, and other surface transportation systems. Moreover, it aims to stretch these dollars as far as possible. Mr. President, in the 1940s and 1950s the mindset--and understandably so--was to build an expensive highway system to move goods and passengers throughout the country. Now the interstate system is completed, and the mindset has shifted. The goal is no longer simply to build more highways but to preserve and maximize the strengths of our existing system, do the best we can to move more vehicles over the existing roads in a safe and efficient manner. We must reach out for ideas on creative ways of meeting our infrastructure needs. One of the primary goals of the Committee on Environment and Public Works as we drafted ISTEA II was that limited Federal funding be spent as efficiently as possible. We sought to accomplish this in several ways. First, ISTEA II provides real flexibility to States and localities and makes the program easier to understand. We believe this is a more simplified program than ISTEA I. It reduces the number of the program categories from five to three, and it includes more than 20 improvements to reduce the red tape involved in carrying out transportation projects. These provisions address some of the chief complaints we heard about ISTEA I. Second, ISTEA II includes a number of innovative ways to finance transportation projects. It establishes the Federal credit assistance program for surface transportation. The new program leverages limited Federal dollars by allowing up to a $10.6 billion line of credit for transportation projects at a cost to the Federal budget of just over $500 million. In other words, for $.5 billion we get a $10.6 billion line of credit. The bill also expands and simplifies the State Infrastructure Bank Program to enable States to make the most of their transportation dollars. The third change we made, or key feature of this bill, is it strengthens the transportation technology programs of the original ISTEA. Transportation technologies offer a wide array of benefits. They relieve traffic congestion and improve safety. A key forward-looking initiative of ISTEA II has been the Intelligent Transportation Systems, or the so-called ITS. ITS technologies provide new options for transportation planners to address safety and capacity concerns without the negative environmental or social effects of just expanding the highways, adding more lanes, constantly widening the highway. The Intelligent Transportation Systems also provide timely information to travelers and more efficient ways to design and build transportation infrastructure. The beauty of these innovative technologies is they boost the potential of our existing transportation system by moving more cars through existing lanes. That is what I was talking about before. Let me give you an example. I think we can take a good lesson from the Nation's airports. In the past decade we have only built one new airport, a major one, in our country. That is the International Airport in Denver--the only one new airport in the country in the last 10 years. Nonetheless, we have increased the capacity of our existing airports through state-of-the-art technology. By learning from innovations and air traffic control and operations used in our airports where more aircraft carrying more people are using the existing facilities, we can maximize the so-called throughput of our highways, our rail system, and our transit systems just as well. Fourth, the bill before us significantly reforms the ISTEA funding formulas to balance the diverse regional needs of our Nation. The aging infrastructure and congested areas of the Northeast, the growing population and capacity limitations in the South and Southwest, rural expanses in the West require different types of transportation investments. Under ISTEA II, 48 of the 50 States share in the growth of the overall program, and the bill guarantees 90 cents back for every dollar a State contributes to the highway fund. This is up. In the past, under the ISTEA I, some States were as low as getting back 70 cents for every dollar. This would boost them all up to 90 cents on the dollar. One of the wisest transportation investments we can make is safety for our passengers and drivers. In the United States alone there are more than 40,000 fatalities. That is something like 800-plus deaths a week on our highways in the United States. There are 3.5 million automobile crashes every year. Between 1992 and 1995 the average highway fatality rate increased by more than 2,000 deaths a year, while the annual injury rate increased by over 380,000. We must work vigorously to reverse this trend, and this bill will help us do that. ISTEA II substantially increases the Federal commitment to safety. The funds set aside for safety programs such as hazard elimination and railroad-highway crossings under this bill total nearly $700 million a year, a 55 percent increase over the current level. As valuable as transportation is to our society, it has taken a great toll on our Nation's air, water, and land. The cost of air pollution alone that can be attributed to cars and trucks has been estimated to range from $30 billion to $200 billion a year. I am proud that the bill before us increases funding for ISTEA's key programs to offset transportation's impact on the environment. ISTEA II provides an average of $1.18 billion per year over the next 6 years for congestion mitigation and air quality improvements, sometimes referred to as CMAQ--congestion mitigation, reducing congestion and improving air quality. The amounts for this program are a substantial increase over the current funding levels for transit improvements, shared-ride services, and other activities to fight air pollution. Over the past 6 years, the Transportation Enhancements Program has offered a remarkable opportunity for States and localities to use their Federal transportation dollars to preserve and create more livable communities. Our highway program has devastated many communities, barging through them in a fashion that was designed to ``get the road built. Forget about the neighborhoods or what is happening in the communities that these highways are going through.'' That was the old system. Starting with ISTEA I, continued with ISTEA II, we provide a 24 percent increase in funding for transportation enhancements such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, billboard removal, historic preservation, rails-to-trails programs. In addition to CMAQ and enhancements, the ISTEA II establishes a new wetlands restoration pilot program. The purpose of the program is to fund projects to offset the loss or degradation of wetlands resulting from Federal-aid transportation projects. The original ISTEA, ISTEA I, recognized that transportation is but one part of a complex web of competing and often conflicting demands. As we all know, it is not a simple task to resolve the competing and often conflicting interests and demands with respect to transportation. The statewide metropolitan planning provisions of ISTEA I have yielded high returns by bringing all interests to the table and increasing the public's inputs into the decisionmaking process. This is the so-called metropolitan planning provision that we had in ISTEA I. ISTEA II continues and strengthens the planning provisions of the original ISTEA. This program is a comprehensive approach to transportation and has been working well. ISTEA II continues the spirit of intermodalism by extending the eligibility of the National Highway System and Surface Transportation Program funds to passenger rail, such as Amtrak, and magnetic levitation systems which we are just embarking on. By unleashing the efficiency and environmental benefits of all modes of transportation systems--highway, rail and transit--the bill before us will meet these demands and give a better quality of life for all Americans. I wish to express my appreciation to the majority leader for helping us to expedite the Senate's consideration of this important measure. The majority leader has been deeply involved in the conversations we have been having in connection with this legislation. I also thank Senators Warner and Baucus, and other members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, including our distinguished Presiding Officer this afternoon, each, for their excellent works in developing this legislation. It has been a challenging but rewarding exercise, to write the bill before us. I look forward to working with other Members of the Senate as well as the House leadership to enact a bill that will take the Nation's transportation system into the 21st century. So, Mr. President, again I issue a call to all who may be in their offices or listening. Now is the time to bring up amendments. Undoubtedly the distinguished ranking member will have a statement. But after that we are ready to go. I will feel distressed if we just sit here waiting for people to respond and they do not bring over these amendments. As I say, there are some 200 amendments out there. Some of them, obviously, are involved with fiscal matters which we cannot take up; but the others we can and we would like to. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 26, 1998 beginning at 9:30 a.m. until business is completed, to receive testimony on S. 1578, and to hold an oversight hearing on the budget requests and operations of the Government Printing Office, the National Gallery of Art, and the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 26, 1998 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in conjunction with the previous unanimous consent agreements, tomorrow morning there will be a period of morning business for 30 minutes, followed by consideration of S. 1173, the so- called ISTEA legislation. Mr. President, it is our hope that the Senate will be able to make good progress on this important legislation during Friday's session of the Senate. In addition, the Senate may consider any executive or legislative business cleared for floor action. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible during tomorrow's session. Mr. President, it is my hope, as it is of the ranking member of the committee, that Senators will bring over their amendments tomorrow so that we can act upon them. There are a host of amendments out there. While it is true that we cannot consider amendments dealing with financial matters in connection with this legislation, there is a whole series of other amendments that are available for consideration if only the proponents of the amendments will come over and present them. I greatly hope that will take place tomorrow.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a bill to reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), a law that has played a major role in conservation of wetland habitats across this continent. I am joined by many members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This tremendous showing of bipartisan support is nothing less than a celebration of one of the great success stories in wildlife conservation. This is a story about the recovery of more than 30 species of ducks, geese, and other waterfowl and migratory birds from their lowest population numbers just 12 years ago, to some of their highest population numbers this year. To appreciate why NAWCA is such a success, it is necessary to review its background. In the early 1980s populations of duck and other waterfowl plummeted precipitously. The numbers were stark: between the 1970s and 1985, breeding populations of ducks dropped an average of 31 percent, with some species declining by as much as 61 percent. This decline was due to several factors, including over-hunting, loss of habitat, and an extended drought in many parts of the country. In 1986, the U.S. and Canada worked cooperatively to develop the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Mexico joined the Plan in 1994, so that the entire continent now participates in this effort. The Plan established ambitious goals and innovative strategies for conserving waterfowl habitat. Under the leadership of former Senator George Mitchell of Maine, Congress provided a funding mechanism for the Plan when it passed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act in 1989. I believe that NAWCA has been successful for three reasons. First, NAWCA focuses on the real key to wildlife conservation: the habitat itself. Populations of birds and other wildlife will fluctuate naturally over time, but if the habitat is not there, the species don't have a chance. Under NAWCA, approximately 3.7 million acres of wetlands and associated wetlands have been acquired, enhanced or restored. Second, the law sets up voluntary partnerships, without the heavy hand of government regulations. These partnerships involve federal, state and local government agencies, businesses, conservation organizations, and private individuals. Under NAWCA, funding has been provided for about 260 projects, with more than 700 partners--across 45 states--plus Mexico and Canada. Third, NAWCA leverages federal dollars with state, local and private dollars. Since its passage, the Act has provided more than $200 million in Federal funds, that have been matched by more than $420 million in state and private funds. The benefits of NAWCA and other wetlands protection programs -- combined with a few years of heavy rainfall--have been enormous. Populations of ducks and other waterfowl have, in large measure, rebounded to the levels of the 1970s. Every year since 1995 has been billed as a ``banner year,'' and each year the numbers are even greater than the previous one. This past year's fall migration totaled 92 million ducks, the highest since 1972, and surveys counted 42 million breeding ducks, the highest level since the surveys began in 1955. Also, wetlands losses, while still occurring, have declined dramatically: the rate of loss has slowed by 60 percent below that experienced in the 1970s and 1980s. This is a result of regulatory protections under the Clean Water Act and, perhaps even more, voluntary programs like NAWCA and the Wetlands Reserve Program in the Farm Bill. But our conservation successes are no reason for complacency. More can and should be done. Each year, good projects must be turned down because there is not enough funding. In addition, abundant rainfall has helped the waterfowl populations rebound, but it is up to us to maintain these population increases when the rainfall abates. Lastly, the pressure to develop wetlands continues to grow each year. By the year 2020, more than half the U.S. population will live in coastal plains. Laws like NAWCA will become ever more important in protecting these areas. Support for NAWCA has always crossed party lines. In 1996, 78 Senators signed a letter supporting the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The need for a healthy environment is a need that transcends politics. With support for laws like NAWCA, we can meet today's challenges and protect the environment for the benefit of our children, and future generations after them. The bill we are introducing also reauthorizes the Partnerships for Wildlife Act. This law was first enacted in 1992 to encourage partnerships among the Service, state agencies, and private organizations and individuals to undertake projects to conserve non- game wildlife species. It is modeled after NAWCA, and is the only Federal grants program for the sole purpose of benefiting non-game species--species that are not hunted, fished, or trapped. Projects funded under the Act have covered numerous species across 40 States, and have entailed management programs, research, education and outreach. Since 1994, Federal funding for grants has totaled $4.2 million. States leverage each Federal dollar with one State dollar and one additional private-sector dollar. The bill would reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act through the year 2003, at a level of $30 million per year. It would also reauthorize the Partnerships for Wildlife Act through the year 2003, at a level of $6.25 million per year. These amounts are the same in the current laws, which expire at the end of 1998. I urge my colleagues to fully support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. Under the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, labor unions and corporations would be prohibited from spending soft money--what is soft money? That is the unregulated and unreported money that falls outside of current law--on advertising that mentions the name of a candidate in the 60-day period before an election. Now, labor unions and corporations would be permitted--some say, ``Oh, you are muzzling the labor unions and corporations;'' well, that is just not so--they can use their PAC dollars, so-called hard money, on electioneering ads or express advocacy. So there is no muzzling of any of these organizations. No restrictions are placed on the first amendment rights of organizations either. That is another point that has been raised here on the floor. Organizations still will be permitted to run ads that directly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. Electioneering ads discuss a candidate's record in relation to issues and they still will be able to run pure issue ads. Under Snowe-Jeffords, the only change is these organizations will be required to file disclosure statements. I do not see how anybody around here can be against disclosure. Disclosure statements will let the electorate know who is paying for what ads. I think that is what the public ought to know. How can that be objectionable? It is disheartening for me to hear other Senators object to disclosure. In my view, disclosure is at the very heart of reform. Last year, I filed an amendment that would have required even broader disclosure requirements. My amendment would have required all entities who mention the name of a candidate during the calendar year of the election to file a disclosure statement with the FEC. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment is a more modest approach. It simply requires entities to disclose their large donors and their spending during the 60 days before the election. Again, let me say, Mr. President, I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would object to the disclosure. If these organizations engage in issue advocacy rather than electioneering, that is, the ad discusses an issue without mentioning a candidate, they now have to disclose either their members or their spending. Now, the paramount goals of any true effort to reform the system of financing elections for Federal office must be to reduce the influence of special money on elected officials and to level the playing field between incumbents and challengers. Although the proposals before us may not be the final resolution of these problems, they provide a better starting point than we have had in previous years. As far as I am concerned, Mr. President, the most important problem to be addressed by campaign finance reform is one that barely existed a few years ago. Not too many years ago many of us were here debating election process and election reforms. What were we talking about? We were talking about PACs, about political action committees. How much should they be able to contribute? Was $5,000 right or wrong per election? Those are things we debated. We worried that these PAC contributions might appear to give special interests too much influence. But the soft money explosion made those amounts seem like pocket change. I believe that if all else fails we must deal with the soft money problem. As I said, Mr. President, once again the Senate is debating the question of how to reform the manner in which elections for federal office are financed. This year, progress has been made on the issue, and the Snowe-Jeffords amendment is an illustration of that progress. Senators Snowe and Jeffords have worked closely with experts in constitutional law to develop an amendment that would greatly improve the underlying McCain-Feingold bill. This amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor, eliminates the vagueness and overstretching of the McCain-Feingold bill with regard to the treatment of bogus issue ads. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment creates a new category under the Federal Election Campaign Act called ``electioneering.'' This is a carefully defined category that pertains to the abundance of soft money spending by unions, corporations, and non-profits that was so proliferous in the 1996 elections. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment would not prevent these groups from letting their voices be heard. It simply would require them to adhere to the spirit of the law. There certainly is little effort to adhere to the spirit of the law. That's what the hearings before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee were all about. Week after week witnesses appeared and defended blatantly inappropriate behavior by pointing out that the law didn't quite cover their particular activity. The standard operating procedure in elections these days is circumventing the letter of the law. We are here to try to tighten up current law to make it harder for unions, corporations, and others to circumvent the law. Under Snowe-Jeffords, labor unions and corporations would be prohibited from spending soft money--that is the unregulated and unreported money that falls outside of current law--on advertising that mentions the name of a candidate in the 60 day period before an election. Labor unions and corporations would be permitted to use their PAC dollars, or hard money, on electioneering ads or on express advocacy. There is no muzzling of those organizations. No restrictions are placed on the First Amendment rights of organizations either. Organizations still will be permitted to run ads that directly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate; electioneering ads that discuss a candidate's record in relation to issues; and they will still be able to run pure issue ads. Under Snowe- Jeffords the only change is that these organizations will be required to file disclosure statements. Disclosure statements will let the electorate know who is paying for what ads. How can that be objectionable? I have been quite disheartened to hear other Senators object to disclosure. In my view, disclosure is at the very heart of reform. Last year, I filed an amendment that would have required even broader disclosure requirements. My amendment would have required all entities, who mention the name of a candidate during the calendar year of the election, to file disclosure statements with the Federal Election Commission. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment is a more modest approach to disclosure. It simply requires entities to disclose their large donors and their spending during the sixty days prior to the election. If these organizations engage in issue advocacy, rather than electioneering--that is, the ad discusses an issue without mentioning a candidate--they need not disclose either their spending or their members. The paramount goals of any true effort to reform the system of financing elections for federal office must be to reduce the influence of special interest money on elected officials and to level the playing field between incumbents and challengers. Although the proposals before us may not be the final resolution to the problems that afflict the current system of campaign fundraising, they provide a better starting point than we have had in previous years. As far as I am concerned, the most important problem to be addressed by campaign finance reform is one that barely existed a few years ago, the explosion of soft money in the process. Not too many years ago, many of us were here debating whether PACs, political action committees, should be able to contribute $5,000 per candidate, per election. We worried that these PAC contributions might appear to give special interests too much influence. But the soft money explosion has made those amounts seem like pocket change. I believe that if all else fails, we must deal with the soft money problem. Just to make clear what soft money is: it is funds spent to influence an election that fall outside of current law. Spending on bogus issue ads--ads that are defined under Snowe-Jeffords as electioneering--is soft money. The Senate has the opportunity to make these important changes in the current fundraising system by approving the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a bill to reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), a law that has played a major role in conservation of wetland habitats across this continent. I am joined by many members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This tremendous showing of bipartisan support is nothing less than a celebration of one of the great success stories in wildlife conservation. This is a story about the recovery of more than 30 species of ducks, geese, and other waterfowl and migratory birds from their lowest population numbers just 12 years ago, to some of their highest population numbers this year. To appreciate why NAWCA is such a success, it is necessary to review its background. In the early 1980s populations of duck and other waterfowl plummeted precipitously. The numbers were stark: between the 1970s and 1985, breeding populations of ducks dropped an average of 31 percent, with some species declining by as much as 61 percent. This decline was due to several factors, including over-hunting, loss of habitat, and an extended drought in many parts of the country. In 1986, the U.S. and Canada worked cooperatively to develop the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Mexico joined the Plan in 1994, so that the entire continent now participates in this effort. The Plan established ambitious goals and innovative strategies for conserving waterfowl habitat. Under the leadership of former Senator George Mitchell of Maine, Congress provided a funding mechanism for the Plan when it passed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act in 1989. I believe that NAWCA has been successful for three reasons. First, NAWCA focuses on the real key to wildlife conservation: the habitat itself. Populations of birds and other wildlife will fluctuate naturally over time, but if the habitat is not there, the species don't have a chance. Under NAWCA, approximately 3.7 million acres of wetlands and associated wetlands have been acquired, enhanced or restored. Second, the law sets up voluntary partnerships, without the heavy hand of government regulations. These partnerships involve federal, state and local government agencies, businesses, conservation organizations, and private individuals. Under NAWCA, funding has been provided for about 260 projects, with more than 700 partners--across 45 states--plus Mexico and Canada. Third, NAWCA leverages federal dollars with state, local and private dollars. Since its passage, the Act has provided more than $200 million in Federal funds, that have been matched by more than $420 million in state and private funds. The benefits of NAWCA and other wetlands protection programs -- combined with a few years of heavy rainfall--have been enormous. Populations of ducks and other waterfowl have, in large measure, rebounded to the levels of the 1970s. Every year since 1995 has been billed as a ``banner year,'' and each year the numbers are even greater than the previous one. This past year's fall migration totaled 92 million ducks, the highest since 1972, and surveys counted 42 million breeding ducks, the highest level since the surveys began in 1955. Also, wetlands losses, while still occurring, have declined dramatically: the rate of loss has slowed by 60 percent below that experienced in the 1970s and 1980s. This is a result of regulatory protections under the Clean Water Act and, perhaps even more, voluntary programs like NAWCA and the Wetlands Reserve Program in the Farm Bill. But our conservation successes are no reason for complacency. More can and should be done. Each year, good projects must be turned down because there is not enough funding. In addition, abundant rainfall has helped the waterfowl populations rebound, but it is up to us to maintain these population increases when the rainfall abates. Lastly, the pressure to develop wetlands continues to grow each year. By the year 2020, more than half the U.S. population will live in coastal plains. Laws like NAWCA will become ever more important in protecting these areas. Support for NAWCA has always crossed party lines. In 1996, 78 Senators signed a letter supporting the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The need for a healthy environment is a need that transcends politics. With support for laws like NAWCA, we can meet today's challenges and protect the environment for the benefit of our children, and future generations after them. The bill we are introducing also reauthorizes the Partnerships for Wildlife Act. This law was first enacted in 1992 to encourage partnerships among the Service, state agencies, and private organizations and individuals to undertake projects to conserve non- game wildlife species. It is modeled after NAWCA, and is the only Federal grants program for the sole purpose of benefiting non-game species--species that are not hunted, fished, or trapped. Projects funded under the Act have covered numerous species across 40 States, and have entailed management programs, research, education and outreach. Since 1994, Federal funding for grants has totaled $4.2 million. States leverage each Federal dollar with one State dollar and one additional private-sector dollar. The bill would reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act through the year 2003, at a level of $30 million per year. It would also reauthorize the Partnerships for Wildlife Act through the year 2003, at a level of $6.25 million per year. These amounts are the same in the current laws, which expire at the end of 1998. I urge my colleagues to fully support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this afternoon I am introducing legislation to suspend the duty on the importation of certain textile printing machines that are used by textile manufacturers in the United States. These particular machines are used for the printing of patterns, designs and motifs on fabrics--an important process in the making of textile goods. However, none of these machines are made in the United States. That means domestic manufacturers must import these machines at considerable cost, which does not help their ability to compete in what is an increasingly challenging market. Yet since there is no domestic industry producing these machines, the duties serve little purpose. The bill I am introducing would lift the duty imposed on these machines. It is my hope that by doing so, we will be helping the textile industry in this country to improve its competitiveness and maintain its workforce, both in Rhode Island and around the nation. By introducing this legislation today, I believe there should be ample time for review and comment on the bill, and that it can be ready for inclusion when Senate begins work on comprehensive duty suspension legislation this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this afternoon I am introducing legislation to suspend the duty on the importation of certain textile printing machines that are used by textile manufacturers in the United States. These particular machines are used for the printing of patterns, designs and motifs on fabrics--an important process in the making of textile goods. However, none of these machines are made in the United States. That means domestic manufacturers must import these machines at considerable cost, which does not help their ability to compete in what is an increasingly challenging market. Yet since there is no domestic industry producing these machines, the duties serve little purpose. The bill I am introducing would lift the duty imposed on these machines. It is my hope that by doing so, we will be helping the textile industry in this country to improve its competitiveness and maintain its workforce, both in Rhode Island and around the nation. By introducing this legislation today, I believe there should be ample time for review and comment on the bill, and that it can be ready for inclusion when Senate begins work on comprehensive duty suspension legislation this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask you today to join me in honoring a native hero of Rhode Island, who, by his courage and unselfish interest in the well-being of someone he did not know, saved a man from nearly certain death. When Frank ``Skip'' Pettis III set off to work on January 27, he had no idea that he would return home a hero. Pettis, who owns Pettis Marina near Pawtuxet Cove in Warwick, RI, was working when he overheard radio conversations between the Coast Guard and tugboat operators about a kayaker who was declared missing in Narragansett Bay. Pettis jumped into one of the marina's 24-foot salvage boats and raced to the scene. There, he found Steven McGarry of Warwick, without a kayak or lifejacket, floating in the waves and clinging to a pair of empty bleach bottles, being used as traps. Mr. Pettis grabbed the half conscious and hypothermia-sticken McGarry but, unaided, was unable to lift him into the boat. Fighting the cold and wet of the waves and the weight of McGarry's body, Pettis waited for what must have seemed an eternity until firefighters arrived to help fish him out of the water. As Pettis put it later, ``All I could do was envision him just sliding out of my hands . . . I didn't want that vision stuck in my head for the rest of my life.'' McGarry, whose temperature had dropped to 82 degrees, was rushed to Rhode Island Hospital, where he was listed in critical condition. By the next day, thanks to Pettis' heroism, McGarry had sufficiently recovered to give thanks to his rescuer. On January 28, just a day after Pettis hoisted McGarry's nearly frozen body from the icy water, Mayor Lincoln Chafee declared ``Skip Pettis Day'' in Warwick to honor our local hero. Mr. President, Skip Pettis is a model for people across America. Hearing of a stranger in need, he joined in a desperate search for a man who, for all purposes, was lost at sea. Finding him, Pettis persevered alone in preventing McGarry's death until help arrived. Mr. Pettis' experience exemplifies a form of altruism that can seem rare today, and, as such, I believe his heroic actions should be honored.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, last week I put into the Record a statement expressing my support for the nomination of Dr. David Satcher for U.S. Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health. As I indicated then, I believe in his qualifications and achievements, and think he would serve well as the Nation's top physician. Dr. Satcher has excelled in many aspects of the health care system. He has been a provider, a scientist, a teacher, an administrator, in both the private and the public sector. I must say I was impressed that the American College of Physicians, which is a very prestigious organization, awarded Dr. Satcher its James D. Bruce Memorial Award for distinguished contributions in preventive medicine. Dr. Satcher has dedicated his career to improving public health. The United States has been without a Surgeon General for a little over 3 years. This is unfortunate, I believe. Just last week, Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States, spoke at a press conference which I had the privilege of attending. In that press conference Dr. Koop spoke forcefully about the grave health risks posed by tobacco use, lack of exercise, and poor diet. He did not pull any punches. He gave a stern lecture to all those who were present and hopefully beyond that, about the dangers in America to American young people and to all our citizens from the so-called couch potato lifestyle. I have reviewed the statements that Dr. Satcher has made before the Senate Labor Committee and he is clearly anxious to follow in the footsteps of Dr. Koop and his successor, Antonia Novello. At his confirmation hearing Dr. Satcher stressed the importance of disease prevention and health promotion. This is what he said: ``Whether we are talking about smoking or poor diets, I want to send the message of good health to the American people.'' So I was delighted to learn that one of his top priorities would be to put the health of our children and our grandchildren in the national spotlight. All of these matters fall directly within the job description of a U.S. Surgeon General. I might say, it seems to me what we are concerned with, Madam President, is not just extending the life expectancy of Americans. It is beyond that. We want to have Americans in good health as they proceed in their elder years, and throughout all their lives. In other words, it's what they call the quality of their lives that we are concerned with. It is not just living longer, it's that they be healthy and be able to construct a healthy life and a happy one, where they feel good about themselves. In the period we have gone without a Surgeon General, we have been confronted with a host of tough public health issues. I believe the need for a Surgeon General has never been greater. We have these problems in my home State of a very substantial percentage, something like 27 percent, of our seniors in high school smoke. This is on the increase, not just in my State but throughout the Nation. We have seen widespread substance abuse, and continued struggle with AIDS, and a startling rate of obesity amongst our youngsters. They just don't get out there and exercise. As we consider the potential consequences of human cloning research, I for one would benefit from the perspective that a Surgeon General would bring to this issue Several of my colleagues have expressed misgivings about this nomination. Some have raised concerns about Dr. Satcher's views on late-term abortions. Others have questioned his role in a series of AZT trials that have been conducted in Africa. I just heard the distinguished Senator from Missouri talk about concerns about the free needle exchange, or needle exchange program. As Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the Labor Committee, and Senator Frist, the chairman of the Public Health and Safety Subcommittee, stated during the debate on the nomination last week, these are not new charges. I am not familiar with the needle exchange that was just being discussed here before, but apparently the AZT trials and the late-term abortion matters were thoroughly discussed in the committee and subcommittee. Each of these issues was raised by the committee during Dr. Satcher's confirmation and it is my understanding he responded satisfactorily--satisfactorily to the committee. They reported out the nomination. Indeed, his answers on those and other matters have been available for all Senators and the American people to view. So I want to say I am pleased that we have the nomination for a new Surgeon General before us. I applaud the majority leader for recognizing the importance of this post and moving the Senate forward on this matter. So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for cloture and in favor of Dr. Satcher's nomination. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Dr. David Satcher for U.S. Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health. I have examined his qualifications and achievements, and I believe he has the capacity to serve this country well in the important role of the nation's top physician. On Tuesday of this week, I, along with Senators Graham and Jeffords and Representatives Moran and Leach, announced the formation of the Congressional Prevention Coalition. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was kind enough to join us at the press conference. During the course of his remarks, it struck me how greatly we have missed having a national spokesperson on health issues the past three years. Dr. Koop spoke forcefully about the grave health risks posed by tobacco use, lack of exercise, and poor diet. He didn't pull any punches--he gave a stern lecture to all of those present on the dangers inherent in the so-called couch potato lifestyle. I have reviewed Dr. Satcher's statements before the Senate Labor Committee, and he clearly is anxious to start in along the same lines. At his confirmation hearing, Dr. Satcher stressed the importance of disease prevention and health promotion. As he put it, ``Whether we are talking about smoking or poor diets, I want to send the message of good health to the American people.'' And I was delighted to learn that one of his top priorities in this role would be to put the health of our children and grandchildren in the national spotlight. To my view, all of these matters fall directly within the job description of a U.S. Surgeon General. As I said, we have been without a Surgeon General for three years now--a period of time when we have been confronted with a staggering array of public health issues. The need for a Surgeon General has never been greater, as we are seeing an increase in smoking among high school seniors, widespread substance abuse, continuing struggles with AIDS, and a startling rate of obesity among youngsters. And as we consider the potential consequences of human cloning research, I know that I, for one, would benefit from the perspective that a Surgeon General could bring to this issue. Several of my colleagues have expressed their misgivings about this nomination. Some have raised concerns about Dr. Satcher's views on late term abortions. Others have questioned his role in a series of AZT trials that were conducted in Africa. As Senator Jeffords, the Chairman of Labor Committee, and Senator Frist, the Chairman of the Public Health and Safety Subcommittee, stated during the debate on the nomination yesterday, however, these are not new charges. Indeed, each of these issues was raised by the Committee during Dr. Satcher's confirmation hearing, and it's my understanding that he responded satisfactorily. Indeed, his answers on these and other matters have been available to all Senators and the American people for some months now via the internet. Dr. Satcher's participation in many aspects of the health care system--provider, scientist, public and private administrator--give him the extensive knowledge and experience necessary to fulfill his role as the U.S. Surgeon General. He has dedicated his career to improving public health. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of Dr. Satcher's nomination.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I sought him, but I couldn't find him----

Mr. CHAFEE. And we have those votes, and I looked; where is a vote-- we are voting aye.

Mr. CHAFEE. With affection. Where was he when we needed him?

Mr. CHAFEE. To try to move this bill that the Senator from West Virginia is embracing now. His arms are around ISTEA II----

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to say there is nobody I enjoy dueling with more on this floor than the Senator from West Virginia. We have been against each other on some rare issues. We have been together on many issues.

Mr. CHAFEE. As I listened to what he said, Mr. President, it brought to mind that old song, ``Will you love me in November as you did in June?'' And I say to the Senator, why didn't he love this bill in October as he does in February?

Mr. CHAFEE. We had not one, we had not two, we had not three, we had four votes, Mr. President----

Mr. CHAFEE. How did the Senator vote on the cloture motion when we tried to move to this bill in October, late September, October?

Mr. CHAFEE. And I went away distressed. So now we will have an opportunity in this bill, as the majority leader has made it clear the way we will proceed, and I look forward, as we get into this, that he will support a bill that will accomplish the goals of the Nation in the context of all the other demands that are placed upon the budget of the United States. I will conclude by stressing once again that we have an increase in this bill this year, ISTEA II, over the past, of 20 percent when the other discretionary accounts are frozen. In other words, the nondefense items and the nonentitlement items are all frozen--whether you are talking Head Start, school lunches, the school programs, the health programs; they are frozen--and we get a 20 percent increase, which is pretty good, for this program. I thank the Chair. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.