John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the Senate and House have reached an agreement to continue funding for the Nation's Federal-aid highway, safety and transit programs. The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997 will keep our transportation system up and running. It will give States the flexibility they need to continue transportation planning and construction activities until a permanent reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] is enacted, hopefully early next year. The Senate-House agreement provides $9.7 billion of obligation authority--money States actually can spend. This $9.7 billion in spending authority is distributed according to the structure provided in S. 1454, the Senate-passed extension bill, which we passed this month. Each State is guaranteed at least 50 percent of its previous year's limitation to spend on any transportation project or program. To keep the States on an equal footing, however, no State may spend more than 75 percent of its 1997 spending limitation. As you might know, one of the major concerns we had with the 6-month extension bill passed by the House was its formula structure. By adopting the spending structure in the Senate bill, we have avoided the contentious fight over formulas that would have prevented us from going forward had we adopted the House formulas. Another important feature of the Senate-passed bill we have agreed to preserve is the flexibility provision. Under current law, the States are restricted in using their unobligated balances across Federal-aid highway, transit and safety categories. The Senate-House agreement allows the States to spend their balances on any Federal-aid highway, transit or safety program category. To prevent important environmental programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program [CMAQ] from being unfairly disadvantaged, however, the Secretary of Transportation must restore the transferred funds back to these programs when the long-term reauthorization bill is enacted. The Senate-House agreement preserves the Federal commitment to safety by funding key ISTEA safety programs. This is a very important part of our legislation. In the United States, there are more than 40,000 fatalities and 3.5 million collisions on our highways every year. The measure before us will help ongoing efforts to reverse this disturbing trend. Funds are provided to enable the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the State and Community Safety Grant Program, the National Driver Register, and the Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Program. The federal transit discretionary and formula programs will receive the funds they need. The Senate-House agreement will provide funds for the Federal Highway Administration to continue its operations and to assist the States in running their transportation programs. Without the measure before us, the Federal Highway Administration would have shut down in January and 3,600 employees would have been sent home because we lack the ability to pay them. The Senate-House agreement extends the transfer of funds from the highway trust fund to the aquatic resources trust Fund to be used for sport fish restoration and boating safety programs. The bill also will provide funds necessary for our local transportation planners, the metropolitan planning organizations, to continue their work. The agreement also provides $5.5 billion in new contract authority, which will be distributed proportionately according to the structure in the Senate-passed bill. I want to make it clear that this new contract authority will not affect the overall spending limitation of $9.7 billion provided in the agreement. Let me add that we will have the opportunity next year to enact a long-term ISTEA reauthorization that will set the comprehensive transportation policy necessary to take us into the next century. The majority leader has assured me that the ISTEA II bill--in other words, the one that we will be considering next year, that we have already had on the floor but regrettably we weren't able to get to it for longer--that the bill which was reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee 7 weeks ago will be the first item before the Senate when we reconvene in January. That is the statement of the majority leader. In the meantime, the Senate-House agreement will keep the State and Federal transportation programs running. It will ensure that no highway contractors will be put out of work because of lack of Federal dollars. And it will continue funding for vital safety and transit programs. Moreover, it will keep the momentum going to enact the 6-year bill early next year. Before closing, Mr. President, I want to give special recognition to Senator Bond, who was instrumental in making sure that we addressed these important issues before going home for the year. Senator Bond did yeoman work on this program, as did Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, both of whom are on the floor. And I personally thank them for their diligent and constructive work on this program. I also wish to thank the majority leader for all of his help. He was a steadfast ally in assuring that this work would be completed. Further, Mr. President, the staff of all members have been tremendously helpful. Jimmie Powell, Dan Corbett, Tom Sliter, Linda Jordan, Cheryle Tucker, Kathy Ruffalo, Ann Loomis, Ellen Stein, Tracy Henke, and Keith Hennessey of Senator Lott's staff, every single one of them have done yeoman's work in connection with getting this bill in the shape it is now, and all of us join in thanks to each and every one of them. I thank the Chair. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to also say that the junior Senator from Massachusetts was quite right in saying that the senior Senator from Massachusetts during his long years here has certainly had a significant impact on legislation, and we all should recognize that and pay tribute to him for what he has done. Mr. President, I would also like to note that the Presiding Officer is a former marine. So he is celebrating today likewise the 222d birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps. So we are all celebrating together.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Albert W. Moore for his leadership in a critical American industry. Mr. Moore is retiring after serving 8 years as president of the Association for Manufacturing Technology [AMT], a trade group which represents 374 American builders of machine tools and related equipment. His distinguished career in the industry has spanned 43 years. The machine tool industry is vital to our country, making possible the production of almost every product which our society today enjoys. More important, these powerful and precise machines are a vital key to the Nation's defense. During his tenure as president, and earlier as the elected chairman of the association. Mr. Moore has worked to ensure that the U.S. industry was technologically equal to any in the world, and that its companies are strong and well run. Mr. Moore's efforts have greatly enhanced the position of our machine tool industry, and I congratulate him for a job well done.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 1258, a bill introduced by Senator Bennett to amend the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 to prohibit an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States from receiving assistance under that act. The Committee on Environment and Public Works unanimously approved this bill on Wednesday, October 29, 1997. S. 1258 includes several features, in addition to the general provision prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving Federal assistance, to ensure that the act is carried out in a fair manner. In cases of extreme and unusual hardship, S. 1258 leaves it to the discretion of the Department of Transportation to provide a waiver to the ineligibility that is otherwise applicable. In addition, rights to compensation that an illegal alien may have under other Federal or State laws are not affected. I ask for unanimous consent that a letter from the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I encourage Senate adoption of this necessary measure.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for legislation we considered this evening, the Promotion of Adoption, Safety, and Support for Abused and Neglected Children, the so-called PASS Act. This bill, which I introduced along with Senators Craig, Rockefeller, DeWine, Coats, Jeffords, and others, will make some critical changes to the child welfare system, changes which will vastly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of children currently in foster care and waiting for adoptive homes. We have been working on this legislation for the past year, and I am very pleased we were able to work out a proposal that everyone could support. The primary goal of this so-called PASS Act is to ensure that abused and neglected children are in safe, permanent settings. About a half a million children who have been abused or neglected currently live outside their homes, either in foster care or with relatives. In Rhode Island, there are nearly 1,500 children who have been removed from their homes and are in foster care. Many of these children will be able to return to their parents, but others will not. Under the current system, children remain in foster care an average of 3 years. Mr. President, I call to your attention and that of everyone who may be interested in this subject, a child in foster care on the average remains there 3 years before any decision is made about that child's future. And in some cases the wait is even longer. It is time we put a stop to this, and our bill does that. The PASS Act directs States to shorten this time, all the while ensuring that the child's health and safety are guaranteed. Our bill removes unnecessary geographic barriers to adoption, and requires criminal record checks for all prospective foster and adoptive parents, and other adults living in the household. It allows children to be freed for adoption more quickly in extreme cases, such as when the parents have murdered another child, and requires States to document efforts to move children into safe adoptive homes. The PASS Act also contains some important provisions that will go a long way toward helping to find homes for so-called special needs children. Lack of medical coverage is a huge barrier to families who want to adopt special needs children. Many of these children have significant physical and mental health problems due to years of abuse, neglect, or foster care. Parents who adopt these children are taking huge financial risks. If these children are not guaranteed health insurance, there will be great reluctance in many cases for the prospective parents to adopt these children. Our bill ensures that special needs children who are going to be adopted will have medical coverage. We also ensure that children whose adopted parents die, or whose adoptions are disrupted in some fashion, will continue to receive Federal subsidies when they are adopted by new parents. Finally, our bill reauthorizes and provides a modest increase for the Family Preservation and Support Program, which is a worthwhile program that prevents children from having to be removed from their homes. This is a good bill. The sponsors have worked long and hard to come up with this compromise. We have talked with the House about the minor differences between our bills and it appears we will be able to quickly conference and pass this bill, hopefully before the Senate goes out this year. In closing, let me thank and congratulate the Members of the PASS coalition who worked so tirelessly on the measure. Senators Craig, Rockefeller, DeWine, Coats, Jeffords, and others have made enormous contributions toward this initiative. This would not have happened without their dedication to the children who we are trying to move from foster care into adoptive homes. I also thank Chairman Roth of the Finance Committee for helping us to move quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1658, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act Amendments of 1997. This legislation will allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to continue their important work with the States to ensure the continued recovery of the striped bass fishery. The striped bass, commonly called rockfish in this area, is an anadromous fish which lives in marine waters during its adult life and migrates to a freshwater river stream to spawn. On the Atlantic coast, striped bass range from the St. Lawrence River in Canada to the St. Johns River in Florida. They are migratory, moving along the coast primarily within the three-mile zone which is subject to State fishery management. Adult habitats include the coastal rivers and the nearshore ocean and are distributed along the coast from Maine through North Carolina. Because striped bass pass through the jurisdiction of several States, Federal involvement in conservation efforts are necessary. A severe population decline, which began in the 1970's, raised serious concerns about the sustainability of the striped bass fishery. In 1979, I offered an amendment to the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act that directed the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct an emergency study of striped bass. The study found that, although habitat degradation played a role, overfishing was the primary cause of the population decline. In 1981, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission prepared the first coast-wide management plan for the Atlantic striped bass. In 1984 Congress enacted the Striped Bass Act in 1984 to ensure that the States would comply with the plan. The act, which includes funding authority for a Federal striped bass study, has been amended in 1986, 1988, and 1991. The most recent reauthorization bill expired at the end of fiscal year 1994. Under the Striped Bass Act, States are required to implement management measures that are consistent with the Commission's plan for the conservation of striped bass. The act authorizes the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to impose a moratorium on striped bass fishing in any state that is not in compliance with the Commission's management plan. The act also authorizes funding for the ongoing striped bass study that was approved by Congress in 1979 in response to the decline in the Atlantic striped bass populations. The Federal study, undertaken jointly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, provides information on the threats to and the status of the striped bass population and scientific data necessary for sound management decisions. The striped bass study in 1994 showed that most population indices had returned to pre-decline levels, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission declared the species to be fully restored. It is a great testament to the Striped Bass Act and the cooperative efforts of the States and Federal Government that the fishery is continually improving. The striped bass has proven once again that, given a chance, nature will rebound and overcome tremendous setbacks. But it is up to us to help the striped bass receive that chance. Reauthorization of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act Amendments of 1997 will ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Commission will continue to monitor the populations, and collect data that will provide the necessary information needed to make informed decisions essential to maintaining healthy populations of striped bass. Mr. President, I strongly encourage the Senate to pass H.R. 1658 to continue one of the most significant recovery ever experienced for a coastal finfish species.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is a very, very contentious issue. Fortunately, in our Environment and Public Works Committee we were able to report out this basic legislation 18 to 0. Then we have to do this so-called stopgap legislation, because we weren't able to consider the big bill due to a variety of factors. This bill now is a result of bipartisan cooperation. As we mentioned, Senator Baucus has been deeply involved in this, and of course, Senator Warner, Senator Bond, myself, and others. I join in the salute to the staff. They have been really terrific. I would like particularly to offer the names of those who worked so hard: Jimmie Powell, Tom Sliter, Kathy Ruffalo, Dan Corbett, Ann Loomis, Peter Rogoff, with Senator Byrd, and Tracy Henke with Senator Bond. Every single one of those staffers was absolutely terrific.

Mr. CHAFEE. I certainly will. Mr. President, let me end with a wish. We are going to come back to this, as the majority leader said, the first thing when we return in January. It is going to take every bit of good will and patience and high level of character and perseverance for us to be able to pass a bill that will have the acceptance that legislation had in our committee. So, in closing, I thank everyone, and urge them to carry on with this same type of effort when we convene on this issue in the last part of January. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time, and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I can definitely assure the Senator from Michigan that passage of this short-term bill in no way implies acceptance of any long-term funding level or formula.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. 1454, introduced earlier today by Senator Bond, and others.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to say how much I appreciate the wonderful work on this legislation by Senator Bond, Senator Warner, Senator Baucus, and others. I am pleased to joint them in cosponsoring the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997. Seven weeks ago, the Committee on Environment and Public Works unanimously reported out S. 1173, better known as ISTEA II. I am proud of the committee's efforts to come to an agreement on a very difficult piece of legislation. We filed the report at the end of September, and we were prepared to complete action on the bill before the end of the calendar year. Regrettably, a number of unrelated events having nothing to do with ISTEA have prevented us from completing work this year on a 6-year reauthorization bill. As the prospects have dimmed for the enactment of a 6-year bill this year, it is clear that we cannot go home before taking care of a number of concerns. This past Tuesday, November 4, the Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on which many of these concerns were brought to light. First of all, if Congress does nothing, a number of States will be hard-pressed to survive through the spring on their existing unobligated balances. Second, States are restricted in using their unobligated balances across Federal-aid highway, transit, and safety categories. Third, a number of Federal transportation safety programs, as well as the Federal transit program, have no funds to carry over into this fiscal year. Finally, without any relief, the Federal Highway Administration will be forced to shut down in January, which could result in 3,600 employees being furloughed. Despite the gloomy reports of what could happen if Congress fails to act, there is a solution. Senators Bond, Warner, Baucus, and I have a measure that addresses the needs of the States, the safety programs, the Federal-aid highway program, and transit. First of all, the bill before us will keep the nation's transportation system up and running until we enact the long-term reauthorization bill. It gives States the flexibility they need to continue transportation planning and construction activities. Each State is guaranteed at least 50 percent of the previous year's spending limitation to spend on any transportation project or program. To keep the States on equal footing, however, no state may spend more than 75 percent of its 1997 spending limitation. Second, the bill provides states with flexibility to spend their unobligated balances on any highway, safety, or transit program category. To prevent important environmental programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program [CMAQ] from being unfairly disadvantaged, however, the Secretary of Transportation would restore the transferred funds back to these programs when the new reauthorization bill is enacted. Third, the bill provides funding for key ISTEA safety and transit programs. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the State and Community Safety Grant Program, the National Driver Register, Operation Lifesaver, and the Alcohol-impaired Driving Countermeasures Program, will continue to run. Also, the Federal transit discretionary and formula programs will receive the funds they need. Fourth, the bill provides funds for the Federal Highway Administration to continue operating and assisting the States with their transportation programs. Before closing, let me comment on what the bill before us does not do. Unlike the 6-month extension bill that was approved by the House earlier this month, this bill does not provide States with contract authority for 1 year's worth of highway construction. Our bill gives the States until May 1 of next year to obligate the funds provided in this bill. The trouble with including funds that will not run out until next November is that there will be no pressure to enact permanent ISTEA legislation until that time, right before the 1998 elections. Pushing the decision off until next fall runs the risk of our being without a bill 1 year from now. Moreover, this measure avoids the contentious fight we would have over apportionment formulas and funding categories if we were to take up the House bill. The bill before us is by no means perfect, but it is the optimal approach to the situation. Our hopes for an ideal outcome were dashed when we were unable to complete work on a 6-year reauthorization bill. This measure keeps the State and Federal transportation programs running, it ensures that no highway contractors are put out of work, and it continues funding for vital safety and transit programs. Most important, it will keep the momentum going to enact a 6-year bill early next year. And it does all of this without a battle over the formulas. Again, I want to commend Senator Bond for his determination in moving this measure forward. I also want to thank Senators Warner and Baucus for their excellent work. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this important measure.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I renew my request.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to assist in the relocation and expansion of the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology at Brown University in Providence, RI. In 1955, the family of Rudolf F. Haffenreffer bequeathed to Brown University the museum he had founded in Bristol, RI. The museum includes more than 100,000 objects from native peoples of the Americas, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. This is a teaching museum owned and supported by Brown University. It has a number of world-class holdings that attract scholars from all over the globe, and has been described by the American Association of Museums as a ``superb medium- to small-sized facility with outstanding collections, excellent exhibits, and a superb program of public education and outreach.'' While maintaining objects from around the world, the Haffenreffer Museum exhibits extensive archaeological materials from New England that are used to interpret prehistoric and historical cultural developments in Rhode Island and surrounding States. The legislation I introduce today authorizes $3 million to preserve these culturally important collections and to provide expanded exhibition space that will make them more accessible to schoolchildren, scholars, students, and other visitors. In 1995, Brown University acquired from the Resolution Trust Corporation [RTC] the historic Old Stone Bank Building, built in 1854, along with the early 19th century Federal-style residence known as the Benoni-Cook House, both located in downtown Providence. The RTC took over both properties when the Old Stone Bank failed in 1993. Prior to Brown's purchase of these sites, it was unclear how or whether they would be put to use. The funds authorized by this bill will contribute a modest portion of the estimated $15 million Brown University will spend to relocate the Haffenreffer Museum from Bristol, RI, to the bank building and the Benoni-Cook House, both of which are located on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. President, this in indeed a win-win project being carried out by Brown University. We will renovate, preserve, and make fine use of two historic architectural landmarks--while providing greater access to an extraordinary tool for cultural and historical education. This is a fine example of the type of assistance our Federal Government can provide to local communities to preserve and make available for future generations the significant developments of our past. Mr. President, I encourage the support of our Senate colleagues.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I strongly support this legislation, which will preserve vital passenger rail service in the United States. I applaud the hard work of the members of the Commerce Committee who have worked out a reasonable compromise on this much-needed bill. In the 25 years since Amtrak was created, we've learned several things about passenger rail operations in the United States: First, in today's increasingly competitive transportation marketplace, Amtrak cannot continue to operate viably under the status quo. Second, we recognize political reality and know that the American people will not continue to support taxpayer subsidies of Amtrak if the railroad continues to operate under the same structure that has brought it close to financial collapse. Third, like its counterparts in the highway and aviation sectors, passenger railroad ought to be afforded a reasonable level of Federal assistance for its increasingly urgent infrastructure needs. With regard this third matter--Federal support--I am pleased that Congress included within the tax bill passed earlier this year $2.3 billion for Amtrak's capital improvements. These funds will help Amtrak conduct badly needed modernization of its infrastructure so that it can enhance service to its customers and more effectively perform in a competitive marketplace. However, these funds are on hold until the bill before the Senate today is enacted into law. What is also needed is a realistic assessment of the Federal laws currently governing Amtrak's operation. Although attention recently seems to be focused on the protections for Amtrak employees, there are a wide range of laws that hinder Amtrak's stated goal of operating more like a business. It has been the provisions affecting Amtrak workers that have been most controversial and have stymied action in Congress for the past 2 years. Some of these laws stem from the Depression era, a time when Congress and the President sought to relieve a national tragedy. Others were enacted when Amtrak was first created in the early 1970's, well before the railroad's financial problems had developed. In any event, it is important to note that many of these provisions are mandated by law, rather than agreed to through the traditional collective-bargaining process that businesses and labor unions across America deal with regularly. Other employers in the United States are certainly not required by law to provide worker benefits similar to those required of Amtrak. If financial and operational viability is going to be restored at Amtrak, we simply must take a candid and reasonable look at all of the very unique laws--not just the labor protections--that have hindered Amtrak's ability to succeed. We must also ensure that, like its counterparts in the aviation and highway sectors, passenger rail is provided a reasonable level of support for capital improvements. These are the goals this bill seeks to achieve, and I am pleased that Senate is able to take it up today. Specifically, when amended by this substitute, S. 738 will: Authorize $5.163 billion for Amtrak over the next 5 years; Mandate that Amtrak be independent of Federal operating subsidies in 5 years; Repeal two statutes that affect work rules at Amtrak, and put them into the collective bargaining process. These outdated statutes prohibit Amtrak from contracting out, and mandate 6 years of severance pay for laid off employees; Impose a reasonable cap on punitive damages on rail transportation liability; Create an Amtrak reform council [ARC] that will regularly evaluate Amtrak's financial performance to ensure accountability to the taxpayer; Clarify that the $2.3 billion included within the tax bill can only be used for Amtrak capital improvements. When taken together, the provisions of this legislation will restore financial viability to Amtrak by permitting the company to operate more like a business. The bill also gives the U.S. taxpayer the assurance that Congress will no longer provide open-ended subsidies to passenger rail. There are allegations that Amtrak's operational reforms are being sought as a ploy to make it less expensive to eliminate these jobs and shut down the railroad altogether. This contention is ludicrous. The biggest threat to these jobs is maintaining the status quo, which is not financially viable for Amtrak. If things continue under the current framework, Amtrak will soon be forced into bankruptcy. Such an outcome would eliminate all of Amtrak's 20,000 jobs, to say nothing of depriving the Nation of a needed service. Ultimately, our effort to ensure that passenger rail survives into the 21st century should be focused on the customer: we should help ensure that conditions exist that will allow Amtrak to provide efficient, reliable national transportation service without adversely impacting its workforce or burdening U.S. taxpayers. Absent this service, Amtrak's customers would go elsewhere, and our highways and airports would become severely clogged. This legislation ensures the viability of passenger rail service for the traveling public, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank both the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senator Inhofe, and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and manager of the bill, Senator Thurmond, for their cooperation in including provisions to reauthorize the Sikes Act in H.R. 1119. The Sikes Act was first enacted by Congress in 1960 to provide enhanced stewardship of fish and wildlife and other natural resources on military installations. The act seeks to capitalize on the enormous potential for natural resource conservation on military lands. The Department of Defense controls nearly 25 million acres of land and water at approximately 900 military installations in the United States, and the National Guard oversees an additional 1 million acres on 80 sites. These lands serve as home to approximately 100 endangered or threatened species and countless other fish and wildlife resources. The amendment that I offered to the bill, along with Senators Kempthorne, Warner, and Baucus when it was pending before the Senate, would infuse new vigor into the implementation and effectiveness of the Sikes Act. Specifically, it would require the Secretary of each military department to develop a natural resource management plan for each of its military installations, unless there is an absence of significant natural resources on the base. The plan would be prepared by the Secretary in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency. The plan must be consistent with the use of military lands to ensure the preparedness of the military, and cannot result in any net loss in the capability of the installation to support its mission. With those caveats, the plan must also provide for the management and conservation of natural resources. This language accommodates the interests of the State and Federal wildlife agencies as well as the needs of the military. I would like to thank the conferees for accepting the Senate language extending the deadline for completing natural resource management plans from 2 to 3 years from the date of the initial report to Congress, which is required 1 year after the date of enactment. This change was negotiated between the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Armed Services, and approved by all interested parties, including the Departments of Defense and the Interior, and the International Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This change should enable the Department of Defense to complete the plans within its own internal timeframes, without unnecessarily missing any statutory deadlines. As I mentioned when I offered this amendment back in July, jurisdiction of the Sikes Act, since its passage in 1960, has always rested with the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Bills to amend and reauthorize the act, including one that was introduced in the 103d Congress containing substantive revisions similar to the revisions in this amendment, have all been referred to that committee. The fact that reauthorization of the Sikes Act is being done through the DOD authorization bill represents the fortunate circumstance that after more than 1 year of debate, agreement happened to be reached by all parties at this particular time in this particular context. This circumstance does not alter the jurisdiction over the Sikes Act in the future. Nevertheless, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has always worked cooperatively on that portion of the Sikes Act pertaining to military installations in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. In closing, Mr. President, I believe that this provision will significantly improve the Sikes Act, and I thank the conferees for all their hard work.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, thank you. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Madam President, some have argued that fast-track procedures are either unnecessary or that they are a threat to Congress' constitutional authority, or both. The answer to that is fast track is none of the above. It is both necessary and constitutional. First of all, fast track is absolutely critical if the United States is to continue to expand global market opportunities for American manufacturers and service providers and their workers. Without fast track, no President can assure our trading partners that the terms of a hard-won agreement will not be rewritten by Congress. That is the problem. Now, sometimes it is worthwhile to look at history. In 1934, Congress approved the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which gave the President authority to lower tariffs with our trading partners. That worked fine for several decades. This was when we still had an emerging global trading system which primarily relied on tariffs. Between 1934 and 1945 the United States concluded 29 bilateral agreements for tariff reductions. When the GATT system came into being in 1948, the system still worked. Tariff reductions were the main focus of five successful negotiating rounds between 1947 and 1962. But here comes the modern system. By the 1960's, the world trading system had become much more sophisticated and so had trade barriers. In 1962, the Kennedy round began, and for the first time the negotiations addressed not just tariffs but nontariff problems such as antidumping measures. When the negotiations concluded on the Kennedy round in 1967, the Johnson administration brought the agreement back home, but Congress promptly passed legislation nullifying part of the Kennedy round agreement, effectively amending the deal that had been so carefully worked out with the GATT nations. The result. What happened? The Kennedy round went into effect without our participation. The message which that sent to our trading partners was obvious. Hard-fought trade deals with the United States will not stick. And the corollary lesson to the United States was equally clear. Before the United States will be allowed back at the negotiating table, it must restore its credibility by demonstrating its ability to stick to a deal. Therefore, when the Tokyo round began, President Ford appealed to a Democratic Congress for a solution. The dilemma was noted that our negotiators cannot expect to accomplish the negotiating goals if there is no reasonable assurances that the negotiated agreements would be voted up or down on their merits. So a set of procedures was developed, the so-called fast track. As has been noted here many times, that fast- track authority has been extended to every President, Democrat or Republican. It has been authorized or reauthorized or extended four times, and it is the means by which every major trade agreement since the 1970's has been implemented. In mid-1994, fast-track lapsed, and since then our trading partners, quite rightly, have questioned our ability to stick by a deal, and they have been reluctant to deal with us. Some have cited the fact that the administration has concluded all but a handful of 222 trade agreements without fast track. ``You don't need fast track. Why, we had 222 agreements without it.'' That is misleading. There are 200 plus agreements listed by the administration as accomplishments, but look at the list. Most of the agreements tend to be small, product-specific arrangements like an agreement on ultra-high-temperature milk or the List of Principles for Medical Devices. They are certainly important, but they hardly qualify as major stimuli to our national economy. In contrast, the handful of agreements that require fast track are the critical, comprehensive, multisector agreements that address both tariff and nontariff barriers. Now, let's get to this constitutional argument that has been tossed around. Fast track represents, it is said, a surrender of Congress' constitutional duty under article I of our Constitution, which says that ``The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. . . .'' Under fast track, Congress' role in trade negotiations has not been diminished or disregarded. Clearly it would be impossible for 435 Representatives or 100 Senators, all of whom believe they are qualified to be President--indeed, I believe there has been a terrible overlooking that they are not chosen as President--each of these individuals could not carry out at the same time our trade negotiations. Now, what fast track does is it allows the President to carry out the negotiations but imposes strict requirements for ongoing consultations to ensure that Congress' voice is heard. Madam President, it has been my privilege to have served on the Finance Committee for 19 years now. When we have a fast-track measure come up, there is constant consultation with that committee and other Senators on the negotiations that are taking place that subsequently fast track will be asked for. So the Israel, Canada, Mexico, and Uruguay Round Agreements were guided by thousands, literally thousands, of briefings and discussions between the negotiators and Members of Congress or their staffs. Congress will continue to be consulted. So, indeed, we do write the legislation to implement these agreements, and Congress' authority is not being constitutionally revoked or the Constitution is not being overridden. Madam President, the fast-track partnership has guaranteed Congress' continued fulfillment of its constitutional role in international negotiations. Now, is every Member of Congress going to be satisfied? No, apparently not, as we have heard this afternoon and yesterday. But will the partnership produce agreements that have taken into account a broad variety of U.S. interests and views? That is absolutely true. I would just briefly like to touch on what happens if we do not approve fast track. That is the argument in the Chamber here. Do not have it. I know that it is always prefaced by the opponents saying, ``I'm not against free trade,'' and then they proceed to inveigh against fast track. The United States is the world's largest trading nation, the largest exporter and the largest importer. We are the giant of the world trade area. We enjoy prosperity today in large part because of our trading activities. This is what Dr. Alan Greenspan said a week ago, on October 29: The quite marked expansion in trade has really had a pronounced positive impact on rising living standards. Since 1992, exports have been responsible for one-third of our economic growth. Trade now represents a solid 30 percent of our GDP, and our exports continue to rise. This export activity supports some 11.5 million well-paying jobs across the Nation. They certainly do in my State where we are very, very grateful for our trade and where we believe the opportunities for trade should increase. Our exports from small Rhode Island hit $1 billion last year, with projections for this year estimated at $1.2 billion. State officials in my State count on exports as a key element in our economic growth and are aiming to reach $2 billion in exports by the year 2000, which is only what, 3\1/2\ years from now. If we want to continue this prosperity, we must continue to advance trade liberalization worldwide. In order to do this, we must have fast track. Now, there is urgency to this. We are seeing the southern nations of this hemisphere--Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay--mount an aggressive effort to develop a free-trade region throughout the Western Hemisphere. Chile, which is more than a little tired of waiting for us, has completed separate trade agreements with Canada and Mexico as well as Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and they are reaching out to Central America and Asia likewise. Mexico has concluded agreements with Colombia, Venezuela, and Costa Rica, and are talking to the other nations including the Caribbean nations. The European and Asian nations are getting in on this. Both the European Union and the Southeastern Asian nations are courting the South American countries. Chinese and Japanese officials are eyeing the major Latin American nations. The United States is in real danger of falling behind all of this. That has ramifications for American workers and their families. One example that hits close to home for Rhode Islanders is Quaker Fabric Co., a Fall River, MA, textile firm employing 1,800 workers-- many of them Rhode Islanders. Quaker recently lost a $1.8 million annual contract in Chile to a Mexican competitor whose product is exempt from Chile's 11-percent tariff thanks to the Chile-Mexico trade pact. And Quaker was told by an Argentine buyer that he was switching to a Brazilian fabric supplier whose product, while of lesser quality, is not subject to a 25-percent tariff. Quaker's president tells me that if Quaker could just gain equal footing in the region with its Latin competitors, the company could boost export sales and add 200 more jobs. It is examples like these that have spurred the National Governors' Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors--whose members are keenly interested in economic growth--to strongly endorse fast track reauthorization. Opponents of fast track would have one believe that there are other options than fast track. That is not true. If we want to play in the trade game, if we want to make agreements with trading partners, if we want to continue to engage in the world of trade, we must have fast track. If not, we cannot enter into significant agreements with our partners, and others will quickly move in to fill the vacuum--and reap the jobs--we have left behind. In sum, fast track is in the best interests of the United States. It is a necessary prerequisite for negotiations; it is constitutional; and it is critical for economic and job growth in our nation. I urge my colleagues to support the pending legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 1324, a bill introduced by Senator Lott to deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation at Biloxi Harbor, MS. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works unanimously approved this measure on October 29, 1997. This technical legislation is necessary as the Mississippi Department of Transportation intends to replace an existing bascule bridge, which spans a segment of the Bernard Bayou Federal navigation channel in Biloxi Harbor, with a fixed span bridge. Construction of the fixed span bridge would obstruct the navigation channel, which was authorized as part of the 1960 River and Harbor Act. However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that there is no current or expected commercial navigation along the channel. Thus, deauthorization of a portion of the Bernard Bayou Federal channel appropriately addressed an artifact of the 1960 authorization and allows for construction of the fixed span bridge. The Army Corps of Engineers has informed the Congress that it has no objection to deauthorization of the Bernard Bayou Federal navigation channel segment identified in S. 1324. Mr. President, I encourage Senate adoption of this necessary measure. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from June O'Neill of the CBO to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed Lt. Gen. Kenneth R. Wykle to be the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. I must say that we have been waiting quite some time for this day, as the position has been vacant since Secretary Slater was confirmed in early February. General Wykle appeared before the Committee on Environment and Public Works on Tuesday, October 28, and I am pleased to report that he is an excellent candidate for the position before him. He has a distinguished 32-year record of service with U.S. Army, where he led a number of organizations and commands in the United States, Europe, and Asia. He also has extensive experience in managing the transportation of personnel and cargo by air, highway, rail, and ship. I am confident that he will continue to build on this excellent record as Federal Highway Administrator. In his new position, General Wykle will represent the Department of Transportation and advise the Secretary on all matters related to the efficient movement of passengers and freight on the Nation's transportation system. The Federal Highway Administration is responsible for implementing a wide range of programs, including the Federal-aid highway program; highway safety programs; motors carrier programs; the federal lands highway program; research and technology; and international programs. An issue that is on everyone's mind is the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA. The Federal Highway Administration's role is a critical one in helping to implement this landmark legislation. I look forward to working with General Wykle and his staff through the reauthorization process and through the implementation process, once the bill is enacted. It is incumbent upon the Federal Highway Administrator to protect not only the key Federal role in implementing ISTEA II but also the broad perspective needed to guide the Nation's transportation system into the next century. The enactment of ISTEA in 1991 transformed what was once simply a highway program into a program not only for building roads and bridges but also for enhancing our mobility, our safety, and the environment. In the second ISTEA, we must move forward and strengthen ISTEA's laudable goals of intermodalism, flexibility and efficiency. I am confident that General Wykle has the experience and the knowledge to lead the Federal Highway Administration through the challenges ahead.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would ask that I might proceed for 4 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I point out we have been on this highway bill, the surface transportation legislation, for nearly 3 weeks. This was, I believe, the fourth cloture vote so that we could move on and deal with the bill. We could not get cloture. The other side didn't want us to have cloture. So that's why we are in this jam. This legislation before us is a 6-year bill. It came out of the committee unanimously. There may be variations and amendments. That is fine. We ought to have a chance to bring them up and vote on them. But we could not do that, Mr. President. I think that is very regrettable. Now people are backing off and saying let's possibly have a 6-month bill. I think that is a disaster; nobody can do any long- range planning with a 6-month piece of legislation. So I think it is very unfortunate the way this has worked out. I am not sure what the next order of business is or what the next step in connection with this highway legislation will be, but I feel very badly that we did not get cloture so we could go ahead and deal with a good bill, bring up the amendments and vote on them one way or another. But we were unable to do that, and I regret it. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from New York for that description. Because it is interesting. So, now, there is underway an appeal, seeking a court determination.

Mr. CHAFEE. I remember when we had the debate on this. I wasn't deeply involved but I supported it. I always have. But I can only believe that there must be a stack of constitutional opinions by learned lawyers, and maybe judges for all I know but certainly many from the legal profession, saying that this, indeed, is constitutional. In other words, the suggestions of the difficulties and constitutional problems, as outlined by the distinguished Senator from New York and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, are not new. In other words, they foresaw what was going to happen and raised those points on the floor. So I can only assume that there was all kinds rebuttal information prepared. I will confess I can't remember the debate with that clarity. I certainly remember the Senator from West Virginia was against it right from the word go, that was clear, and spoke eloquently, as did the Senator from New York. But my question is, there must be a quantity of information or opinion on the other side? I can only assume.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the remarks by the Senator from New York. I am on the other side on this issue. But nonetheless, it was very edifying to hear the comments that the Senator from New York had to make. Several times the Senator from New York said, if I understood correctly, that this measure, this line-item veto, is unconstitutional. My question is, has it been so tested? Or is there anything underway to so test it? In other words, is there a case working its way up through the system to challenge the constitutionality of the line-item veto--which I guess we passed, was it last year? Was it in 1996?