John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Your understanding is correct. This amendment is intended to address the concerns of those with permits for more permanent or semipermanent physical structures such as powerlines.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. That is the correct interpretation of what is meant by this definition. A compatible use is one that will not have a tangible adverse impact on refuge purposes.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct. Even though we are designating wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, and environmental education as priority public uses the bill requires each of these to pass the compatibility test. Even these uses have occasionally been determined to be incompatible on a number of refuges in the past and may be so in the future.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct. With respect to long-term secondary uses, the amendment has met with the approval of the Department of the Interior, as stated by Secretary Babbitt at a hearing on S. 1059 before the Environment and Public Works Committee on July 30. With respect to short-term uses, the Service has also agreed with my understanding.

Mr. CHAFEE. As a preliminary matter, numerous rights-of-way have been approved in the past as compatible uses in various refuges, and this legislation does not alter the basis under which those activities may be approved in the future. With respect to the periodic reviews, the reevaluation of existing uses is required ``when conditions under which the use is permitted change significantly or when there is significant new information regarding the effects of the use, but not less frequently than once every 10 years.'' For uses that are authorized for periods of less than 10 years, it is my understanding that the Fish and Wildlife Service will, under normal and usual circumstances, review the use at the time of the reauthorization of the activity. The only exception to this would be in situations in which significant new information is developed regarding the effects of the use, or conditions under which the use change significantly.

Mr. CHAFEE. For uses that are authorized for periods of longer than 10 years, the amendment that we have introduced explicitly limits the review to compliance with the terms and conditions under which the authorization is made, and not to the authorization itself. During deliberation of H.R. 1420 by the House, Representatives Young and Saxton entered into a colloquy on this issue. Our amendment codifies the understanding reached in that colloquy.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have introduced this amendment to H.R. 1420, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 on behalf of myself, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Graham. This bill recently passed the House by the remarkable vote of 407 to 1. Last week, I, along with Senators Kempthorne and Graham, introduced S. 1059 as a companion bill, and on July 30, the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing to solicit views on this bill from the Secretary of the Interior, among others. The hearing was very productive, and reaffirmed the widespread support that exists for this legislation. The amendment that I am offering includes narrow, but important, changes to the House version that clarify several provisions, and that have been agreed to by the administration, the House Resources Committee, and the stakeholders involved in the earlier negotiations. This legislation is long overdue and very much needed. The National Wildlife Refuge System was started in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt, with the establishment of the first refuge on Pelican Island in Florida. It has since evolved into a system of Federal lands consisting of 509 refuges in 50 States, covering 92 million acres, for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants. Despite 60 years of growth, however the refuge system remained without a law governing its administration until 1966, when Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Even now, almost a century later, there is no law that identifies a mission or articulates guidance for refuge management. For several years, both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol have attempted to enact legislation to rectify this situation. The President has also taken administrative steps for improving refuge management with an Executive order issued in March 1996. Earlier this year, after a month of negotiations among a broad range of stakeholders, the House passed H.R. 1420, which was then referred to the Senate. After discussions here in the Senate, we have this amendment that makes narrow but important changes to H.R. 1420, and that clarifies the intent expressed by the House in the report of the Committee on Resources and in deliberation on the floor. The first two provisions of the amendment were changes included in S. 1059. This amendment clarifies that compatible uses can be both wildlife-dependent and other uses. The allowance of compatible uses has become the cornerstone of the refuge system, balancing the needs of the fish, wildlife, and plants for which the refuge was established, with our own ability to use and enjoy the refuge for a wide range of activities. Two points should be emphasized, however. First, while this legislation establishes that wildlife- dependent recreational uses are to be given priority, any use may be authorized by the refuge manager provided that it is compatible with both the mission of the system and the purpose of the refuge. These are two separate principles contained in the bill. Second, that all uses are required to be compatible in order to be allowed does not mean that all compatible uses are required to be allowed. The longstanding policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service that a refuge is ``closed until open'' is not altered by this legislation, although wildlife-dependent uses may be approved on an interim basis pending completion of the conservation plan for any land added to the system after March 25, 1996. The amendment requires that the Secretary provide for monitoring of the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on refuges. While this provision seems somewhat obvious, monitoring is often one of the first casualties of budgetary constraints. In addition, given some of the past problems with secondary uses on refuges, monitoring will be very important in measuring the success of the recent administrative and legislative changes that we are now undertaking. Lastly, monitoring will ensure that our scientific knowledge regarding wildlife and natural resources continues to grow. The amendment clarifies the legislative intent regarding the periodic reevaluation on longterm secondary uses, such as electric utility rights-of-way. The bill requires that nonwildife dependent uses be reevaluated no less than every 10 years. Some rights-of-way are authorized for longer periods of time, and concern has been expressed that this reevaluation, together with the requirement that incompatible uses be eliminated or modified, may threaten the very existence of the rights-of-way. For uses that are authorized for periods of longer than 10 years, this amendment limits the review to compliance with the terms and conditions under which the authorization is made, and not to the authorization itself. Numerous individuals in both the Senate and the House, as well as in the administration, deserve praise for their persevering efforts over the years in seeking to improve the refuge system, and for their involvement on this bill. On the Senate side, I would like to thank Senators Kempthorne and Graham for their support on this amendment. I would also like to thank Senators Murkowski and Allard for their understanding on issues relating to rights-of-way and water rights on which they have expressed concern. With this amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 1420.

Mr. CHAFEE. I understand that the Senator from Alaska has raised some concerns regarding the requirement to periodically reevaluate existing secondary uses to ensure that they remain compatible within the meaning of the law. I would like to ensure that the Senator's concerns have been fully addressed.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I am delighted to be here today to support Senator Harkin's important amendment in the fight against teenage smoking. The attorney general of my home State of Rhode Island has urged Congress to provide the full funding level of $34 million requested by the Food and Drug Administration. Our attorney general believes adequate funding is critical to our success in reducing the level of smoking among children and adolescents, and I agree with him. Furthermore, with the evidence that we now have regarding the epidemic of teen smoking as outlined by the distinguished Senator from Iowa, and all the implications this has for the future, it seems to me there is no excuse for delaying full implementation of this critical program. As has been pointed out, smoking among high school seniors is at a 17-year high. That is very discouraging. Smoking among 8th and 10th graders has increased by more than 50 percent in the last 6 years. State and local officials need this money for enforcement purposes. And the money is also needed to educate retailers about their responsibilities. In my home State, even though we have a law prohibiting retailers from selling tobacco products to minors, over 70 percent of high school smokers were not asked to show proof of their age when purchasing cigarettes. According to our attorney general, Rhode Island stores each year are selling--I was stunned by this figure. We are a small State, a million people--11 million dollars' worth of cigarettes to underage consumers, and the main reason, of course, is the lack of resources at the local level to enforce the law. We have been able to provide the funds for education. We have to be able, in my judgment, to provide funds for education and enforcement of this rule to make it meaningful. Now, there is a little less than $5 million provided thus far by the Senate. That is nice, but it just plain is not enough. With the improvement of the sunset provisions in the new offset, I believe there is no good reason not to vote for this amendment. Preventing underage smoking should be a national priority and providing full funding of this program is an important step toward achieving that goal. So I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to eradicate teenage smoking. I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his leadership.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is today considering 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. This legislation 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 1928 Federal-style residence known as the Benoni-Cooke 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-Cooke House, both of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. President, this is 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 colleagues. amendment no. 1052 At the end of the bill add the following new section:

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate is considering S. 797, the John F. Kennedy Center Parking Improvement Act. This legislation, which will help to address parking and security problems at the Kennedy Center, was approved unanimously by the Committee On Environment and Public Works on June 5 of this year. I want to recognize the bill's cosponsors, Senators Lott, Baucus, Stevens, and Kennedy, for their valuable assistance. Briefly, Mr. President, this legislation provides authority to the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees to construct an addition to the existing parking garage at each of the north and south ends of the Center. Importantly, the Congressional Budget Office, in their letter of June 11, 1997, wrote that there will be not Federal costs associated with the enactment of S. 797. The garage project will be financed through the issuance of industrial revenue bonds which will be repaid entirely with revenue derived from operation of the expanded garage. The bill includes a provision explicitly prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for the purpose of constructing or financing the parking garage expansion. Also included in the bill is authorization for the Center to take action on site modifications for the improvement of security on the site. The Center has conducted a complete security review, and among the recommendations are changes to the main approach and plaza. This legislation allows the Center to pursue site modifications for the protection of the building and its visitors. The authorization of appropriations for this work, the site improvements and modifications, is provided by existing law. Consistent with the John F. Kennedy Center Act Amendments of 1994, the Center's plans for the garage expansion and other, related site improvements will be developed in close consultation with the Department of the Interior. Mr. President, the legislation reflects the commitment of the Kennedy Center Trustees to continually improve this Presidential monument for the benefit of the public--in a manner that is financially responsible. I want to again thank Senators Lott, Baucus, Stevens, and Kennedy, for their help in drafting this bill. I urge the Senate to adopt this legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about the nomination of Jamie Rappaport Clark to be Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The President nominated Ms. Clark on July 9, and I am pleased to report that last Thursday, July 24, the Committee on Environment and Public Works reported out the nomination. Jamie Clark is an outstanding candidate for the tasks at hand. She has worked closely with the Environment Committee staff and Committee members' staff on the Endangered Species Act and other tough issues. I have heard nothing but glowing reports of her ability to work with the Administration and Congress, which will serve her well, if confirmed. Throughout her educational and professional experiences, she has been involved on a daily basis with the principles of fish and wildlife management. Jamie Clark has worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service for over 8 years, both at the regional level and at headquarters. For the past 4 years of her tenure with the Service, she has held the position of Associate Director of Ecological Services. Prior to joining the Fish and Wildlife Service, Jamie Clark was the lead technical authority for fish and wildlife management on U.S. Army installations worldwide. From 1984 until 1988, she managed the Natural and Cultural Resources program within the National Guard. She also was a research biologist for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute and worked for the National Institute for Urban Wildlife as a wildlife biologist. Jamie Clark's educational background is equally impressive and suits her well to the position of Fish and Wildlife Service Director. She holds a master's degree (MS) in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Maryland and a bachelor's degree (BS) in Wildlife Biology. If confirmed, Jamie Clark will be responsible for developing and carrying out policies to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's fish and wildlife and their habitats. A number of challenging tasks fall on the shoulders of the Fish and Wildlife Service Director, including the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System; the implementation of the Endangered Species Act; fish hatchery management; recreational fishing programs; management of non-indigenous and exotic species; conservation and management of migratory waterfowl and wild birds; and the list of responsibilities goes on. The Fish and Wildlife Service is an agency with the wonderful but difficult task of serving as an advocate for fish and wildlife. It must protect these public resources in the face of much criticism and question. The Service is charged with fulfilling its own mission in light of competing and sometimes conflicting mandates. It also must address the contentious issues of private property rights, water rights, and takings. The Service has done a remarkable job in recent years of developing initiatives that deal with many of these issues. The internal guidance documents for permits; the new safe harbor, candidate conservation and ``no-surprises'' policies; the policy for Native American rights; and the streamlining initiatives for federal agencies have all led to better implementation of the Endangered Species Act, better public relations, and ultimately better protection for the species. I am confident that Jamie Clark has the experience, insight, and the strength to lead the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue these initiatives and develop new ones through the challenges ahead. Thank you. statement on the nomination of edward gnehm, jr.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Let me express my appreciation to the Chairman, Senator Roth, for his interest in this important issue. I look forward to working with him on this matter during the upcoming ISTEA legislation. puerto rico tax incentives

Mr. CHAFEE. Unfortunately, I understand the Conference Agreement on H.R. 2014 takes no action to equalize the rate of deficit reduction fuel taxes paid by the various modes of transportation. As the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee and I have discussed, an obvious inequity currently exists which requires that railroads pay a 5.55 cents-per-gallon fuel excise tax, while all other modes of transportation pay no more than 4.3 cents-per-gallon for this purpose. In fact, by transferring deficit reduction taxes paid by other transportation users, including truckers which compete with the railroads, into trust funds for infrastructure improvements, we exacerbate the current inequity. Railroads continue to contribute to deficit reduction, while their competitors instead contribute to their own infrastructure. If transportation is to be singled out for deficit reduction, the burden of contributing to a balanced budget should be shared equally among all modes. While I regret that no solution to this problem was possible in this legislation, I hope you share my belief that the fuel tax inequity imposed on the Nation's railroads must be remedied at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. CHAFEE. Let me express my appreciation to the Chairman, Senator Roth, for his interest in this important issue. I look forward to working with him on this matter during the upcoming ISTEA legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE. Unfortunately, I understand the conference agreement on H.R. 2014 takes no action to equalize the rate of deficit reduction fuel taxes paid by the various modes of transportation. As the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and I have discussed, an obvious inequity currently exists which requires that railroads pay a 5.55 cents-per-gallon fuel excise tax, while all other modes of transportation pay no more than 4.3 cents-per-gallon for this purpose. In fact, by transferring deficit reduction taxes paid by other transportation users, including truckers which compete with the railroads, into trust funds for infrastructure improvements, we exacerbate the current inequity. Railroads continue to contribute to deficit reduction, while their competitors instead contribute to their own infrastructure. If transportation is to be singled out for deficit reduction, the burden of contributing to a balanced budget should be shared equally among all modes. While I regret that no solution to this problem was possible in this legislation, I hope you share my belief that the fuel tax inequity imposed on the Nation's railroads must be remedied at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield to the Senator from Indiana such time as he requires.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank and acknowledge the tremendous work of the Senator from Louisiana in connection with the Medicare reforms that we undertook. No one was a stouter soul in that effort to face up to what had to be done if we are going to continue to have Medicare. It was the Senator from Louisiana who joined in leading the effort, in having the means testing in the part B premium and raising the eligibility age to 67 and having a copayment, a payment for the home health care visits, of 7 percent. I share the disappointment that the Senator from Louisiana has voiced in that these elements we worked on did not survive. But I see others here. The distinguished Senator from New York was right in the lead in these efforts. All I can say is, disappointed though we were, despite the overwhelming vote that took place on the floor of the Senate on both the means testing and the raising of the eligibility age, up or down votes--one got 70 votes, the means testing, 70 to 30, and the other got something like 62 to 38, in that neighborhood, over 60 votes, in raising the age to 67--they didn't survive the conference because of objections from the other body. But this is what I want to say, Mr. President. Disappointing as that was, nonetheless it showed that it could be done, and now it is an accepted fact in this Senate that all three of those elements are necessary, and the votes are there to sustain them and make them part of any further legislation. So now we have a commission, and as was pointed out, there is no reporting date for the commission. There is no fast track consideration for the commission. I may be wrong in the reporting date. March 1, 1999, I am informed. Well, it is not exactly tomorrow. However, there is no fast-track procedure; in other words, that it has to be considered, has to be voted on up or down, one way or another. It could be like so many other commissions we have had in this body. Mr. President, disappointed though we might be in those particular facts, those particular undertakings, nonetheless we have made some substantial achievements in having them so accepted here. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. CHAFEE. It would then go back over to this side-- Senator Baucus has been waiting--and then back to you.

Mr. CHAFEE. We yield such time as the Senator from Texas requires.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I applaud the Republican leadership as well as the administration for putting together this tax bill, which is an integral component of the overall plan to balance the Federal budget. While I have not been an enthusiastic supporter of tax cuts at this time, there are provisions in this bill that I have vigorously sought to have enacted, and which will significantly help the people in my home State of Rhode Island, as well as the entire country. The centerpiece of the tax bill is the $500 per child tax credit. For a married couple with two children that's an extra $1,000 for them to spend as they see fit. The bill also includes several provisions that help families meet the cost of sending their children to college. Under the bill, low- and middle-income families can qualify for income tax credits of up to $1,500 to offset the cost of college tuition. To help families save for education expenses, the bill establishes education savings accounts. Contributions to these accounts are not tax deductible, but distributions are tax-free if used for tuition, room and board expenses. I am also pleased that the conferees chose to include an extension of the tax break afforded to employer-provided education. Under current law, an employee is not taxed on amounts paid by an employer for educational assistance. The exclusion is limited to $5,250 annually. The anecdotal evidence indicates that this fringe benefit is most often utilized by lower income workers as a way to develop the skills necessary to land better paying jobs. This budget agreement includes several provisions that will encourage savings and investment. The most important of those provisions is the reduction in the tax rate on capital gains. The bill lowers the top rate on capital gains from 28 to 20 percent. For lower income individuals the rate on capital gains is reduced to 10 percent. At the turn of the century, the capital gains tax rate will be reduced further to 18 and 8 percent, respectively, for investors willing to hold their investments for at least 5 years. Last year, Congress created the work opportunity tax credit [WOTC] as a way to encourage employers to hire economically disadvantaged individuals. These are individuals who have little or no job skills and as a result are not attractive candidates for employment. The WOTC Program provides employers an income tax credit for a portion of the first year's wages paid to these individuals. The bill before us extends this program through June of next year. More importantly, this bill makes two improvements to the WOTC Program. First, the bill creates a two-tiered credit to make it easier for employers to utilize the program. This is necessary because many employers were finding it difficult to retain these employees for the full work requirement period, namely 400 hours, and as a result were losing the benefits of the tax credit. In many cases the employers were spending the money to train the employees only to have them leave shortly thereafter for higher paying jobs. Without some reward for their efforts, employers were simply dropping their programs. Under the new structure, employers would be eligible for a reduced credit if the employee works for at least 120 hours, even if the employee fails to meet the full 400 work hour requirement. The second change makes the work opportunity tax credit available to disabled individuals receiving SSI payments. These individuals were inexplicably excluded from participation when the WOTC Program was created last year, and I am glad this bill corrects that error. The agreement also includes two important provisions for small business men and women. It delays the implementation of the electronic funds tax payment system for 6 months to give businesses more time to get used to this new manner of paying their tax bills. The legislation also makes it easier for self-employed individuals who work at home to take an income tax deduction for that portion of the home used exclusively for business purposes. The bill also includes the repeal of the excise tax imposed upon boat diesel fuel. This tax, and the dyeing regime imposed by Treasury, has wreaked havoc with boaters across the country. It caused many retailers to choose between selling to recreational or selling to commercial boat owners, with the recreational boaters usually being left without service. This led to shortages in many parts of the country and numerous cases wee reported in which recreational boaters had to go far out of their way or travel many additional hours to obtain fuel legally. Finally, I am very pleased that this bill includes a version of legislation I authored that creates a powerful new tax incentive to encourage individuals to preserve open space. A serious environmental problem facing the country today is the loss of open space to development. All across the country, farms, ranches, forests, and wetlands are forced to give way to the pressures for new office buildings, shopping malls and housing developments. America is losing over 4 square miles of land to development every day. In Rhode Island, over 11,000 acres of farmland have been lost to development since 1974. These open spaces improve the quality of life for Americans throughout this great Nation and provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. In many instances, the loss of open space is simply the natural outgrowth of urbanization of our society. Other times it is the direct result of improper planning at the State and local levels. But frequently, the problem is created by the Federal estate tax. For those families where undeveloped land represents a significant portion of the estate's total value, the need to pay the tax creates powerful pressure to develop or sell off part or all of the land or to liquidate the timber resources on the land. Because land is appraised by the Internal Revenue Service according to its highest and best use, and such use is often its development value, the effect of the tax is to make retention of undeveloped land nearly impossible. The bill begins to address the problem caused by the estate tax. The bill includes a proposal that is modeled after legislation I introduced earlier this year along with Senators Baucus and Gregg. It excludes 40 percent of the value of land subject to a conservation easement from the estate and gift taxes. In order to target the incentives under this bill to those areas that are truly at risk for development, the bill is limited to land that falls within a 25-mile radius of a metropolitan area, a national park or a national wilderness area, or within 10 miles of an urban national forest. Of course, as is the case with all major bills, there are a few provisions in this agreement that I do not support. One such provision is the restructured aviation trust fund taxes. As my colleagues know, currently the aviation trust fund is principally financed by a 10 percent ticket tax. High-cost airlines-- the so-called big seven--have been lobbying Congress for the past 2 years to restructure the aviation trust fund revenues. The big seven argue that they want to restructure the fees so that the burdens of funding the Federal Aviation Administration are more fairly allocated. But this proposal does not do that. In reality, it is a thinly veiled attempt to shift a portion of their costs to other airlines-- principally low-fare airlines. Let me expose the folly of this new system. The big seven would have us believe that their system--which is more or less the proposal adopted by the conferees--is grounded in fairness. Yet, this new system does nothing to address the huge loophole under which they avoid paying the tax on their international flights. Let me explain. If Continental Airlines flies from Los Angeles to New York, stops for less than 12 hours, and then continues on to London, the new fee structure does not apply to that flight. In other words, the passengers on that flight do not pay the 7.5 percent ticket tax, nor do they pay the new head tax, notwithstanding the fact that this flight clearly utilizes the services of the Federal Aviation Administration as it flies completely across the country. It is particularly regrettable that the conferees have chosen to implement this new fee structure prior to the issuance of the report from the commission Congress established to study this matter. In October 1996 Congress directed that a commission be formed to assess the FAA's funding needs and the costs imposed on the system by each segment of the aviation industry. This report was originally scheduled for completion in April 1997, but its issuance was delayed until September. It is incomprehensible to me that the conferees would agree to take the unusual step of changing the makeup of the ticket tax before the commission's report was received. Mr. President, this is one aspect of this budget agreement that I hope we will revisit once the commission's report is received and can be reviewed. I also oppose the agreement's provision extending the diesel dyeing requirements to kerosene. Since 1995, there has been substantial debate about the proper tax treatment for kerosene. More than 90 percent of kerosene consumed in the United States is used for aviation purpose; accordingly, the fuel is currently classified and taxed as an aviation fuel. Kerosene is also blended during cold weather with diesel fuel and home heating oil to prevent those fuels from congealing; and it is treated, for tax purposes, as the fuel into which it is blended. Thus, if kerosene is blended with undyed diesel fuel, it is taxed as diesel fuel; if it is blended with dyed home heating oil, it is exempt from tax. This bill imposes a 24.3 cents-per-gallon excise tax on kerosene when it is removed from the terminal, classifying it as diesel and subjecting it to the same tax and dye program. Because tankage in the Northeast is limited, terminals are likely to have space only for undyed kerosene. Such fuel is subject to tax when it is pulled from the rack; and, dealers who sell it directly as a heating fuel or as a blandstock for distillate, and farmers blending it as an off-highway fuel will be forced to apply for refunds of taxes paid. This proposal also raises safety concerns. The New England Association of Fire Marshals and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have raised health and safety concerns about the use of dyed fuels in unvented heaters. Most kerosene heaters have been certified by the United Laboratories and similar organizations as safe only if they burn clear, undyed fuel. Accordingly, there is little information available about the effects of dyed fuel on these heaters, and it would take several years to have them retested and recertified to burn dyed fuel. In closing, I would like to express my appreciation and admiration to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, who did a wonderful job of guiding this legislation to this point. Without his willingness to work with all members of the committee, and indeed the entire Senate, this bill would have had little chance of success.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, under our order, we are now going back and forth. Senator Hutchison was next, and she was here just a minute ago. And I believe she is coming on the floor now. So I ask Senator Hutchison, are you ready to go?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend the efforts of the Senator from Alaska Senator Stevens, and the Senator from Maine Senator Snowe, for bringing this much-needed legislation to the floor. It has been nearly 2 years since legislation was first introduced in the Senate to implement the Panama Declaration, an international agreement which will promote marine conservation in the Pacific Ocean. I recognize that the opponents of this measure have strong convictions, and am pleased that the two sides were able to work out a compromise that, most importantly, is consistent with the international agreement which the United States signed. Let me first state my view that eliminating dolphin mortality must remain a top priority as the Senate considers this bill. Like so many Americans, I will not soon forget the tragedy that occurred in the 1970's, when hundreds of thousands of dolphins were killed annually from tuna fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific [ETP]. In 1972 alone, more than 420,000 dolphins were killed there. While we can all applaud the tremendous progress that has been made in reducing dolphin mortality in recent years, Congress must be vigilant in working toward complete elimination. But dolphins are not the only species adversely impacted by tuna fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, sometimes called ETP. New fishing methods have resulted in significant bycatch of nondolphin species, including juvenile tuna. These other marine species in this ecosystem must also be protected, and legislation should address this larger goal. The question before the Senate today is how do we best achieve sustained conservation in the ETP tuna fishery? We must first acknowledge that much progress has been made in reducing dolphin mortality through new fishing techniques such as the back down procedure. Through this technique, the back edge of the purse seine fishing net sinks below the surface, allowing dolphins to swim out. In 1996, dolphin mortality in the ETP is currently estimated at a record low of less than 3,000, down from record highs of more than 400,000 in the 1970's. That's a 99-percent reduction. International cooperation in conserving this resource, particularly through the voluntary measures of the La Jolla agreement of 1992, has also been a primary factor in achieving this great success. Among other things, this landmark agreement, which was signed by 10 nations, established strict dolphin mortality limits and required observers to be present aboard tuna fishing boats in the ETP. In order to continue this tremendous progress, the United States must continue to work with our neighbors on multilateral efforts to conserve this resource. This involves enacting the legislation before the Senate today, S. 39, which implements the Panama Declaration. Contrary to much of what has been said in the 2 years since it was signed, the Panama Declaration represents the best in international conservation. It would retain--and in many cases, enhance--the provisions of the La Jolla agreement that have been so successful in reducing dolphin mortality and protecting the tuna fishery. Let me be clear: the Panama Declaration will not threaten the dolphin population in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Unlike the voluntary La Jolla Agreement, the Panama Declaration is binding upon its signatories. Among its many stringent requirements are reductions in the annual overall limit on dolphin mortalities that were established by the La Jolla agreement. These limits include per-stock mortality limits to protect all dolphin populations. The Panama Declaration also increases enforcement and monitoring efforts to protect dolphins, including mandatory observers on all tuna fishing vessels. In addition, it sets as an agreed goal the elimination of all dolphin mortality in the ETP tuna fishery. And the Panama Declaration has teeth: if foreign nations do not comply, then the United States can reimpose our tuna embargo. Opponents of S. 39 have been concerned over its change in the definition of dolphin safe, as mandated by the Panama Declaration. It is important to note that the new definition of dolphin safe is not weaker than current law. Let me explain. When the current definition was adopted in 1990, the dolphin safe label was intended to prevent the import of tuna into the United States that were caught by encircling dolphins. This definition made good sense in 1990 since, historically, fishing methods that encircled dolphins caused high mortality rates. But as I've stated, recent modifications to the encirclement method of tuna fishing have resulted in reduced dolphin mortality. A more sensible definition of dolphin safe should mean no dolphins were killed during the tuna fishing, rather than no dolphins were encircled. Under the new definition, if even one dolphin is killed in the process, that tuna cannot be labeled dolphin safe. Proponents of the old definition want truth in labeling. I agree with this. But, don't consumers expect that dolphin safe means no dolphins were killed? The Panama Declaration and S. 39 would do just that. In any event, so as to be absolutely sure that these new encirclement techniques do not adversely affect dolphin stocks in the ETP, the compromise before us today delays the label change until NOAA conducts a preliminary survey of these stocks. This slight delay should not threaten United States participation in the Panama Declaration, allowing its strong conservation requirements to be implemented. The Panama Declaration also recognizes the importance of protecting nondolphin marine life in the ETP that has been harmed by tuna fishing. The controversy over dolphin mortality has encouraged tuna fishermen to utilize alternative methods to encirclement--namely school sets and log sets. These techniques, while more protective of dolphins, are well known to cause destruction of nondolphin marine life, including sea turtles, billfish, sharks, and juvenile yellowfin tuna. NOAA scientists have warned repeatedly that the high bycatch of juvenile tuna, associated with these two fishing methods, might actually imperial tuna stocks in the future--to say nothing of their impact on other species. As envisioned by the Panama Declaration, S. 39 requires the United States to implement a program to reduce bycatch of all marine life in the ETP, not just dolphins. Mr. President, today the United States confronts a choice that must be made soon on how best to conserve marine life in the Pacific Ocean. Negotiators have worked out a compromise that will allow the United States to choose the best option. This option entails joining our neighbors in implementing a binding, carefully crafted international agreement that includes strong mandates that will protect dolphins and other species. Another option involved going it alone, sacrificing what little leverage we have in an increasingly foreign fishery. Keep in mind that the ETP is completely outside the jurisdiction of the United States. We cannot simply go in and tell others how to fish. Instead, our best chance of promoting conservation is through a multilateral, rather than a unilateral, forum. But other signatories to the Panama Declaration will not wait forever while the United States Congress continues to debate this issue. The time to act is now. If we had chosen to go it alone, dolphins would not necessarily have been saved. Indeed, more dolphins may well be killed if the United States rejects the Panama Declaration, as fishermen will likely abandon the voluntary provisions of the La Jolla agreement. What incentive would these fishermen have to conserve if the largest consumer of tuna maintains an embargo on their product and refuses to participate in international conservation efforts? Because the Panama Declaration offers the best hope for marine conservation in the ETP, S. 39 has been endorsed by Greenpeace, National Wildlife Federation, Center for Marine Conservation, Environmental Defense Fund, and World Wildlife Fund. These groups recognize the merits of this multilateral approach. I again commend the tireless efforts of the authors of this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support S. 39.