John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate the interest of the the Senator from Michigan. I am pleased to tell him that the provision appears to be reasonable and consistent with the navigation mission of the Army Corps. As such, I can assure the Senator from Michigan that I will look favorably upon the provision he refers to and will make sure all of the Senate conferees are aware of his interest in this matter.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senators from Wisconsin have indeed been diligent with regard to including a provision in this bill to address the Fox River matter. However, I am convinced that under these circumstances, assigning the Army Corps with these responsibilities is inappropriate. While it is true that existing water resources law authorizes the Secretary of the Army to remove contaminated sediments in conjunction with operation and maintenance of ongoing navigation projects, the law establishes conditions which must first be met. First, section 311 (c) of the 1990 WRDA requires a joint plan to be developed by the Secretary of the Army and interested Federal, State, and local officials. Regrettably, we do not have such a plan for the Lower Fox River. Second, it is required that the remediation be done, as stated a moment ago, in connection with ongoing operation and maintenance of a navigation project. It is my understanding that the corps no longer performs operation and maintenance activities along the Lower Fox. Third, the law requires that the method to be used for dredged material disposal and the specific responsibilities of the Secretary and other involved parties be provided prior to authorization. The 1990 Water Resources Development Act also requires that sources of funding for the work be identified. Again, regrettably, none of these conditions are met with respect to the Lower Fox. Without having a clear understanding of the exact responsibilities of the Secretary, I would also be concerned about potential liability problems the corps might face once they get involved.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would say to both Senators from Wisconsin that I share their concern about the contaminated sediment problems in the Fox River. I agree that there does appear to be an urgent need for cleanup. Further, I would agree that a consensus-based process for remediation should be encouraged, and may lead to a more timely remediation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of the TEAM Act, S. 295. I want to commend our able chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, for her vision and tenacity in shepherding this bill to the floor. I have closely examined the arguments made by both labor and management on the issue of teaming, and the state of current law in this area. In my view, Congress has a responsibility to provide an unambiguous safe harbor for employers to utilize employee participation groups, quality circles, and other team concepts to advance the competitiveness of U.S. industry. The health of our economy and the jobs on which we all depend are at stake in this struggle. The National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] has been left with the difficult task of administering a 61-year-old statute which has changed little since its enactment in 1935. The state of labor management relations was very different in those days, with unions struggling to secure their place in our industrial fabric. The National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] was a logical response to this turbulent period in our labor management history. The provision of the NLRA aimed at preventing employers from creating sham unions, section 8(a)(2), was a direct response to this challenging period. It is this very provision and how it is being interpreted today by the NLRB that is the cause for this debate and the legislation now before the Senate. Most labor management strife faded from the industrial landscape long ago. In contrast, today, American businesses and their employees are in the fight of their lives to remain competitive in this global marketplace. We have lost tens of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs over this past decade to foreign competition. Unfortunately, I can identify countless casualties in my own State of Rhode Island. This troubling circumstance has forced American industry to produce better products, to become more efficient and to increase productivity. This painful, but necessary reexamination has placed an absolute premium on labor-management cooperation. Those firms that have been able to succeed and adapt to this new environment have increasingly relied upon employee participation groups, quality circles, and other team concepts to strengthen productivity, weed out inefficiency, and respond rapidly to changing consumer attitudes and demands. Mr. President, enactment of the TEAM Act would simply conform labor law with what is already occurring on shop floors throughout America. The fact is, employee involvement committees, quality circles and other team concepts exist in some 30,000 workplaces across the country. All but a small percentage of our largest employers stake their very survival on the ability to form team mechanisms and employee participation groups. Here is the problem in a nutshell. Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA prohibits employers from interfering with the formation and/or organization of any ``labor organization,'' or from contributing financial support to such entities. On the surface that seems reasonable. However, the definition of ``labor organization'' makes illegal most of the employee involvement committees in operation today, since it stipulates that any organization which deals with hours of employment or conditions of work is a ``labor organization.'' The fact is that in today's complex workplace conditions of employment can be very broadly construed to apply to how an assembly line is configured, to the kind of protective gear employees must wear, or even to attendance policies. Faced with this ambiguous situation, employers need to have a safe harbor within which such employee involvement committees can operate without fear of NLRB intervention. The Team Act is that safe harbor. It would authorize the use of employee participation teams to help strengthen the competitiveness of American firms, while making clear that such mechanisms cannot be used to subvert or replace the collective bargaining process, or an employee's right to union representation. Employers and employees must be empowered with the necessary tools to compete in a global economy. S. 295 is a logical, balanced response, which contains the necessary safeguards to protect unions and workers, while at the same time strengthening needed employer-employee cooperation. I am hopeful President Clinton will reconsider his staunch opposition to this critical legislation. Amendment No. 4437

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday, I voted for legislation to increase the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour over the next 2 years. Though this is a necessary increase, regrettably, Senators did not have a chance to vote for an ideal package. First, it is essential that employers be given adequate time to prepare to implement the proposed increase. For this reason, I voted for the Bond amendment, though I felt delaying the increase to January 1, 1997, was too long. In my view, a reasonable effective date for the increase would have been September 1, 1996. As passed by the Senate, H.R. 3448 would be effective retroactively to July 1, 1996, leaving employers with no adjustment period. This is unfortunate, in my view. Second, I also believe a training wage is crucial for those entering the work force, particularly given our efforts to reform the welfare system. While many of my colleagues contend that increasing the minimum wage will encourage welfare recipients to obtain gainful employment, I am afraid the increase will actually reduce the availability of new positions. Congress has spent the better part of 2 years developing and refining welfare reform legislation. All of the major bills include tough work participation programs. And most would require the States to have 50 percent of their welfare recipients off of the rolls in the next 6 years. Even if another 15 to 20 percent are granted hardship exceptions, the States will still be hard pressed to find enough jobs to meet the strict work requirements imposed by this legislation. In my State of Rhode Island, approximately 20,000 families are now on public assistance. If 20 percent of these families are exempt from the work requirement, that leaves 16,000 families who must find their way off of welfare in the next 6 years. Even if Rhode Island must find jobs for only half of these families, we are talking about 8,000 entry-level jobs. Given the stagnant economy within my State, that could prove a very difficult requirement to meet. Despite the fact that these new workers will undergo intensive job training and must also learn important life skills, such as being punctual for work, most former welfare recipients will qualify for no more than entry-level positions. While there may be a few exceptions, most will have to prove themselves before they will be given greater opportunities in the workplace. To retain some incentive for employers to hire and train welfare recipients, I believe a strong and effective training wage at the current minimum of $4.25 per hour should be included in H.R. 3448. Despite my concern that the Bond amendment contained a 6-month training wage, which in my view is too long, I voted for it. In contrast, the Kennedy alternative would have provided only a 30-day training wage, limited to those under 20 years of age. This provision would not have given employers the needed incentive to take a chance on hiring a welfare recipient. As passed by the Senate, the training wage included in H.R. 3448 has a duration of 3 months, but unfortunately is limited to those under 20 years old. I would have preferred no age limitation on the provision to ensure its full utility in moving people from welfare to work. Third, in my view, small businesses should have some form of exemption from the minimum wage increases proposed in H.R. 3448. Very few employers who own small businesses qualify for the current exemption, which is flawed and unworkable. For this reason, I voted for the Bond amendment. This amendment would have enabled employers with gross incomes of less than $500,000 to continue paying the current minimum wage of $4.25 per hour, while larger businesses would have been required to comply with the increase. Regrettably, as approved by the Senate, the final version of H.R. 3448 contained no change in current law with respect to the treatment of small businesses. And hurting America's small businesses, Mr. President, places big hurdles on the road to economic recovery. In summary, I am hopeful that some of these problems can be reviewed and corrected before H.R. 3448 becomes law.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. My great concern in connection with the minimum wage is, if it does not include some kind of a ``training period'' or ``opportunity period,'' whatever you call it, that on the one hand, we are demanding folks on welfare get off and all of us have supported here provisions that require these people to be off welfare, whether it is in 2 years, 5 years or whatever it is. Fifty percent must be off in a certain length of time. Where are they going to get jobs? Who is going to hire them? So I strongly support some kind of a period--call it a training wage, or an opportunity wage. I do not think it should be restricted to those 19 years of age or younger. This is a very serious problem we have because we cannot deal with welfare reform without considering what is happening under the minimum wage. I notice that the Senator from Kansas is here, so I will--

Mr. CHAFEE. If I may say one thing, I have a couple of questions for the Senator from Massachusetts. First, I congratulate Massachusetts for the low unemployment, which you attribute to the rise in the minimum wage. I myself would attribute it to the outstanding Governor that they have.

Mr. CHAFEE. All I know is that the State is extremely vigorous and thriving because of the outstanding leadership he is providing, and, indeed, the people have recognized this with the overwhelming reelection victory that he had. However, we will have an adequate opportunity, I think, to discuss this. I might say, I do not agree with the Senator's characterizations of employers. I wrote down some of them: ``Harsh,'' ``greedy,'' ``exploiting.'' That is the different attitude that we take.

Mr. CHAFEE. If the Senator will yield----

Mr. CHAFEE. I know the distinguished junior Senator from Kansas has been waiting to give her maiden speech here. I do not want to delay things. Is the Senator about through? (Mr. GRAMS assumed the chair.)

Mr. CHAFEE. I have heard--

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sorrow over the death last night of Mollie Beattie who was, up until just a few weeks ago, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mollie Beattie was a courageous and determined woman for whom all of us who knew her had the most tremendous respect. As I mentioned, just up until a few weeks ago, she was Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and resigned from that because of the battle she was undergoing with brain cancer. Her death, Mr. President, is a great loss to this country. We have lost a committed, dynamic professional whose devotion to the conservation of our Nation's natural resources has benefited us all and will continue to improve the lives of our children and our grandchildren. Mr. President, as a way of commemorating Mollie's contribution and her spirit, I am honored to cosponsor S. 1899, a bill to designate 8 million acres of wilderness within the 19-million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as the Mollie Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area. It seems to me this is a wonderful tribute to a person whose appreciation of wild places has been a lodestar for her career. I am grateful to Senator Stevens for sponsoring this resolution along with Senator Leahy and Senator Murkowski. Many of you knew Mollie and recognized that she had incredible energy and vitality, and she brought all that to the Fish and Wildlife Service during her 3-year tenure there. She was the first woman to lead the Service, and she did an extraordinary job during a period when her agency was faced with increased budget cuts, public scrutiny and criticism. Her commitment to conservation of natural resources and to the people that work for the Fish and Wildlife Service made her an effective and well-respected advocate. Throughout her serious illness, Mollie continued to lead the Service, demonstrating the strength of courage that made her unquestionably an extraordinary leader. She refused to let the serious operations and treatments for her cancer keep her from the job she loved. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of working with Mollie Beattie on a number of issues important to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Just last month, on May 16, despite her poor health, she came to my office to urge me to help in Congress to maintain the integrity of the 90-million-acre national wildlife refuge system. Her concern and devotion for the conservation goals to the Fish and Wildlife Service were clear and constant throughout her career. I just want to point out one instance of the modesty that she had. On June 14, she was featured as the ABC News ``Person of the Week.'' As a condition of that interview, she insisted that the program highlight the importance of the Endangered Species Act above her own accomplishments. Her deep commitment to the conservation of endangered species led her to carry out a number of important administrative changes to improve that act. Mollie's career was illustrious even before becoming Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. She was executive director of the Richard Snelling Center for Government in Vermont. Prior to coming to Washington, she was commissioner of the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation. She was program director for the Windham Foundation, managing 1,300 acres of farm and forest land for wildlife. And she was a teacher of resource management to private landowners for the University of Vermont. Mollie participated in a wide variety of nonprofit conservation initiatives, including serving as a board member of the American Forestry Association, the Vermont Land Trust, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council. She also chaired a Defenders of Wildlife commission on the future of the National Wildlife System in Vermont's Nonpoint Water Pollution Task Force. So, Mr. President, all of us have reason to be deeply indebted to Mollie Beattie for her distinguished public service and great contribution to the protection of fish and wildlife and wide open spaces. And all of our prayers are with her and her family today. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, my amendment, which has been cleared by both sides, authorizes $8.9 million for an Undersea Weapons Systems Laboratory at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center [NUWC], headquartered in Newport, RI. For many years, NUWC has maintained a well-deserved reputation as a center of excellence in submarine technology. It was certainly no accident that during the 1991, 1993, and 1995 base closure rounds, the Navy consolidated significant personnel and functions into Newport, while establishing the site as headquarters for one of its four R&D superlabs. Unfortunately, though, NUWC's existing laboratory facilities dedicated to developing emerging technologies are badly outdated and cost-ineffective. They are housed in WWII vintage, thick walled concrete buildings not designed for controlled environments, specialized power and other modern necessities. In order to remedy this shortfall and maintain U.S. strategic advantage in emerging undersea technologies, NUWC has established a requirement for an Undersea Weapons Systems Laboratory. This facility will enable NUWC to develop and implement affordable state-of-the-art technologies, and to design and prototype futuristic small tactical undersea vehicles. It also boasts an extraordinary pay back period of 2.4 years, which will be realized through the use of multidimensional modeling and simulation laboratories to replace costly in-water testing of underwater weapons systems. Mr. President, I am convinced that the continued and increasing threat from submarine forces abroad should be a top U.S. national security concern. It has recently been reported that by 2005, 17 percent of the world's projected 410 submarines will have state-of-the- art technology, compared to just 8 percent today. Exploration and development of the many emerging technologies in this field, a goal my amendment seeks to achieve, will keep our undersea fleet of the future equipped with the most capable weapons systems, thereby deterring any potential near-term aggressor. I want to express my deep appreciation to Senator Warner for his support for this amendment. Its enactment into law will help take our submarine force into the 21st century as capable as ever.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday I joined with Senators Roth, Moynihan, Baucus, and others on the Finance Committee in introducing a measure that will clarify and emphasize the true meaning of most- favored- nation [MFN] trading status--a misnomer if there ever was one. This is a change I long have advocated, and I hope the Senate will move quickly to approve this legislation. Since 1989, MFN has gained notoriety as a special favor, a boon, that we grant to other nations. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. MFN denotes a concept used by trading nations that has been around since the 12th century. That concept is simple: No nation shall be granted trade treatment less favorable than that granted to the most favored nation. In other words, no playing favorites. Every nation is to be treated equitably, without discrimination, when it comes to the terms of trade. Thus, the concept represents the lowest common denominator of trade status--the basic treatment that all receive. Over time, however, this concept came to be known not as, say, ``nondiscriminatory treatment'' status, or ``least favored nation'' status, but as ``most favored nation'' status. This unfortunate terminology has fostered the mistaken view that MFN is a special treatment granted only to a privileged few. In fact, just the opposite is true: MFN, as the basic trading status between nations, is granted to virtually all nations with whom the United States trades. The exceptions can almost be counted on one hand: Serbia, Laos, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and Cambodia. I might add that Cambodia is about to come off that already meager list, if legislation now pending in Congress is approved. So while the concept of MFN is sound, the term used to denote that concept is misleading and has resulted in a good deal of mischief--a fact that Senators Moynihan and I have lamented often during Senate Finance Committee hearings. It is time that we called the MFN nondiscrimination concept by a term that more accurately represents its meaning. Therefore, I am joining with Chairman Roth, Senator Moynihan and all of my Finance Committee colleagues to amend U.S. law, where appropriate, to replace the term MFN with the term ``NTR:'' normal trade relations. From this point on, we will discuss legislation and hold debate on the nondiscrimination concept using the term NTR in place of MFN. With the concept of MFN remain the same? Yes. Are we signaling a change in domestic policy, or modifying our international obligations in any way? No. But we are making perfectly clear to everyone the true meaning and purpose of this centuries-old concept. And it is my hope that our legislation will result in a better understanding of international trade relations, both here in the Congress and in the eyes of the public.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in discharging its responsibilities under the 1997 budget resolution, yesterday the Finance Committee reported S. 1795, as amended. This legislation proposes major reforms to Medicaid and welfare-related programs to give States additional flexibility, and to reduce associated Federal expenditures by $98 billion through 2002. Under the terms of the budget resolution, this is the first of three legislative packages the Finance Committee will consider. Next month, the committee will act on legislation to shore up the troubled Medicare program. Following that, a third bill will be considered in September that will deal with other Federal entitlement programs. I would like to make a general comment about the budget process this year, and then proceed with specified points about the Finance Committee-reported bill. Last month the Senate rejected by only four votes an alternative budget resolution authored by myself and Senator Breaux. That bipartisan plan would have put us on a constructive, achievable path to a balanced budget. At the end of the day, I think the Chafee-Breaux plan would have been acceptable to President Clinton. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the budget resolution which was ultimately approved by the Congress. Instead, this is like deja vu all over again. We will go through the motions, as we did last year, of sending the President much needed deficit reduction legislation he is all but certain to veto. Frankly, our time could have been better spend working on a bipartisan basis to develop a consensus package which could have become law, and actually helped to reduce the deficit. In my opinion, we can only enact meaningful entitlement reforms--which are the root cause of our deficit problem--through bipartisan cooperation. That was what the Chafee-Breaux alternative was all about. Given the critical need to get this intolerable Federal deficit under control, I find the present situation frustrating and disappointing. On a related matter, I want to commend our Republican leaders for their decision not to include cuts in this Medicaid-welfare package. To do so would have been counterproductive. I would prefer to see us concentrate our firepower on deficit reduction before we start cutting taxes. With respect to the Finance Committee's action yesterday, I want to offer several observations. Though I voted to report S. 1795, it is widely acknowledged that this legislation is headed for a Presidential veto. However, I want to commend our distinguished chairman, Bill Roth, for accommodating a number of the improvements I recommended with respect to the Medicaid and welfare sections of the legislations. On Medicaid, the initial version of S. 1795 would have allowed States to cut off children 13 or older--a significant departure from current law. Under current law States must cover children at or below 100 percent of poverty through the age of twelve, with an additional year's coverage added each year until such children reach the age of 19. At my urging the chairman agreed to maintain current law in this area. I was also pleased the chairman retained current law coverage of benefits for children under the early periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment requirements. This will assure that severely disabled children continue to get medically necessary treatment. Another concern of mine which the chairman addressed was the lack of health and quality standards for individuals with developmental disabilities who reside in intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded [ICF's/MR], as well as those who reside in community- based settings. The chairman agreed to include standards in his proposal to ensure the safety and quality of care provided to these individuals. My biggest remaining concern in the Medicaid area is that S. 1795 does not guarantee coverage for individuals with disabilities under the age of 65, as defined under current law. Under this bill, States would have the option of setting their own standards, which I fear would result in the loss of basic health care services for this vulnerable population. I intend to offer an amendment to correct this deficiency when S. 1795 comes before the Senate. With respect to the welfare provisions, I was pleased several of my proposed improvements were incorporated into the revised version of S. 1795 which the chairman brought before the committee. I have long been a proponent of a strong Federal-State partnership with respect to welfare. For this reason, I pressed to have the maintenance of effort requirement in S. 1795 strengthened from 75 to 80 percent, and to prevent States from counting expenditures they make which are not directly related to supporting poor families and their children. The States must maintain their investment in these programs if we are to achieve genuine welfare reform. On a related matter, I proposed, and the chairman accepted, a provision to ensure that the block grant funds are used only to meet the objectives of this legislation, and not for general social services. Last, I was very pleased that the chairman agreed with my request to retain current law with regard to child welfare and foster care, and to drop his proposal to block grant these programs. These are not welfare programs, and have no place in welfare reform. With respect to the issue of abortion services, I was disappointed the committee rejected my amendment to continue current law, which requires States to cover abortions for poor pregnant women in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. S. 1795 would leave this decision to the States. Regrettably, this means, for example, that a poor 13-year-old girl who is pregnant as a result of being raped by her father, may not be able to obtain an abortion. I intend to pursue this matter further when S. 1795 comes before the Senate. I remain deeply troubled about the immigrant provisions of the committee-reported bill. The restrictions on benefits for legal immigrants in this measure are harsher than those that were included in the welfare reform bill overwhelmingly approved this past September by the Senate. It had been my intention to offer an amendment in committee to soften the impact of these proposed restrictions. However, once it became clear that no extra funds were available to defray the cost of my amendment, I was unable to proceed. I remain hopeful that we can work to modify these very tough restrictions as the process moves forward. In closing, while I continue to have significant concerns about this legislation, I am pleased that Chairman Roth was receptive to addressing a number of my concerns in the revised version of S. 1795 he brought before the committee. I am very hopeful that these improvements will be retained, and that additional improvements can be made on the Senate floor and in conference.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments to express my delight on consideration of legislation to expand the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island. The Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1988 to protect valuable coastal wetlands that have been identified as important habitat for a diversity of species--including the declining black duck population. The refuge is located between the towns of Narragansett and South Kingstown, RI. Currently, its boundary encompasses 460 acres of salt marsh and surrounding forest habitat which is home to various species of waterfowl, wading birds, and shore birds and numerous small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. This legislation expands the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge boundary to include a 100-acre parcel known as Foddering Farms Acres. It also allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the refuge boundary to include other important habitat if and when suitable properties become available in the future. Inclusion of the Foddering Farm Acres property within the refuge provides a wonderful example of cooperation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and private citizens. The 100-acre Foddering Farm property, owned by the Rotelli family, contains valuable wetland habitat for waterfowl and other species. The Rotellis have indicated their willingness to donate a portion of the value of the property to the Service. In fact, they have been working with, and waiting patiently for, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for several years. Through their partial donation, the National Wildlife Refuge System gains valuable habitat at a bargain price. In order to assist the Rotellis and ward off threats of development to Foddering Farm Acres, it is imperative that we move this bill as expeditiously as possible. To that end, I am offering S. 1871, the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge legislation, as an amendment to H.R. 2679, the North Wildlife Refuge bill that was passed by the House of Representatives on April 23, 1996, and reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 20, 1996. I would like to make clear that the attached Pettaquamscutt Cove provision is exactly the same as S. 1871, as amended, a bill that was reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 20, 1996. Once again, I am pleased that the Senate is considering the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge legislation. This bill will enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue their efforts to work with Rhode Island Islanders like the Rotellis to protect the beautiful and important natural resources along Rhode Island's coast.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first of all, I want to congratulate Senator Pryor, the Senator from Arkansas, for his tenacity in connection with this really outrageous situation that exists as a result of a mistake that was made and the failure of the Congress to correct that mistake. Senator Pryor, recognizing the cost that this is incurring upon the U.S. Government, our State governments, and upon our citizens--especially our citizens--has, with tremendous tenacity, tried to correct it. I think Senator Pryor deserves all of our thanks for this. Now, what are we doing here? What we are trying to do today, Mr. President, is to correct an inadvertent error made in the 1994 GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that we passed. This error, as I say, is costing consumers and our Government, not just thousands of dollars, but millions of extra dollars, and is giving an unintended windfall to the drug companies. It is well past time for the Senate to act. I do hope that the Pryor amendment will be adopted. Now, what is this amendment that we are working on this afternoon? It is very simple. As I say, it corrects an inadvertent error. It is a mistake that was made that kept qualified generic drugs from going to market. What is a generic? It is something anybody can manufacture. It keeps these generic drug manufacturers from going to market, as they plan to do when the patent expired on these drugs, particularly those that are manufactured, in certain instances, by Glaxo. Now, the result has been that a handful of brand name drug companies have received a staggering--and, as I say, this is not thousands, this is really billions--$4.3 billion windfall at the expense of consumers, and neither the Congress nor U.S. trade officials, nor even the companies themselves, expected this to occur. Now, the cost to consumers, as I mentioned, is enormous. The drugs covered by the windfall are widely prescribed. They are used for everyday ailments that affect millions of Americans, particularly the elderly. Keeping the generic version of these drugs off the shelf for up to three additional years means that Americans--especially older Americans--are paying far more than was ever intended for these medications. Not only are consumers paying for this error, but so are the governments--State governments and the Federal Government--in the form of higher reimbursement for prescription drugs. The military, likewise, is paying, because the military, as we all know, pays not only for drugs for the active duty personnel, but for retirees, as well. Now, we in Congress made a mistake. We all recognize that, and we ought to fix it. In this case, the solution is obvious: Enact the conforming amendment presented by Senators Pryor, Brown, myself, and others, who have been working likewise. Enacting the conforming amendment has a positive side effect, an important one for our States. Back in December, we had a vote on this, and because of parliamentary maneuvering, we were told repeatedly that it was important to have a hearing on this. Ultimately, we lost by one vote. This was going to go to a hearing. Since that vote last December, what has happened? Well, finally a hearing took place, 3 months later, at the end of February. What did we find out at the hearing? Well, we found out exactly what we have been saying all along. There were no new discoveries at this hearing. The USTR, U.S. Trade Representative, at the time GATT was enacted, Mr. Kantor, testified: ``We did not intend for this to happen, and we support the correction of this oversight through the appropriate amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the Patent Act.'' That is what Mickey Kantor, our U.S. Trade Representative, said. Three months went by, and then two more months went by, a markup being continuously postponed. We finally saw our bill be marked up in the committee. What the result was, was a bill that did not correct the loophole at all. Senator Pryor has touched on that already. I thought it was very interesting. This is, as he showed on his chart--and perhaps the Senator could go back to that original chart that shows this Rube Goldberg setup--how the generic drug companies could straighten out the situation. Well, it is ridiculous. I must say, I praise the ingenuity of those who worked out this intricate process. So the situation has become ludicrous. Unfortunately, it has been more than a year since the FDA first ruled that it did not have the power to permit these generics to go to market. A year ago, we found out there was a problem. Instead of fixing it right away, we have been stymied time and time again by procedural motions and talk of hearings. We all know the time is running out. So, Mr. President, I want to conclude by reading a couple of quotes from newspapers who have commented on this. This is what the New York Times had to say: Congress finds it hard to remedy the simplest mistakes when powerful corporate interests are at stake. The Washington Post said: It is doubly difficult to understand why the Senate refuses to do anything about a windfall that, as far as the administration is concerned, is based on nothing more than an error of omission. We made an error and ought to correct it. The Des Moines Register said: Unless the Senate gives the issue another look, hundreds of Iowans suffering from ulcers and heartburn will each have to fork over about $1,600 more than necessary for their prescriptions over the next 18 months. The NBC Nightly News said: This is one area where Congress could help save millions of taxpayers dollars now. So, Mr. President, it is my hope that we will prove to our constituents that there is not business as usual around here, that we can and we will correct a mistake that was made and do the right thing and fix this loophole now. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hatch amendment and for the Pryor-Chafee amendment, the only bill that will close the loophole. I thank the Chair. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for permitting me to go on his time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have learned that an extraordinary number of highly confidential FBI files were improperly obtained by the White House. I do not know what I find more appalling: the fact that the White House requested, received and kept the confidential files of more than 300 Reagan and Bush administration workers--that is appalling enough--but is that more appalling than the fact that the FBI turned them over to the White House these files without an apparent second thought? This latest White House mishap, or snafu, or outrageous abuse of power raises serious questions about the White House, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Department of Justice. I cannot help wondering if anyone is in charge. I have no doubt that if this kind of misadventure occurred on the watch of a Republican President, it would create a tremendous furor. The irony is that it was discovered during an investigation into the Travel Office affair which also involved the admitted misuse of the FBI by the White House. It seems as though this White House views the FBI as its own personal private investigator. This is the kind of arrogant abuse of power that led to the fall of the Nixon White House. Mr. President, this is what Watergate was all about. FBI files on individuals should be the most private and confidential of all documents. They are not compiled for political purposes, and they should never be used for political reasons. They certainly should not be easily provided to partisan political appointees. What was actually in these files? They were summaries of comprehensive FBI files on Reagan and Bush Administration employees whose last names began with the letters A though G. They include James A. Baker, former White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of State in the Bush administration. They include another former chief of staff of the White House, Ken Duberstein; and the fired Travel Office Director Bill Dale. These files contained summaries of interviews with neighbors, friends, coworker going way back to the high school years of those upon whom the files were complied. Some of those interviewed might be individuals with an ax to grind. They can contain any bizarre allegation that such an individual may concoct. This is the type of information that the Clinton White House thought should be trusted to a low-level civilian detailed from the Army who answered to a partisan, political appointee. This all come up because of the inability of the White House to admit that it fired Billy Dale to make room for the President's Arkansas cousin and his Hollywood friends. For months, the White House has refused to comply with the Clinger committee's subpoena of all documents related to the Travel Office firings. When Billy Dale cried foul upon learning that his FBI file had been turned over to the White House, the White House claimed it received his file as part of a routine investigation of employees. That was the original explanation. Suddenly the Billy Dale file shows up in the White House. How did it get there? As part of a routine investigation of an employee? Then the story changed. The White House tried to claim that it was not its request after all. The GAO had asked for the FBI files. ``No, no, no,'' said the GAO, ``not us!'' Suddenly the whole thing became an innocent mistake that involves trampling on the fundamental right to privacy of 330 loyal public servants. I applaud Representative Clinger, chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for his commitment to untangling this web of misinformation, claims of executive privilege, and rationalizations. I believe that his matter is serious enough to warrant a full congressional investigation. Unfortunately, this White House has dodged the truth for too long. I remember when an overzealous Bush supporter, Elizabeth Tamposi, who was an Assistant Secretary of State, decide to search the passport records of a young Governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton. The press was outraged. Bill Clinton was outraged, but, most of all, President Bush was outraged. He fired Elizabeth Tamposi. What have we heard from this administration about this latest scandal? Mark Fabiani, a White House attorney hired to answer questions about Whitewaster and the Travel Office matter, believing that the best defense is a good offense, said, ``Instead of attacking, Clinger and Speaker Gingrich should be apologizing.'' Now that is chutzpa if I ever heard it. This is a serious matter Mr. President. We cannot have the FBI used as a private research agency for the White House. I think this matter needs immediate attention. Mr. President, I yield the floor and again want to thank the Senator from Iowa for permitting me to go before him.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill to enhance legislation I authored in 1988 that established the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island. Pettaquamscutt Cove--a cove which divides the towns of Narragansett and South Kingstown, RI--is one of the State's natural jewels. The tidal marshes and mudflats in Pettaquamscutt Cove are home to a diverse species of waterfowl, wading birds and shore birds, and numerous small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Pettaquamscutt Cove has been identified as the most important migration and wintering habitat in Rhode Island for the black duck population under the North American waterfowl management plan. I might mention that this plan has been a tremendous success, capitalizing on the cooperative efforts of the Federal Government working with nonprofit groups and local governments. These efforts to protect wetlands--through establishment of national wildlife refuges such as Pettaquamscutt, through conservation efforts to implement the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and through other statutes like the Wetlands Reserve Program that was recently expanded in the farm bill that protect our Nation's wetlands--have been a great success. Add to this some decent rainfall, and the waterfowl populations have rebounded tremendously. Not since 1955 have we witnessed such a spectacular migration of waterfowl as this past year. Rhode Island has lost almost 40 percent of its original wetlands. It is essential that we do all we can to hold the line on continued losses of wetlands through preservation of ecosystems such as Pettaquamscutt Cove. By expanding Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge, this bill will protect the fertile marsh habitat that supports a multitude of fish and wildlife and plants along Rhode Island's coast and provide more recreational opportunities for Rhode Islanders and other visitors. Currently, the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge boundary encompasses 460 acres of salt marsh and surrounding forest habitat. One hundred seventy-five acres of habitat have already been acquired by the Service. This bill expands the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge boundary to include a 100-acre parcel, known as foddering farm acres and; allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the refuge boundary to include other important habitat if and when suitable properties become available in the future. Mr. President, the expansion of Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge to include the foddering farm acres property provides a wonderful example of cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife Service and private citizens. The 100-acre foddering farm property--adjacent to long pond--contains valuable wetland habitat for waterfowl and other species. The Rotelli family who owns the property has been working with, and waiting patiently for, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for several years. The Rotellis have indicated their willingness to donate a portion of the value of the property to the Service. Through their partial donation, the National Wildlife Refuge System gains valuable habitat at a bargain price. Three cheers for the Rotellis. It is just this kind of private conservation effort and public spiritedness that has enabled us to preserve important open space throughout Rhode Island. This bill will enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue their efforts to work with Rhode Islanders like the Rotellis to protect the beautiful and important natural resources along Rhode Island's coast. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill to enhance legislation I authored in 1988 that established the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island. Pettaquamscutt Cove--a cove which divides the towns of Narragansett and South Kingstown, RI--is one of the State's natural jewels. The tidal marshes and mudflats in Pettaquamscutt Cove are home to a diverse species of waterfowl, wading birds and shore birds, and numerous small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Pettaquamscutt Cove has been identified as the most important migration and wintering habitat in Rhode Island for the black duck population under the North American waterfowl management plan. I might mention that this plan has been a tremendous success, capitalizing on the cooperative efforts of the Federal Government working with nonprofit groups and local governments. These efforts to protect wetlands--through establishment of national wildlife refuges such as Pettaquamscutt, through conservation efforts to implement the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and through other statutes like the Wetlands Reserve Program that was recently expanded in the farm bill that protect our Nation's wetlands--have been a great success. Add to this some decent rainfall, and the waterfowl populations have rebounded tremendously. Not since 1955 have we witnessed such a spectacular migration of waterfowl as this past year. Rhode Island has lost almost 40 percent of its original wetlands. It is essential that we do all we can to hold the line on continued losses of wetlands through preservation of ecosystems such as Pettaquamscutt Cove. By expanding Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge, this bill will protect the fertile marsh habitat that supports a multitude of fish and wildlife and plants along Rhode Island's coast and provide more recreational opportunities for Rhode Islanders and other visitors. Currently, the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge boundary encompasses 460 acres of salt marsh and surrounding forest habitat. One hundred seventy-five acres of habitat have already been acquired by the Service. This bill expands the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge boundary to include a 100-acre parcel, known as foddering farm acres and; allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the refuge boundary to include other important habitat if and when suitable properties become available in the future. Mr. President, the expansion of Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge to include the foddering farm acres property provides a wonderful example of cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife Service and private citizens. The 100-acre foddering farm property--adjacent to long pond--contains valuable wetland habitat for waterfowl and other species. The Rotelli family who owns the property has been working with, and waiting patiently for, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for several years. The Rotellis have indicated their willingness to donate a portion of the value of the property to the Service. Through their partial donation, the National Wildlife Refuge System gains valuable habitat at a bargain price. Three cheers for the Rotellis. It is just this kind of private conservation effort and public spiritedness that has enabled us to preserve important open space throughout Rhode Island. This bill will enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue their efforts to work with Rhode Islanders like the Rotellis to protect the beautiful and important natural resources along Rhode Island's coast. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to comment briefly today upon Bob Dole's record in an area where I have devoted a considerable amount of time, namely the environment. Under Bob Dole's leadership, we have been able to continue the proud tradition, the Republican tradition, of protecting our environment. That is a tradition that dates back to Teddy Roosevelt. It is interesting to note that Bob Dole came to the Senate in 1969. Shortly thereafter the modern era of environmental law began to take shape. In 1970, he supported President Nixon's creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and he has supported every major environmental law since he arrived in the Senate; all of which have come about in the past 25 years. What are some of these laws? The National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to control hazardous waste, and on the list goes. Mr. President, those bipartisan efforts have brought about an extraordinary, tangible change in our Nation. The successful protection of the environment has been called the greatest social achievement of the United States of the past quarter century. Let us consider briefly the successes we have had under the laws that were enacted with the help and support of Bob Dole. In the 15 years 1975 to 1990, automobile miles traveled in the United States increased by 70 percent. They went to 2.2 trillion vehicle miles per year in those 5 years--increased by 70 percent. But in the same period, hydrocarbon emissions were cut in half. Lead in the air, for example, has a terrible effect on the mental development of children, especially in congested inner cities. Because in the mid-1970's we mandated the use of unleaded gasoline, lead in the air has declined by 98 percent. That is an extraordinary achievement. EPA has just completed a study showing that the positive effects of air pollution controls have been enormous. The study found that, in 1990, Americans received roughly $20 of value in reduced risks of death and illness and other adverse effects, $20 of value for every $1 of expenditure spent on air pollution control. What about clean water? In 1970, only one-third of the lakes, rivers and streams in the United States of America were considered fishable and swimmable. Now, not one-third but two-thirds of the lakes, rivers and streams in America are considered fishable and swimmable, and the percentage continues to rise every year. Since its enactment in 1973 by a vote of 99 to nothing, the Endangered Species Act has achieved remarkable results. Populations of whooping cranes, brown pelicans, peregrine falcons and many other formerly endangered species have come back from near extinction. So there is a lot of good news out there, and much of that success is due to Bob Dole's leadership in this Senate. Senator Dole recognized early on the importance of dealing with the threats to our global environment. Under his leadership, the Senate approved, in 1987, the Montreal protocol, dealing with substances that deplete the ozone layer. Then that was followed by the 1990 London amendments to eliminate the production and use of chlorofluorocarbons, CFC's, and other chemicals that destroy our protective ozone layer. Last year, Bob Dole cosponsored a bill that was developed by the Committee on Environment to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act. The result was approval by the Senate in a recorded vote of 99 to nothing, and that is a tribute to Bob Dole's leadership. He was a key architect of this year's farm bill which demonstrated his interest and commitment to protecting the environment. The 1996 farm bill produced one of the most significant conservation packages ever enacted into law, and Bob Dole was a key player in every step of that farm bill. Bob was a champion of the free-market approach to controlling acid rain in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, and that free-market approach is working. With his support, we are exploring similar approaches to protecting wetlands through mitigation banking and to create incentives for private landowners to protect endangered species--use the free-market approach. Eighty-six years ago, the first of the great environmental Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, said the following: Of all the questions which can come before this Nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us. We have seen from his work in the Senate that those are sentiments that Bob Dole heartily agrees with. On a personal note, may I say it has been a joyful experience for me to have been associated with Bob Dole for the past 20 years here in the Senate. May success and happiness be in his future, and we wish him Godspeed. I thank the Chair. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.