John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have a little bit of time. Whatever time I have left I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, let me say there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 10 o'clock. At 10 o'clock, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1664, the immigration bill, with Senator Simpson to be recognized to offer an amendment. Rollcall votes can be expected throughout the day on the immigration bill. It is the hope of the majority leader that we may complete action on that bill, the immigration bill, during today's session. It is also possible for the Senate to consider the omnibus appropriations conference report if that measure becomes available.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support and urge the adoption of H.R. 2024, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. The bill is nearly identical to S. 619, legislation introduced by Senator Smith, reported by the Environment Committee and approved by the full Senate by voice vote on September 21, 1995. H.R. 2024 is an industry initiative developed to respond to the environmental threats posed by used, spent batteries. The approach is twofold. First, the bill promotes the recycling of rechargeable batteries through uniform labeling requirements and streamlined regulations for battery collection programs. Second, the bill limits mercury content in and phases out the use of mercury in certain batteries. The bill is straightforward and contains two titles. Title I would facilitate the efficient recycling of nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries, small lead-acid rechargeable batteries, and rechargeable batteries used in consumer products through: One, uniform battery labeling requirements; two, streamlined regulatory requirements for battery collection programs; and three, the elimination of barriers to funding voluntary industry collection programs. Title II is intended to phase out the use of mercury in batteries, thus reducing the threat this material poses to our air and groundwater. H.R. 2024 and its Senate companion S. 619 are prime examples of industry's concern for the environment. The legislation is an excellent example of a point that I have made many times: protection of the environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. By providing a coherent national system for labeling batteries and products, requiring the easy removability of batteries from consumer products, and streamlining Federal regulations, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act will provide States, localities, consumers, and industry the opportunity to join together to achieve greater environmental protection without imposing burdens on the States or local taxpayers. In fact, the bill will generate substantial savings for Federal, State, and local entities and commercial operations that ship batteries due to the lower cost associated with the bill's streamlined requirements. H.R. 2024 is legislation supported by the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. In addition, the administration has expressed its support for the bill. I am convinced that H.R. 2024 will result in greater protection of our environment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. First of all, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for permitting me to go ahead of him. I know he has been waiting. I assured him my statement would be brief, so I am going to be held to that. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm my support for the Kassebaum-Kennedy health reform legislation. The sponsors of this legislation have worked for a number of years to enact reforms in the private insurance market. I applaud them for their considerable efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor. It is interesting to note this legislation is quite similar to that which Senator Durenberger first presented in the Finance Committee, as I recall, or perhaps in the Labor Committee several years ago. Although he has left the Senate, I think he would be pleased to know we are making progress with the legislation he was so involved with. In the wake of attempts in recent years to completely overhaul our health care system, this legislation has been characterized, as the distinguished Senator from Utah noted, as incremental. It has been criticized as even meager. But I urge my colleagues, as the Senator from Utah noted, not to underestimate the importance of this legislation. One of the major failings of our health care system in this country is the difficulty thousands of Americans face each year when they change jobs or look for new jobs. But they find they cannot change jobs because they will no longer be eligible for health insurance. This is what is known in the trade as ``job lock.'' This problem for many Americans would be addressed under the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. Insurers would be required to offer coverage, with no preexisting condition exclusions, for those moving from one group plan to another or from a group plan to an individual plan. I expect, Mr. President, we will see many amendments to this proposal, many of which I have supported in the past. Though laudable, these additional provisions could jeopardize the more immediate and important goal of enacting insurance market reforms. Those of us who worked to enact health care reform 2 years ago know all too well the consequences of attempting to do too much with respect to health care reform. We failed to enact comprehensive health care reform in 1994. You try to do too much and you end up getting nothing. We have been through that experience, Mr. President, not only with the health care measure that we tried in 1994, but in other efforts in the past. In the last 2 years, over a million Americans lost their health insurance coverage. Although this proposal, the Kassebaum-Kennedy proposal, does not include many of the health reforms which I advocated 2 years ago, I strongly support its enactment as a sound first step toward reform and improvement in our Nation's health care system. So I congratulate the two principal cosponsors of this legislation and am delighted to be listed as a cosponsor myself. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am going to address the amendment that is before us, the Brown amendment, but I say to the managers of the bill, I join with them in their enthusiasm to finish it up. I do not see why we do not seek time agreements, in case we get off on another Social Security argument, whatever it might be. But that is up to the managers. Mr. President, I have a statement that I wish to make that deals with the subject Senator Brown has been addressing, and Senator Pryor, likewise, and which I joined in the past. All I can say, Mr. President, is I just wish we would address this matter, both in the committee, and I understand Senator Brown has been trying to achieve that, but also on the floor of the Senate. We have had one vote. It was a one-vote margin difference. Perhaps people's minds have been changed since then. Nonetheless, I support the efforts of Senators Brown and Pryor. Congress and the administration made a simple--but costly--error in drafting the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. That inadvertent error is costing consumers, State governments, and the Federal Government millions of dollars, while providing an unintended windfall to a handful of drug companies. I don't believe we should let that error stand. What happened? The facts of the case are straightforward. Back in 1994, Congress was drafting omnibus trade legislation designed to bring the United States into conformity with the important new global trade agreement known as the GATT. As part of our commitment to fulfill our new GATT obligations, the United States pledged to increase patent protection for future patents. In addition, the United States also pledged to boot protection for patents already in existence--a key point that goes to the heart of the issue before us today. Accordingly, the trade bill that Congress wrote, boosted existing patent terms by up to 3 years, giving current patentholders a valuable extension on their patents. To be fair to generic manufacturers who had been preparing to go to market on the old patent expiration date, Congress fashioned a compromise: generic companies who had made a substantial investment in preparing for market would be allowed to proceed as planned, but would have to pay equitable remuneration--that is, a royalty--during the extended term. This carefully balanced compromise became law as part of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act. However, in drafting this 653-page bill, Congress and the administration made a small--but very costly--mistake. A simple conforming amendment to an FDA statute was omitted. Yet the impact was enormous: the omission singlehandedly prevented the generic drug industry from going to market during the extended term. The result is that a handful of brand-name drug companies have received a staggering $4.3 billion windfall, at the expense of consumers, that Congress, United States trade officials, and even the brand-name companies themselves, neither intended nor expected. The cost to consumers is enormous. The drugs that are covered by the windfall are widely prescribed, and are used for everyday ailments that affect millions of Americans. Keeping the generic version off the shelf for up to 3 years means that Americans--including and especially older Americans--are paying far more than was ever intended for their medications. Not only are consumers paying for this error, but so are State governments and the Federal Government--in the form of higher reimbursements for prescription drugs for the elderly, veterans, and low-income Americans. This is not right. We made a mistake. We should fix it. In this case, the solution is obvious and easy: simply enact the missing conforming amendment. That is exactly what Senator Pryor, Senator Brown, and I-- and many others--have been working to do. Let me take a moment to put to rest a few red herrings. Our amendment would not affect our GATT commitments or our efforts to promote patent protection worldwide. Our amendment would not upset the balance in U.S. drug patent laws, nor impede research and development of new drugs. If any of these misrepresentations were true, we simply would not be sponsoring this amendment. It is that simple. It is time to correct this injustice--an injustice to consumers in our Nation, an injustice to the Federal and State governemnts that are paying extra and needless sums into Medicaid and Medicare and an injustice to the generic manfuactures who made the investment in reliance on the law as it was supposed to be. It is time we fixed this unfairness. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the last day and a half, the Senate has been debating the antiterrorism bill conference report. During debate, a number of motions to recommit the legislation to conference were offered. I voted against all of them--even those with which I agree on the substance. In this situation sending the bill back to conference would not be simply a matter of adding back provisions that we in the Senate like. Sending the bill back to conference would reopen the legislation to countless changes that the House might, in turn, demand that the Senate accept. Obviously this conference report is not perfect. No bill is. Frankly, there are some provisions I wish were still in there, and others I would gladly see dropped. For example, I would have liked to see in the final bill the Boxer amendment on the statute of limitations for firearms violations. But I recognize that the nature of a conference is compromise. And therefore the package before us is the only one on which we can act. In conclusion, I might add, I do not believe that the door is finally shut on amendments such as the Boxer amendment. We can hopefully revisit that amendment on another bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Could I safely say that, if things go right, we are going to vote in a very few minutes?

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator might yield for a question before the quorum call.

Mr. CHAFEE. I am a little confused why we do not vote on this motion right now. Everybody is familiar with the issue.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Actually, I did not touch on that.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, 3 days ago in Palo Alto, CA, a very remarkable and truly great American died, David Packard. David Packard deserves ranking with the most innovative and outstanding builders and manufacturers in our Nation's history. He and his partner, Bill Hewlett, were the fathers of the electronic industry in Silicon Valley. Starting just 60 years ago, literally, in a garage, David Packard and Bill Hewlett began building an innovative audio oscillator under the name of the Hewlett-Packard Co. How did they choose the name Hewlett-Packard? To decide whose name came first, they flipped a coin, and Dave lost. His name came second. From that humble beginning, just 60 years ago, grew a company that today has more than 100,000 employees and sales last year of $31.5 billion. It is a worldwide leader in the electronics industry. What a success story. A great part of the success, Mr. President, of Hewlett-Packard has come about because of the management style which could be called managing by objective, namely, setting goals and giving employees wide latitude in achieving those goals. This was the style that Dave Packard believed in deeply. Obviously, it works. But David Packard's achievements went beyond his success with Hewlett-Packard. He was a philanthropist who did much more than write out a check. He became deeply involved with the projects to which he contributed. A case in point: The Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital in Palo Alto, which the Packard family gave to Stanford University Medical School and which I have had the privilege of visiting. This is a children-friendly hospital, built for children, and one in which children can feel safe at home. Dave and Lucile Packard made sure that was the way it was built. Let me give an illustration: The registration desk in this hospital when you come in--usually, a very forbidding structure--has peepholes in it at a child's level, so when a child comes in with his or her parent, the child can look through the peephole and see what is going on behind this forbidding desk. The Packards founded and funded the Monterey Bay Aquarium, first opened 11 years ago, in 1985. Dave Packard was deeply involved with the innovations at that aquarium. He designed and built, in his own workshop, some of the wave-generating equipment that is in that marvelous aquarium. The Monterey Bay Aquarium, with an annual attendance of over 1.5 million people every year, is the second-most popular aquarium in the United States of America. In his book called ``The HP Way,'' Dave wrote the following: ``The word `philanthropy' is derived from a Greek word that means `lover of mankind.' '' I think this is the phrase that best describes David Packard. It was his enduring belief that his efforts, both individual and corporate, could make this world a better place for all to live in. In 1969, David Packard became Deputy Secretary of Defense, and that is when I came to know him, because I was, at the time, appointed Secretary of the Navy. My distinguished colleague from Virginia also came to know Dave Packard at the same time, when the distinguished Senator from Virginia was appointed Under Secretary of the Navy. For 3 years I had the privilege of working with Dave Packard and came to admire him greatly. He had the ability to cut right to the heart of a problem. He was laconic. He was not a great talker or backslapper. Indeed, he had a semi-gruff-appearing visage, but he was extremely fair, and he was helpful if one ran into a problem. Most of all, he wanted to see the job done and done well. He made extremely valuable contributions to our Nation as Deputy Secretary of Defense, especially in the procurement area. During the years we were together in the Defense Department, my wife Ginny and I came to become friends with David and Lucile Packard. It was a friendship we greatly valued. They were truly a team--and a wonderful one. Lucile was a lovely lady in every way. Dave was always a bit bemused by the abundance of aides and assistants one had in the Pentagon. I remember him commenting that he and Bill Hewlett ran Hewlett-Packard Co. sharing one secretary and one office. Always a good athlete and an outdoor sportsman, Dave played basketball and football at Stanford, and later, while working for General Electric in Schnectady, NY, in the depths of the Depression, in 1935, he made a few extra dollars a week playing professional basketball. A hunter and fisherman since boyhood, he maintained those interests throughout his life, and was a major contributor to conservation organizations. Dave Packard was an extremely thoughtful person and would go out of his way to help an individual. I was the beneficiary of his kindness in many areas, many times, including a special tour for Ginny and me of the aquarium, by he and Lucile, contributions of his, and his personal appearances at various political fundraisers for me in San Francisco and hospitality at his Palo Alto home. In his death, I feel like a great oak tree has fallen in the forest. I have lost a real friend, and our Nation has lost a unique and extraordinarily constructive and thoughtful patriot.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. He certainly was awesome. He was a big six-foot- four. He took charge. He had what you might call ``command presence.''

Mr. CHAFEE. Well, the Senator is absolutely right. There was a certain trepidation when you got a call that ``Mr. Packard wants to see you in his office.'' I would hustle around to see if I missed out somewhere, or if I left something undone that I ought to have done. It was sort of like when you were in school and being called to the principal's office. I tell. It kept you on your toes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Senator Stennis, of course. Mel Laird would handle the legislative side of matters, the appropriations, the relationships with the White House and with the Congress. That is no easy job. Dave Packard was assigned what you might call the inside of the Pentagon. He was the man that we would consult with on procurement problems. We were deep into procurement problems--the F-15, the F-14, the 963 destroyers, the 688 class submarines, and on and on it went. Those are the matters we would report to David Packard on. He would watch over how we were doing and whether we were coming in on cost, whether we were meeting our milestones in the construction, and the whole process.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, and Margaret Chase Smith.

Mr. CHAFEE. I remember, when I first got in the Pentagon, the phone rang from Mr. Packard, and I stood up before I answered it. I would like to say one other thing. I remember Secretary Laird saying this when he was seeking a deputy. He asked all through the business world, and he knew what he wanted. He wanted somebody who could handle the procurement side of the Pentagon. Mel Laird and David Packard worked out what you might call a ``Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside'' team, in which Mel Laird would deal with the Congress. He knew George Mahon, head of the Appropriations Committee, intimately. He knew Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson, and so forth--

Mr. CHAFEE. I failed to mention that. The Uniformed Services Medical College.

Mr. CHAFEE. It came from Dave Packard. He was the principal proponent of it. He felt we were having trouble getting physicians in the military service forces, and that we had these major research hospitals and outstanding hospitals, Walter Reed and Bethesda, and we needed our own medical school, which we did get.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I agree entirely with my colleague, Senator Pryor, and wish to raise one simple but important point. It should be noted clearly and conclusively that there is an extensive record of evidence from the U.S. Trade Representative, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Food and Drug Administration that a mistake was made by both the Congress and the administration. There is absolutely no question as to this fact. To dispel any doubts, I would like to submit for the Record an excerpt from Ambassador Mickey Kantor's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 27: The Congress and the Administration did not, however, take into account the technical interrelationship between the Patent Act and the regulation of pharmaceutical products by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In fact, no one-- including those in the private sector who watched these developments closely--took this interrelationship into account. This [Senate Judiciary] Committee and the House Judiciary Committee held a joint hearing on August 12, 1994, to review the intellectual property provisions of the URAA and not a single reference was made to this system. In all this time, not a single reference was made to the fact that pharmaceuticals may be treated differently than other forms of technology, not even by Gerald Mossinghoff of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, who testified in support of this legislation without referring to this provision . . . We did not intend for this to happen and we support the correction of this oversight through the appropriate amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Patent Act.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the hour of 2 p.m.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on March 15, 1996, I wrote to Chairman Lugar to express my concerns about the potential undermining of wetlands conservation provisions in the farm bill. Proposals to exempt a vast number of wetlands from the Swampbuster Program and changes to the definition of ``agricultural land'' for purposes of wetlands delineations were among the specific concerns raised in my letter. I am pleased to report that Chairman Lugar has responded to these concerns. A letter written by Chairman Lugar upon the completion of the conference states: The bill makes no changes to the existing definition of a wetland, and does not exempt any lands based solely on cropping history or size. Although the report does define ``agricultural lands'' for the purpose of implementation of the interagency memorandum of agreement on wetlands delineations, it does not amend Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or require any changes to the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter dated March 23, 1996, be printed in the Record following this colloquy. I congratulate Chairman Lugar and ranking member Leahy for their efforts in crafting a sound conservation title that will benefit the environment and the economy well into the next century.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the managers for the opportunity to speak in favor of the conference report to accompany the Line-Item Veto Act, S. 4. I would challenge those who argue that the President already has sufficient authority to rescind unwanted spending items. The opposite is true. The rescission authority vested in the President today barely works at all. In the overwhelming number of cases, Presidential rescission orders are ignored by Congress, and the subject funds are ultimately obligated. In fact, since the rescission authority was established in 1974, Congress has only given approval to $23.7 billion of the $74 billion Presidential rescission requests. In other words two-thirds of the rescission requests died a quiet death. By requiring Congress to affirmatively disapprove rescissions, this legislation would transform the present ``paper tiger'' into a functional tool for reducing and eliminating: Special interest spending items in appropriations bills; expansions of existing, or establishing of new, entitlements; and tax expenditures which benefit narrow groups of taxpayers. Mr. President, the debate over this issue has been a long and tortured one. In looking back, I found an interesting item which illustrates just how long and tortured it has been. I want to direct the Senate's attention to a speech given on the floor of the House by Congressman R.P. Flowers from New York in support of the line-item veto. The date was December, 1882. In addition to a belief that it would foster economy in Government, Representative Flowers had another motivation--that of supporting the wishes of a constituent who just happened to be President of the United States. That President was Chester A. Arthur, who advanced from Vice President to President when James A. Garfield was tragically struck down by an assassin's bullet in 1881. In his annual message to the Congress, President Arthur stated: I commend to your careful consideration the question whether an amendment of the Federal Constitution . . . would not afford the best remedy for what is often a grave embarrassment both to Members of Congress and to the Executive, and is sometimes a serious public mischief. The ``embarrassment'' and ``public mischief'' to which the 21st President was referring was the same problem then that it is today: The tactic we in Congress employ of burying narrow spending provisions-- which cannot on their own merits survive the legislative process--in massive must-pass appropriation bills. Congressman Flowers delivered his speech 114 years ago. While the proposal before us today is far less ambitious than the constitutional amendment requested by President Arthur, the arguments have been thoroughly vetted. Representative Flowers summarized the arguments against the line-item veto as: First ``. . . an indignant howl about our rights an interests'' [in the Legislative Branch]; and second, ``. . . those who feign mistrust of the Executive, who fear too much `one-man power.' '' Wisely, the bill before the Senate today includes a sunset provision. If it turns out that this authority is abused by the Chief Executive-- which I do not fear--then Congress can let the authority die. The point is, we have been debating this issue for at least 114 years, and the arguments pro and con have been debated ad nauseam. Passage of this legislation will not solve our deficit problems. However, it will give the American people one more tool--one more check against unnecessary spending. Frankly, in my view, we need all the help we can get in that regard. So, I say: Let us pass this conference report and get on to other business.