John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join Senator Smith, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works which deals with Superfund. Let me take a moment to describe our progress and plans for Superfund reform. The Superfund Program is our most troubled environmental statute. No one could disagree that the Congress should enact Superfund reform this year. No one is happy with the status quo--not industry, not environmentalists, not insurers, not State and local governments, not even the EPA and other Federal agencies. Superfund reform is No. 1 priority of my committee in 1996. Senator Smith introduced S. 1285, the Accelerated Cleanup and Environmental Restoration Act, last September 29. This reform package represents a remarkable improvement over the status quo, and it is deserving of widespread support. I am a cosponsor. Since introduction, Senator Smith and I have met with the minority members of the subcommittee and administration for countless hours to explain the bill, make technical changes, and clarify its intent where needed. We have solicited the views of interested outsiders. As a result of these discussions, we have incorporated numerous changes, large and small, into the bill. These negotiations, which are still continuing, have been productive, and I hope and expect that they will lead to a bill that garners widespread bipartisan support in the Senate, a bill that satisfies the President's often-stated desire to fix this program, a bill that he can and should sign. At this point in our process, as our negotiations move into some of the more difficult issues, Senator Smith and I agreed that it is important to give members of this body, as well as those outside parties interested in Superfund reform, an opportunity to look at, and comment upon, the results of our negotiations to date. The document, a staff draft that will be printed in today's Congressional Record, represents a snapshot of the current status of our negotiations. In a few moments, Senator Smith will offer more detailed comments on this new draft of the Superfund bill. All sides in our negotiations have justifiably reserved final judgment until negotiations are complete and important constituencies have had the chance to analyze and comment on the final product. As we move forward, we want to provide opportunities to receive formal comments on the bill. In the next few days we will schedule hearings on the bill to occur as soon as possible after the Easter recess. We hope that we can reach substantive agreement on a bipartisan bill by that time, or else use the hearings to further explore the remaining areas of difference. We plan to move on to a markup and prepare the bill for floor action as soon as we can this spring. I want to express my appreciation the ranking member of the committee, Senator Baucus, and the Superfund Subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, for their contributions to the process. I also want to thank the administration for their efforts in these negotiations. Most of all I would like to thank Senator Smith for the many hours he and his staff have devoted to keeping Superfund reform on-track and moving forward. This is no easy task. Superfund is a complex and controversial program, and progress is always difficult in the best of circumstances, not to mention in a Presidential election year. We have a very good chance to enact Superfund reform this year, and if we do, a great deal of the credit should go to Senator Smith.

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for 30 seconds.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first of all, in connection with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, I point out there is an additur provision in this bill dealing with punitive damages. I do not want to debate that whole thing here; I only have 10 minutes, but I would stress that point of which perhaps the Senator was not aware. Mr. President, yesterday, I briefly outlined the history of this legislation, which represents now 15 years--15 years; that is a long time--we have been debating this liability reform act. It started in 1981 when Senator Kasten, of Wisconsin, introduced the first bill. Finally, here we are today with a fair and a reasonable bipartisan bill that not only has passed both Houses but did so with strong majorities. The House approved a broader bill, not this one but a broader one, which I presume those on the other side would find more offensive. They passed that 265 to 161, a very substantial majority. In the Senate, the bill that we passed had 61 votes in support of it, 61 out of 100. So with a track record like that, you might think product liability reform would soon become law. But here we are faced with two major obstacles, a cloture vote this afternoon to protect against further filibustering on this issue, and, worse than that, a newly raised threat of a Presidential veto. If this bill does not make it past the procedural hurdle of cloture, or if the President does not reconsider his threat of a veto, this bill will not become law. To be prevented from succeeding at this point, I must say, is particularly galling. After all, I suspect that this bill has seen more roadblocks in the last 15 years than any other bill we have seen here. Indeed, I venture to guess that product liability has been subject to more cloture votes than any other subject. There were 2 cloture votes in 1986, 3 in 1992, 2 in 1993, 4 in 1995, for a total of 11 cloture votes in all. Yet, it seemed in this new Congress we were going to win it; once and for all this gridlock would be ended. Drafting of this bill was a bipartisan effort right from the beginning. It is not a Republican bill; it is a Republican-Democratic bill, a bipartisan bill. The White House was well aware of what was going on. The White House watched closely as the Senate took up the bill and began adding amendments. It is my understanding that it was the administration, during the Senate debate in May, that quite helpfully suggested the addition of the so-called additur provision to the final version. So, as I say, it went sailing through here, 61 to 37. What happened to change the White House's attitude? Did the bill change dramatically in conference from what went through here in the Senate? The answer is, hardly at all. It was clear to all that the House's broad tort-reform bill would not be approved by the administration. Therefore, to their credit, the conferees, representatives from the House and representatives from the Senate meeting together, decided to stick closely to the Senate version that had passed so overwhelmingly and that seemed to have White House support. So the bill that we will vote on today, or the bill that we are dealing with, is virtually identical to the Senate-passed bill that won such strong approval. I do not know why the President appears to have changed his mind. I cannot believe he is personally opposed to a Federal liability law for, as a Governor, as Governor of Arkansas, the President sat on the National Governors' Association committee that drafted the first National Governors' Association resolution dealing with Federal liability reform. Here we have a copy of the letter from the President to Senator Dole setting forth the reasons for the veto. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE. We are told it is an ``unwarranted intrusion on State authority.'' Yet, the National Governors' Association enthusiastically supports this measure. We are told the bill would ``encourage wrongful conduct because it abolishes joint liability.'' But joint and several liability, it has been pointed out, applies still to economic damages. The letter accuses the bill of ``increas[ing] the incentive to engage in the egregious conduct of knowingly manufacturing and selling defective products.'' I do not find this charge makes much sense. Then it goes on to say that the ``additur'' provision the White House itself put in here, the provision being that the judge himself can increase the punitive damages--the White House had a hand in drafting that--now they say that is not adequate. So I do not think any of these three statements that the President has in his letter represents what this conference report really would do. I think that is very, very unfortunate. To my judgment, this bill is sound and reasonable. Under the bill, those who sell but do not make products--sell the products but not necessarily having made them--are liable only if they did not exercise reasonable care. If they offered their own warranty and it was not met, or if they engaged in intentional wrongdoing, obviously they will be liable. But they cannot be caught up in a liability suit where they did nothing wrong. I do not see much trouble with that. If the injured person was under the influence of drugs and alcohol and that condition was more than 50 percent responsible for the event that led to the injury, the defendant cannot be held liable. If plaintiff misused or altered the product--this is the one we see so often in the area I come from, people have altered machinery and equipment that they have purchased--in violation of the instructions or warnings to the contrary, or in violation of just plain common sense, then the damages are reduced accordingly. I just cannot understand why we ought to blame the manufacturer for behavior that everyone knows would place the product user at risk. That does not seem fair to me. Does that not contradict our notion of an individual's personal responsibility? The person has to have some sense of responsibility here. The bill allows injured persons to file an action up to 2 years after the date they discovered or should have discovered the harm and its cause. For durable goods, the actions may be filed up to 15 years after the initial delivery of the product. These also seem to me to be fair. Either party may offer to proceed to voluntary, nonbinding, alternative dispute resolution. The most controversial element of the bill, I suppose, is the punitive damages. I remind my colleagues that these damages are separate and apart from compensatory damages. The compensatory damages are meant to make the injured party whole. The punitive damages are awarded where there is ``clear and convincing evidence'' proving ``conscious, flagrant indifference to the right of safety of others.'' The amount of punitive damages may not exceed two times the amount awarded for compensatory loss or $250,000, whichever is the greater. Again, I must say I have had trouble with punitive damages for a long time. I have great difficulty understanding the basis of that; certainly that the punitive damages go to the plaintiff instead of the State for retraining of those who are committing the errors. It might be manufacturers, it might be physicians, whatever it is. But I have great difficulty understanding why in the world punitive damages should go to the plaintiff. In conclusion, I pay my compliments to Senators Rockefeller, Gorton, Pressler, and Lieberman for the work they have done on this. I certainly urge the President to reconsider his position and join the bipartisan coalition supporting this very important legislation. I urge him to sign this bill into law. Exhibit 1 The White House, Washington, March 16, 1996. Hon. Bob Dole, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Leader: I will veto H.R. 956, the Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996, if it is presented to me in this current form. This bill represents an unwarranted intrusion on state authority, in the interest of protecting manufacturers and sellers of defective products. Tort law is traditionally the prerogative of the states, rather than of Congress. In this bill, Congress has intruded on state power--and done so in a way that peculiarly disadvantages consumers. As a rule, this bill displaces state law only when that law is more beneficial to consumers; it allows state law to remain in effect when that law is more favorable to manufacturers and sellers. In the absence of compelling reasons to do so, I cannot accept such a one-way street of federalism, in which Congress defers to state law when doing so helps manufacturers and sellers, but not when doing so aids consumers. I also have particular objections to certain provisions of the bill, which would encourage wrongful conduct and prevent injured persons from recovering the full measure of their damages. Specifically, the bill's elimination of joint-and- several liability for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, will mean that victims of terrible harm sometimes will not be fully compensated for it. Where under current law a joint wrongdoer will make the victim whole, under this bill an innocent victim would suffer when one wrongdoer goes bankrupt and cannot pay his portion of the judgment. It is important to note that companies sued for manufacturing and selling defective products stand a much higher than usual chance of going bankrupt; consider, for example, manufacturers of asbestos or breast implants or intra-uterine devices. In addition, for those irresponsible companies willing to put profits above all else, the bill's capping of punitive damages increases the incentive to engage in the egregious misconduct of knowingly manufacturing and selling defective products. The provision of the bill allowing judges to exceed the cap in certain circumstances does not cure this problem, given Congress's clear intent, expressed in the Statement of Managers, that judges should do so only in the rarest of circumstances. The attached Statement of Administration Policy more fully explains my position on this issue--an issue of great importance to American consumers, and to evenly applied principles of federalism. Sincerely, Bill Clinton. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I just wanted to know. There will be no more votes. But will the discussion continue on this particular amendment tonight, or is it going to be continued also tomorrow?

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. In other words, you are winding up the debate pretty soon here. Thank you.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the managers' amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 includes a provision--added on behalf of myself and Senator Kempthorne--to increase the appropriation for Endangered Species Act listing activities by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serivce from $750,001 to $2,000,001. The total amount available for the Fish and Wildlife Service's resource management activities is increased by $1,249,999 to accommodate this addition to the listing account. Senator Kempthrone and I proposed this amendment in order to address concerns raised during debate last week on the Endangered Species Act listing moratorium. Let us review the bidding. On March 13, the Senate approved a second-degree amendment offered by Senator Hutchison and Senator Kempthorne to Senator Reid's underlying amendment to strike the moratorium on final listings under the Endangered Species Act. The Hutchison second-degree amendment imposes a moratorium on final decisions to list species as threatened or endangered and on final decisions to designate critical habitat. However, the Hutchison amendment allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to use funds appropriated under the omnibus bill to issue emergency listings, to propose species for listing, and to review and monitor species on the candidate list. Mr. President, I oppose Senator Hutchison's second-degree amendment because I believe that a moratorium on adding species to the threatened and endangered list is wrong. Thus, I supported Senator Reid's amendment to strike the provisions that would impose a moratorium on adding new species to the threatened and endangered lists. Make no mistake about it--I continue to oppose the provision in this bill that would impose a moratorium on final decisions by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce to list a species or to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. During the March 13 debate on the ESA moratorium, it was pointed out that the second-degree amendment offered by Senators Hutchison and Kempthorne increased the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as compared to that included in the underlying bill, but provided only $1 in new funding. This would have resulted in a difficult situation for the Fish and Wildlife Service as appropriations for listing activities would have been sorely inadequate to meet the needs and requirements of the law. In other words, it would have been nearly impossible for the Service to perform the tasks that are authorized under the Hutchison language--tasks such as decisions on emergency listings or responses to citizen petitions--without an increase in funding. The $1,249,999 that is added to the listing account under this amendment is intended to provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with funding necessary to perform emergency listings and other listing activities that are authorized under the Hutchison amendment. Mr. President, it was a pleasure to work with Senator Kempthorne and Senator Hutchison on this amendment. And, while I oppose the ESA listing moratorium, I believe that--working together to secure additional funding for listing activities--we have improved the prospects for orderly, effective research and conservation efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is my hope that we can continue to work together to enact responsible legislation to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act later this year. I would like to thank Senators Hatfield and Gorton and their Appropriations Committee staff for their assistance with this amendment. Also, I very much appreciate the willingness of Senator Hatfield and of Senator Byrd to include this provision in the managers' amendment. hiv-positive servicemembers

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that I might proceed for 3 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate to discuss further the matter that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina brought up, namely, the product liability reform conference report. I want to take a moment to discuss an important matter that today or tomorrow will come before the Senate: namely, the product liability reform conference report. I must say that I was sorely disappointed to read over the weekend that the President has issued a veto threat for this carefully balanced, carefully drafted, well-thought-out measure. I find it hard to believe the President's advisors could come up with a credible basis for objecting to this commonsense bill. I strongly urge the President to reconsider. senate history re product liability reform This issue is not a new one, and this legislation was not drafted in a hasty or casual manner. Indeed, it is the cumulation of more than a decade's worth of hard work. Let me outline the enormous time and energy that has been expended on behalf of this bill by its Senate sponsors: I would like to just briefly outline what is going into this bill. No one can suggest that this is a will-o'-the-wisp piece of legislation that just suddenly came out of nowhere. In 1981, legislation was introduced similar to the bill that was finally approved and comes from the conference today or this week. It was introduced in 1981. In the 97th Congress (1981-82), S. 2631 was introduced by Senator Kasten and others. It was reported by the Commerce Committee but never taken up by the Senate. In the 98th Congress (1983-84), Senators Kasten, Percy, and Gorton again introduced product liability legislation (S. 44), and again it was reported by Commerce. And again it saw no further action. In the 99th Congress (1985-86), Senator Kasten introduced a revised version of his product liability reform proposal (S. 100). This bill was defeated on a tie vote in Committee. However, a host of freestanding amendments were considered during hearings. Eventually an original Committee bill (S. 2760) was sent to the floor, where the Senate voted overwhelmingly to consider it. Yet notwithstanding the strong votes, the bill was returned to the calendar and the Senate recessed for the year. In every Congress we have worked on this particular piece of legislation. In the 100th Congress (1987-88), Senators Kasten, Pressler, Rockefeller, and Danforth, soldiering on, introduced two more revised bills (S. 666, S. 711), neither of which was taken up by the Committee or the Senate. In the 101st Congress (1989-90), ever hopeful, Senators Kasten, Gorton, Pressler, and Rockefeller introduced their bill. S. 1400 won Committee approval, but was blocked from Senate consideration. In the 102d Congress (1991-92), Senators Kasten and Rockefeller led a bipartisan group in introducing S. 640. The bill was favorably reported, but was stalled for 7 months by liability reform opponents. To force floor action, S. 640 was offered as an amendment to the then- pending motor-voter bill. But cloture failed, and subsequently the amendment was sent to Judiciary for further hearings. However, proponents were able to win a commitment from the Democratic leader to bring the bill up later. That fall, the Senate witnessed an extraordinary effort by bill opponents to stymie the bill by forcing the Senate to hold three back-to-back cloture votes, each of which fell at least 2 votes short of the 60 needed. The end result? That bill also died. How about the 103d Congress? Anything better? Not much. S. 687 was introduced in March 1993 with Senators Rockefeller and Gorton again bravely leading the charge. After a hearing and the strongest committee vote yet, 16 to 4, the bill went to the floor, but again the opponents stopped its momentum with two cloture votes, and that killed the bill for the rest of the 103d. Now we come to the 104th Congress, some 15 years after the first Kasten bill was presented. Prospects seemed pretty good. Supporters had gained new adherents on both sides of the aisle. Product liability and tort reform had caught the public's attention and support. The legislation in itself had plenty of time to ripen. After all, there had been countless hearings and enormous opportunity for public comment. To their credit, the sponsors continued to take all legitimate concerns into account and came up with reasonable responses to those questions raised. Will this be the year of product liability reform? Well, let us see. S. 565 was introduced in March 1995, a year ago, by Senators Gorton, Rockefeller, Pressler, Lieberman, and others, and a large bipartisan coalition. The bill was reported in April. The committee took up the bill in late April and began voting on amendments. A total of four cloture votes were held on or in relation to the bill, with the fourth vote in this grueling procession being ultimately successful. On May 10, with bipartisan support, the bill as amended passed the Senate, 61-37. Now the conference report is finally before us. But now we learn that all this work is for naught--for notwithstanding the views of some of his advisors and the strong support of many Democrats, the President has decided to veto this bill. Frankly, I believe this bill has seen more roadblocks in the last decade than practically any other bill we have seen. I venture to guess that product liability has been subject to more cloture votes than any other bill: two in 1986, three in 1992, two in 1993, and four in 1995. Yet, it seemed we were close to beating that gridlock with this new Congress. The drafting of the bill was bipartisan from Day One. The White House was well aware of what was going on, watching closely as the Senate took up the bill and began adding amendments. Indeed, I understand from the key Republican and Democratic sponsors of the bill that it was the administration that, during the Senate debate in May, quite helpfully suggested the addition of the so-called additur provision to the final version of the Senate bill--the provision that helped the bill win final approval by that 61 to 37 margin. the veto threat What, then, happened to change the White House attitude? Did the bill change drastically in conference? The answer is no, hardly at all. It was clear to all that the House broader tort reform bill would not win administration approval. Therefore, to their credit, the conferees were careful to stick closely to the Senate version. The bill that we will vote on is virtually identical to the Senate-passed bill that won such strong approval. What, then, has caused the President to issue the veto threat? I cannot believe he is personally opposed to a Federal liability law, for as Governor he sat on the National Governors' Association Committee that drafted the NGA's first resolution favoring Federal liability reform. Here in my hand I have the letter to Senator Dole stating the veto threat. The reasons for the veto are couched very carefully but do not stand up to close scrutiny. First, we are told the bill is an ``unwarranted intrusion on state authority''--yet in this case, the need for a uniform product liability law--not 50 separate laws--is so warranted that the NGA enthusiastically supports this measure. Second, we are told the bill would ``encourage wrongful conduct'' because it abolishes joint liability. But that deduction stretches credibility; moreover, joint and several liability remains for economic damages. Third, the letter accuses the bill of ``increas[ing] the incentive to engage in the egregious misconduct of knowingly manufacturing and selling defective products--a charge that makes no sense--and then goes on to say that the additur provision the White House itself asked for does not take care of this alleged problem. None of these three statements accurately represents what this balanced, bipartisan conference report would do. They are merely there for cover, to allow a veto to proceed. That is a shame. I am inclined to agree with my friend from West Virginia, who has worked so long on this bill, when he says with regret that ``special interest and obvious, raw political considerations in the White House are overriding sound and reasonable policy judgment.'' the 1996 product liability conference report No question about it--this bill is sound and reasonable policy. Let me quickly outline its key provisions. Under this bill, those who sell, not make, products are liable only if they did not exercise reasonable care; if they offered their own warranty and it was not met; or they engaged in intentional wrongdoing. In other words, they cannot be caught up in a liability suit if they did not do anything wrong. That concept should sound familiar to most Americans. Also under this bill, if the injured person was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and that condition was more than 50 percent responsible for the event that led to their injury, the defendant cannot be held liable. Likewise, if the plaintiff misused or altered the product--in violation of instructions or warnings to the contrary, or in violation of just plain common sense--damages must be reduced accordingly. Of all the provisions in the bill, it seems to me these are the ones that are the most obvious. Why on earth should we blame the manufacturer for behavior that everyone knows would place the product user at risk? Is that fair? No. Does that not contradict our notion of an individual's personal responsibility? Yes. This provision goes a long way toward ensuring that freely undertaken behavioral choices are taken into account in liability actions. Regarding time limits, the bill allows injured persons to file an action up to 2 years after the date they discovered, or should have discovered, the harm and its cause. For durable goods, actions may be filed up to 15 years after the initial delivery of the product. These provisions are fair, providing some certainty with regard to liability exposure while at the same time protecting consumers who have been harmed. Either party may offer to proceed to voluntary nonbinding alternative dispute resolution. Simple, but again, it makes sense. Now the most controversial element of the bill: punitive damages. Let me remind my colleagues that these damages are separate and apart from compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are meant to make the injured party whole, by compensating him or her for economic and noneconomic losses; punitives are meant to deter and punish. Under the bill, punitives may be awarded if a ``clear and convincing evidence'' standard proving ``conscious, flagrant indifference to the right of safety of others'' is met. The amount awarded may not exceed two times the amount awarded for compensatory loss, or $250,000--whichever is greater--for small business, whichever is less. At the suggestion of the White House, a further provision was included: If the court finds the award to be insufficient, it may order additional damages. Again, this compromise seems to make sense. It sets a framework for punitive damage awards in which the level of punitives is tied to the harm actually suffered by the plaintiff, with the ability to go beyond the cap in truly egregious cases. This compromise cap helps resolve the problem of arbitrary and inconsistent awards, while at the same time ensuring that punitive awards will not be meaningless inproportion to the injury suffered. The Washington Post calls this approach an important first step that creates some order and boundaries. Each of the provisions I have outlined make eminent sense. Each helps provide certainly in an area where there now, notoriously, is none. That is why Senator Rockefeller says the conference report ``delivers fair and reasonable legal reform'' that ``would make American industry and American workers more competitive.'' He is absolutely right. I pay my compliments to Senators Rockefeller, Gorton, Pressler, and Lieberman. They have worked tirelessly for years and years to enact meaningful and fair product liability reform. They have done this Nation a great service. And their work should not be for naught. Thus, I urge the President to reconsider his position, and join the bipartisan coalition supporting this critically important legislation. I urge him to disregard the powerful political constituencies aligned against this bill. I urge him to sign this bill into law. Mr. President, I hope that this laborious marathon that we have been engaged in to see product liability reform passed here will finally succeed. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about one of the environmental provisions in the Hatfield Substitute to H.R. 3019, the Omnibus Appropriations and Rescissions Bill. I applaud the good work of Chairman Hatfield and Ranking Member Byrd and the other members of the Appropriations Committee in negotiating this comprehensive measure. I am deeply troubled, however, by the committee's decision to maintain the rider that bars the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] from using any of its fiscal year 1996 funds to implement Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. Since its enactment in 1972, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has played a key role in the progress we have made toward achieving the act's purpose, which is ``to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' Section 404(c) authorizes the EPA to prohibit the disposal of dredged or fill material into the Nation's waters, including wetlands, if doing so would harm especially significant resources. The proponents of this rider assert that it would eliminate the confusion caused by the ``duplicative roles'' of EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in administering the Federal Wetlands Program. The problem with this logic is that, every year, the Corps of Engineers itself sponsors water resource projects that require the disposal of hundreds of millions of cubic yards of dredge and fill material. Without EPA oversight, the corps would have no check on the environmental impact of these activities. In other words if the rider barring EPA oversight is enacted into law, who oversees what the corps does? Moreover, the Corps of Engineers supports EPA's role in the veto of its wetlands permit decisions. I would like to quote a statement made in a letter written March 13, 1996, by Secretary of the Army Togo West and EPA Administrator Carol Browner. The letter states: ``We want to emphasize unequivocally that Section 404(c) provides an essential link between our agencies in the implementation of the Section 404 program and contributes significantly to our effective protection of the Nation's human health and environment.'' I could not have said it better myself. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter written by Administrator Browner and Secretary West be printed in the Record following this statement.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, EPA has used its 404(c) authority only 12 times in the history of the Clean Water Act. It is hardly a waste of Government resources. Moreover, these veto actions, although infrequent, have protected almost 7,300 acres of wetlands, including some of the Nation's most valuable wetlands in the Florida Everglades and near the lower Platte River. Aside from the fact that this rider is unsound policy, the appropriations process simply is not the proper context to raise complex legislative issues such as EPA's role in the Federal Wetlands Program. Rather, the appropriate forum for such issues is the ongoing Clean Water reauthorization process. The Committee on Environment and Public Works has held four hearings on section 404, and two additional hearings on Clean Water Act reauthorization. In fact, the committee conducted a hearing on wetlands mitigation banking just last week. I have been working closely with Senator Faircloth, who is chairman of the relevant subcommittee, and other members of the committee, to achieve meaningful reform of the Federal Wetland Program. Although I do not intend to offer an amendment, I strongly urge the committee members to drop this controversial provision from the appropriations bill. The removal of this provision would increase the likelihood that Congress will bring closure to the precarious budgetary situation for fiscal year 1996. Exhibit 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Army, March 13, 1996. Mr. Robert G. Szabo, The National Wetlands Coalition, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Szabo: We read with concern your January 22, 1996, letter to President Clinton regarding his veto of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) appropriations bill, in part, because the bill would have eliminated EPA's authority under Clean Water Section 404(c). As the President's veto message stated, this provision would preclude EPA ``from exercising its authority under the Clean Water Act to prevent wetlands losses.'' As the national program managers of the agencies charged with the administration of Clean Water Act Section 404, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to your letter on behalf of the Clinton Administration. We want to emphasize unequivocally that Section 404(c) provides an essential link between our agencies in the implementation of the Section 404 program and contributes significantly to our capacity to ensure effective protection for the nation's human health and environment. The decision of Congress in 1972 to establish joint administration of Section 404 explicitly recognized the advantages of integrating the Corps of Engineers historical role in protecting the navigational integrity of the nation's waters with EPA's responsibilities for achieving the broader environmental goals of the Clean Water Act. The value and logic in this decision remains valid today and we, therefore, cannot agree with the conclusion in your letter that EPA's authority under Section 404(c) is not justified. We strongly agree that implementation of Section 404(c), like the Section 404 program itself, requires a balance to ensure protection of the nation's waters while effectively guarding the property rights of private landowners. The President's Wetlands Plan, developed in 1993, reflects this commitment to make the Section 404 program more fair and flexible. Many of the constructive improvements identified in the President's Wetlands Plan have been implemented, and tangible benefits of these actions are being realized. Moreover, information collected as part of a recent Corps of Engineers survey of their field offices demonstrates that EPA's Section 404(c) authority is not being used in a threatening way, but constructively and with considerable discretion. Repeal of EPA's Section 404(c) authority is unnecessary to make the Section 404 program more fair and flexible but would invariably erode its ability to protect human health and the environment. We cannot support this result. The organizations which, with you, signed the letter to the President represent an important cross section of the nation, and we appreciate your vital interest in this issue. Our challenge is to identify improvements to the Section 404 program that address legitimate concerns without weakening its environmental protections. We look forward to working with you as we meet that challenge. Sincerely, Carol M. Browner, Administrator. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of the Army.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I come to the floor in what you might call a bittersweet mood, and that is to announce to my colleagues the retirement of one of our most trusted Senate advisers, Ms. Jean Lauver, who has served on the Environment and Public Works Committee for over 21 years. Together with Senator Baucus, the ranking Democrat, and the entire membership of the committee, I send a resolution to the desk to express the gratitude of the committee and of the Senate to Jean Lauver for her years of service to the U.S. Senate, and will later ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. President, Jean was born on a farm in Sioux Falls, SD, and graduated from Goshen College in Indiana and later received a master's degree in education from George Washington University. After serving as a school teacher in Puerto Rico, Jean joined the Environment Committee staff in 1974. Jean has been with us ever since. Anyone who knows her also knows that she is the undisputed expert in the Senate on Federal highway issues. Jean and the committee have been through scores of pieces of legislation over the past many years. There have been some great successes: The Surface Transportation Act of 1987, the so-called ISTEA bill of 1991, just to name two. There have been scores of tough battles, as well, on transportation safety issues, demonstration projects, and billboards on our highways and byways. Over the years, I have no doubt Jean has seen it all. Yet, after all the hearings and all the bills, the meetings in room 468 Dirksen and S-211 of the Capitol, what we will all remember most about Jean is her unflappable professionalism, her extraordinary knowledge and memory, and her dedication to doing a good job for Republicans and for Democrats alike. Without question, Jean is one of the most extraordinary staffers that I have had the pleasure to work with. So it is with great admiration that we wish Jean and her husband, Hesston, and their son, Jason, all the best in their future endeavors. I might add that Jean and her family are off to a new challenge, and that is owning and operating a bed and breakfast in Goshen, IN. If Jean's service to the Senate is any indication, you can be sure that the Prairie Manner B&B in Goshen will be top notch. I am tempted to give a telephone number of the new B&B, but that might be considered advertisement. For anybody that is interested, I have her telephone number for the B&B they are establishing called the Prairie Manner in Goshen, IN. I know all Senators join with me in wishing Jean good luck and thanking her for her dedicated service to the Senate and this Nation of ours. Jean, we say thank you. I urge the adoption of the resolution, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent I may proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the past several years, we have been trying to pass legislation to fix the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program. Superfund is a program with a tortured history and certainly an uneven record of success that can only be described as truly uneven. We have accomplished some good things since the law was passed in 1980, but those accomplishments under Superfund have come at a tremendous cost. Almost everyone agrees--and I will say, Mr. President, I do not think anyone disagrees--that Congress should enact a Superfund reform bill as soon as possible. Even President Clinton said recently that ``we have to repair the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program.'' I agree with the President about the need to fix Superfund. Unfortunately, in the speech that the President delivered last Monday, March 11, in New Jersey, he went on to attack the Superfund reauthorization process now underway in Congress. Using the old worn out rhetoric about ``making polluters pay,'' the President mischaracterized the proposals on which we are now working. I believe it is just plain wrong to imply that the Superfund liability reform proposals we are considering would shift costs from the polluters to the taxpayers. That is the theme that is being sounded. The pending proposals we are considering in the Environment and Public Works Committee would do no such thing. What we seek to do in the committee is to use money that comes from the three Superfund taxes which are levied on the chemical industry, the oil industry, and manufacturing corporations, and use the money, which does not come from the ordinary taxpayer; it comes through those three entities: chemical industry, oil industry, and manufacturing corporations, for the cleanup. This is the money that is collected for cleanup. It is paid into a Superfund trust fund for the suspected polluting class. That is the source of revenues to fund liability reform. No one is trying to shift the cost of cleanup to our constituents. Unless one is already paying any of the three Superfund taxes, there is no need to worry about being made to pay for Superfund. There is no talk about letting polluters off the hook and making taxpayers pay. The President's advisers know this so why do they continue to misinform him about our plans? The President's invocation of the tired old ``polluter pays'' rhetoric does not help us get the job done. Maybe some focus group somewhere has told the President's advisers that this is a winning issue for the administration, but the rhetoric does nothing to advance the Superfund policy debate. Under Superfund, anyone can be tarred with the polluter stigma. If you disposed of something--think of this--legally and in accordance with the best practices of the day in the 1970's or the 1960's or the 1950's or even earlier, you can still be held liable under the Superfund law and be called a polluter. You can be held liable for a law that passed way after the so-called pollution was done. On Monday, the President suggested that Congress should ``help small business and communities trapped in the liability net.'' In other words, the President said help those communities that dispose of these polluting substances before the enactment of Superfund. Let them off the hook. I agree with the President, but how can he ask us to let one or two groups of polluters off the hook and then complain that we are doing something wrong when we try to help others who may be trapped in the same liability net? I suppose the logic is that if you are small and a public entity--a public entity being a county or a town or city or municipality--and you are liable under Superfund, somehow that is not pollution. If you let that person off but you are something else, presumably if you are a larger business and you are a polluter, you cannot let that person off. This, it seems to me, is Superfund logic at its worst. It may be good politics, but it is irresponsible in the middle of a serious policy debate. The timing of the President's remarks was also disappointing. We are in the middle, as I say, of a serious policy debate about Superfund in the community. In 1993 and 1994, the Democratic administration with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate had 2 years to put together and move its own Superfund bill. They came forward with a bill, and that excused or limited the liability of big and small polluters in a number of ways. Whatever the merits of the bill, Mr. President--and I voted for it in committee--it failed to pass either branch of the then Democratically controlled House and Democratically controlled Senate. Therefore, you had at that time a Democratic President, a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate and they could not make reforms in Superfund, showing how difficult this problem is. Now, in our committee, Senator Smith has taken the lead and put forward a bill some 8 months after we took over the Congress, that is, the Republicans. Since introduction of that legislation in the subcommittee, Senator Smith and others have met with the administration for countless hours to explain the bill, to make technical changes, and to clarify its intent where needed. We are in the middle of bipartisan negotiations. We are striving to understand the administration's concern with the bill and to accommodate it wherever possible. We are waiting for more information from the administration on cost concerns the administration has raised and the impact of these changes, how they affect the agency, for example, and its resources. In short, the administration has a serious forum in the Environment and Public Works Committee where we are meeting every day to exchange views on Superfund. This is why I find it curious and disappointing that the administration would choose this particular time to launch a factually inaccurate and politically contrived attack on the negotiation process and product. I have counseled colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the committee that I am fortunate enough to chair that we must have a bipartisan approach if we are going to solve these complex environmental problems. I believe Superfund could be a model for how we can reach agreement on a sensitive problem in this year, a difficult year because of the political implications of the Presidential campaign. I believe Superfund could be a model for how we reach agreement on these difficult matters. I fail to understand how the President's advisers on environmental issues, who surely understand that Superfund proposals cannot be reduced to simple solutions and slogans such as ``polluters must pay,'' can engage with us in serious negotiations while on the other hand they seek partisan advantage based on distortions. Mr. President, it is time for the administration to choose. Does it want Superfund this year or is it willing to miss this chance and permit Superfund to continue to exact its hideous toll on our economy? If we are going to fix Superfund, the administration must tone down its rhetoric and work with us to fix this badly broken program. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. Authorizations provided by committee resolutions approving construction of Federal buildings stand unless and until subsequently modified by the committee. amendment no. 3493

Mr. CHAFEE. I would be pleased to respond to the Senator's question. I am indeed aware of your successful efforts to lower the overall costs of this important project. It is not my intention to sacrifice these savings by delaying authorization. Instead, this amendment will preserve the Environment and Public Works Committee's authority to review and determine spending levels for the construction of Federal buildings. With respect to committee consideration of a resolution authorizing the project, it is my intention to schedule a business meeting as expeditiously as possible. I am confident that we could consider a resolution well before the April 19, 1996, deadline established in the amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to speak in favor of the provision in this appropriations measure regarding international population assistance. The amendment before us would strike this provision, a move I believe would be unwise. The international family planning program was cut 35 percent in the Fiscal Year 1996 Foreign Operations Act from fiscal year 1995 levels. In addition, two restrictions were added, the effects of which will lead to an 85-percent cut to the program. The net effect of this cut is a budget which will go from $547 million in 1996 to $72 million. Senator Hatfield added a provision to this bill which states that if the President determines that the restrictions in current law result in more abortions and a greater need for family planning services which is not met, the funding restrictions will be lifted. This seems to me, Mr. President, to be a reasonable approach. I am sure that those who are opposed to abortion do not want to support a policy which increases abortions. I must say, Mr. President, I am always perplexed by those who oppose family planning and also oppose abortion. Study after study has shown that lack of family planning leads to more unintended pregnancies which leads to more abortions. Consider two countries: Russia has very little contraception available, and abortion is the primary method of birth control. The average Russian woman has at least four abortions in her lifetime. Alternatively, Hungary has made family planning services more widely available and the abortion rate has dropped dramatically. Mr. President, the United States plays a critical role in providing family planning services abroad. It has been certified over and over again that none of the funds are used to pay for abortions, as required by law. I feel strongly that we should continue our leadership role in this area. I urge my colleagues to defeat the McConnell amendment and support the Hatfield language in the bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I note that in the second-degree amendment it provides $1 to the Fish and Wildlife Service to do the entire emergency listing. That shows you how serious the other side is about this whole proposition. In other words, in the underlying bill, there was $750,000 which was available for the downlisting and the other activities in connection with this program. And now they are saying that we are out to take care of this situation because there is an emergency provision, and in order to take care of it they provide $1. It seems to me that shows you how serious really the other side is in proposing this second-degree amendment. And so I hope that the Reid effort to table the Hutchison amendment will succeed.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Mr. President, what is wrong with the Hutchison amendment, the second-degree amendment? First of all, it maintains the moratorium on final decisions to list species through the end of this fiscal year. Now, Mr. President, let us briefly review the bidding. Last March, the Senate approved a 6-month moratorium, a brief time out on listings under the Endangered Species Act. That was 6 months. That was extended another 5 months under the continuing resolution. Now, under this bill, the moratorium would be extended for another 7 months. That means that for a minimum of 18 months no work will be done toward conserving species that warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act, species threatened with extinction or destruction, and a lot of ground can be lost in a year and a half. Now, Mr. President, the second point is that although the Hutchison second-degree amendment would allow emergency listings --the word ``emergency'' is in there--that is not an adequate or practical way to recover a species. Mr. President, you come up with emergency listing when the situation is really desperate. It is sort of a last-ditch effort to save a species, when the species is about to become extinct either through disease, or destruction by man in some fashion, or the last remnant of the habitat has been wiped out. At this point, Mr. President, there is little hope of recovering the species. Recovery, after all, is the goal of the Endangered Species Act. That is what this is all about. If we do not want an Endangered Species Act, just let us say so. But we hear constantly on the floor of this Senate--when these amendments are brought up to really demolish the Endangered Species Act, it is prefaced by, ``We are all for the act, we just want to make these corrections.'' But this ``correction,'' so-called, really is devastating to the recovery of a species. If you are only listing it as endangered when it reaches the emergency situation, then the cause is practically lost, in most instances, due to the destruction of the animal, bird or plant, or lost due to the destruction of the habitat that is so essential for the survival of that. Furthermore, Mr. President, I point out that emergency listings are only temporary. Under the Endangered Species Act, they last for 240 days. You go in--it is not like a listing for an endangered species. It is an emergency situation. Normally, the Fish and Wildlife Service promulgates a final rule to list a species at the end of the 240-day emergency listing period. Under the second-degree amendment that is presented, the Fish and Wildlife Service could not make a final rule to protect the species under the Endangered Species Act because you cannot do that. They have to go through a whole series of emergency actions--240 days, and then another 240 days. That is not the kind of situation that is really going to lead to the saving of a species. It is not going to permit long-term decisions to be made and expenditures of money, perhaps, for the saving of habitat. So, Mr. President, I do hope the second-degree amendment will be tabled, as the distinguished Senator from Nevada will move at some period. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do not intend to object, but I want to ask one question, if I might. If I understood the proposal correctly, there will be adequate time this evening for further discussion. So the Senator is not cutting things off right now, as I understand it?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there have been several references to people resisting the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. I do not know who the references are to. But it certainly is clear that if this moratorium is extended, the pressure to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act is reduced. The best way to get the Endangered Species Act reauthorized is to get rid of this moratorium and have everybody concentrate their energies on the reauthorization. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, those on the committee--and certainly the subcommittee headed by the Senator from Idaho--have been working to get this act reauthorized. So, I for one have seen no resistance to the reauthorization of the act from any individual that I know. Let us just review the bidding, if we might. When President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, this is what he said: Nothing is more priceless or more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many faceted treasure for valued scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we share as all Americans. I congratulate Congress for taking this important step toward protecting a heritage which we hold in trust to countless future generations of our fellow citizens. That is what President Nixon said when he signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973. The importance of America's natural heritage is exactly what we are debating here today--whether as a Nation we should conserve those plants, species, and animals which we know to be threatened with extinction, or whether we should knowingly choose not to protect those imperiled species. I support Senator Reid's amendment to strike the provisions which would impose a moratorium on adding new species to the threatened and endangered list. A blanket moratorium on listing new species undercuts the goals of the Endangered Species Act and undermines our Nation's strong bipartisan--I stress bipartisan--history of conservation. This is not a Republican measure. This is not a Democratic measure. The efforts to preserve the endangered species of America has been a bipartisan effort, signed, as I pointed out, by President Nixon in 1973 and passed by a Democratic Congress at that time. Let me take a moment, if I might, to speak about the broader issue that led me to support an effective law to protect endangered species. I share the belief of many across our land that each species is intrinsically valuable whether or not it is of obvious use to mankind. I note that when Noah led the animals into the ark, he included all species. If I could quote, ``One pair male and female of all beasts, clean and unclean, of birds and everything that crawls on the ground.'' And God did not direct him to select only the most beautiful animals or those plants that might have some particular use to mankind and perhaps to help him to cure cancer, whatever it might be. Noah saved all creatures. One great strength of the Endangered Species Act is that it does not just single out the bald eagle, or the bison, or the California whale, or whatever it might be--some majestic symbol such as the grizzly bear. It protects every endangered species and its essential habitat--and I stress the habitat--simply because it is threatened with extinction. Despite all the advantages of modern science, we really do not understand the implications, the chain reaction that will be set in motion when a given species vanishes. So, we should do all we can to avoid taking such a chance. Since last April, a moratorium has been in place on adding any new species to the threatened and endangered list maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Listen to this. Since last April a moratorium has been in place on adding any new species to the threatened and endangered list, and for the past 5 months the Service has had no funding to carry out any new listing activities. As a result, species in need are not protected by the law. They are piling up on the proposed candidate list. There are no new listings of endangered or threatened. The Service can put those on the proposed and candidate list but not the threatened or the endangered list. Under the regular process established under the Endangered Species Act, species are added to the endangered and threatened list by the Secretary of the Interior based upon the best scientific knowledge available. This takes years and involves several stages of review. It is not done haphazardly. It takes public notice, comment, and hearings, if requested, and, once listed, the Federal Government is committed to conserve these species, and they are subject to the protections of the act; that is, if they are listed as threatened or endangered. Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 243 species, 196 of which are plants proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Proposed species have been subject to a full scientific review and considered to be at risk so as to require the protections of the act. There are 182 species on the Fish and Wildlife Service list of candidates. That is species thought to warrant protection for which the Service has not yet had the resources to conduct a full review. Neither the proposed nor the candidate species are subject to the protections of the Endangered Species Act. In other words, all that is taking place now, there is no protection out there for those that are proposed or candidate. If they are already on the list and endangered, and they have been so listed in the past, that is OK. But they are discovering new species that are proposed and candidates but they are not subject to any of the protections of the Endangered Species Act. In other words, proposed and candidate species--let us take plants for example--can be ripped up, hunted, and sold, or the animals can still be hunted. In other words, what we are doing is taking those that once upon a time seemed in pretty good shape, but they were proposed, or candidates, and now they are becoming more and more endangered because there is no protection of them. That is no way to do business. Why should we care that species that are in danger of extinction are left unprotected and are piling up on these lists of proposed and candidates? The reasons are practical as well as ethical. Failure to recognize and address the risk to imperiled species and doing something about them now will make it much more difficult and more expensive to conserve in the future. For one thing, destruction of habitat that is essential for the survival of the proposed and candidate species can proceed unchanged. In other words, yes, they are potentially in danger, but you cannot do anything about it. You cannot do anything about their habitat preservation. Thus, a prolonged moratorium on listing is likely to cause further declines in the status of those species that are precluded from the protections of the Endangered Species Act. The moratorium may eliminate conservation options that are available now. In other words, the longer the moratorium goes on, the less chance there is to come up with a variety of options to save these endangered species. You cannot do anything about them. Each month the moratorium drags on increases the size of the backlog of work for the biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service. This backlog and the lack of funding for listing activities such as research and monitoring will lead inevitably to further delays and inefficiencies down the road. Most importantly, it seems to me, Mr. President, by refusing to protect these species, we fail to live up to our moral obligation to act as good stewards. Mr. President, the Endangered Species Act is far from perfect. It can and should be improved. And with respect to private property rights, the act should include more carrots and fewer sticks--more inducements and fewer prohibitions. We recognize that. But we are not going to solve the problems of the Endangered Species Act by ignoring species that we know are in grave danger. That is no way to solve the problem. The problems with the current Endangered Species Act are not solved by cutting off funds that are necessary for Fish and Wildlife to carry out its responsibilities. The problems with the current Endangered Species Act should be addressed through the normal authorization process, and that is what we are trying to do. I pay tribute to the chairman of the particular subcommittee in the Environment and Public Works Committee, the junior Senator from Idaho, for the hearings he has held and attempts he is making to reauthorize this act. It is no easy job. We have had six hearings, three of them in the West, on the reauthorization of the act. We have heard from 100 witnesses, and many of them have come up with good proposals. These hearings, as I say, ably chaired by the junior Senator from Idaho, were constructive and form the basis for continuing discussions. So we are meeting, the staffs and members of the committee are meeting regularly, working on legislation to reform the law. Certainly, my best efforts will be put toward supporting a responsible Endangered Species Act this year, and I look forward to working with all Senators to complete successfully that important task. However, I do not believe that the moratorium provisions contained in this appropriations bill constitute a responsible step toward completion of the reauthorization process. Enactment of the reauthorization is not going to be easy. We know that through these meetings and hearings that we have had. The only way it is going to come about is if Senators are willing to back away from fixed positions and inform their constituents that their constituents are not going to get everything each one wants, either the environmentalists, the lumbermen, or whoever it might be. So Senator Kempthorne, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, and I are working together striving to reach a consensus on legislation to improve the act. Our staffs are meeting, and we believe we are making good progress. So, again, I wish to make it clear that I am in favor of passing legislation to improve the act. And I seek to report a bill from the committee this spring. But I believe a moratorium on adding new species to the threatened and endangered list is just plain wrong. A moratorium causes new problems and compounds the difficulties we are facing. It does not make it easier. It makes it more difficult. Meanwhile, the protections are not there that should be there, the protections of the flora and fauna, the animals involved, and also their habitat that should be theirs. So, Mr. President, I hope the Reid amendment will be adopted. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for all that the junior Senator from Idaho has done in connection with working on the reauthorization of this act. As he pointed out, he has a determination, and I share that determination, to get this act reauthorized this year. Here is the situation, Mr. President: As I understand the second- degree amendment that the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Idaho have submitted, and if I am wrong I would appreciate if he would correct me, I have a copy of it here, but there may have been changes to it since. What this does is say to the Secretary of Interior that in an emergency there can be a listing of the animal or plant as endangered. What that means to me, and here is the problem, the situation has gotten so desperate that it therefore qualifies for an emergency listing. By that time it is close to being too late. That is the whole problem. That is why this moratorium is bad business. Now it said here, well, we agreed to a moratorium last April so, therefore, we agreed to a moratorium in perpetuity. No, I never agreed to anything like that. I agreed to a moratorium last April that took us through to the end of that fiscal year. That does not mean I am for going on and on with this business, especially because of the very point that it seems to me that the second-degree amendment stresses, that by having these moratoriums the situation gets worse and worse, no action is taken, and then you come rushing in under an emergency listing. Yes, that is better than nothing but by that time it is probably too late. The cost is so significant. In connection with that, I might say they reduce the money that has been proposed by the Senator from Nevada very, very substantially. The moneys that are available are not going to do the trick here as far as saving these species that have now reached the emergency situation. For those reasons, Mr. President, I do not find that the second- degree amendment solves the problems we have been dealing with here this evening. I hope, as I hoped the original amendment would be approved, namely, the Reid amendment, I hope that careful consideration would be given by all to this second-degree amendment and there will be a motion--I presume by the Senator from Nevada--to table that second- degree amendment. I urge favorable consideration of that motion to table because of the reasons enunciated. Namely, we do not want this situation to reach the emergency status. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, tomorrow our friend and colleague, Senator Thurmond, will become the oldest sitting Senator in the history of the U.S. Senate. This is a remarkable achievement. In so doing, he surpasses the late Theodore Francis Green of Rhode Island who retired in January 1961 to be succeeded by Senator Pell. He retired at the age of 93 years and 93 days. Senator Thurmond will be 93 years and 94 days old tomorrow, so he will exceed the record of the oldest Senator to serve, which was set by Theodore Francis Green. I congratulate Senator Thurmond on the great things he has done in his 40-plus years of Senate service, and I congratulate him on achieving this milestone. On the last day before he breaks this impressive record set by Senator Green, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about Senator Green's exemplary Senate career. Theodore Francis Green, as Senator Pell has mentioned, came to the Senate in 1937. Previously, he served one term in the Rhode Island State Legislature, the house of representatives, and two terms--we had 2-year terms in those days--as Governor, for a total of 4 years. He was a strong supporter of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs, and he was an advocate of important farm and unemployment relief legislation, and he fought vigorously for increased Federal aid for education. He did his level best to ensure that Rhode Island got its fair share of Federal funds. And most significant in achieving Federal funds was when he secured President Roosevelt's support for a new naval base in our State constructed at Quonset Point. This was the site of 1 of 12 new Navy bases that were built in the late thirties and early forties. Knowing that the Senators from New York and Massachusetts were just as anxious to land a new base for their home State, Senator Green pressed his successor Governor and the State legislators to cede land to the Federal Government as quickly as possible. Once Congress began its consideration of the matter, Senator Green took the lead in shepherding the necessary authorization and appropriations bills through the Senate. It was in foreign affairs that Senator Green truly made his mark. He joined the Foreign Relations Committee just as the United States was turning away from its isolationist policies and toward taking its place as the greatest military power the world had ever seen. In those days, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was where a good deal of the action took place. Senator Green demonstrated his spirited efforts to implement the lend-lease plan, and his early support for the Selective Service Act was up to the challenge. While many of his colleagues called for the United States to retreat into isolationism once World War II drew to a close, Senator Green was adamant that the United States should participate in creating a workable, collective security arrangement to avoid future global conflicts. He worked diligently to ensure that American assistance to war-torn nations--the so-called Marshall plan--was implemented, and he worked hard for the establishment of the U.N. Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. As Senator Green's influence in the Foreign Relations Committee increased, he provided key support for the chief foreign policy initiatives of the Truman administration, particularly with regard to Greece and Korea. But his internationalism was not limited to Democratic administrations. On the contrary. Senator Green argued just as firmly against proposals to curb the President's power to conduct foreign policy during the Eisenhower administration. In 1957, as the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he led congressional support for Eisenhower's request to use American troops to combat communism in the Middle East--the so-called Eisenhower doctrine. Now, much like Senator Thurmond, Senator Green attributed his longevity to two things: A healthy diet and regular exercise. As Senator Pell just mentioned, he walked every morning from the University Club on 16th Street to the Capitol--every day, up until his retirement. Here he was in his nineties, getting up toward 95, 96, and the New York Times heralded him as the Senate's undisputed champion diver, swimmer, and handball player. I am not sure how much competition he had as a diver, but nonetheless he was a champion. Although Senator Green will no longer hold the distinction to have been the oldest person to have served in this body, he will long be remembered for his accomplishments, his compassion, his loyalty, his honesty, and his good humor. Upon hearing of Senator Green's intention not to run for reelection, Senator Fulbright said of him, ``I had hoped and expected that he would stay until he reached 100 years of age.'' On the eve of this historic day, I wish the same to the very distinguished Senator from South Carolina. I would hope and expect that he will stay until he reaches the age of 100. Indeed, we have said to Senator Thurmond that we hope we are here when he reaches 100. He said, ``If you get exercise and eat right, you will be here.'' I look forward to many more years of serving with our distinguished Senator from South Carolina, and I congratulate him on breaking the record set by a Rhode Islander for being the oldest Senator to serve in this body. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today marks the sixth annual celebration of National Sportsmanship Day. Designed to promote ethics, integrity, and good sportsmanship in athletics, as well as in society as a whole, National Sportsmanship Day was established by the Institute for International Sport at the University of Rhode Island. As my colleagues may recall, the Institute for International Sport gained national attention 3 years ago as the sponsor of the inaugural World Scholar-Athlete Games in Newport, RI. More than 1,600 student- athletes from 108 countries participated in athletic and scholastic competitions. In 1995, the institute sponsored the Rhode Island Scholar-Athlete Games, which served as a model for similar contests across the country. Schools and colleges from across the United States are encouraged to participate in National Sportsmanship Day. This year, some 6,000 schools representing all 50 States and 61 nations are expected to take part in the celebration. Working with material provided by the institute, classrooms around the globe will take this opportunity to debate questions related to gender equity, competition, and fair play. In addition, for the third year in a row USA Today is sponsoring a national essay contest. Another key component of National Sportsmanship Day is the Student- Athlete Outreach Program. This program encourages high schools and colleges to send talented student-athletes to local elementary and middle schools to promote good sportsmanship and serve as positive role models. These students help young people build self-esteem, respect for physical fitness, and an appreciation for the value of teamwork. National Sportsmanship Day is recognized by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. In a letter to the institute, Florence Griffith Joyner and Tom McMillen, cochairs of the President's Council, point out ``the valuable life skills and lessons that are learned by youth and adults through participation in sports.'' I will ask that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I am delighted that National Sportsmanship Day was initiated in Rhode Island and I applaud all the students and teachers who are participating in this inspiring event today. Likewise, I congratulate all of those at the Institute for International Sport, whose hard work and dedication over the last 6 years have made this program so successful. I ask that the letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows: The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, Washington, DC, March 1996. The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports is pleased to recognize March 5, 1996, as National Sportsmanship Day. The valuable life skills and lessons that are learned by youth and adults through participation in sports cannot be overestimated. Participation in sports contributes to all aspects of our lives, such as heightened awareness of the value of fair play, ethics, integrity, honesty and sportsmanship, as well as improving levels of physical fitness and health. The President's Council congratulates the Institute for International Sport for its continued leadership in organizing this important day. We wish you every success in your efforts to broaden participation in and awareness of National Sportsmanship Day. Florence Griffith Joyner, Co-Chair. Tom McMillen, Co-Chair.