John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 1970, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1998, introduced by Senator Abraham. I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. The bill would establish a program to provide financial assistance for projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean. Each autumn, some 5 billion birds from 500 species migrate between their breeding grounds in North America and tropical habitats in the Caribbean, Central and South America. These neotropical migrants--or New World tropical migrants--are birds that migrate between the biogeographic region stretching across Mexico, Central America, much of the Caribbean, and the northern part of South America. The natural challenges facing these migratory birds are profound. These challenges have been exacerbated by human-induced impacts, particularly the continuing loss of habitat in the Caribbean and Latin America. As a result, populations of migratory birds have declined generally in recent years. While there are numerous efforts underway to protect these species and their habitat, they generally focus on specific groups of migratory birds or specific regions in the Americas. There is a need for a more comprehensive program to address the varied and significant threats facing the numerous species of migratory birds across their range. Frequently there is little, if any, coordination among the existing programs, nor is there any one program that serves as a link among them. A broader, more holistic approach would bolster existing conservation efforts and programs, fill the gaps between these programs, and promote new initiatives. S. 1970 encompasses this new approach. Today, I am offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the bill. This amendment makes numerous changes to the bill as approved by the EPW Committee. These changes have been incorporated based on very constructive, bipartisan negotiations with the sponsors of the bill, the House Resources Committee, the Administration, and the EPW Committee. One major change between this amendment and the reported bill relates to the advisory group. Formation of the group is now discretionary on the part of the Secretary. I urge, however, that the Secretary convene a group to assist in implementing the legislation. The success of this initiative will depend on close collaboration with public and private organizations involved in the conservation of migratory birds. Another significant change applies to the funding levels. While the Federal share remains no more than 33 percent, the non-Federal share has been changed so that for projects in the U.S., the non-Federal share must be paid in cash, while in projects outside the U.S., the non-Federal share may be entirely in-kind contributions. This change is intended to create an incentive, and provide flexibility, for undertaking projects outside the United States. To complement this change, the substitute amendment eliminates the limitation that no more than 70 percent of appropriated funds may be used for projects outside the United States. Other changes include a clarification of the purposes section, inclusion of a definitions section, and changes to the section enumerating duties of the Secretary, given the elimination of the advisory committee. In addition, several changes were made to reflect a desire that projects be developed with the support of the relevant wildlife management authorities of the country. This change recognizes the need to collaborate conservation efforts among both public and private sectors, and at local and national levels. I believe that this amendment greatly improves the bill, and I am very pleased with the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support, and urge its speedy enactment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider S. 2131, the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. This measure, similar to water resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 19990, 1992, and 1996, is comprised of water resources project and study authorizations and policy modifications for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. S. 2131 was introduced on June 4 of this year and was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee to the full Senate on August 25, 1998. Since that time, additional project and policy requests have been presented to the Committee. Some have come from our Senate colleagues-- others have come from the administration. We have carefully reviewed each such request and include those that are consistent with the Committee's criteria in the manager's amendment being considered along with S. 2131 today. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here to discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the Committee to judge project authorization requests. On November 17, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Importantly, the 1986 Act marked an end to the 16-year deadlock between Congress and the Executive branch regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works program. In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps and non-federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which federal involvement is appropriate and warranted. The criteria used to develop the legislation before us are consistent with the reforms and procedures established in the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Is a project for flood control, navigation or some other purpose cost-shared in a manner consistent with the 1986 Act? Have all of the requisite reports and studies on economic, engineering and environmental feasibility been completed for a project? Is a project consistent with the traditional and appropriate mission of the Army Corps? Should the Federal Government be involved? These, Mr. President, are the fundamental questions that we have applied to each and every project included here for authorization. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct some 36 projects for flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration. The bill also modifies 43 existing Army Corps projects and authorizes 29 project studies. In total, this bill and the manager's amendment authorizes an estimated Federal cost of $2.3 billion. Mr. President, this legislation includes other project-specific and general provisions related to Army Corps operations, as I mentioned at the outset. Among them are two provisions sought by Senator Bond and others to enhance the environment along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. We have also included a modified version of the administration's so-called Challenge 21 initiative to encourage more non-structural flood control and environmental projects. In addition, we are recommending that the cost-sharing formula be changed for maintenance of future shoreline protection projects. Mr. President, this legislation is vitally important for countless states and communities across the country. For economic and life-safety reasons, we must maintain our harbors, ports and inland waterways, our flood control levees and shorelines, and the environment. I strongly urge adoption of the underlying bill and manager's amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 361, sponsored by Senator Jeffords and approved by the Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 22, 1998. Rhinos and tigers are some of the most critically endangered species on the planet. Fewer than 7,500 tigers survive in the world today, and of the eight subspecies that have been identified, three are extinct. Another subspecies in South China is on the brink of extinction, with a population of about 20 animals. Rhinos number between 11,000 and 13,500, with two species in Africa and three in Asia. Two of the Asian species themselves are on the verge of extinction, with the Javan rhino having less than 100 individuals, and the Sumatran rhino having less than 500. The reason for the recent decline of rhinos and tigers, and the primary immediate threat to their survival is the same--poaching. The reason for the poaching itself is also the same--parts of both rhinos and tigers are used in traditional Asian medicines. In 1994, Congress passed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act to help conserve rhinos and tigers. The Act established the ``Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund'' to receive funds appropriated by Congress, as well as donations, to fund conservation projects. Since its enactment, Congress has appropriated $1 million for the program, funding 40 projects in 10 range countries in Africa and Asia. Despite this program and recent efforts by the Parties to CITES, trade of traditional Asian medicine containing rhino and tiger parts continues to be high, particularly in Asia and the United States. Neither the ESA not CITES allow for the interdiction of products that are labeled or advertised as containing substances derived from rhinos or tigers, without evidence that the products in fact contain these substances. Such evidence, at best, would be extremely difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to acquire, and at worst, would be impossible to acquire. The bill amends the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act to address this problem. It prohibits products that contain, or are labeled or advertised as containing, rhino and tiger parts, in an effort to reduce the supply and demand of those products in the United States. It requires a public outreach program in the United States to complement the prohibitions. Lastly, it reauthorizes the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act through 2002. As a related matter, I would like to note that even as Congress reaffirms and strengthens the laws for the conservation of rhinos and tigers, funding for implementation of these laws is woefully inadequate. This year--the Year of the Tiger--the Administration requested only $400,000 for implementing the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The Act is authorized to be appropriated up to $10 million annually. I strongly urge the Administration, for FY 2000, to request funding commensurate with the dire situation facing rhinos, and particularly tigers, in the wild. I also would like to note that the Act allows for donations to be made to the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and I urge both corporations and individuals to make donations to this Fund. I wish to thank my colleagues for considering this bill, and I urge the House to approve it expeditiously, so that it can then be signed by the President. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator Moynihan, the ``Federal Employee Flexibility Act of 1998,'' a bill that would provide flexibility and choices for Federal employees. This flexibility was provided to private sector employees in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, so-called TEA 21. We believe that these provisions provide to employers and employees important new flexibility which should reduce single occupant vehicle trips from our highways and therefore contribute to reduced congestion, a cleaner environment, and increased energy conservation. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century include significant changes to the way the Internal Revenue Code treats employer-provided transportation fringe benefits. Unfortunately, we have become aware that personnel compensation law for Federal employees restricts implementation of this new flexibility. Prior to enactment of these two bills, the Federal tax code provided that employer-provided parking is not subject to Federal taxation, up to $170 per month. However, this tax exemption was lost for all employees if the parking was offered in lieu of compensation for just one employee. In other words, if an employer gave just one employee a choice between parking and some other benefit (such as a transit pass, or increased salary), the parking of all other employees in the company became taxable. It goes without saying that no employers jeopardized a tax benefit for the overwhelming majority of their employees to provide flexibility to others. In effect, the tax code prohibited employers from offering their employees a choice. Parking was a take-it or leave-it benefit. The changes in these two laws make it possible for employers to offer their employees more choices by eliminating the take-it or leave-it restriction in the Federal tax code. Employees whose only transportation benefit is parking can now instead accept a salary enhancement, and find other means to get to work such as car pooling, van pooling, biking, walking, or taking transit. Unfortunately, Federal employees will not be able to benefit from the increased flexibility available to private sector employees, unless Federal compensation law is modified. Current Federal law provides that a Federal employee may not receive additional pay unless specifically authorized by law. Therefore, a Federal employee could not ``cash out'' a parking space at work, and instead receive cash or other benefits. To address this limitation for transit passes and similar benefits, the ``Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act'' allows the Federal government to provide transit benefits, bicycle services, and non- monetary incentives to employees. However, when this legislation was enacted, the Federal tax code prohibited the so-called ``cash out'' option discussed above, and therefore was not included in the list of transportation-related exemptions in that statute. The short and simple bill we introduce today would add ``taxable cash reimbursement for the value of an employer-provided parking space'' to the list of benefits that can be received by Federal employees. Let me assure my colleagues and Federal employees that this bill would not require that Federal employees lose their parking spaces, as may be feared when there is discussion of Federal employee parking spaces. The bill simply provides Federal employees the same flexibility that is available to private sector employees. Employees who want to retain their tax-free parking space would be free to do so. We think it is vital that the Federal government show leadership on the application of new and innovative ways to solve our transportation and environmental problems. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and that we can act swiftly on it in the next session of Congress. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if I may be yielded 1 minute or 2 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this bill contains a rider that addresses methyl bromide use. It is an anti-environmental rider offered by a few members of the other party, and slipped into the bill by the conference committee. It has not been debated by either body, and yet this language amends the Clean Air Act and constrains our ability to negotiate a more rapid phase-out of methyl bromide use with other nations. Just last week, the White House, and specifically Vice President Gore, called on the Congress to end what he called ``backdoor assaults'' on the environment. I sincerely hope that the President and Vice President mean that to apply to all anti-environmental riders, including the ones offered by their own party. This methyl bromide rider began as an effort to address a legitimate problem, but changes sought by a few members of the other party go too far. Methyl bromide is highly toxic and a potent ozone depleting compound. It is also one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States. The 1994 Montreal Protocol requires a gradual phase-out of methyl bromide beginning next year. Industrialized countries have agreed to a phase-out by 2005, while developing nations must phase-out methyl bromide by 2015. In the United States, the Clean Air Act requires an even earlier phase-out date for methyl bromide--January 1, 2001. I share the concern that the Clean Air Act's accelerated phase-out schedule might put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. However, I believe that addressing this problem in the context of an appropriations bill is entirely inappropriate. Putting constraints on an international treaty and modifying a major environmental statute demands thoughtful debate. To do this with a rider on an appropriations bill allows almost no debate. The principle argument for action on methyl bromide has been the potential competitive disadvantage for American agriculture. As I said, I am sympathetic to that problem, and I support the idea that we should allow the Montreal Protocol to dictate the phase-out in this nation. But the language added to this bill would prohibit any phase-out earlier than the date currently contained in the Protocol--2005. Could the deadline for phase-out be accelerated if, a few years down the road, the international community decides that effective, affordable alternatives to methyl bromide exist? Not if we approve this rider. This language says that--no matter what--the United States will not end methyl bromide use before 2005. The international community is not going to negotiate an earlier date, because they know that the U.S. will not comply with an earlier date. Inclusion of that language guarantees that worldwide methyl bromide use will continue until 2005. This is an inappropriate limitation on our options regarding methyl bromide and our ability to negotiate changes to an international treaty. More importantly, a last minute appropriations rider is a bad way to amend the Clean Air Act. I can only hope that the President, the Vice President, and Democratic Senators who have spoken against other riders intend to oppose all anti-environmental riders, not just those offered by Republicans. Mr. President, I am distressed over the methyl bromide amendment which is an antienvironmental rider that was put into this conference report. It wasn't debated by either body, yet the language amends the Clean Air Act and constrains our ability to negotiate a more rapid phaseout of methyl bromide when used by other nations. I point out that the principal argument for action on methyl bromide has been the potential competitive disadvantage for American agriculture. I am sympathetic of that, and I support the idea we should allow the Montreal Protocol to dictate the phaseout of this. If we don't like it, then we should amend it. The present time for the phaseout is 2005 but could be earlier. What this legislation does is makes it no later than 2005 but prevents it from being earlier than 2005. In those intervening 7 years, there well could be developed an alternative to methyl bromide. I think this is an unfortunate provision in the bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support today for S. 2095, legislation to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act of 1984. This legislation makes important changes in the Foundation's charter, changes that I believe will allow the Foundation to build on its fine record of providing funding for conservation of our nation's fish, wildlife and plant resources. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 1984, to bring together diverse groups to engage in conservation projects across America and, in some cases, around the world. Since its inception, the Foundation has made more than 2,300 grants totaling over $270 million. This is an impressive record of accomplishment. The Foundation has pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name just a few. Mr. President, the Foundation has funded these programs by raising private funds to match federal appropriations on at least a 2 to 1 basis. During this time of fiscal constraint this is an impressive record of leveraging federal dollars. Moreover, all of the Foundation's operating costs are raised privately, which means that federal and private dollars given for conservation is spent only on conservation projects. Mr. President, this legislation is quite simple. It makes three key changes to current law. First, the bill would expand the Foundation's governing Board of Directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will allow a greater number of those with a strong interest in conservation to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's activities. The bill's second key feature authorizes the Foundation to work with other agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, in addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. President, it is my view that the Foundation should continue to provide valuable assistance to government agencies within the Departments of the Interior and Commerce that may be faced with conservation issues. Finally, it would reauthorize appropriations to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce through 2003. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will produce real conservation benefits, and I strongly urge my colleagues to give the bill their support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support for the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Promotion Act of 1998, or the Duck Stamp Act as it is more commonly known. In 1934 President Roosevelt signed into law the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (Act). The Act required that all waterfowl hunters 16 years of age and over must annually purchase and carry a Federal Duck Stamp. The revenue generated from duck stamp sales is earmarked for the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to buy or lease waterfowl sanctuaries. As a result, many of the nation's wildlife refuges have been purchased in whole or part with duck stamp funds. Although the Duck Stamp program has been extremely successful, the Act does not provide funds to market and advertise duck stamps. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to use up to $1 million a year in duck stamp receipts until 2003 for marketing purposes. To ensure that this program is a success the marketing plan has to be approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission prior to implementation. Duck stamp sales could increase substantially if funds were available to market the stamp, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support H.R. 4248.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk a manager's amendment to H.R. 8, a bill that was reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee on a voice vote. Mr. President, H.R. 8 was developed to address part of the air pollution in southern California that has proven difficult to control. The pollution source in question is emissions from cars and trucks crossing into the San Diego area from Mexico. Those of us who work on the problems of air pollution are well aware of the strict auto emissions standards California has put in place in an effort to meet national air quality standards. Many of the cars crossing the border from Mexico greatly exceed the standards that California cars are expected to meet. California has an extremely difficult task in trying to improve its air quality. The State is working to reduce emissions from nearly every conceivable source. The excess emissions from cross-border traffic is estimated to be 13 percent of the excess pollution from cars and trucks in the San Diego area. So, H.R. 8 was written to allow cars to be checked as they come across the border to ensure that those cars coming into the U.S. on a regular basis comply with State emission standards. California State law already requires this, but without a border check, the law has been impossible to enforce. This matter has been widely recognized as one that H.R. 8 can be helpful in addressing, and as I have said, the bill was approved by a voice vote in the committee. Today, I am submitting a manager's amendment to remedy some concerns raised by a few Senators about how the bill might apply to other states. The amendment will ensure that this bill is neutral with respect to all parts of the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada except the California-Mexico border, where the real problem is. Another change made by the amendment will focus the bill more narrowly on regular commuters as opposed to the occasional visitor on a shopping trip. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment has already been reviewed and approved by the minority. These changes also have been cleared by both the majority and minority on the House Commerce Committee, as well as by Congressman Bilbray, the bill's sponsor. I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and pass H.R. 8.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, like my friend from Arkansas, I am concerned about the effect that mail order sales companies have on local retailers. I have no axe to grind with these businesses, and in fact applaud their ability to provide a very important service to many Americans. The convenience of this type of purchasing is good for the consumer. What does concern me is the possibility that mail order and other direct sales companies' popularity is on the rise simply because they are not required to collect state sales taxes. I do not know if that is the true reason for their growth, but I would be concerned if they are taking advantage of what may be, in effect, an uneven playing field. Remember, local merchants, who compete with direct sales companies for business, have no opportunity to avoid collecting sales tax on their transactions. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas raises a very important issue, and I am glad that the Senate has had the opportunity to debate it this morning. But this is a complicated issue, and cannot be fully considered over a few hours of debate on the floor of the Senate. I have several questions about the proposal offered by the Senator from Arkansas. For example, is it reasonable to set the exemption level at $3 million of annual sales? Is the per state exemption level of $100,000 in annual sales an appropriate level? On whom should this obligation be imposed? Mr. President, these are just some of the questions that the Advisory Commission should be given the opportunity to explore. It may be that when this issue is fully reviewed, the Congress will decide that the approach proposed by the Senator from Arkansas is the correct one. But I don't think we can make that judgment today, and that is why I am voting to table this amendment. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to provide relief to communities for whom air transportation is vital to their survival. Last year, Congress altered the structure of the aviation excise tax which funds the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. As part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the 10% ad valorem ticket tax was replaced with a combination ad valorem/flight segment charge. When fully phased in, the tax will consist of an ad valorem tax of 7.5% of the price of a ticket and a $3.00 charge per flight segment. This change has dramatically increased the tax imposed on low-fare flights. A typical flight to or from the Block Island community located in my state costs $28. Prior to last year, the tax on this flight would be 10% or $2.80. When fully implemented, however, the new structure will increase the tax on the same ticket by 82%, to $5.10. This new structure was intended to provide a user-based approach to paying for the use of FAA services and facilities. However, short distance flights between islands and a mainland make little demand on Air Traffic Control services as these flight segments do not use ATC centers, rarely use departure or arrive control, often operate under visual flight rules and usually are transferred from the departure control tower to the destination control tower. Congress recognized that this new tax structure would adversely affect rural communities. Consequently, flights to or from rural airports are taxed at a rate of 7.5% of the ticket price, with no per passenger segment charge. For purposes of this exemption, a rural airport is one that is located at least 75 miles away from an airport with more than 100,000 passengers. Unfortunately, this restrictive definition fails to recognize the unique nature of island communities. Island communities face transportation problems similar to those encountered by passengers from rural areas. Air and ferry transportation provide islands with a vital link to the mainland for shopping, employment, health care, and other needs. Most commercial passenger enplanements at island airports are for short-distance flights simply to get off the island. For those communities, air and ferry service maintain a delicate balance, and both are needed to meet the communities' needs for mainland access. The current excise tax structure provides a disincentive to providing service to remote island communities. This result is contrary to Congress' intent to increase air service to these remote communities. My legislation reinstates the prior tax structure for flights to or from an island community. Thus, a passenger flying to or from such a community would pay a tax equal to 10% of the price of a ticket. It is important to note that this is less favorable than the exemption currently provided to passengers to and from rural airports. I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important health initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with Senators Baucus, Grassley, Moseley-Braun, Rockefeller, and Kerrey of Nebraska, the Structured Settlement Protection Act. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House as H.R. 4314, cosponsored by Representative Clay Shaw and Pete Stark and a broad bipartisan group of members of the House Ways and Means Committee. The Act protects structured settlements and the injured victims who are the recipients of the structured settlement payments from the problems caused by a growing practice known as structured settlement factoring. Structured settlements were developed because of the pitfalls associated with the traditional lump sum form of recovery in serious personal injury cases, where all too often a lump sum meant to last for decades or even a lifetime swiftly eroded away. Structured settlements have proven to be a very valuable tool. They provide long-term financial security in the form of an assured stream of payments to persons suffering serious, often profoundly disabling, physical injuries. These payments enable the recipients to meet ongoing medical and basic living expenses without having to resort to the social safety net. Congress has adopted special tax rules to encourage and govern the use of structured settlements in physical injury cases. By encouraging the use of structured settlements Congress sought to shield victims and their families from pressures to prematurely dissipate their recoveries. Structured settlement payments are nonassignable. This is consistent with worker's compensation payments and various types of Federal disability payments which are also non-assignable under applicable law. In each case, this is done to preserve the injured person's long-term financial security. I am very concerned that in recent months there has been sharp growth in so-called structured settlement factoring transactions. In these transactions, companies induce injured victims to sell off future structured settlement payments for a steeply-discounted lump sum, thereby unraveling the structured settlement and the crucial long-term financial security that it provides to the injured victim. These factoring company purchases directly contravene the intent and policy of Congress in enacting the special structured settlement tax rules. The Treasury Department shares these concerns as is evidenced with a similar proposal included in the Administration's FY 1999 budget. Court records from across the country are shedding light on factoring company purchases of structured settlement payments from gravely- injured victims. Recent cases involve a quadriplegic in Oklahoma, a paraplegic in Texas, a person in Connecticut with traumatic brain injuries dating from childhood, and an injured worker receiving workers' compensation in Mississippi. Realizing the long-term risk being inflicted on these seriously-injured individuals, this legislation has the active support of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, as well as the American Association of Persons With Disabilities (AAPD). The National Spinal Cord Injury Association recently wrote to the Chairman of the Finance Committee strongly supporting the legislation. They state: ``[o]ver the past 16 years, structured settlements have proven to be an ideal method for ensuring that persons with disabilities, particularly minors, are not tempted to squander resources designed to last years or even a lifetime. That is why the National Spinal Cord Injury Association is so deeply concerned about the emergence of companies that purchase payments intended for disabled persons at drastic discount. This strikes at the heart of the security Congress intended when it created structured settlements.'' It is appropriate to address this problem through the federal tax system because these purchases directly contravene the Congressional policy reflected in the structured settlement tax rules and jeopardize the long-term financial security that Congress intended to provide for the injured victim. This problem is nationwide, and it is growing rapidly. Accordingly, the legislation we are introducing would impose substantial penalty tax on a factoring company that purchases the structured settlement payments from the injured victim. This is a penalty, not a tax increase. Similar penalties are imposed in a variety of other contexts in the Internal Revenue Code to discourage transactions that undermine Code provisions, such as private foundation prohibited transactions and greenmail. The factoring company would pay the penalty only if it engages in the transaction that Congress has sought to discourage. An exception is provided for genuine court- approved hardship cases to protect the limited instances where a true hardship warrants the sale of a structured settlement. This bipartisan legislation, which is supported by the Treasury Department, should be enacted as soon as possible to stem this growing nationwide problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to provide relief to communities for whom air transportation is vital to their survival. Last year, Congress altered the structure of the aviation excise tax which funds the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. As part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the 10% ad valorem ticket tax was replaced with a combination ad valorem/flight segment charge. When fully phased in, the tax will consist of an ad valorem tax of 7.5% of the price of a ticket and a $3.00 charge per flight segment. This change has dramatically increased the tax imposed on low-fare flights. A typical flight to or from the Block Island community located in my state costs $28. Prior to last year, the tax on this flight would be 10% or $2.80. When fully implemented, however, the new structure will increase the tax on the same ticket by 82%, to $5.10. This new structure was intended to provide a user-based approach to paying for the use of FAA services and facilities. However, short distance flights between islands and a mainland make little demand on Air Traffic Control services as these flight segments do not use ATC centers, rarely use departure or arrive control, often operate under visual flight rules and usually are transferred from the departure control tower to the destination control tower. Congress recognized that this new tax structure would adversely affect rural communities. Consequently, flights to or from rural airports are taxed at a rate of 7.5% of the ticket price, with no per passenger segment charge. For purposes of this exemption, a rural airport is one that is located at least 75 miles away from an airport with more than 100,000 passengers. Unfortunately, this restrictive definition fails to recognize the unique nature of island communities. Island communities face transportation problems similar to those encountered by passengers from rural areas. Air and ferry transportation provide islands with a vital link to the mainland for shopping, employment, health care, and other needs. Most commercial passenger enplanements at island airports are for short-distance flights simply to get off the island. For those communities, air and ferry service maintain a delicate balance, and both are needed to meet the communities' needs for mainland access. The current excise tax structure provides a disincentive to providing service to remote island communities. This result is contrary to Congress' intent to increase air service to these remote communities. My legislation reinstates the prior tax structure for flights to or from an island community. Thus, a passenger flying to or from such a community would pay a tax equal to 10% of the price of a ticket. It is important to note that this is less favorable than the exemption currently provided to passengers to and from rural airports. I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important health initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with Senators Baucus, Grassley, Moseley-Braun, Rockefeller, and Kerrey of Nebraska, the Structured Settlement Protection Act. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House as H.R. 4314, cosponsored by Representative Clay Shaw and Pete Stark and a broad bipartisan group of members of the House Ways and Means Committee. The Act protects structured settlements and the injured victims who are the recipients of the structured settlement payments from the problems caused by a growing practice known as structured settlement factoring. Structured settlements were developed because of the pitfalls associated with the traditional lump sum form of recovery in serious personal injury cases, where all too often a lump sum meant to last for decades or even a lifetime swiftly eroded away. Structured settlements have proven to be a very valuable tool. They provide long-term financial security in the form of an assured stream of payments to persons suffering serious, often profoundly disabling, physical injuries. These payments enable the recipients to meet ongoing medical and basic living expenses without having to resort to the social safety net. Congress has adopted special tax rules to encourage and govern the use of structured settlements in physical injury cases. By encouraging the use of structured settlements Congress sought to shield victims and their families from pressures to prematurely dissipate their recoveries. Structured settlement payments are nonassignable. This is consistent with worker's compensation payments and various types of Federal disability payments which are also non-assignable under applicable law. In each case, this is done to preserve the injured person's long-term financial security. I am very concerned that in recent months there has been sharp growth in so-called structured settlement factoring transactions. In these transactions, companies induce injured victims to sell off future structured settlement payments for a steeply-discounted lump sum, thereby unraveling the structured settlement and the crucial long-term financial security that it provides to the injured victim. These factoring company purchases directly contravene the intent and policy of Congress in enacting the special structured settlement tax rules. The Treasury Department shares these concerns as is evidenced with a similar proposal included in the Administration's FY 1999 budget. Court records from across the country are shedding light on factoring company purchases of structured settlement payments from gravely- injured victims. Recent cases involve a quadriplegic in Oklahoma, a paraplegic in Texas, a person in Connecticut with traumatic brain injuries dating from childhood, and an injured worker receiving workers' compensation in Mississippi. Realizing the long-term risk being inflicted on these seriously-injured individuals, this legislation has the active support of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, as well as the American Association of Persons With Disabilities (AAPD). The National Spinal Cord Injury Association recently wrote to the Chairman of the Finance Committee strongly supporting the legislation. They state: ``[o]ver the past 16 years, structured settlements have proven to be an ideal method for ensuring that persons with disabilities, particularly minors, are not tempted to squander resources designed to last years or even a lifetime. That is why the National Spinal Cord Injury Association is so deeply concerned about the emergence of companies that purchase payments intended for disabled persons at drastic discount. This strikes at the heart of the security Congress intended when it created structured settlements.'' It is appropriate to address this problem through the federal tax system because these purchases directly contravene the Congressional policy reflected in the structured settlement tax rules and jeopardize the long-term financial security that Congress intended to provide for the injured victim. This problem is nationwide, and it is growing rapidly. Accordingly, the legislation we are introducing would impose substantial penalty tax on a factoring company that purchases the structured settlement payments from the injured victim. This is a penalty, not a tax increase. Similar penalties are imposed in a variety of other contexts in the Internal Revenue Code to discourage transactions that undermine Code provisions, such as private foundation prohibited transactions and greenmail. The factoring company would pay the penalty only if it engages in the transaction that Congress has sought to discourage. An exception is provided for genuine court- approved hardship cases to protect the limited instances where a true hardship warrants the sale of a structured settlement. This bipartisan legislation, which is supported by the Treasury Department, should be enacted as soon as possible to stem this growing nationwide problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has approved legislation which I cosponsored to help ensure the safety of our nation's schools. Senators Campbell, Jeffords, and Faircloth introduced S.2235, ``The School Resource Officers Partnership Grant Act of 1998,'' in June. It was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee and approved by the Senate yesterday. The goal of this legislation is to help put a stop to crime and violence in our nation's schools. Through this legislation, partnerships will be developed between state and local law enforcement agencies and the school districts in which they serve. While national statistics on violence in schools indicate an overall downward trend, the types of violence that have occurred recently, particularly in the last school year, are nothing short of traumatic. The sight and sound of schoolyard shootings have become all too familiar. Americans were shocked, time and time again, by the devastating sight on the evening news of youngsters being carried to ambulances from school grounds following shooting sprees by other youngsters. Looking back at the 1997-1998 school year, several particularly alarming incidents occurred: In October, a 16-year-old at Pearl High School in Mississippi went to school with a hunting rifle. He shot and killed a student and a teacher, leaving a second teacher with a bullet wound in the head. In December, a student at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky used a pistol to kill 3 other students. The shooter was 14-years-old. In March, 2 boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas, an eleven year-old and a thirteen year-old, pulled the fire alarm in their school. As students and teachers left the building, the two boys began shooting. They killed five people: four young girls and a teacher. In April, a 14-year-old boy in Edinboro, Pennsylvania went to a school dance with a gun he apparently removed from his father's bureau drawer. He killed a science teacher and injured two students and another teacher. At Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon a 15-year-old who was suspended for carrying a gun to school, returned to school the next day and opened fire in a crowded cafeteria. He killed two students and wounded 19 others. Police suspect he shot and killed his parents, as well. It is no secret that I support tougher restrictions on gun ownership. Earlier this year, Senator Durbin and I offered an amendment to the spending bill for the Departments of Commerce, State and Justice. Our amendment would have held adult gun owners responsible if their weapon--which had not been stored properly--was used by a child to injure himself or someone else. I felt that this was the least we could do to help protect children from needless gun violence. Unfortunately, the majority of my Senate colleagues didn't agree, and our amendment was defeated. Despite that setback, I believe that it is Congress' responsibility to take steps to assist local communities in their battle against school violence. Children bringing weapons to school and drug use among youngsters aren't problems of big city schools alone. In my own State of Rhode Island during the last school year, there were more than 400 weapons-related suspensions. To put that number in the proper perspective, we have fewer than 450 elementary and secondary schools in Rhode Island, including private and religious schools. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that the kind of atrocities that all of America witnessed in schools last year can't happen in our children's schools. It is my sincere belief that The School Resource Officers Partnership Grant Act is a step in the right direction. This legislation will make federal funds available to local law enforcement agencies, working in partnership with local school districts, for ``school resource officers.'' These SROs, who must be professional law enforcement officers, would address gang-related crime and violence, including drug use, in and around schools. They would work with students, teachers, and administrators on crime prevention and personal safety. And perhaps most importantly, they would work directly with students on conflict resolution to help avert violent oubursts that can leave innocent children dead or injured. There are communities throughout our nation whose police officers have undertaken these very tasks. In Rhode Island, police officers in Newport, Providence, and West Warwick, to name a few, already are working within schools on crime prevention, mentoring, and conflict resolution. Our bill would allow local law enforcement agencies to use a portion of their federal Community Policing funds for these officers. I applaud our teachers and administrators for their efforts to confront and address violence in schools, but we cannot expect them to undertake this battle alone. This bill will make the knowledge and resources of professional law enforcement agencies available to our schools. I know it will help keep our children safe.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on September 11, 1998, the Committee on Environmental and Public Works filed Senate Report 105- 326, to accompany S. 2361, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1998. When the report was filed, the letter and analysis of the cost of the legislation prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, as required by Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, was not available to the committee. That information was received on September 29, 1998. Therefore, I request that the letter from the Congressional Budget Office and cost analysis be placed in the Congressional Record. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, September 29, 1998. Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2361, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1998. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kristen Layman (for federal costs) and Lisa Cash Driskill (for the state and local impact). Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk about S. 1677, the Wetlands and Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1998. This bill will reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)--a law that has played a central role in the conservation of wetlands habitat across the continent. I am joined by 58 of my colleagues from 42 states in sponsoring S. 1677. There are 35 Republican cosponsors and 23 Democrat cosponsors. This tremendous showing of bipartisan support is a tribute to one of the great success stories in wildlife conservation. NAWCA has helped to bring about the recovery of more than 30 species of ducks, geese, and other waterfowl and migratory birds from their lowest population numbers just 12 years ago to some of their highest population numbers this year. Why was NAWCA originally enacted? In the early 1980's, we were alarmed to discover that populations of duck and other waterfowl had plummeted precipitously. The numbers were stark: in only ten years, breeding populations of ducks fell an average of 31 percent, with some species declining by as much as 61 percent. This decline was due to several factors, including loss of habitat and an extended drought in many parts of the U.S. In 1986, the U.S. and Canada worked cooperatively to develop the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Mexico joined the plan in 1994, so that the entire continent now participates in this effort. The Plan established ambitious goals and innovative strategies for conserving waterfowl habitat. Under the leadership of Senator George Mitchell, Congress approved NAWCA in 1989, primarily as a vehicle to implement the Plan. The law provides a permanent funding source for wetlands conservation projects, many of which fall under the auspices of the plan. These sources include Federal appropriations, interest generated from short-term investments on the Pitman-Robertson Fund, money from the Wallop-Breaux Fund, and fines collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. All told, NAWCA received $43 million this past year, of which $11.7 million was appropriated. Since NAWCA's inception, 575 projects involving more than 800 partners have received $240 million in Federal funds under NAWCA, matched by more than $360 million in non-Federal funds. These projects have covered about 3.8 million acres throughout the continent. These numbers are impressive, but in the scheme of things, NAWCA is a relatively modest law. Even so, it enjoys broad support. This is because, quite simply, NAWCA works. In fact, it works so well that it should serve as a model for other environmental laws. I would like to outline what I believe are the four components of its success--and thus, it popularity. 1. NAWCA focuses on habitat conservation as the key to saving species. Ducks and other waterfowl are extraordinarily dependent on climate. They need wet weather to thrive. During years of drought, waterfowl populations dwindle. If their habitat vanishes as well, waterfowl populations do not stand a chance of rebounding when the rains return. The beauty of NAWCA is that it seeks to protect the habitat itself, whether the waterfowl are there or not. That way, when the rains come and the waterfowl return, the habitat is waiting for them. Thus, habitat conservation is the means to achieve the end of waterfowl protection. If waterfowl--or any other creatures threatened with population decline or extinction--are going to survive, they must have available habitat capable of sustaining them. In focusing on wetlands habitat, NAWCA reaches far beyond waterfowl species. Also sharing the same habitat are migratory birds, raptors, songbirds, shorebirds, and even black bears, otters, and other mammals. Among these species, the habitat is the common currency--protect the habitat and you protect all of them. Professor E.O. Wilson has said, When a natural ecosystem, say a forest remnant or a freshwater stream, is protected to save a particular species, an umbrella is thrown over hundreds or thousands of other species . . . [and,] the great panoply of lesser known, often unknown, and frequently invisible organisms are what sustain natural environments. This is a basic principle of biology. However, NAWCA has transformed this principle into design. Let me read from the 1989 Senate Committee Report on the original NAWCA: One of the purposes of this legislation . . . is to broaden the focus of [the North American Waterfowl Management] Plan with respect to conservation of wetland ecosystems and the other migratory birds and other fish and wildlife dependent thereon. This purpose was further reinforced in 1994, when the plan was amended to explicitly consider the needs of migratory birds when developing projects. 2. NAWCA makes use of coordinated, comprehensive, continent-wide planning to achieve its wetlands conservation goals. It is important to protect habitat, but the key is knowing which land to protect. This is where the North American Waterfowl Management Plan comes in. Without the Plan, NAWCA would be just another grants program, giving money to worthy projects for a worthy cause, but without any sense of the whole picture. The Plan identifies broad goals and strategies for recovering waterfowl populations across North America. Ten joint ventures across all four flyways have been formed to refine the goals and strategies for their specific regions. The joint ventures also coordinate projects to conserve wetlands. Partnerships among Federal, State, conservation groups, and landowners--big or small--form to develop projects and submit proposals for Federal matching money under NAWCA. The proposals are then reviewed by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, which makes recommendations to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, which then approves the funding. The Council consists of nine members, as follows: the Director of the Service; the Secretary of the Board for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; four directors of State and wildlife agencies, one from each of the four flyways; and three representatives of charitable and nonprofit organizations actively participating in wetlands conservation projects. The State agency directors and the representatives of charitable and nonprofit organizations are appointed by the Secretary for three-year terms. Thus, the plan and act work in concert with one another, beginning with broad planning guidelines for the entire continent, and ending with individual projects for protecting and managing specific acres in our very communities. A perfect example of this holistic approach is an initiative in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, which stretches from the mouth of the Mississippi River up into Tennessee. This is where the cutting edge of conservation planning is taking place. Through modern satellite imagery and GIS technology, habitat types can be identified and mapped. This ecological mapping is then compared with land ownership, giving Federal, State, and local governments, as well as private owners, an idea of the most important lands to conserve. The result? Areas of habitat fragmentation can be pinpointed, and reforestation and wetlands restoration can be targeted to meet the needs of sensitive and declining species. 3. NAWCA relies on public-private partnerships to achieve its wetlands conservation goals. The partners are a big reason for NAWCA's success. Instead of the heavy hand of government regulation, NAWCA's wetlands conservation goals are achieved by voluntary cooperative partnerships involving very diverse people and organizations--businesses, nonprofit environmental groups, hunters, farmers, state, tribal, and local governments, and of course the federal government. Under the auspices of NAWCA, people and groups with widely divergent, often opposing points of view have found common ground in wetlands. The kind of cooperation that NAWCA has engendered is heartening indeed. Through this work to achieve the goals of the plan, a broad array of people have had the opportunity to develop a deep and abiding appreciation of wetlands and the need to protect them. None has contributed to the program more than Ducks Unlimited, nor has anyone been more vital to its success. That organization alone has contributed in total about $20 million to the projects in the U.S., and about another $60 million to projects in Canada and Mexico. The Nature Conservancy has also been a tremendous supporter of the program, contributing $17 million to projects in the U.S. and another $4 million to projects in Canada. However, these groups do more than raise money. They educate landowners, coordinate partnerships, and give the program the exposure it deserves. Because DU plays such an important role, we are amending S. 1677 to place them on the Council for one additional term of 3 years, while at the same time requiring the Service to develop a policy, subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures, to develop a fair and formal process for making future appointments to the Council. I expect the Service to balance the policy between groups such as DU and TNC, whose support is invaluable, and between other groups that might be smaller but who bring new ideas and new forms of participation to the program. NAWCA has also reached out to private landowners across the continent--small, family owned farms, large developers, and private individuals. In my own State of Rhode Island, it is private individuals who have made the difference for some of the best remaining waterfowl habitat in the state, in conjunction with The Nature Conservancy and State and Federal government agencies. We have a phased restoration in progress to rectify years of damage as a result of dredge spoil deposited along a tidal channel, poorly planned road construction, and a recent oil spill. In Phase I of the South Shore Habitat Protection project, Mr. Oliver Hazard donated an 80 acre tract of land to The Nature Conservancy valued at $900,000. In Phase II, William Viall donated 110 acres valued at $640,000 to the town of North Kingston. On the opposite side of the continent, it was a partnership among two State agencies, the Metropolitan Services District of Portland, several national and local conservation groups, and a local dairy farmer, E.F. Steinborn, who collaborated to restore 500 acress within the Tualatin River Floodplain near Portland, Oregon. The project converted a large dairy farm to seasonal and permanent wetlands providing habitat for thousands of waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds, complementing wetlands on the adjacent refuge. The project--located on the outskirts of Portland--is a wonderful example of how we can reclaim lands for conservation before they get swallowed up by urban expansion. Another example is an area in Swan Lake basin, located in a wildlife refuge in the San Joaquin valley of California. Swan Lake basin was a dry channeled area, but with NAWCA funds and four months of restoration work it has been transformed into a lake with free-flowing drainage. The area now provides nesting and resting groups for hundreds of white pelicans, as well as double-crested comorants, grebes, 8,000 canvasback ducks, 6,000 northern shovelers, and 40,000 gadwalls. The benefits of these partnerships go far beyond specific projects, however. They facilitate the flow of ideas and innovations across borders. Only in the last decade, for example, has Canada begun to use conservation easements and servitudes to protect land from development. Legislation within the provinces has been enacted to broaden the use of this valuable tool for conservation. It is without doubt that the partnerships under NAWCA have stimulated this awareness and can take part of the credit for these new developments in Canada. Here is a case where the United States, Canada and Mexico have come together to identify a common need. Consider just one NAWCA site in Quill Lake, Canada. Banding data reveal that waterfowl using that site have visited other NAWCA sites, represented by the blue circles, all across the continent. Imagine the synergies of all NAWCA projects helping each other. And, by enacting NAWCA, the United States has lead the way in providing a reliable funding structure to address it. We have been able to turn good international intentions into superlative international action. 4. NAWCA leverages federal dollars with private funds for wetlands conservation. We all know how tight the federal budget is. Innovative funding mechanisms are the best hope for ensuring the viability of important environmental programs. The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, which was established by NAWCA, provides grant money with a matching requirement to leverage each federal dollar. In fact, the ratio of NAWCA funds to contributions from other partners usually approaches 1:2. Now let me inject a word of caution. We cannot afford complacency. NAWCA has been a success, but part of the credit for the recovery of waterfowl species has to go to the heavy rains we've had in the past few years. This year is drier than it has been in the past. Already, duck counts are leveling off. In drier conditions, the need to conserve duck habitat is ever more urgent. And this urgent need to conserve wetlands is in direct competition with severe development pressures on wetlands. By the year 2020, more than half of the U.S. population will live in coastal plains. Laws like NAWCA will become ever more important in protecting these fragile areas. The proper tribute to the success of NAWCA is to let it inspire us to do more. Let us reauthorize this fine bill. Let us ensure it is adequately funded. Let us support the other important laws that protect wetlands--such as Swampbuster and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. And most of all, let us build on the strengths of NAWCA in all our environmental protection endeavors. Again, those strengths are: 1. Focus on conserving habitat. 2. Use a comprehensive plan--continent-wide, if possible. 3. Rely on public-private partnerships--both national and international. 4. Leverage federal dollars with private funds. I exhort my colleagues to support S. 1677, and reauthorize the very worthy North American Wetlands Conservation Act. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I introduced this bill last July on behalf of the administration. S. 2317 makes several changes to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. First, it removes three areas from the Refuge System that have lost the habitat value that led to their being incorporated into the Refuge System. Second, it changes the name of the Klamath Forest National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon to the Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The current name leads visitors to believe that it is a national forest, causing confusion over what activities are permitted. Mr. President, although no one like to see areas removed from the Refuge System, the three areas in question have truly lost their original wildlife value. Thirty-seven acres within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge has been developed for recreational purposes when it was leased to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The area in question would be transferred to the Corps, which owns the adjoining lands, and its recreational use would be continued. In 1934 an Executive order established the Killcohook Coordination Area as a migratory bird refuge as long as the Corps could continue to use the area as a dredge disposal site. Sixty years later this area is completely covered with piles of spoil and, not surprisingly, no remaining waterfowl habitat. This bill would eliminate the Fish and Wildlife Service's secondary jurisdiction. The final change will revoke an easement that allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to prohibit hunting of migratory birds at Lake Elsie, North Dakota. The easement was granted in 1939 and the surrounding land is privately owned and the State owns the lake. Due to substantial development, the area is no longer suitable for migratory birds. S. 2317 will also reduce the penalty for unintentional violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Currently, all violations of the act are class A misdemeanors, regardless of whether or not it was an intentional violation. Unintentional violations will now be a class B misdemeanor. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, Senator Hollings, on July 31, 1997 introduced a bill that makes a boundary change to Unit M09, Edisto Island, which was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. It is my understanding that the amendment he is now offering is identical to your bill. Is that correct?

Mr. CHAFEE. Could the Senator please explain why the circumstances surrounding this issue are unique?

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, the Committee on Environment and Public works favorably reported out this bill last May. The area in question was correctly mapped as an undeveloped coastal barrier, but extraordinary miscommunication at the Federal, State and local levels failed to ensure that the appropriate maps were being provided to the public. As a result, when the landowner inquired from Colleton County about the status of his land with respect to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, he was given inaccurate information. The sole reason that we supported the changes made by Senator Hollings' bill was because of the unprecedented and unique procedural circumstances in this case, and we do not anticipate that there would be other instances that would warrant similar changes. The law only requires Coastal Barrier Resources System maps to be on file at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and reporting this bill does not imply that landowners should rely on maps filed at any other location to determine whether or not their property is located within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. amendment no. 3587 On page 74, after line 20, add the following:

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering H.R. 1856, a bipartisan bill that has tremendous potential to improve management and operations of the National Wildlife Refuge System by supplementing scarce Federal dollars with outside services and donations by local groups and individuals. As budgets continue to shrink, the Federal Government must look for alternative sources of funding and assistance. Volunteers have helped the Refuge System since volunteer wardens staffed the very first refuge on Pelican Island, Florida in 1903. Since 1982, when the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) established a formal volunteer program, the program has grown from 4,251 volunteers donating 128,400 hours of time to 28,800 volunteers donating more than 1.5 million hours in 1997. This 1997 figure represents almost 20 percent of all work done by the FWS on the Refuge System, amounting to about $14 million worth of services, at a support cost of $780,000. The five refuges in my own state of Rhode Island, which are managed as a single complex, provide a wonderful illustration of how important these efforts are. With only five full-time employees working among the five Rhode Island refuges, volunteers contributed more than one-third of all work performed on these refuges. At several of our refuges, the typical visitor will interact with only volunteer staff. The ``National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act'' lends much needed support to the efforts of the Service to maintain and operate the Refuge System. Specifically, it establishes pilot projects for the Service to hire volunteer coordinators; it also authorizes the creation of a Senior Volunteer Corps, which is expected to be part of the Service's existing volunteer program, and for which the Secretary should explore coordination with National Senior Service Corps programs operated by the Corporation for the National Service. In addition to encouraging volunteer efforts within the System, the bill encourages financial contributions, community partnership initiatives, and educational programs to benefit the System. H.R. 1856 was introduced by Congressman Saxton on June 10, 1997, and subsequently passed by the House. On June 26, 1998, I introduced a similar bill, S. 2244, within 14 cosponsors. The Committee on Environment and Public Works amended the House-passed bill to conform with S. 2244, and I now ask that the Senate take up H.R. 1856 as amended. I have been pleased to work with Congressman Saxton on this wonderful initiative, and I urge expeditious approval by both the Senate and House, as well as by the President.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 2094, the Fish and Wildlife Revenue Enhancement Act, a bill introduced by my colleague Senator Allard and cosponsored by me. This bill represents a move towards efficient use of government funds, and support for the valuable programs carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with those scarce funds. Each year, the Service receives thousands of items derived from fish, wildlife and plants, such as boots, purses and wallets, made from furs and skins. These items can be forfeited or abandoned during enforcement of Federal wildlife laws, and they are eventually shipped to the National Wildlife Property Repository in Colorado. The Repository currently has about 450,000 items, of which 200,000 can be legally sold. However, under current law, revenue from the sale of forfeited items go to the Service for certain program operations, while revenue from the sale of abandoned items go to the General Treasury. More than 90 percent of the fish and wildlife items are abandoned, so that the Service would receive very little revenue from sales of items in its Repository. The Repository was appropriated $310,000 for operations last year. After overhead and operations, only $30,000 was available for carrying out the programs that loan these items to schools, universities, museums, zoos for educational purposes, and to Native American groups for religious and ceremonial purposes. The bill would initially generate approximately $1 million for the Service through the sale of items derived from fish and wildlife that are currently stored by the Service. This money would be used to cover the costs of storing and disposing of these items--which is now a financial drain on the Service--and to fund the worthwhile programs benefiting education, research and Native American religious and ceremonial purposes. I would like to note that this bill does not change existing authority with respect to items that may be sold by the Service. Indeed, it clarifies that other laws prohibiting the sale of fish, plants or wildlife equally apply to this law. Specifically, current law prohibits the sale of items derived from threatened and endangered species, marine mammals, and migratory birds. In summary, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill with Senator Allard, and urge the Senate and House to approve it expeditiously.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, twice during this Congress, the Senate has debated reforming the manner in which campaign funds are raised and spent. A majority of Senators clearly believes that the current system is in need of reform. Progress has been made during this Congress in two important areas: in the substance of the issue and in gaining greater Congressional support for reform. It would be a shame to sully this bipartisan progress by resorting to political tactics, as too often has occurred in past debates. In 1992, both the House and the Senate approved a campaign reform bill that had no hope of becoming law. It was wholly unacceptable to President Bush, and he had no recourse but to veto it. In 1993 some of us worked hard with Members from the other side to craft serious legislation. But the Senate bill was not agreeable to House Democrats, and it languished in the House for months before any action occurred. As the election year adjournment neared, the Democratic leadership reached an agreement on what would be included in a conference report before the conferees had ever met, and that agreement was far from the reform that I had hoped for and supported. In 1996, another election year, a far less acceptable version of the McCain-Feingold bill was debated and defeated. This year, supporters of reform find themselves in a slightly more hopeful position. The bill before us has been greatly improved; it has bipartisan support; and the House has already approved very similar legislation. The paramount goal of any true effort to reform the system of financing elections for federal office must be to reduce the influence of special interest money on elected officials. Although the proposal before us may not be the final resolution to the problems that afflict the current system of campaign fundraising, it provides a better starting point than we have had in previous years. I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to take another look at the modified version of McCain-Feingold that is before us today. This is a solid proposal that addresses the soft money abuses that have effectively obliterated federal election law. It addresses the problem of unregulated, unrestricted, and unreported spending by anonymous donors. It addresses blatant electioneering disguised as issue advocacy. And it eliminates enormous soft money contributions from corporations and big donors. In other words, it goes a long way to reducing the influence of special interests. And I urge my colleagues on the other side not to let this debate degenerate into political gamesmanship.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the past year, the Majority Leader, Senator Bob Smith, and I have been working with our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Administration to draft legislation to address some of the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (``RCRA'') that currently impede the cleanup of literally thousands of contaminated sites across the nation. This so-called ``RCRA rifle-shot'' would have been an important piece of legislation. It would have demonstrated once again that we can improve our environmental laws, without jeopardizing human health or the environment, and reduce unnecessary costs. Just last year, the Government Accounting Office reported that eliminating those impediments to cleanup could save up to $2.1 billion per year and, at the same time, significantly expedite environmentally responsible cleanups. It was our hope to craft a bipartisan bill that could be enacted this year. Our goal was a shared one--to develop legislation to eliminate overly restrictive treatment standards for mediation waste, to streamline permitting requirements, and preserve existing State cleanup programs, all while still ensuring that human health and the environment are protected. Under Senator Lott's leadership, we worked hard to achieve that goal and I believe that we made significant progress in resolving our differences. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach a final agreement and we have essentially run out of time. I remain committed, however, to the goal of improving the remediation waste program. I continue to believe that this is an important issue and that with appropriate legislation we can achieve a significant environment benefit--cleaning up thousands of contaminate sites and saving billions of dollars. That is clearly a worthwhile goal. Therefore, I intend to make RCRA reform a priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee in the next Congress. Building on the progress that we have made this year, and with Senator Lott's continued leadership, it is my hope that we will move legislation through the Senate early in the next Congress. rcra remediation waste legislation