John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I do not want to quibble over language, but it is not us saying you are forever shut off. If we did nothing, you could be shut off, if we did not pass a piece of legislation here. What Florida is doing now, plus those who want to do it, they would be shut off. I guess I am just trying to see where is the nonaction--if we did no action, nothing would happen, you would not have flow control.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the legislation that I introduce today reauthorizes a law that has been a great success: The Atlantic Striped Bass Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to continue their important research and oversight role in support of state efforts to conserve the Atlantic striped bass fishery. From Maine to North Carolina, the striped bass has been an important species for Atlantic coast fishermen for centuries. And, the presence of the striped bass fishery has provided significant economic and cultural benefits to the Atlantic Coastal States, and to the Nation. Striped bass--often called rockfish in the Chesapeake Bay area--are anadromous fish. They spawn in freshwater streams and migrate to estuarine or marine waters. During their relatively long lives--up to 29 years--stripers are on the move. They migrate north during the summer and south during the winter. Consequently, striped bass pass through the jurisdictions of several States, and conservation efforts must be well coordinated. In 1979, I offered an amendment to the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act that directed the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct an emergency study of striped bass. Why was this study necessary? Fishermen had sounded the alarm that striped bass landings had declined precipitously. The commercial striped bass harvests dropped from 15 million pounds in 1973 to 3.5 million pounds in 1983. The Federal study found that, although habitat degradation played a role, overfishing was the primary cause of the population decline. In order to prevent overfishing, restrictions on the striped bass harvest were necessary in 14 jurisdictions. The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act helped promote a coordinated approach to management by requiring that the States fully implement a striped bass fishery management plan developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. If a State is found to be out of compliance with the Commission's management plan, a Federal moratorium on striped bass fishing is to be imposed jointly by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce. It is a testament to the efficacy of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act and the cooperative efforts of countless Federal and State biologists and managers, and commercial and recreational fishermen, that the Federal sanction has only been applied once in the past 10 years. What else has happened over the past decade? The Atlantic striped bass populations have made a dramatic recovery. All Atlantic striped bass populations are recovering or improving. In the Chesapeake Bay, the spawning ground for 90 percent of the Atlantic striped bass, the population has been declared recovered. The Delaware stock is recovering. The Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River stock is improving. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, without the State- imposed moratoria and restrictions on harvest, fishing mortality rates on the Chesapeake Bay striped bass stock would have exceeded the level where the population could be maintained. In other words, without the State-Federal partnership promoted through the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, the striper might have been fished to oblivion. The striped bass have proven once again that, given half a chance, nature will rebound and overcome tremendous setbacks. But, we must give it that half a chance. Reauthorization of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act will allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue its coastwise tagging program, populations monitoring, and other data collection efforts to provide information that informs the management decisions essential to maintaining healthy populations of striped bass. The oversight authority shared by the Interior and Commerce Departments regarding the management of the striped bass fishery will ensure that States move cautiously as they reopen the harvest. I believe that a continued Federal involvement is important at this crucial time--a time to celebrate, and to monitor closely, the recovery of the Atlantic striped bass. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan for giving me a few minutes. Madam President, I believe the tactics used by Mr. LaPierre in his recent fundraising letter for the National Rifle Association are just plain wrong. This letter does not contribute to any informed debate. Instead, it is inaccurate and irrational. It borders on the hysterical. And this kind of hysteria only encourages paranoia, which we certainly do not need at this time in our Nation. Madam President, I know that the Senator from Michigan has touched on some of the quotes from the letter, but I would just like to mention a few that stand out. Here is one paragraph from the letter: It doesn't matter to them that the semi-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us. This is another paragraph: In Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens. Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for Federal agents wearing nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens. And another: They've launched a new wave of brainwashing propaganda aimed at further destroying our Constitutional freedoms. And on it goes, Madam President. Now, Madam President, the apocalypse described in this fundraising letter is not familiar to me. The Government described in these pages is not familiar to me. This is not a description of reality. It is a description of terror designed for one purpose: to provoke a visceral reaction against the U.S. Government--and at the end of the day, to raise money. There are many powerful and ugly words used in this letter. They are insulting to American law enforcement and to American citizens. Why does Mr. LaPierre use them? I suppose in order to tap into the rage that some feel against the U.S. Government, to feed that rage, and to use that rage to gain donations. In various interviews, Mr. LaPierre has acknowledged the NRA letter went too far. I believe it behooves him and the leadership of the NRA to apologize to the men and women in Federal law enforcement and to the American people for this letter's rhetoric, and to refrain from this kind of inflammatory prose in the future. I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for giving me a few minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the achievements of 25 students from Central Falls Jr./Sr. High School of Central Falls, RI. These students, Kelly Bianchi, Janeth Blandon, Melissa Casto, Berta Couto, Yolanda DaSilva, Daisy Diaz, Elizabeth Diaz, Michelle Doucet, Susan Freitas, Elizabeth Garstka, Martha Gutierrez, Melanie Kowal, Linda Layous, Rebecca Lussier, Michael Macedo, Juan Manzano, Nelci Paiva, Beatriz Patino, Christine Patricio, Celena Sackal, Kathleen Siwy, Hannah Tarawali, Helena Taveira, Agnes Wec, and Alexandra Zaldana have distinguished Central Falls and the State of Rhode Island through their selection as Rhode Island's delegation to the ``We the People . . . The Citizens and the Constitution'' national finals competition. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Mr. Bertrand Brousseau, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team. The district coordinators, John Waycott and Charles Golden, and State coordinator Henry Cote also contributed a great deal of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. This program, supported and funded by Congress, has been developed to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, ``We the People . . . The Citizens and the Constitution,'' has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 60,000 teachers, 22,000 schools, and 20 million nationwide. This tremendous program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain a perspective about the history and principles of our Nation's constitutional Government. I wish these budding constitutional experts the best of luck and look forward to their future participation in our Nation's political arena. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. How about tonight?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I am pleased to hear the Senator's response and I thank him for his cooperation. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, earlier this month, while considering the Department of Defense supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate adopted an amendment that was offered by the Senator from Texas. Senator Hutchison's amendment will rescind $1.5 million from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's account for Endangered Species Act listings and critical habitat designations. That bill is currently before a House-Senate conference committee. At the moment, I have not heard whether the conferees have agreed to accept the Senate position and include the Hutchison amendment in the final DOD supplemental bill. The bill we are considering today includes a provision to rescind funds from the same account as the original amendment by Senator Hutchison. It is my understanding that the intention of the managers of the bill is to rescind these funds in either the DOD bill or in this one, but not to rescind the funds in both bills. In fact, on page 32 of the Senate Appropriations Committee Report it states: ``The issue of a revised funding level for Endangered Species Act programs will be considered by the Committee in the context of conference actions on both this bill and the Department of Defense supplemental.'' Would the Senator from Washington confirm my understanding and would he please explain the meaning of this report language?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Could I direct a question to the manager of the bill? At the conclusion of the voting are we through for the evening?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Iowa for clarifying that point. It follows then that the January 1994 memorandum of agreement among the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Army concerning the delineation of wetlands for purposes of section 404 of the Clean Water Act and subtitle B of the Food Security Act is not suspended by this amendment. And, in accordance with that memorandum of agreement, the Natural Resources Conservation Service will make wetland delineations on agricultural lands for the purposes of determining section 404 jurisdiction.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I understand this amendment, it prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from conducting new wetland delineations or certifications on agricultural lands, except at the request of a landowner or operator, for the purposes of carrying out wetland conservation programs under title XII of the 1985 Food Security Act. The amendment does not apply to the wetlands regulatory program under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the Grassley amendment in no way restricts the Secretary of Agriculture, through the National Resources Conservation Service, from delineating wetlands on agricultural lands for the purposes of carrying out section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I join in the tributes to Senator Heflin. It has been my great privilege to have participated on a couple of trips with him and his wife, Mike. He is a wonderful traveling companion and a wonderful friend. The eloquent remarks that were made by the Senator from Illinois in connection with Judge Heflin are certainly true. She mentioned his courage. He has not only courage in debate, but he has physical courage that was demonstrated by his receiving the Silver Star in World War II in the Marine Corps. So, Judge, you have not packed your bags yet. You are going to be around for a year and a half, so we do not want to say farewell yet. But we just want to say what a great treat it has been to have been associated with you and with your wife on various occasions. We look forward to more of those instances arising in the future. We will certainly miss you when you leave. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on this floor and in the Senate as a whole, there have been a lot of attacks on environmental regulations. That seems to be the way to go these days. But I think the Senator from Alaska gave a very powerful talk on illustrating why these regulations are necessary. Indeed, he felt so strongly that he did not want--I agree with him--these regulations that apply to fishing, hunting, and camping to be held up for 45 days. In his powerful statement, the Senator from Alaska illustrated that in some cases these regulations have to go into effect immediately. So I hope that rebuts some of the feeling around this floor that all environmental regulations are useless and that we ought to attack them, which is, unfortunately, too often said around here. I am not saying necessarily right here on the floor. I am talking about in the committees, in the conversations. Thank goodness we have some of these environmental regulations. So, Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Alaska. Somebody can contradict me, but there are certain regulations under this bill we are dealing with that are held up for 45 days. Under this category they fall under ``significant regulations.'' But what the Senator from Alaska has done is he has said that significant regulations or delay for 45 days does not apply to this category of regulation that he has defined; namely, those that establish, modify, open, close, or conduct regulatory programs for commercial, recreational, or subsistence activities relating to hunting, fishing, or camping. So I think it makes sense. I congratulate the Senator from Alaska and hope he will be a strong fighter for environmental regulations here on the floor in the future.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator John Warner and others in cosponsoring legislation to reauthorize the civil works program at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. With the exception of 1994, the Congress has authorized this necessary infrastructure program on a biennial basis since 1986.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma for the time he has given me. My comments will not be too long. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senator will vote on an amendment by the Senators from Oklahoma and Nevada; that is, a complete substitute to the moratorium bill that is currently before us in the Senate. When we take that action, the Senate will be on record in opposition to a 1- year moratorium. Will they be for a moratorium? Yes. But it is a 45-day moratorium, as the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out, solely applying to what are defined as significant regulations. But this concern that I have is when the Reid-Nickles substitute goes to conference with the House bill, that some version of the moratorium incorporated in the House bill will come back from that conference. The moratorium in the House bill applies to all regulations, and it is for a year. I share the concern that others have voiced that the legislation that comes back from the House will include some significant moratorium, or let us say 6 months, or maybe even a year. I would vigorously oppose a conference report if it included that type of moratorium. There are many other problems with the House-passed bill. First, the House bill makes no distinction between good regulations that are needed and poor regulations that are poorly designed and unneeded. For instance, the Senator from Michigan has mentioned the rules- setting quality standards for bottled drinking water which are to be issued by the Food and Drug Administration this coming April, next month. These rules would be blocked by the House bill. The bottled water industry actually wants these rules to restore consumer confidence. They have been urging FDA action, the Food and Drug Administration action, for years, but they would be blocked by the House bill. The proponents in the House would say President has the power to exempt rules like that for bottled drinking water because they are needed to address an imminent threat to public health and safety. But it is hard to believe that the bottled water industry would want the President of the United States to declare that their product represents an imminent threat to health and to the people of the United States before this rule could be issued. There are many other regulations that are supported by the regulated community that would be suspended by the House bill. For example, last December, EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, issued a rule that resolves a 20-year dispute between agriculture interests, the cities, and environmentalists over waters discharged into the San Francisco Bay. This comes under the Clean Water Act. Reaching an agreement involving all those California interests was some accomplishment. Even though all the affected interests now support the agreement, it would be set aside for a year under the House bill. As a result, sensitive wetland resources in the San Francisco Bay area would experience further damage for no good reason. of 1 year is the need to establish new procedures for development and review of major regulations. What we need, the reason we have to have this year's waiver, is we need some new approaches. We have to have a cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. But most major rules already use those tools. There are many regulations that are necessary to protect health, safety, and the environment that have been designed by using cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments. These would be needlessly delayed by the moratorium. For example, in February, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed changes to meat and poultry inspections to prevent life-threatening infections. The science supporting that regulation is not going to be different between now and next year. They are already using risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses. Yet, that rule would be set aside. There is a possibility of more lives being endangered in the interim. Those on the other side supporting the House measure would say, ``Oh, well. Those foods currently represent an imminent threat to health, and the President could, therefore, exempt them from the delay.'' But that action by the President of the United States could be challenged in court and in the House bill. There is judicial review in the House bill. Thus, they could be held up for a considerable time. Another major concern with the House bill that has not been discussed here on the floor is the impact of the moratorium on the efforts by the States to carry out the Clean Air Act and other laws. Let me explain. The way the Clean Air Act works is State plans to reduce smog and carbon monoxide pollution must be promulgated as Federal regulations before they become effective. In other words, the State comes up with a plan, files a plan, and the EPA then issues the regulations. But it is the Federal Government that issues the regulations. EPA actually proposes the State plan in the Federal Register. What the EPA does is take what the States have given them, puts it in the Federal Register, considers comments and then promulgates the State plan as a Federal rule. States have been working for 4 years to develop new plans under the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Just as they are completing this difficult job, the House bill would impose a year- long recess on their efforts. These are plans, mind you, that are written by the States, and they are going to be delayed. Now, what is the purpose of all that? The House moratorium is also retroactive. It repeals regulations already in effect only to reinstate them at a later time, a year from now. This is going to cause a lot of confusion in the regulated community and actually can impose some very unfair costs on some industries. Example: Under the moratorium bill passed by the House, the Clean Air Act program for reformulated gasolines that became effective last January 1 would be suspended, which would cost the oil companies that are complying with this rule tens of millions of dollars as noncomplying gasoline, nonreformulated gasoline would be allowed to enter into the reformulated market areas. Now, perhaps this will surprise some. By the way, this is not some kookie regulation dreamed up by a bunch of tree huggers from EPA. Reformulated gasoline is a requirement of the Clean Air Act that was added to the law by an amendment on the floor sponsored by the two leaders, the current Democratic and current Republican leader; namely, Senators Dole and Daschle. That came when the Clean Air Act amendments were before the Senate in 1990. The regulation went into effect last January 1. But that is during the period covered by the House moratorium. So the requirement would be suspended. The oil companies subject to the regulation have built up stocks of millions of gallons of reformulated gasoline to meet the demand in their markets. Information from the Congressional Research Service indicates the oil industry now has 1.85 billion--that is not million, that is billion, B as in billion--gallons of reformulated gasoline in storage right now. If the House moratorium bill should be enacted, the reformulated gasoline requirement would be suspended and cheaper conventional gasoline could be brought into those markets. The oil companies that are complying with the law could probably still sell their reformulated gasoline. Sure, they could sell it, but they would have to obviously do it at the price of conventional gasoline, which is some 3 cents a gallon less expensive because of the costs that have gone into making the reformulated gasoline. So that will be a loss of about $55 million--$55 million--if the House moratorium were enacted. Mr. President, my vote on the final bill will, of course, depend upon the amendments that might be offered and adopted during the course of this debate. But I did want to join with others to express my grave concerns about the House moratorium bill. Should I vote for this bill later this week, I would oppose any report that came back from the conference with a regulatory moratorium, that is, a year, 6 months, something to that effect, which is quite different from the 45-day delay that is in this legislation here before us. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, the former chairman, for giving me this time. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this bill has come to the floor today and will be considered in an expeditious manner. I believe Congress needs to pass this legislation promptly so that hundreds of thousands of self-employed taxpayers can complete the filing of their 1994 income tax returns. The bill reported by the Finance Committee includes sufficient revenues to pay for the extension of the health insurance deduction. That is covered. We also came up with additional money which will reduce the deficit by about $1.4 billion over the next 5 years. In terms of the entire Federal budget this is a modest amount--$1.5 billion over 5 years. But it represents a step in the right direction. What concerns me about this bill, Mr. President, is that it provided a modest test--not a gigantic test but a modest test--of our desire to reduce the deficit; and I am afraid that we are in danger of failing that test. Let me review the bidding. The immediate need which prompted the quick consideration of this legislation was a desire to extend the 25- percent deduction for the health insurance of self-employed individuals for 1994. Absent this action, they would not have been able to take that 25 percent deduction because it expired at the end of 1993. And we wanted to get this done before the filing date of April 17 for the income tax returns. That is the way it started out--take care of this year. In the Ways and Means Committee the members chose to permanently extend the deduction. In other words, the 25 percent deduction for health care costs paid by the self-employed was to remain permanently on the books. The Finance Committee went a step further by not only making it permanent but also increasing the deduction from 25 to 30 percent for the year 1995 and thereafter. So what started off as a bill that would have cost $500 million, a half a billion dollars, to address an immediate need, turned into a bill that costs $3.5 billion over the next 5 years. I strongly support the 25 percent health insurance deduction for the self-employed. Always have. The mainstream coalition health care legislation that we presented last year included it. Indeed, we phased it up to a 100 percent over a period of years. And so, therefore, I can understand and sympathize with the effort to not only give the self- employed the 25-percent deduction but to bring it up to 30 percent next year and the years thereafter. All that is understandable. I would make the point; however, that those who are working for a business where their insurance is not paid for by the employer and the individual must obtain his or her own insurance, cannot deduct a nickel of his or her payments for health insurance. The self-employed can, but if you are working for somebody else, you are employed by a corporation or a self-employed person, you cannot deduct the cost of your health insurance. You cannot deduct anything. So, yes, it is nice that we have gotten it up to 30 percent for the self-employed. But we have not done anything for those who work for corporations. But here is my concern, Mr. President. Sixty-six Senators in this body voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to provide a balanced budget amendment by the year 2002. Achieving that goal is going to take incredible effort. We are going to have to reduce Federal spending from what it otherwise would have been over these 7 years by $1.2 trillion. Now, even for somebody from Washington, DC, $1.2 trillion is a lot of money. That is a monumental challenge. Yet, here we have a bill that gave us some money to start down this deficit reduction path, to use toward the $1.2 trillion, and what is the action we take? We increase the deduction and make it permanent. I am going to support this bill as it was reported by the Finance Committee because we did exercise some discipline by providing for a modest amount of deficit reduction. But I greatly fear that, in the conference, the House conferees will say, ``Well, the Senate increased the deduction from 25 percent to 30 percent. There is additional money in the bill that is directed toward deficit reduction. But let us not use it for deficit reduction. Let us use it to increase the deduction from 30 percent to 35 percent or 40 percent,'' whatever the traffic will bear. And that, Mr. President, would be a very great mistake, a very great mistake. So I just want to go on record here to say that, should the conferees come back using up the money we set aside for deficit reduction for another purpose, I will not support that conference report. I believe it would be a great mistake. We in this body are determined to do something about these deficits. And to do something about it means we have got to make tough choices. It means we have to forgo attractive proposals, such as increasing the self-employed health insurance deduction. I thank the Chair, and I thank the managers for giving me this time.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in September, the Congress will vote to increase the U.S. Government's borrowing authority to over $5 trillion--a regrettable but necessary step to keep our Government afloat. The tragic truth is, uncontrolled Federal spending has effectively saddled every man, woman and child in this country with $18,000 worth of debt. And, deficits continue to pile up at a rate of more than $200 billion per year with no end in sight. In short, Congress' appetite for spending more than the Treasury takes in, has created a deficit situation that is snowballing out of control. Today, the interest charge alone on our national debt consumes 15 percent of our annual Federal budget. In my view, the deficit crisis is our most significant, and distressing national problem. Absent swift action, our children will inherit a legacy of debt that will reduce their standard of living, and eclipse the American dream. While the line item veto on its own will not substantially reduce these deficits, it is an important check on special interest spending that today finds its way into dozens of bills signed into law each year. The substitute amendment we are debating today, which has been sponsored by the distinguished Majority Leader, Senator Dole, would give the President badly needed authority to veto special interest spending provisions and tax expenditures buried in important legislation, without having to veto the overall measure. In effect, rather than receiving a single bill, the President would receive a series of mini-bills contained within an overall bill. He could then surgically remove or veto narrow special interest provisions, and sign the remainder into law. The Dole substitute would require that all new direct spending provisions, appropriations measures and targeted tax expenditures contained within each bill be enrolled as separate items to give the President this surgical, or line-item veto authority. The Congress could override vetoes with which it disagreed by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Dole amendment would give the President the authority to excise pork barrel projects and tax breaks intended to benefit narrow constituencies. Importantly, it would also enable the programs operate without the need for annual appropriations. During my tenure as Governor of Rhode Island from 1962 to 1968, there were many occasions when I wished I'd had a line-item veto. The situation I faced then was identical to the problem the President confronts today at the national level. Narrow special interest provisions, which could not survive on their own merits, are inserted into critical legislation, leaving the President with a Hobson's choice: Veto urgently needed legislation, or swallow the offending provisions to advance the greater good. The line-item veto is the right prescription for this problem. Many have expressed concern that giving the President this new authority would undermine the ``power of the purse'' delegated to the legislative branch under the Constitution. While this concern maybe overstated, there is no question----this is a bitter pill for the Congress to swallow. But it's a recognition that the legislative branch cannot put its fiscal house in order, and that additional checks are needed. Wisely, the Dole amendment includes a 4-year sunset provision, so that we are not committing ourselves to an irreversible course of action. In closing, I want to commend the majority leader, Senator Dole, as well as Senators McCain and Domenici for working together to develop the Dole substitute to S. 4. I strongly support this amendment and hope that the Senate will adopt this measure with a substantial bipartisan vote.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce legislation to reauthorize and expand the boundaries of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage corridor. I am delighted to be joined in this effort by my colleagues from Rhode Island and Massachusetts, Senators Pell, Kennedy, and Kerry, all of whom have worked hard on this issue through the years. Before I describe our legislation in detail, allow me to provide a little historical background for the benefit of my colleagues. Known as the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, the Blackstone Valley is the place where modern America begins--200 years ago on the banks of the Blackstone River, in Pawtucket, RI, Samuel Slater built our Nation's first water-powered textile mill, an event which changed this country forever. Backed by capital from Providence, other entrepreneurs followed Slater's lead. Factories and villages sprang up along the river's banks. Families migrated from farms into the towns. Canals--and later railroads--were built to improve the transportation of goods. Immigrants from all over Europe came to the region in search of work and opportunity. In the 1920's, the region's prosperity began to fade. Mills closed and moved south. The Great Depression made matters worse. In subsequent years, the Blackstone, which had been renowned as ``the hardest working river in America'' became just another neglected, polluted body of water. But people in the valley recognized that the river still had a story to tell. Evidence of the region's glorious past remained in abundance. Beautiful dams, bridges, mills, villages, farms, and pastures--all these things contribute to a special sense of place, identity, and history. Many began to realize that preserving and celebrating the area's past was the key to a brighter future. In the early 1980's, we prevailed upon the National Park Service to conduct a study of the Blackstone Valley. They too concluded that its resources were of national significance and were well worth preserving. The question was: How? With half a million people living there, the valley does not lend itself to the traditional national park strategy where the Federal Government owns and manages the land. What was needed was an approach that would encourage cooperation among communities, across State lines, and between the private and public sectors. And so, in 1986, through legislation which Senators Pell, Kennedy, Kerry, and I advanced together, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage corridor was born. Stretching 46 miles along the Blackstone River, from Worcester, MA to Providence, RI, the corridor encompasses 20 cities and towns over a 250,000-acre area. Efforts to interpret and preserve the valley's historical and scenic resources are coordinated by the Blackstone Corridor Commission, which receives modest Federal funding to support its operations. The National Park Service works closely with the Commission, providing invaluable technical assistance and guidance. Not surprisingly, there were some who doubted that the corridor concept could work. It was, of course, unlike anything that had been tried before. But I can say with great confidence that the Blackstone corridor is working. And it is working precisely because it is not managed like the traditional national park. Under the umbrella of the Corridor Commission, individuals from different communities, businesses, levels of government, and walks of life are working together toward a common vision, and with impressive results. Historic treasures are being uncovered, interpreted, and restored. Old mills are being converted for modern use. Visitors now can enjoy the Blackstone by riverboat or canoe. Parks are being established along its banks. A greenway, for bicyclists and hikers is well underway. A Friends of the Blackstone group is cleaning up the river. National Park Service rangers and volunteers are educating visitors about the valley's rich history. A strategy for reintroducing salmon to the Blackstone river is being developed. Imagine that, salmon coming back to a river that was once an environmental disgrace. And all this is being done with relatively little money from the Federal Government, because every Federal dollar that goes into the corridor is leveraged many times over by the Commission, sometimes by as much as twenty to one. In fact, often the Commission provides no money at all, just the expertise and cando attitude needed to shepherd a project from concept to reality. This bill, which is identical to legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senator Kennedy and approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year, builds upon that success. It extends the life of the Blackstone Corridor Commission--which, under current law, will expire in November 1996--for another 10 years, and gives the Secretary of Interior the authority to extend the Commission Commission meets certain criteria. In addition, the bill will add to the corridor five new communities-- three in Rhode Island and two in Massachusetts--which are culturally and historically tied to the existing corridor and contain the headwaters of the Blackstone River. This logical expansion will allow the Commission to interpret and protect the region's resources in a comprehensive and unified fashion. Finally, our legislation increases the Commission's annual authorization from $350,000 to $650,000, in recognition of its tremendous success and new responsibilities, and authorizes up to $5 million over 3 years in matching funds for development projects within the corridor. Mr. President, it seems to me that protecting and preserving our Nation's special places, like the Blackstone Valley, is one of the Federal Government's most important functions. But as we all know, preservation does take money, and money is tight. I would submit that in these tough budgetary times, the Blackstone Corridor, which has accomplished so much with so little, offers us a model that should be encouraged and expanded upon. I thank my colleagues from Rhode Island and Massachusetts for their hard work and support, and urge the Senate to give this measure its swift approval. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. 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 join the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] in introducing legislation dealing with interstate waste and flow control authority. I want to acknowledge the Senator's effort. As the chairman of the Environment Committee's Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, the Senator from New Hampshire has taken the lead in drafting this legislation, targeting issues that went unresolved last year. As you may recall, at the close of the last session of Congress, a so-called compromise on interstate waste and flow control was approved by the House and sent to the Senate on the last day of the session. I had real concerns with the bill. We could have approved that bill if there had been time for debate and an opportunity to consider amendments. But that was not the case. It was a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, and for a number of reasons, I could not take it. The legislation was broad in scope, both on interstate and flow control. In my view, unlike the Senate-passed bill on interstate waste--which was a fair accommodation of importing and exporting States' interests--the House-passed bill tilted the scales out of balance in favor of importing States. Rhode Island, I might add, is a waste exporter. On flow control--which was not addressed in the Senate bill--the House bill favored local governments to the detriment of consumers and small business. My major concerns with the House-passed bill revolved around three key issues, one on interstate and two on flow control. On interstate, the primary problem was the inclusion of language creating a statutory presumption against the lawful shipment of waste across the State lines. On flow control, the House-passed bill granted authority not only to existing facilities with outstanding bond debt-- the Public Securities Association's primary concern--but also to facilities with little or no financial exposure. In addition, the language would have resurrected Rhode Island's flow control authority-- even though a Federal district court blocked that law in 1992, and the State has no need for the authority. Now, to the legislation. For the record, Senator Smith chaired a Waste Control Subcommittee hearing on March 1, 1995, to solicit testimony on interstate waste and flow control from the various interest groups, including the National Association of Counties, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and waste haulers. In addition, Senators Coats and Cohen as well as Representative Chris Smith and Gov. Christine Todd Whitman testified before the committee. There is great interest in moving this legislation early in the session, and we intend to do so. The legislation is straightforward. Title I deals exclusively with the interstate transport of waste. Title II focuses on the issue of flow control. Let me turn to title I. On interstate shipments, this bill we are introducing is similar to S. 2345, legislation that was approved unanimously by the Senate last year. I want to make it clear that the bill before us deals exclusively with the transport, across State borders, of municipal solid waste--commonly known as garbage or trash. It purposely avoids imposing restrictions on the interstate transport of hazardous waste, industrial waste, or even construction and demolition debris, which create a different set of problems, and would require markedly different approaches. The interstate conflict is a symptom of a larger solid waste problem. Our society is generating more and more waste. We are a throw-away society. As a result, our landfills have become precious resources. What's more, communities all across the country are finding it exceedingly difficult to site new capacity, even for waste generated within their borders. Listen to these statistics. In the United States, we generate about 180 million tons of municipal waste each year. Forty-three States ship some 15 million tons out of State each year. Forty-two States also import some waste. Nearly every State relies on at least one other State to handle some portion of their waste. The vast majority of these shipments are noncontroversial, so-called border waste which has been traveling short distances over State lines for years. We do not want to upset these arrangements unnecessarily. The real problem arises when some States, such as Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio are forced to accept far more solve this problem. First, we must reduce the amount of waste we produce. Second, we need to recycle more of the waste that is produced. And third, States and localities must be given some additional authority to control the disposal of waste in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Toward this end, the bill we are considering would give States limited authority to impose restrictions on municipal wastes that are imported from other States. Subject to certain exceptions, this legislation allows a Governor to prohibit shipments of out-of-State waste if the affected local government submits a request to the Governor. In addition, a Governor could unilaterally freeze out-of- State waste at 1993 levels at certain landfills and incinerators. The legislation, I must admit, is complicated because it attempts to accommodate the interests of many Members and because it recognizes that interstate waste is not an issue in just one or two States. In developing this bill, the chairman has struggled to provide States some control over imported garbage without unduly limiting interstate commerce. In addressing the problem, the chairman has tried to find a solution that will reduce unwanted imports, and yet give exporting States some time to reduce the amount of waste generated, to increase recycling, and to site new, in-State capacity. I believe the legislation we are considering, while far from perfect, is equitable, and will provide a responsible solution to the problem. To be sure, our work on this issue, as well as on flow control, has just begun. Senator Smith and I are ready to work with the committee and other interested Members of the Senate to craft a bill that can be approved by both Senate and House. Now to title II on flow control. Flow control is the method used to route a community's solid waste to designated, often publicly financed, disposal facilities, with little or no competition from the private sector. Flow control laws, because of their potential interference in interstate commerce, have been overturned in several Federal courts, most recently last May at the Supreme Court in Carbone versus Clarkstown. The issue is controversial both for the private waste market and the many communities that have financed waste facilities in reliance upon flow control. The implications of congressional action on flow control have the potential to resonate throughout the economy. Flow control laws have been widely used in recent years, often as a tool to guarantee that projected amounts of waste and revenues will be received at waste management facilities funded by revenue bonds. In fact, since 1980, over $24 billion in municipal bonds have been issued to pay for the construction of solid waste facilities. In the overwhelming majority of cases, investors were assured that the projected amounts of waste would be delivered to the facility because flow control laws were in place. In some cases, the local government agreed to bear the risk that flow control laws would be found to be unconstitutional. They have enforceable put-or-pay contracts. Now, unless a solution is developed, affected governments' bond ratings may be at risk, and local residents will have to pay for services they are not receiving. In developing a solution, however, we must take into consideration not only the interests of local taxpayers and bondholders but also consumers and small business who may get a better deal in the absence of flow control laws. Furthermore, I have great concern generally with the anticompetitive nature of flow control. The bill we are introducing today strikes a balance, protecting past community investments based on flow control without perpetuating an anticompetitive market going forward. Under our bill, each State and each political subdivision may exercise flow control authority if that authority is imposed pursuant to law or other legally binding provision and has been implemented by designating facilities that were constructed after the effective date of the provision and prior to May 15, 1994. In addition, the bill provides a grandfather provision, for communities that have made a substantial commitment toward the designation of a waste management facility, although not yet constructed, prior to May 15, 1994. Finally, the bill includes a flow control authority sunset provision effective 30 years after date of enactment. Mr. President, I believe this legislation represents a good faith effort to bring the various parties together on the issues of interstate waste and flow control. It provides additional authority to waste importers without overriding the needs of waste exporting States--it protects past community financial investments and yet provides opportunities for the private sector. So, I commend the Senator from New Hampshire and look forward to working with him and the other members of the committee to report this legislation in an expeditious fashion.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment being offered by the Labor and Human Resources Committee Chairwoman, Senator Kassebaum, which would prohibit funding for the implementation of the President's Executive order which was signed yesterday. What does that Executive order do? It bars Federal contractors from hiring permanent replacement workers during an economic strike. A similar prohibition has already been included in the FEMA supplemental appropriation bill which is pending in the House. In the event of a finding that permanent replacement workers are used in 90 percent of the dollar value of all Federal contracts--in other words, this in effect covers all Federal contracts--the Executive order authorizes the Secretary of Labor to instruct affected agencies to terminate such contracts, if convenient. While the Secretary may not compel agency compliance, he may then proceed to debar the contractor from receiving or performing any Federal contracts until the offending labor dispute is settled. Now, Mr. President, I think it is regrettable that the President has chosen to circumvent the will of Congress on this issue. That is what is happening here. Legislation to prohibit businesses from hiring permanent replacement workers was the subject of a bipartisan filibuster in 1992 and again in 1994. This matter has come before this body twice in the last 3 years. Senators feel very strongly that overturning this Supreme Court decision of Mackay Radio, 1938--which was some 55 years ago--either overturning that by legislation or by Executive order, many Senators believe would undermine the very foundation of modern labor relations policy. Namely, the collective bargaining process. In Mackay Radio the Supreme Court held that employers had the right to maintain business operations with the replacement workers in the event of an economic strike. That is what the Court said. Just as affected employees have the right to strike for better wages or benefits. The change proposed would eliminate, in our judgment, any incentive for good-faith negotiation and bargaining and create an unlevel playing field to the detriment of the employers. Now, the bottom line, Mr. President, is that the President's Executive order would force Federal contractors hit with a strike to accept union economic demands or face the prospect of a prolonged shutdown that could prove fatal to these companies. Alternatively, such businesses could elect to abandon the Federal contractual marketplace altogether. One, that is an unlikely option for some of our large contractors; two, it is bad for our country. We do not want to eliminate prospective bidders. We want to have more bidders, and hopefully that would be achieved. That is what we seek. Certainly not possible under this legislation. Now, Senators also feel strongly that this is a question of labor- management policy. This is not a procurement issue. The President somehow in order to achieve his goal put this in the terms of procurement issue. It is a labor-management policy, a labor-management situation. The Congress, not the executive branch, must initiate any changes in our labor laws--that is where this matter belongs, in the Congress of the United States--and a change of the kind the President has proposed is clearly ill-advised and unwarranted. For this reason, I am certain that the President's decision to go forward with this Executive order will be challenged in the Federal courts. H.R. 889, which is the legislation before us--not the amendment, but the basic bill we are debating today--provides urgently needed funding to the Department of Defense to shore up sagging readiness and to reimburse for services for unexpected contingencies in Haiti, in the Persian Gulf, and other hot spots of the world. It would be unfortunate, I believe, to delay this funding over the striker replacement issue, but the President's decision has left the Senate no alternative but to rehash this issue again and to prohibit its implementation, if possible. The President's Executive order, in our judgment, for those of us who oppose the ban on striker replacements, is a job-killing one which, if left to stand, would harm our economy, would increase labor strife, would reduce productivity, and weaken the competitiveness of U.S. industry. Thus, I will vote for the Kassebaum amendment to prohibit its implementation, and I urge my colleagues to support the Senator from Kansas likewise. I thank the Chair. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from North Carolina and I want to say this to them. We have not had an opportunity to have a hearing on this. We will rapidly. I do not want to say tomorrow or the day after, but all I can say is we will get to it as rapidly as we can. We will listen to the testimony, we will have the folks from the Army up, we will have folks from the Fish and Wildlife--I presume they are the people who are dealing with this--and possibly the EPA people. We will do the best we can to resolve this. Obviously, if we cannot resolve it I will so inform the Senators from North Carolina and they will have opportunities to bring this up again. But it will be our earnest attempt to get this thing settled in a fashion that recognizes the problems that have been set forth by both the distinguished Senators. So that is my commitment to attend to it very soon. I hope they will give me a little time to get to this because we have to get witnesses and, again, I cannot say it is going to be tomorrow, I cannot say it is going to be next week. But I can just say we will get right to it.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina and the junior Senator. The junior Senator is a very esteemed member of our committee. I know he will pay close attention to this whole matter. Second, I thank the senior Senator from Hawaii for his support in this matter. When he spoke, it got everybody's attention. Likewise, the distinguished Senator from California, who so ably spoke on this previously. Now it is up to us. We will get to it in the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, first of all, this is legislation on an appropriations bill, and I think that is improper to start with. But more than that, it is absolutely clear that in the Environment and Public Works Committee we are going to deal with the Endangered Species Act this year. That act is coming up for reauthorization and, indeed, it has not been reauthorized in several years, but we are going to reauthorize it. We are going to review it in connection with all the problems that have been cited so frequently. I just think it is a mistake for us to be going at this piecemeal with every State which has a particular problem with the Endangered Species Act, to bring it forward in this piecemeal fashion. We are going to go at it in a very thoughtful way with hearings, with the administration testifying, with those Senators who wish to testify to come forward and, indeed, just today, we considered a measure by the Senator from Texas that would apply a 6-month moratorium on further listings under the Endangered Species Act. It deals solely with section 4, which is the listing section, and it does not deal with section 7, which is the conciliation section. That is quite proper. In our committee, we had the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Bruce Babbitt, testify. We had representatives from industry, and we had representatives from the affected areas and that is a very thoughtful way to proceed on this. But I do deplore the procedure that is occurring tonight, which is to take a particular section and a particular area and say you cannot apply the Endangered Species Act to that. Now, maybe there should not be colonies of woodpeckers provided for, but who knows what else might be encompassed under this procedure? So, Madam President, I think it is very unfortunate that we are proceeding in this fashion, and I hope that the amendment will not be accepted. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize two outstanding groups of young leaders in the State of Rhode Island. These individuals of the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts have exhibited great qualities such as leadership and hard work. Since the beginning of the century, Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts have developed leadership skills in their members through determination, self-reliance, and teamwork. The Silver and Gold Awards are the two highest honors that can be received by any Girl Scout. Those who have received these awards have demonstrated excellence, hard work, and the desire to help in their community. Likewise, the Eagle Scout is the highest award given to a Boy Scout. Candidates must display leadership in outdoor skills and service projects helpful to their communities and religious and school institutions. I am proud to congratulate these recipients of these distinguished awards. The young leaders pose as role models to their fellow peers. Their skills learned through Girl and Boy Scouts will serve them well. I would also like to acknowledge the recipient's parents, their Scout leaders, and Scouting organizations. These selfless people have contributed their time and energy to the Girl and Boy Scouts. Therefore, with great honor I submit the list of young women and men who have earned these awards. The list follows: Class of 1994 Eagle Scouts, Narragansett Council, Boy Scouts of America